Search results

Gerlese Åkerlind is a senior lecturer in Higher Education, attached to the Centre for Educational Development and Academic Methods (CEDAM) at the Australian National University. She is a co-editor of the journal, Higher Education Research and Development (HERD). Her research interests include the nature of academic work, and the experience of being an academic.

In the first part of this concluding chapter, we will use these four questions to review the themes and issues related to academic freedom and autonomy arising from the contributions in the three sections of this collection. As the reader will recall, these sections focused on autonomy and the individual researcher, autonomy and the cultures and structures of university research, and autonomy and the motivation for research. In the second part of the chapter, we offer some general conclusions based on the arguments put forward by our contributors.

Changes in the freedoms of individual academics and universities have been gathering apace across the western world since World War II (e.g., Altbach, 2001; Karmel, 2003, p. 2). Such changes have compelled the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to alert the world community to the link between freedoms experienced in the university sector and those in wider democratic systems. In 1998, UNESCO held a World Conference on Higher Education with a specific focus on academic freedom and university autonomy. An international charter resulted, detailing mutual rights, obligations and monitoring mechanisms. The International Association of Universities (IAU), the group responsible for convening the UNESCO debate, emphasised that academic freedom and university autonomy were essential to be able to transmit and advance knowledge:For Universities to serve a world society requires that Academic Freedom and University Autonomy form the bedrock to a new Social Contract – a contract to uphold values common to Humanity and to meet the expectations of a world where frontiers are rapidly dissolving. (cited in Ginkel, 2002, p. 347)

This paper uses the analysis of metaphors to study the conceptions of research held by a sample of post‐doctoral researchers at five Australian universities. It is based on an analysis of the metaphors the researchers use in describing their research. The study produced four concepts that we have labelled “research is explorative”, “research is spatial”, “research is constructive” and “research is organic”. This study is unusual in its focus on post‐doctoral researchers and the use of metaphors to identify their conceptions of research. The primary aim of the study was to produce a view of post‐doctoral researchers conceptions of research. A secondary aim was to demonstrate the usefulness and effectiveness of metaphor analysis as a method of studying those conceptions of research. The study achieves both of those aims.

The data on which this essay is based were originally collected as part of a larger study investigating Academic Freedom and Commercialisation in Australian Universities (see Kayrooz, Kinnear, & Preston, 2001). A web-based questionnaire survey of social scientists across 12 universities in Australia was completed by 165 respondents (representing a 20% response rate). At the end of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate whether they would be willing to engage in a follow-up telephone interview. Ten of those who indicated their willingness to be interviewed were contacted, and all agreed to the interview.

Discussions of the nature and purpose of postdoctoral contract research positions is an area where assumptions and stereotypes tend to predominate. This is due to (a) recent changes in the higher education sector that have impacted on postdoctoral positions in a way that conflicts with traditional expectations, and (b) a relative lack of data and publications on postdoctoral positions, which creates a climate in which stereotypes can continue relatively unchallenged. This is unfortunate, because it limits the ability of supervisors to provide sound career advice to their postdocs as well as the ability of postdocs to make informed career decisions. Based on an extensive study of PDRs in Australia, this paper challenges four commonly held assumptions: 1. that postdoctoral researchers want an academic career; 2. that postdoctoral research positions provide a stepping stone to academic careers; 3. that postdoctoral research positions provide an opportunity for novice researchers to become increasingly independent; and 4. that postdoctoral research positions provide an opportunity for the incumbents to concentrate solely on research.

The freedom to choose research topics and approaches lies at the heart of questions about academic freedom and autonomy (Russell, 1993). When academics are making decisions about research, they have choices about how they act, choices about how they communicate research and choices about how they relate to the processes of research. In order to elucidate the kinds of autonomy exercised by academics in 21st century research, my concern is to explore how an academic might negotiate their way through different choices.

M. Tight, editor, Autonomy in Social Science Research: The View from United Kingdom and Australian Universities; International Perspectives on Higher Education Research, Volume 4, ISBN: 0-7623-1405-2