Unveiling the ivory tower: an analysis of Australian university annual reports using the PESTLE framework

Recent statements from Australia’s education minister and prime minister signal—potentially—a new era in Australian university autonomy. Claims that Australian public universities will be given greater organizational autonomy suggests there will be less dependence on governments to direct strategies but also less government funding and thus greater financial autonomy. Should Australian public universities be given more freedom “to formulate strategies for their future development” (Bleiklie 2007: 397), they may also formulate new trajectories of internationalization. Governments encourage “export” of higher education to encourage alternative revenue sources from overseas student fees (Parker 2013), leading to greater financial autonomy and eventually to an enlarged and more diversified financial base.

Collaboration between academics and library staff: a comparative study of two universities in Australia and Vietnam

This chapter outlines the Building Programme Leadership Strategy employed by an Australian research-intensive university. The strategy had two desired outcomes: for programme leaders (PLs) to see themselves as leaders of learning and teaching and; for the University community to recognise, enable and support the leadership role of PLs. The chapter focuses on three core principles that underpinned the professional learning approach deployed: leadership with a purpose; developing leadership as well as leaders; and PLs as agents of change.
\n
\nThrough a participatory action research method, the authors in collaboration with PLs developed and facilitated a series of activity over a 4 year action-research cycle: a Leadership Series of professional learning workshops for PLs and team members; a Programme Leaders' Network; and programme-level action learning projects for programme teams. The chapter provides a brief overview of the programme leadership development strategy, focuses on the professional learning approaches and how these approaches influenced a shift in perceptions and practices of programme leadership by individual PLs and teams along with the valuing of programme leadership by the broader university system. In the Practitioner Response Karatsiori, a PL working in a Greek HEI, considers how this approach could work in Europe.

Deputy Vice Chancellor and Pro Vice Chancellor positions have proliferated in response to the global, corporatised university landscape [Scott, G., S. Bell, H. Coates, and L. Grebennikov. 2010. “Australian Higher Education Leaders in Times of Change: The Role of Pro Vice Chancellor and Deputy Vice Chancellor.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32 (4): 401–418]. Senior leadership is the sphere where academic and management identities are negotiated and values around the role of the university are decided. This paper examines the changing and gendered nature of the senior leadership setting and its implications for diversity in and of university leadership. The analysis draws from a three-year empirical study funded by the Australian Research Council on leadership in Australian universities. It focuses on executive leaders in three universities – one which is research-intensive, the second, in a regional site, and the third, university of technology. The article argues that the university landscape and its management systems are being restructured in gendered ways. It utilises the notion of organisational gender subtexts to make explicit how gender works through structural and cultural reform.

In a global environment in which global, national and local nodes relate freely within common networks, all research universities must pursue strategies for building global capacity and facilitating cross-border staff and student movement and research collaboration. The study compares readings of the global environment, global and international activities and relationships, and global capacity and strategy, in two leading national universities, one in a middle level developing country (Indonesia) and the other in a middle level developed country (Australia). The main tool of investigation was interviews with parallel groups of institutional leaders and leaders of academic units and research centres, in conjunction with study of the national and local contexts. It was apparent that in both cases, while global elements are increasingly important in university strategy, mission and identity, resource capacity remains highly dependant on national government and students. This belies the romantic myth of the ‘stand-alone’ corporate university in the global marketplace. The two cases also differ in some respects. While both universities are peak national institutions, and each respects the other, the Australian university is more strongly placed in the global environment and practical dealings between them are asymmetrical. The study helps to illuminate the dynamics of global stratification and hierarchy between developed and developing nations and institutions in higher education.

This chapter examines the impact of UNDRIP on supporting the acceleration of Indigenous participation in Australia’s universities. We problematise the concept of the leadership pipeline for accelerating employment of Indigenous people in Australia’s universities, exploring senior leadership and professional and academic roles in Australian universities from the perspective of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees. We argue that conventional organisational approaches practised by universities that assume a proper functioning ‘pipeline’ are unable to achieve the espoused Australian government targets for Indigenous employment growth to parity. More important, such approaches fall short of ever being able to address the aspirations of Indigenous People because the required institutional reforms envisaged by such mechanisms as UNDRIP cannot be achieved by the traditional pipeline approach. This chapter canvasses a number of key elements that will allow a more detailed examination of how quickly an Indigenous university cohort can develop for the purpose of accelerating Indigenous leadership in Australian universities.

Australian universities are the major exporter of higher education in the country. As knowledge producers, they face the challenges of globalization, and the financial resources needed to maintain their competitive advantage. The current funding systems that use traditional resources like students’ fees and government grants are unable to meet these requirements. This could well force Australian universities to improve their structures; aiming for a higher international standard and recognition of a more visible and dynamic competitive system to attract funds. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the level of intellectual capital disclosure and the existence of any standalone intellectual capital report (ICR) by Australian universities. Four universities from the eight leading Australian universities known as the Group of Eight (Go8) have been chosen at random for this study. The universities in the Group of Eight compared to other Australian universities are highly research-concentrated and subsequently, have valued reputations. Findings indicate that sample universities disclose some intellectual capital information via their annual reports. However, there has been no attempt, at the institutional or systems-wide level, to produce a standalone intellectual capital report (ICR) with standard indicators. In fact, a low rate of innovation, poor human resources and a weak relationship with business need a new managerial approach. Accordingly, results suggest a change within the current system. This study strongly recommends Australian universities to utilize a universal framework for measuring, managing and reporting of intellectual capital information to meet the global and competitive challenges ahead. Currently, European universities – as Australian competitors - are required to disclose a standalone intellectual capital report to construct a harmonized national university system. Theoretical implications of this paper assist with the classification and search for appropriate indicators for measurement and disclosure of Intellectual capital in universities. The practical implication of this paper could be of interest to many different parties, such as institutional investors, managers, policy makers and university scholars.

Although universities have undergone changes since the dawn of their existence, the speed of change started to accelerate remarkably in the 1960s. Spectacular growth in the number of students and faculty was immediately followed by administrative reforms aimed at managing this growth and managing the demands of students for democratic reform and societal relevance. Since the 1980s, however, an entirely different wind has been blowing along the academic corridors. The fiscal crisis of the welfare states and the neoliberal course of the Reagan and Thatcher governments made the battle against budget deficits and against government spending into a political priority. Education, together with social security and health care, were targeted directly. As the eighties went on, the neoliberal agenda became more radical—smaller state and bigger market—attacking the public sector itself through efforts to systematically reduce public expenditure by privatizing public services and introducing market incentives. At the

There are several common trends and challenges in the higher education (HE) system around the world, like expansion and diversification of HE, fiscal pressure and orientation to markets, demand for greater accountability and great quality and efficiency (e.g. The financing and management of higher education: a status report on worldwide reforms, 1998; Internationalisation of higher education and global mobility 43-58, 2014; Global policy and policy-making in education, 2014; Higher Education Policy 21:5-27, 2008). These trends and changes have reshaped university governance as well. Public universities are the main institutions to carry out HE in Australia and China. The engagement between Australia and China in HE sector has become closer and closer in recent years. To conduct better and further cooperation and collaboration between Australian and Chinese universities, it is critical to understand and acknowledge the differences in two nations’ university governance. Moreover, by conducting this comparative study of two nations, it also helps us to figure out the changes in university governance over times under the global trends and the interactions between global and local factors. This comparative study focuses on the university level and attempts to identify the differences of university governance in Australian and Chinese public universities in three dimensions, state-university relation, university internal governance and university finance. This paper sketches the university governance in Australia and China and finds that the relationship between government and university is looser in Australia than that in China and Australian universities enjoy more autonomy and power than Chinese universities; as to university internal governance, Australian universities use a more business-oriented management mechanism; funding associated with full-fee paying international students has become very important for Australian HE while Chinese government funding has been decreasing as well but funds from international students play a minimal financial role.

This case study presents empirical data regarding the experiences of female academic managers in an Australian regional university. In Australia regional universities are situated in rural towns or cities outside the seven state capital cities and the national capital. This study is intended as a basis for further research in relation to women working in universities and has informed the development of a survey of female middle managers in Australian universities, which will be reported in another paper. This case study focuses on female academics in front-line roles to more senior management roles in what still remains a maledominated management context. The study is also set within the context of a number of pressures on Australian universities, including increased student numbers, decreased government funding, corporatisation and managerialism. The broader restructuring of tertiary education is often accompanied by organizational restructuring at institutional level and this is the case in this study. The management lives of a number of women academics, who are front-line and more senior managers, are examined in the context of sectoral and organizational restructuring, the competitive expectations of managing in new times, and in the context of working in a university in an Australian regional area. Discussion examines human resource development practices and other experiences that have prepared the women for their current roles. Issues surrounding leadership and management styles, workplace culture, work/life balance, and work identity are examined. Conclusions are drawn about the organizational value attributed to the management activities undertaken by these women, the paradoxes a number identify in their roles, and the price several believe they have paid in undertaking managerial leadership

The focal pillars of digital transformation and sustainability have spurred the implementation of various strategies through policy interventions in production, distribution, and consumption processes. As societies grapple with the intricacies of this paradigm shift, comprehension of how public administration shapes the delivery of public services to meet sustainability imperatives assumes paramount importance, yielding public value in the process. In the current era, the delineation of public value arises from the nuanced interplay of socio-political dynamics, advancements in information and communication technology (ICT), and an unwavering commitment to the pillars of sustainable development within the public sector. Scholarly discourse accentuates the imperative for a multidisciplinary approach to effectively address these multifaceted challenges. The analysis was conducted using the case study method to trace public value creation through digital and sustainable transformation in NODES’ Research and Innovation program financed by the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP or PNRR) that is part of the Next Generation EU (NGEU). NODES’ Research and Innovation program is articulated in specific programs for each Spoke, with the aim to promote and support applied research on topics consistent with the Intelligent Specialization Strategy, with regional operational plans and regional and national research and innovation priorities. Although NODES’ Spokes are concentrated on different themes, the article examines all the 7 Spokes. In particular, Spoke 2 entitled “Green Technologies and Sustainable Industry” carries out systemic solutions at local scale with a strong emphasis on the key elements of sustainable development: economic prosperity, environmental protection and social equity, balancing these three dimensions in order to benefit current and future generations. The nexus among sustainability, digital transformation, and the interrelation of social, economic, and environmental values constitutes the crux of this endeavour. These factors are the fundament of Spoke 3 titled “Tourism and Culture Industry” that aims at developing an open infrastructure for immersive virtual reality systems for research and educational purposes. The project is based on the architecture of a collaboration platform able to integrate advanced technologies and human expertise. By illuminating the interconnectedness between financial management, imperatives of sustainability, and societal well-being, the findings will be developed to obtain new jobs in the short/medium term, thanks to improved policy support from governing bodies and creating new business solutions. In doing so, they not only foster enduring public value but also fortify societal resilience in the face of evolving challenges.

PURPOSE: This study introduces the Digital-Sustainability Ecosystem, a conceptual framework to integrate digital transformation and sustainable innovation. It examines how emerging digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the Internet of Things, drive sustainability transitions by serving as strategic enablers. Addressing a critical gap in the literature, this research focuses on the dynamic mechanisms and synergies that connect digital transformation with sustainable innovation within a complex ecosystem. METHODOLOGY: The study employs a systematic literature review (SLR) of 50 studies and a comparative analysis of 13 existing frameworks to identify and analyze key mechanisms that link digital transformation and sustainable innovation, culminating in the development of the Digital-Sustainability Ecosystem framework. FINDINGS: The study identifies five interconnected mechanisms: efficiency gains, dematerialization, circular economy enablement, innovation acceleration, and digital collaboration. These mechanisms illustrate the relationships between technological advancements and sustainability objectives while addressing synergies and tensions, such as the trade-offs between energy demands and environmental benefits. The Digital-Sustainability Ecosystem emphasizes multi-stakeholder collaboration, iterative feedback loops, and adaptable processes to address gaps in existing models, positioning digital transformation as a transformative force for systemic sustainability improvements. IMPLICATIONS: The Digital-Sustainability Ecosystem advances theoretical discourse by positioning sustainability as a systemic outcome of digital transformation, extending beyond traditional efficiency-focused models. It emphasizes organizational resilience and stakeholder collaboration as pivotal for achieving sustainability objectives. Practitioners can leverage AI, IoT, and blockchain to enhance resource optimization and foster sustainability-driven innovation ecosystems. Policymakers and organizations are encouraged to combine digital strategies with sustainability imperatives, emphasizing adaptive leadership, regulatory alignment, and multi-stakeholder engagement. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: This study presents a conceptual framework that bridges theoretical and practical gaps in the literature by integrating foundational theories that associate digital transformation with sustainability imperatives while fostering innovation and competitive advantage. The framework sets the stage for future research, emphasizing potential applications in industry-specific contexts, cross-sectoral collaborations, and the evolving role of emerging technologies in sustainability transitions. By incorporating dynamic feedback loops and systemic adaptability, this framework establishes a foundation for advancing both academic inquiry and practical implementation. It offers guidance for exploring unanswered questions about scalability, policy integration, and multi-stakeholder engagement in the digital age.

PurposeThis study aims to examine the relationships between social and environmental reporting (SER) and the size and university ranking of 39 Australian universities. The study examines Australian universities and the impact of size on corporate social responsibility (CSR) using an accountability model. Not many studies have considered this relationship in the university environment.Design/methodology/approachThe study uses content analysis by applying the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) disclosure index to university annual reports and adopting the accountability model of Coy et al. (2001) to examine the impact of the size of Australian universities on SER, measured by the number of student enrolments. Data was collected in 2014. This classification of Australian universities based on size was adopted from Universities Australia (2022). The authors collected data about the academic ranking of Australian universities using the Shanghai ranking (Shanghai, 2022).FindingsThe authors predict and find that there is no relationship between SER and size. As the authors expected, the level of SER is marginally influenced by the world academic ranking of universities. The findings provide significant insight into the SER practices of Australian universities. The authors expand the SER literature and practice nationally and internationally.Originality/valueFew studies have explored CSR in Australian universities. The current study expands the debate on SER using an accountability model in Australian universities. This paper describes CSR in 39 Australian universities and the importance of size and university ranking. The results offer new insights into the relationship between CSR in Australian universities and their size and ranking.

This research paper focuses on exploring the influence of government funding on advancing digital transformation within the arts and cultural landscape in Indonesia. The primary goal of this study is to investigate the impact of government funding initiatives on catalyzing digital transformation within this dynamic domain. Digital transformation has become a critical force in shaping the arts and cultural sector, revolutionizing the creation, accessibility, and dissemination of artistic expressions. While several studies have examined digital transformation and government funding in various contexts, limited research has specifically focused on the influence of government funding on advancing digital transformation within the arts and cultural landscape in Indonesia. The problem statement revolves around understanding the extent to which government funding initiatives impact the advancement of digital transformation in the arts and cultural sector in Indonesia. The research questions include exploring the key factors shaping the relationship between government funding and digital transformation, as well as understanding the challenges and opportunities associated with these initiatives. This study employs a qualitative research methodology, specifically relying on secondary data sources such as academic journals, research papers, books, government reports, and relevant documents. The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the influence of government funding on advancing digital transformation within the arts and cultural landscape in Indonesia. The analysis reveals key factors shaping the relationship between government funding and digital transformation, highlighting challenges and opportunities for future development. This study has implications for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers, guiding strategic decision-making and policy formulation to drive the advancement of digital practices within the arts and cultural landscape in Indonesia.

Introduction. Digital leadership must have the ability to adapt to changes in the technological environment. The rapid development of technology demands adjustments to changes that run quickly so that organizational goals can still be achieved. Digital leadership must be formed with the mindset and ability to solve problems and the ability to maintain relationships between members and between teams. This study aims to determine how digital leadership improves digital transformation in university organizational by analyzing student opinions. Study participants and methods. The present quantitative descriptive study samples were students from five faculty in Universitas Terbuka using purposive sampling. The data were gathered from a structured questionnaire survey of 403 respondents. The factor analysis was applied to bring out the Digital Leadership and Digital Transformation variables representing the attributes, and later, the causality between these variables was established using structural equation modelling (SEM). Results. The confirmatory factor analysis has shown that digital leadership was constructed by eight factors, namely digital literacy (0.740), digital vision (0.801), defence (0.820), presence (0.836), communication (0.849), adaptability (0.801), self-awareness (0.783), and cultural awareness (0.760). Digital transformation comprises five factors: strategy and governance (0.343), curriculum and method (0.447), assessment (0.478), self support and development (0.427), infrastructure and resources (0.461). Empirically, digital leadership significantly influences the digital transformation in university organizational with a coefficient value of 0.507 and an R square value of 0.325. Leaders with digital leadership are able to adapt to the rapid development of technology and changes in organizational behaviour. Digital leadership enables leaders to direct, lead and evaluate an organization's digital transformation process. Practical significance. This study examined the influence of Digital Leadership on Digital Transformation. Digital leadership is innovative leadership that supports the implementation of digital transformation in organizational culture to increase the university's competitive advantage. University leaders must have digital leadership skills, including digital literacy, digital vision, defence, presence, communication, adaptability, self-awareness, and cultural awareness. This capability is used by university leaders to execute all problems encountered in the digital transformation process. Finally, the next research recommendation is to provide a digital leadership module for university leaders. Future digital leadership research should also be linked to emotions, followers, gender, and organizational culture.