Reactors/Resistants

Abstract

This chapter comprises case studies of those academic units that tried to resist changes in their environment. There were two key reasons why these units displayed resistance. The first reason for units’ resistance was that they had a dominant coalition of academics that had strong ideological objections to pressures for marketisation, entrepreneurialism and competitiveness. This form of resistance was volitional/active and ideological. In these units institutional norms and values for stasis and tradition were dominant. These staff steadfastly refused to alter established modes of teaching, research, administration and decision making. They believed that environmental problems such as reduced levels of public funding would eventually be reversed, they just ‘needed to ride out the storm and everything would return to normal’. In some units the head of the academic unit also shared the staff’s resistance to marketisation and entrepreneurialism. The second reason why case study units displayed resistance to respond to environmental pressures for change was because they did not know how to respond to these challenges, or units were highly factionalised and could not agree on a course of action. This form of resistance was passive and apolitical. Yet each of these resistant academic units was unable to sustain their resistance. These units were in a state of decline and contraction losing significant amounts of revenue; whilst operating costs continued to increase, they lost market share to prospector and analyser units who were more proactive and innovative in student, staff and research funding markets. In each case eventually these resistant units were forced to take actions by the intervention of their respective institutional managers who forced these units to implement changes in their teaching, research and administration to obtain greater efficiencies; typically this involved staff redundancies, contraction of courses and reducing expenditure on research and administration; these units experienced strong coercive pressures to adopt entrepreneurial activities, yet each of these units had difficulty pursuing entrepreneurial activities because they lacked a critical mass of academics (faculty) who were willing and able (had sufficient knowledge, energy and perseverance) to engage in entrepreneurial activities such as commercially sponsored research. The state of decline of these units, the lack of resources and the low morale of academics made it difficult to attract and retain academics and students which in turn further limited these units’ opportunities for renewal and innovation. These units had rigid hierarchical power and authority structures; decision making was through committees, working parties that were slow and bureaucratic. These units had an insular/short-term orientation; considerable time/energy and resources were spent on internal disputes over academics’ workloads, resource allocations and promotions.