Inter-Institutional Collaboration:
|
VOL. 5, No. 2, 32-48
Numerous innovations in inter-institutional collaboration in distance education appeared in the 1980s and, despite the manifest difficulties, collaboration bids fair to become a hallmark of distance education into the 21st century. What are these difficulties? What conditions are necessary for successful inter-institutional collaboration? These questions are considered in the light of the experience of one highly successful project in Australian distance education - the Women's Studies Major program developed and taught jointly by Deakin, Murdoch, and Queensland Universities since 1983. It is concluded that conditions for effective collaboration include mutual trust and esteem among the partners, effective communications systems, and commitment to and control over the project by the relevant individuals and groups. Feminist values of, and approaches to collective action and collegiality have much to offer distance educators considering collaborative projects.
De nombreux efforts de collaboration entre institutions furent entrepris durant les ann‚es 80s et, malgr‚ les difficult‚s ‚videntes, il y a bonne chance que la formation ... distance porte l'empreinte de cette collaboration dans son entr‚e dans le vingt-et-uniŠme siŠcle. Quelles sont donc ces difficult‚s? Quelles conditions sont-elles n‚cessaire ... la r‚ussite de cette collaboration interinstitutionnelle? Nous nous posons ces questions dans le contexte d'un projet de formation ... distance en Australie qui fut couronn‚ de succ‚s: la licence en ‚tudes f‚minines d‚velopp‚e et enseign‚e conjointement par les universit‚s Deakin, Murdoch et de Queensland depuis 1983. Nous concluons que les conditions n‚cessaires ... la bonne conduite de cette collaboration sont une confiance et une estime mutuelles; des systŠmes de communication ‚fficaces et un engagement envers le projet et son contr"le par les individus et groupes appropri‚s. Les valeurs et les approches f‚ministes d'action collective et de coll‚gialit‚ devraient ˆtre trŠs utiles aux ‚ducateurs et ‚ducatrices ... distance qui envisagent des projets de collaboration.
Numerous experiments and innovative projects involving inter-institutional collaboration in distance education appeared in the 1980s, and such collaboration bids fair to become a hallmark of distance education into the 21st century. While the diversity of cooperative ventures is considerable, analysis of particular projects offers a way to identify conditions for success and pitfalls to be avoided. This paper examines one such project - the Australian inter-university Women's Studies Major program developed and taught jointly by Deakin, Murdoch, and Queensland Universities since 1983.
First I define inter-institutional collaboration and consider its advantages and difficulties. I then outline the history of the Women's Studies Major and the evaluation of the program carried out in 1987 by Pam Maclean, Robyn Rowland and myself.1 This study reveals not only that gender discrimination was an important factor in the genesis and operation of the Major, but also that feminist approaches to decision- making and cooperative management of the Major were vital to its success. This leads me to propose a model for successful inter-institutional collaboration which draws on feminist values and practice.
Universities have traditionally been concerned for their institutional autonomy, protection of their academic "standards," and their own certification of graduates. Consequently, they have been wary of collaboration with others and ill-equipped (conceptually and practically) to deal positively with external pressures for rationalization and cooperative action. Distance education institutions, however, have taken a lead in overcoming such inhibitions.
Why is this so? Commitments to improvements in educational access and to the needs of individual students have underpinned distance educators' willingness (in principle at least) to treat institutional boundaries as permeable. Modern techniques of distance education course development and delivery lower conventional classroom barriers imposed by time and space. The experience of collective activity and division of labor in distance education is stronger than in conventional education (Pritchard & Jones, 1985b). Resource limitations and the struggle for survival and legitimacy have also spurred on cooperation among distance education organizations and with other, more conventional institutions. Financial constraints of the last 20 years have encouraged institutional cooperation so as to share or spread high fixed costs of course development and equipment (Neil, 1981). As young institutions, or marginal operations within conventional universities, distance education programs have had to prove themselves and gain recognition of their credentials - hence the political importance of credit transfer systems to distance education institutions.
Neil (1981) defines collaboration as "an active working partnership supported by some kind of institutional commitment" (p. 25) based on formal agreement between two or more organizations. Konrad and Small (1986; 1989) see a hierarchy in the formality of partnerships, from informal and ad hoc arrangements through formal agreements to creation of a new agency or consortium. Others specify types of collaboration ranging from low to high risk (Moran, 1986; Anderson & Nelson, 1989) - from exchange of information, experience, and consultants, to cooperative development, adaptation, and evaluation of learning materials; establishment of credit transfer systems; shared teaching arrangements; and creation of new overarching structures or agencies to do some or all of these.
There are educational, fiscal, social, and political advantages to inter-institutional collaboration (Neil, 1981; Mugridge, 1983; Pritchard & Jones, 1985a; Konrad & Small, 1989; Moran, 1983; 1986). It offers the potential for greater breadth and depth in particular subjects, more choice of pedagogical and technological strategies, and improvements in quality of learning materials and teaching. Cooperative course development can help build a critical mass of scholars otherwise geographically scattered in relatively small institutions. Collaborative ventures can be cost effective in their use of human and material resources, both within individual institutions and across regional, national, or international systems. The prospect of meeting educational demands at relatively low unit cost has been attractive to funding agencies, especially in the 1980s climate of "rationalization" and avoidance of "unnecessary duplication." Moreover, inter-institutional collaboration can extend the range of programs accessible to geographically or otherwise dispersed learners. In turn, distance education's apparent ability to meet social needs and respond to political pressures through cost-effective cooperative activities pays off in enhanced prestige and legitimacy for the distance education organization.
Rhetoric about collaboration, however, does not match reality (Mugridge, 1983; Pritchard & Jones, 1985b). One difficulty is the tradition of institutional autonomy, especially in certification and standards, which results in a lack of trust of teaching and standards elsewhere - the "Not Invented Here" factor (Bynner, 1985). Another is the initial incompatibility of organizational structures and administrative processes. Other difficulties include the geo– political isolation of universities, and failures of implementation due to inadequate funds, to lack of clarity in agreements or of real commitment, or to ineffective handling of technical and human problems (Pritchard & Jones, 1985b). The Commonwealth Secretariat (1985) points to difficulties of copyright and royalty restrictions, and of importing material to mixed mode institutions where on- and off-campus courses must be standardized. Ignorance and suspicion of distance education techniques can further hamper effective collaboration where one or more partners does not normally teach off campus (and even in dual mode systems).
Mugridge observes that cooperation rests on trust and on personal relationships in what is, after all, a fairly small world of distance educators.2 However, if collaboration is to work, there has to be something in it for all parties. Each institution has to be convinced of the advantages accruing. For individuals jockeying for power or status, there also has to be an acceptable return. Self-interest and trust are not easy partners. Trust implies a willingness to eschew competition and, above all, personal relationships which can weather institutional vagaries (see also Konrad & Small, 1989). Moreover, it is far from easy to reconcile personal willingness to trust colleagues with institutional loyalties and priorities.
Despite these problems, inter-institutional cooperation in distance education has burgeoned in the last decade, both within nations (especially in Canada) and internationally (e.g., the Disted Consortium in Malaysia; the Commonwealth of Learning Agency). Most involve an exchange of information and strengthening of pre-existing informal networks among distance educators. Beyond that, there is considerable diversity in complexity and objectives and widely varying degrees of success.
Inter-institutional collaboration in Australia has trodden a rocky road. The advantages of collaboration are well-recognized; the difficulties referred to above have been equally apparent. Inter- institutional, cross-sectoral, and geo-political rivalries have played a significant part in this (Moran, 1983; Johnson, 1983). In his 1983 national review of external studies, Johnson urged national coordination of, and collaboration in distance education. The same year saw the beginnings of collaboration in Women's Studies, and first steps towards a credit transfer agreement among five universities teaching at a distance (the Toowoomba Accord).
The collaboration in Women's Studies enables students of Deakin University (Geelong, Victoria), Murdoch University (Perth, Western Australia), and the University of Queensland (Brisbane) to complete a major undergraduate sequence in Women's Studies. None offers a complete, stand-alone major in women's studies, so the inter-university agreement has been crucial for students seeking a full major.3 Each university defines and approves its own sequence, within its own degree regulations, from a common pool of courses designed to complement each other. Although I use the singular term "the Major," it is actually a Trinity; the phrase was coined to distinguish this common pool and overcome the problem of different degree structures (Maclean, 1986; Thornton, 1986).
The Women's Studies Major offers students a coherent, integrated sequence of study similar to the progression in in-house majors, through introductory courses to courses of greater depth, complexity, and specialization. It thus differs from the smorgasbord or elective approach typical of more general credit transfer systems. The three Women's Studies Coordinators cooperate in academic planning and coordination of curriculum choice, and course development, revision, and sequencing. Their recommendations then go through the usual decision-making processes of each university. These processes vary in speed and complexity, as do the timeliness for course preparation and production.
The courses in the common pool came from three sources. Deakin University prepared one first level, introductory course to complement a Murdoch unit (by 1988 Queensland had also prepared an introductory unit, giving students a choice of two of three). Deakin also developed a two-unit, third level course on feminist theory. The other courses, from Murdoch and Queensland, were either offered at a distance when the Major began in 1983, or were adapted and rewritten from on-campus courses so that they could be taken at a distance. Each university remains responsible for its own courses, drawing on expertise from the other partners as needed.
Course development, production, and teaching costs are born by the university teaching the course. Funds have never been generous and quotas were imposed on lower level courses in the mid-1980s because of inadequate staffing levels (a perennial problem for Women's Studies faculty struggling to establish their field in the face of political, epistemological, and financial opposition). Administrative costs have been subsumed into normal running costs of each university's student administration. No special funds have been provided for continuing planning and coordination activities.
Special administrative arrangements have been made for inter-university enrolment, study activities, assessment, and recording of results in the Major. Each university had/has its unique systems for student advising and course planning; descriptors, methods and timing of recording enrolments, and progress; and provision of library and bookshop services; not to mention differences in degree regulations and course weightings. The intention, from the outset, was to establish university-to-university agreements about these matters and circumvent student confusion over different institutional requirements (Thornton, 1986; Maclean, Moran, & Rowland, 1987).
Students enrol through their "home" university (i.e., the one awarding their degree) for Women's Studies courses taught by a "host" university. Inter-university enrolment is open only to students who have already completed other courses at their home university. Students are selected by their Women's Studies Coordinator at the home university up to agreed limits. Quotas in the 1980s were based on staffing constraints and the desire to achieve some kind of "trade balance" to accommodate federal funding formulae based on equivalent full-time student enrolments.
The home university sends completed enrolment data to the host university which thereafter treats the student as its own for the purpose of that course. Students are expected to use the host library and bookshop services, and to deal directly with the host faculty rather than with their own Women's Studies academics. Results are sent to the home university for incorporation in the student's transcript (though, until recently, they were shown only as pass/fail on the latter paper).
The inter-university Women's Studies Major program began as a small pilot project with an exchange of courses in 1983. From 1984-1986 over 600 students enrolled under the Major umbrella. Because of quotas, these 600 represented only those who got in; demand was considerably higher. By 1987, three new courses had been prepared specifically for inclusion in the Major; several others had been modified for external teaching and for greater compatibility in the program; some 18 courses were offered within the Major. The program had exceeded all expectations of student demand and, within Australian distance education, was widely described as an exemplary model of successful inter-institutional collaboration.
In short, the Major was a success story. Widespread interest in how and why this came about, combined with growing federal pressures for inter-institutional cooperation and rationalization of distance education, led to evaluation of the collaborative project in 1987. Funded by the federal government, the evaluation team surveyed student views through a comprehensive questionnaire, and interviewed academic and administrative staff concerned with the collaborative Major in each university. The nine academics interviewed were all women. The administrative staff included eight middle-level personnel (three women, five men) responsible for student administration and support services, four librarians (all women), and four senior university officers (all men) with responsibility for determining policy on inter-institutional collaboration.
Responses from all staff made it clear that a measure of trust had been established from the beginning and maintained through changes in personnel. This trust operated within each academic and professional group, building on pre-existing networks and contacts. Some problems were logistical; others due to systems incompatibilities. Most were due to a breakdown in communications.
The solidarity of Women's Studies faculty goes back the genesis of the collaborative Major in 1981 (Maclean, 1986; Thornton, 1986; Maclean et al., 1987). At that time, Murdoch and Queensland Universities offered individual courses in Women's Studies (some on, others off campus), but not a full major sequence. Deakin academics with scholarly interests in Women's Studies were struggling unsuccessfully to mount any courses in the area (Rowland, 1982). Prospects for any of the universities mounting a full major in Women's Studies seemed remote.
Two reasons were evident - severe funding problems which had gripped the Australian higher education system by the late 1970s; and, more insidiously, resistance to Women's Studies as a "respectable" or identifiable subject of study. There is no doubt that funding problems were (and remain) substantial. The ability of universities to mount new courses and programs was severely limited, particularly in subjects without immediately apparent professional or technological spinoff for the economy. Deakin University had only begun to teach at a distance in 1978 and was particularly restricted financially. Whatever sympathies existed for creation of a major in Women's Studies in the B.A. degree, its priority was low compared with the pressure to finish other major sequences already under way. The position at Murdoch and Queensland was not much better, not least because of the relative marginality of distance education, especially at Queensland.
Financial constraint and low priorities for any new programming obscured somewhat a widespread suspicion of Women's Studies as an acceptable field of scholarship. Rowland (1982) points out the difficulties of overcoming hierarchical, male-dominated power and knowledge structures. She and Thornton (1986) identify two particular grounds for suspicion. One was ideological prejudice about the separate study of women, and about connections between academic study and political action which are commonly made explicit in Women's Studies programs (see also Klein, 1987). Rowland and Thornton attribute this prejudice in part to ignorance of the academic credentials, achievements, and epistemologies of the field. The other ground for suspicion was the interdisciplinary nature of Women's Studies. Thornton (1986) argues that the centrality of the concept of gender difference gave Women's Studies a more compelling, cohesive rationale than other interdisciplinary programs such as Australian or European Studies (p. 218). As an older more traditional university, interdisciplinarity may have been a significant problem for Queensland. At Murdoch and Deakin Universities, however, it was welcomed and incorporated into many of their various programs and majors. If anything, institutional commitment to interdisciplinarity probably strengthened the case for Women's Studies.
The collaborative Major succeeded because it suited several agendas. Firstly, it met the cost-saving imperatives of the three universities in financially troubled times. Secondly, it enabled the universities to demonstrate a positive response to federal urgings for rationalization and cooperation in distance education and to public rhetoric encouraging reduction in gender discrimination. It is ironic that senior policy makers' support was gained for a (cheaper) collaboration in Women's Studies where the academics concerned had been unable to secure solid intellectual and financial support for the field per se.
Thirdly, as an interdisciplinary field, Women's Studies could clearly benefit from the wide range of perspectives and expertise the three universities could offer collectively. Moreover, values of solidarity and cooperative action are key components of feminist principles of theory and action (see for example, Rowland, 1982; Gunew, 1987; Johnson, 1987; Klein, 1987). This commitment to cooperation has survived the vicissitudes of the "Not Invented Here" factor, institutional politics and competitiveness, different academic structures and administrative systems, and communications problems and resource constraints. Women's Studies faculty have achieved a "notable cohesiveness and consensus" in their dealings with each other, and a "sensitivity to difference, particularly across institutions, and a sense of flexibility about educational purpose" (Maclean et al., 1987, p. 20).
The evaluation found the administrators, regardless of sex, shared these typically feminist values of collective action and sensitivity to others' agendas. They too believed in the advantages of inter- institutional collaboration, and were committed to overcoming the numerous problems of systems incompatibility. They revealed a continuing willingness to trust the goodwill and intentions of their counterparts in the other universities despite the significant amount of time required to sort out the initial arrangements and their subsequent modification, and despite the frustration experienced at various times by all concerned - e.g., over standardization of records, or difference in timing of handbook preparation. These values of cooperation and trust are part of distance education's heritage from adult learning theory and practice - principles of collegiality, non-competitiveness, educational equity, and a commitment to lifelong learning wherever, whenever, and however the learner chooses. Such values are, however, bedevilled by inter- and intra-institutional loyalties and priorities.
There were, nevertheless, tensions among the groups involved, especially over the relationship between the Women's Studies Major and the Toowoomba Accord. The latter was an agreement reached (in Toowoomba, Queensland) in 1983 among senior officers of the five major distance education universities (Macquarie and New England Universities being the other two). They agreed to facilitate student access to inter-university enrolment in individual distance education courses, and to explore possibilities for joint course development and rationalization of offerings in the national system. The Accord began in 1986; its initial aims and modus operandi drew heavily on steadily growing experience in the Women's Studies Major (Pritchard & Jones, 1985a; 1985b). However, it emerged as a somewhat inchoate collection of electives students could add on to their home university requirements for major/minor studies. Only a small number of students chose to do so (Polhemus, 1988; 1989).
Our evaluation found a troubling lack of communication between the Women's Studies faculty and the Accord policy makers. The latter considered the Major to be a component of the Toowoomba Accord (despite the fact that two universities were not involved in the Major). Academics argued that the Major was different in kind and in intention. They viewed some decisions of the Accord group as intrusive and made without adequate consultation with faculty.
Student responses4 confirmed administrators' and faculty views that teething problems had been largely sorted out. By 1987 information about the Major was generally considered adequate and enrolment did not present more than the usual headaches. Student reaction to studying in different systems was generally positive. They saw the advantages as a wider choice of courses, diversity of materials, presentation and systems, exposure to a cross-section of ideas and perspectives, access to more resources and personnel, and access to a complete major in the subject (Maclean et al., 1987, p. 71).
For students, most problems involved logistics and/or communications (mostly resolved after the evaluation). One difficulty may be peculiar to the Australian dual mode system, where students can enrol both on and off campus, depending on the mode in which a particular course is offered. It highlights, however, the need for sufficient information and support services. Some Women's Studies students, especially at Murdoch, normally study full-time on campus. Such students "are used to having ready access to staff and other students on campus, and find that, although external study does enable them to widen subject choice, this can result in their having to forgo normal on-campus support networks in these subjects" (Maclean et al., 1987, p. 34).
Other problems concerned quotas, transcripts, library usage, and purchase of textbooks. Students reiterated faculty concern about the imposition of quotas on first level courses. Quotas were necessary to cope with resource constraints, but reduced access to advanced courses since the first year units were generally prerequisites to further study. Demand for places has well outstripped supply, but the relatively lowly position of Women's Studies in institutional academic planning and resource allocation inhibited immediate easing of the staffing situation. Students also echoed faculty concern about recording of results from host institution courses. They were, inexplicably, shown on the home university transcript as pass/fail rather than with the original grades.
Library borrowing arrangements in each university differed, and students were expected to use the collections of their host university. A similar arrangement pertained to purchase of textbooks from university bookstores. With the universities located at very distant points on the Australian compass, delays, postal costs, and perceived differences in service became a sore point in both cases.
The evaluation concluded:
It was clear, from the responses of students, academic and general staff, that the Inter-University Women's Studies Major has succeeded admirably thus far on two counts. It is a unique example of how an academically coherent, intellectually rigorous sequence of studies can be put together by academics spread across a large continent, operating within different (and sometimes incompatible) university systems, to the acknowledged satisfaction of a large majority of their combined students. In addition, because the Major was the forerunner to a cross-crediting agreement among the five distance education universities, it was inevitably the guinea pig for dealing with all of the policy and administrative issues involved in cross- creditation. (Maclean et al., 1987, pp. 48–49)
The inter-university Women's Studies Major stands out as a successful inter-institutional collaboration in Australian distance education. It has met the objectives of the various academic and administrative groups involved and clearly attracts a substantial number of students (in Australian enrolment terms). What generalizations may be drawn from this case study about conditions necessary for effective inter-institutional collaboration? Some conditions concern esteem and communication among the partners; others concern the environment within which the collaboration occurs.
The most pervasive and critical element is trust among the partners. This trust has to operate at several levels - among faculty developing and teaching the courses; among administrators servicing students and courses; and among senior officers representing the university in broader political and educational forums. It also has to operate effectively between these levels and within each university as well as between partners. Achievement and maintenance of confidence among all these groups, and in the collaborative process itself, is a tall order. Conditions for its nurture include a congruence of aims and a parity among the partners; individual and group commitment to the project and to the value of collective action; confidence in each group concerned that it has a sufficient degree of control of its part of the venture; a willingness to adapt and compromise; and effective and constantly maintained communications networks and processes.
Congruence of the partners' aims does not imply that their objectives are identical. Rather it requires mutual awareness of the benefits to each, and an agreement that the benefits are worth the effort on both sides. This provides an incentive to overcome political and administrative obstacles, and enables the partners to present a united front when, for example, seeking funds from third parties. In the long term, continued congruence of aims maintains consistency despite changes in personnel and impact of broader institutional policies and priorities.
Parity in the partnership - that is, a balance of power among the participants - is important to development and maintenance of effective working relationships. The balance is provided in two ways - the input is perceived to be sufficiently equal for the benefits to be mutual as well as individually acceptable; and the style of negotiation and decision-making is consensual. The Women's Studies Major is a cogent example, with faculty emphasis on collegiality and consensus ("win- win") as a more appropriate and effective way of reaching decisions than other styles geared to competition and "win-lose." Much of the Major's success is attributable to faculty commitment to this approach amongst themselves, and their willingness to adapt and compromise as well as trust their colleagues. This style is equally consistent with the values and practices of the distance education administrators involved, though their commitment to this style of political action is perhaps less overt.
A collaborative venture has little hope of succeeding without the firm commitment to it of the individuals and groups involved. A powerful, and shared incentive to collaboration provides the glue to keep it together. Financial and political pressures may be enough; ideological values are probably longer- lasting. For the Women's Studies faculty it was the prospect of legitimizing their field through implementing full undergraduate majors. The incentive for the distance education administrators lay in a belief in the desirability of reducing institutional barriers to improved educational access. This was reinforced by financial and political inducements to reduce costs and rationalize educational provision.
A further condition for the encouragement of trust and minimization of problems is a sufficient degree of control and autonomy in the collaborative process. So long as the Women's Studies faculty retained sufficient control over academic planning, and over conditions of selection and operation of the program, they felt secure in dealing with each other. Similarly with the administrators rearranging/creating internal records and other administrative mechanisms to accommodate the collaboration. However, whereas the administrators had ready entree to the senior inter-university policy making forum, the academics did not. This was viewed as an area of actual and potential friction which, if allowed to continue, would probably entangle everyone in unnecessary suspicions and misinformation. Dividing lines for decisionmaking thus need to be very clear, and accompanied by effective channels of regular communication among all parties.
A willingness to adapt and compromise is a pre-condition for effective modification of complex administrative systems and processes. If the project is a small one, it may be possible to keep its administration relatively separate from mainstream systems. Indeed, Queensland did so for the first few years of the Women's Studies Major, choosing to handle enrolments manually. A more complex collaboration, such as investment in a substantial credit transfer system, calls for more fundamental modification to data bases and student advising methods. This means overcoming institutional territoriality and inertia, both of which can be formidable barriers to change. Compromise is also important in course development and teaching strategies so as to produce the expectations of all parties.
The need for effective and comprehensive communications is so obvious as to be almost trite, yet it is one of the most difficult things to sustain. Lack of information about, or misunderstanding of others' educational or political environment, underlay every problem or tension identified by the Major evaluation. This applied both across the institutional partners, and among the groups within each university. Effective communications require articulation and regular re-expression of educational, administrative, and political assumptions and values which are normally taken for granted. These assumptions will be different and not well understood by the other, even where institutions are geographically close. Telecommunications capabilities can speed up the communication but are not, in themselves, the means of solving the problem of human frailty. At best, one relies on the goodwill of the partners and vigilance in keeping each other informed.
There is little point in inter-institutional cooperation if students cannot take advantage of it because it is insufficiently advertised, or places are overly restricted, or course credits are not subsequently recognized elsewhere in the higher education system. The investment of time and effort is considerable. There has to be demonstrable pay-off in terms of enrolment growth and/or meeting of specific market needs. The steady growth of enrolments in Women's Studies from 1983 confirmed that it was an important field for many students, thereby strengthening the political position of the Major and the field of Women's Studies within each university, and the justifications for their continuation and expansion. Nevertheless, while creation of the Women's Studies Major opened the door to that subject, imposition of quotas restricted passage to it.
Availability or otherwise of financial resources also influences collaboration. Institutional poverty is a powerful incentive to inexpensive innovation in teaching of valued subjects; it can also justify obstruction of controversial courses. Initial and continuing justification for cooperative ventures depends on showing lower overall unit costs; even so, adequate and appropriate operational funds are needed. The Women's Studies Major was created partly because there was insufficient money to mount a full program in each university (or any courses at all at Deakin). The course development and production budget of each university has benefitted. Tensions have occurred between the partners over inadequate funds for staffing the first year courses and subsequent limitation on student numbers.
A more speculative issue is the extent to which it is necessary that the partners share a basic understanding of, and experience in a common educational system. For all its individual inconsistencies, contradictions, and tensions, the Australian higher education system contains shared assumptions about knowledge, pedagogy, and administrative practice which are culturally, politically, and epistemologically based. Partners in a local or national collaboration rarely need to make these explicit. Cultural specificities within courses and in teaching strategies are common to the partners. In international collaborative projects, however, such assumptions and ideologies may not be shared. Swift (1987) claims this is not critical to effective teaching. Even so, awareness of socio-cultural differences and an understanding of other national educational systems are important to effective negotiation of collaborative ventures at the international level. Congruence of aims and parity in the partnership may take on new meanings here.
The idea of inter-institutional collaboration has acquired its own momentum in recent years, and has become a laudable objective in its own right. One reason for this is the political rhetoric of the state about cost-cutting, need for rationalization and avoidance of unnecessary duplication, and desirability of educational "relevance" to the economy. This rhetoric has been subsumed into institutional thinking and behavior (whether critically or not), and encourages policies such as collaboration at the expense of more traditional organizational isolation. Another reason is that the ideology of collaboration seems compatible with the ideology of social justice and improving educational opportunity. The latter is not often or well articulated by distance educators, yet commitment to its values is a powerful motive behind distance education pedagogies and student support strategies. Projects like inter-institutional collaboration seem to help reconcile the inherent conflict between political and economic rhetoric and the ideology of social justice. In so doing, they appear to strengthen distance education's claims to legitimacy as a form of education, cost effectiveness, and relevance to learners' needs as well as the economy. Nevertheless, inter-institutional collaboration is hard to achieve and sustain. Territorial imperatives die hard. Caution inhibits trust. Communication breakdowns are inevitable, regardless of goodwill.
The Australian inter-university Women's Studies Major is only one of a growing number of successful collaborative ventures in distance education, albeit an especially notable one in the Australian context. It is by no means a perfect example of collaboration, though it has been remarkable for its cohesion and harmony, and for the high degree of acceptance accorded it by all parties involved. The Major highlights conditions conducive to effective collaboration - trust, communication, and esteem among partners; a willingness to compromise; and the presence of student demand and adequate operational resources. Together they suggest that feminist values of consensus, collective action rather than competition and sensitivity to others have much to offer distance educators pursuing inter-institutional collaboration.
1. I wish to acknowledge here the considerable debt I owe to Robyn Rowland and Pam Maclean as my co-directors of the evaluation; and also the valuable assistance and advice we received from academic and administrative colleagues in the three universities concerned with the collaborative project. The evaluation was funded by the (then) Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, and is available from Deakin University Press, Geelong, Victoria, 3217, Australia.
2. Interview with author, 19 October 1988.
3. Degree requirements vary but all Australian undergraduate degrees require major sequences in one or two subjects.
4. Six hundred and ten questionnaires were sent out; 303 were returned, a response rate of 49.6% of students enrolled in Major courses from 1984–86. Ninety-three percent of respondents were women, consistent with enrolment patterns. Questions elicited a profile of respondents and their study plans; examined their responses to the process of enrolment and study; and sought open-ended reactions to their experience of studying within the collaborative Major.
Anderson, R., & Nelson C. (1989). Collaboration in distance education: Ontario's Contact North/Contact Nord. In R. Sweet (Ed.), Post-secondary distance education in Canada (pp. 209–216). Alberta: Athabasca University/Canadian Society for Studies in Education.
Bynner, J. (1985). Collaborative schemes and the ethos of distance education: A study of Australian and New Zealand universities. Higher Education, 14, 513-533.
Commonwealth Secretariat. (1985, Jan.). Commonwealth meeting of specialists: Distance teaching in higher education. London: Commonwealth Secretariat.
Gunew, S. (1987). Is academic sisterhood an oxymoron? Women's Studies International Forum, 10(5), 533–536.
Johnson, L. (1987). Is academic feminism an oxymoron? Women's Studies International Forum, 10(5), 529–532.
Johnson, R. St. C. (1983). The provision of external studies in Australian higher education (Report commissioned by Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission). Canberra: Department of Education.
Klein, R. D. (1987). The dynamics of the women's studies classroom: Review essay of the teaching practice of women's studies in higher education. Women's Studies International Forum 10(2), 187–206.
Konrad, A., & Small, J. M. (1986). Consortia in Canadian distance education. In I. Mugridge & D. Kaufman (Eds.), Distance education in Canada (pp. 111–120). London: Croom Helm.
Konrad, A., & Small, J. (1989). Collaboration in distance education. In R. Sweet (Ed.), Post- secondary distance education in Canada (pp. 197– 204). Alberta: Athabasca University/Canadian Society for Studies in Education.
Maclean, P. (1986, Feb.). Universities combine to teach women's studies. Open Learning, 29–33.
Maclean, P., Moran, L., & Rowland, R. (1987). The Inter-university women's studies major (Report under Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission, Evaluations & Investigations Program). Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University.
Moran, L. (1983, July). Cooperation in, and development of distance education in Australia. Paper presented at the Biennial Forum of Australian and South Pacific External Studies Association, Toowoomba, Queensland.
Moran, L. (1986, October). Collaboration and marketing of educational course materials. Journal of Tertiary Educational Administration, 8(2).
Mugridge, I. (1983). Consortia in distance education: Some Canadian ventures. Open Campus, 8, 22–29.
Mugridge, I. (1989). Collaboration in distance education: British Columbia's Open Learning Agency. In R. Sweet (Ed.), Post-secondary distance education in Canada (pp. 205–208). Alberta: Athabasca University/Canadian Society for Studies in Education.
Neil, M. W. (1981). Research study on international collaboration between institutions of distance learning. Milton Keynes: Open University.
Polhemus, J. H. (1988, May). Cooperation in distance education. Paper presented at 14th meeting of Deans of Arts of Australian universities, University of Queensland, Brisbane.
Polhemus, J. H. (1989, Nov.). Lessons from the Toowoomba Accord. Paper presented at Research in Distance Education Seminar, Institute for Distance Education, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria.
Pritchard, A. L., & Jones, D. R. (1985a). Evaluative study of cross-crediting arrangements between distance education institutions. Report under Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commissions, Evaluations and Investigations Program, Canberra.
Pritchard, A. L., & Jones, D. R. (1985b). Ideal and reality of cooperation in distance education. Open Campus, 11, 137–155.
Rowland, R. (1982). Women's studies courses: Pragmatic and political issues concerning their establishment and design. Women's Studies International Forum 5(5), 487–495.
Swift, D. F. (1987, April). Supervision of teaching and assessment in an open learning consortium. Paper presented at Disted Seminar on Off Shore Distance Education. Disted College, Penang, Malaysia.
Thornton, N. (1986). A model for interinstitutional collaboration: The women's studies interuniversity course program. Distance Education, 7(2), 214–236.
An academic administrator and policy maker at Deakin University since 1979, most recently as Director of Educational Services, Louise Moran is currently on leave pursuing a Ph.D. at the University of British Columbia. Her research interests include the history and politics of distance education, analysis of higher education policy, structures and governance of distance education, and social history of higher education.