Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to outline the structures of collegial governance in Australian universities between 1945 and the “Dawkins reforms” of the late 1980s. It describes the historical contours of collegial governance in practice, the changes it underwent, and the structural limits within which it was able to operate.

Design/methodology/approach

The analysis is based upon the writings of academics and university administrators from the period, with more fine-grained exemplification provided by archival and other evidence from Faculties of Arts and their equivalents in newer universities.

Findings

Elements of hierarchy and lateral organisation coexisted in the pre-Dawkins university in ways not generally made explicit in the existing literature. This mixture was sustained by ideals about academic freedom.

Research limitations/implications

By historicising “collegiality” the research problematises polemical uses of the term, either for or against. It also seeks to clarify the distinctiveness of contemporary structures—especially for those with no first-hand experience of the pre-Dawkins university—by demonstrating historical difference without resort to nostalgia.

Originality/value

“Collegiality” is a common concept in education and organisation studies, as well as in critiques of the contemporary corporate university. However, the concept has received little sustained historical investigation. A clearer history of collegial governance is valuable both in its own right and as a conceptually clarifying resource for contemporary analyses of collegiality and managerialism.

中文翻译：

---

战后澳大利亚大学的大学治理

目的

本文的目的是概述1945年至1980年代后期的“道金斯改革”之间澳大利亚大学的大学治理结构。它描述了实践中的合作治理的历史轮廓，经历的变化以及其运作范围的结构性限制。

设计/方法/方法

该分析基于该时期的学者和大学管理者的著作，并通过档案和较新的大学文理学院及其同等学历提供的其他证据提供了更细化的例证。

发现

道金斯大学之前的大学中，等级制度和横向组织的要素共存，而现有文献中并未对此加以明确说明。这种混合是由关于学术自由的理想所维持的。

研究局限/意义

通过对“ Collegiality”进行历史化处理，研究使该术语的对立使用存在疑问，无论是赞成还是反对。它还试图通过展示历史差异而不诉诸怀旧之情，以阐明当代建筑的独特性，特别是对于那些没有道金斯大学毕业前的第一手经验的建筑。

创意/价值

“学院性”是教育和组织研究以及对现代公司大学的批评中的普遍概念。但是，这一概念几乎没有得到持续的历史调查。清晰的大学管理历史本身具有宝贵的价值，并且可以作为概念上的澄清资源用于当代对大学管理和管理主义的分析。