Introduction - ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE AND THE ASIA PACIFIC

On the 18^th of September 2015, on a sunny and warm late summer morning neatly dressed people are gathering in front of the Aula Magna Santa Lucia in Bologna. The atmosphere is rather relaxed, and people are chatting cheerfully about the upcoming event and the beautiful historic location. The curiosity about what will happen increases suddenly when a group of strangely dressed young men and women comes around the corner. They look like a mixture of pirates and medieval aristocrats or nobleman. Carrying flags and banners with cryptic symbols, they are now the centre of attention. Gracefully they mingle in their ancient capes with the people dressed in modern clothes. Pedestrians observing the scene are probably wondering about the occasion. Is it a wedding, a funeral or one of the many student celebrations taking place in Bologna? In fact, most of the people waiting for a major annual event belong to the academic community. Some of them are first time visitors; others know the following ritual very well as it is the 27^th Ceremony of the Signature of the Magna Charta Universitatum. “Ceremony” is probably the most appropriate word to describe what happens in the following hours. After the doors to the aula are opened people are entering astonished a room that looks more like a church than just an aula. The air is full of excitement and everyone can feel that something important is about to happen. After waiting for quite a while the moderator starts to announce several groups of academics entering the hall. Among these groups are university rectors, heads of schools and faculties and more important the new signatories of the Magna Charta Universitatum. Each group crosses the aula through the central corridor dressed in festive cloaks to take their reserved seats. The moderator announces the last group to enter the hall and everybody rises. It is the president of the University of Bologna as well as the president and the honorary president of the Magna Charta Observatory. Somehow it seems like the whole assemblage is brought back to earlier times.

There seem to be three types of people walking down the aisle, the first group looks very proud and festive, the second one seems to wonder what they are doing there and the third passes by like casual bystanders. After a series of speeches, the main part of the event happens, and photographers gather at the front of the hall to capture the all-important act of signing the Magna Charta Universitatum. More speeches are to follow, and finally the important groups of academics leave the hall in the same way as they entered, dressed in their ancient robes through the middle corridor. Is this all just a ridiculous and old-fashioned theatre? Or is it a meaningful tribute of academics to hold up dearly held academic values?

Since 1988, academics have been gathering yearly to sign the Magna Charta Universitatum in the above-described ceremony. This tradition started with 388 rectors and university leaders from Europe. Only 27 years later, the mark of 800 universities was exceeded and not only European universities pay their tribute to this document: 85 countries from all continents now have universities who are in favour of the traditional academic values – academic freedom, university autonomy, and the unity of teaching and research (Magna Charta Observatory 2016a). Even if the Magna Charta Universitatum is often considered to be Eurocentric, following these traditional values and taking on the challenge to serve society as whole appears to be a global desire. Each of these values plays a role in contemporary universities as well as in the history of universities.

University autonomy – the freedom of the individual university to run its own affairs without interference from the outside (Anderson and Johnson 1998) – is seen as a precondition but not a guarantee for academic freedom. It is meant to provide each single university with the tools to realise their objectives independently from the state, the church and increasingly from the private sector. Today university autonomy refers not only to the traditional autonomy in teaching and learning but also includes financial, administrative and managerial autonomy (Zgaga 2012a). Enlarging the traditional autonomy of universities is not seen as an entirely positive development in academia as it is often connected with funding cuts and the demand for universities to act like businesses and enterprises (Becker 2009; Ball 2008; Anderson and Johnson 1998). In the environment of marketisation of higher education, universities are challenged to find a balance between university education as a public good and the commercialisation of services (International Conferences on Ethical… 2004).

Academic freedom – the right of the individual scholar to follow truth without fear of punishment (Berdahl 2010) – is seen as key for the academic community to fulfil their obligation towards their students, science and society as a whole. Only knowledge and an obligation to the greater good should guide the academics’ endeavours and not politics, market demands, or ideology. Therefore, academic freedom embedded in an autonomous university is widely seen as a condition for following truth, for securing “long term perspectives in favour of short-term fashions” (Hamilton 2000, 212), for serving society as a whole and for the personal development of individuals (Rüegg 2011). Academic freedom is understood differently in different contexts. Whereas, for example, in Denmark it only refers to research freedom (Danish Government 2011), the Magna Charta Universitatum (Magna Charta

Observatory 2016 [1988]) emphasises a broader view that also includes the freedom of teaching and learning. Academic freedom itself can be put at risk in several ways, including the fear of being sentenced by the own nation state, facing violence, losing one’s job within academia, endangering one’s own or the institution’s reputation, and facing financial cuts. Not only direct attacks on academic freedom are happening but also less obvious pressure, such hidden agendas, norms, and expectations, can intimidate academic freedom. Oftentimes, threads to academic freedom result in self-censorship, manipulation of research results, publication of unfinished research, a highly selective teaching agenda or the negligence of educating critical thinkers.

The concepts of university autonomy and academic freedom are strongly tied to the idea that universities and academics naturally embrace a responsible attitude towards society, their students and knowledge. The fulfilment of this responsibility is usually the main justification for receiving privileges in comparison to other professions. As early as in the Middle Ages, pursuing teaching and learning for the sake of knowledge itself was a core task of universities (Zonta 2002). Today higher education institutions are seen as institutions that are essential for the development of society in economic and cultural terms (Maguire 2010). Education and innovative research are perceived as key drivers for progress in the modern knowledge economy (van der Wende 2008; Aarrevaara 2010). Contemporary universities are assumed to serve three missions, teaching, research, and the third mission, referring to activities connected to a new set of responsibilities associated with issues around participation, social engagement, and general contributions to society and the economy (Nedeva 2007).

The unity of teaching and research is stated as one distinct feature of universities in the Magna Charta Universitatum. This idea might derive from the fact that universities from the Middle Ages on were formed as a community of students and teachers pursuing together the quest for knowledge (Zonta 2002; Rüegg 1992). Von Humboldt reemphasised the unity of teaching and research as learning and teaching in a university should be based on state-of-the-art research, yet at the same time, engaging in teaching and learning also meant engaging in research (Ridder-Symoens 2002). Today, with the trend of establishing research- and teaching-focused universities worldwide, this unity is challenged (Meyer 2012; Scott 2004). Nevertheless, the idea that teaching in higher education has to be based on recent developments in research is a strong motive.

Overall, the previously mentioned core academic values seem to be well elaborated in research and literature at first glance. Undoubtedly, this is true for university autonomy, which has certainly attracted attention in discussions around New Public Management and managerialism in higher education (Nybom 2012; Carnegie and Tuck 2010; Ball 2008; Bleiklie and Byrkjeflot 2002). Hence, some academics, such as Zgaga (2012a), argue that a return from discussions about university autonomy towards academic freedom is needed. Academic freedom is already a growing concern in the area of research and publishing, especially in the form of discussions around the freedom of speech (see for example Wright 2014; Woelert 2013; Meyer 2012).

However, even if academic values are common and often-mentioned topics in research and literature, one largely neglected and under-researched aspect remains: academic freedom in higher education teaching. Even if the interest in higher education teaching is on the rise with initiatives like the Teaching Excellence Framework (Office for International Statistics 2016) in the UK and the development of teaching and learning centres within universities all over the world it is still less promoted and valued in comparison to research (Meyer 2012; Boden and Epstein 2011; Houston, Meyer and Shelley 2006; Altbach 2002; Kerr 1995). It seems to be widely assumed that a good researcher is automatically a good teacher (Harland and Pickering 2011), yet the issue of didactical training for university teachers is only a slowly growing concern, which is clearly seen in the discourse about “teaching excellence” (Skelton 2007).

Skelton (2007) argues that university teachers are often given autonomy in their teaching without the necessary didactic training. Meanwhile, academic freedom is perceived as a condition for making professional judgements about curriculum and teaching methodology to support students in their professional and personal development.

Due to the lack of research on the issue of academic freedom in teaching, this thesis focuses exactly on these relationships and investigates the individual meanings of academic freedom in teaching for academics. On a more general level, it also gives an insight to the status of key academic values connected to academic freedom, both in teaching and research, namely university autonomy, universities’ responsibility towards society, their students, and knowledge, as well as the relationship between teaching and research in contemporary universities. To obtain diverse insight into the meaning and perceptions of academic freedom, not only from a policy but mainly from an individual perspective, this thesis will focus on two culturally different contexts.

It will firstly investigate the individual perceptions of academic freedom in teaching for academics from the University of Bologna, which is one of the oldest universities, and hence has a long tradition. In this respect, it will also show how academic freedom is situated in a particular European case and how the regional policies are developed in national policies of Italy and a specific institutional setting, namely the University of Bologna.

Secondly, it depicts the meaning and perception of academic freedom for academics working at the National University of Singapore, which is again embedded in the regional, national and institutional contexts. Taking an example from Asia is meant to depict a non-European view on academic freedom as this value is often perceived as alien to non-Western contexts (Zha 2012). Despite this assumption, academic values are clearly seen and recognised in non-European countries, which can be seen in the growing number of non-Western signatory universities of the Magna Charta Universitatum. After presenting both cases, this thesis will draw a qualitative comparison between these culturally different spaces.

By answering the following research questions:

What does academic freedom – especially academic freedom in higher education teaching – mean in different cultural spaces?

Including the sub-questions:

What does academic freedom in relation to teaching mean for academics working at the University of Bologna and the National University of Singapore?

What is the meaning and significance of academic freedom in the daily practices of academics?

Which factors influence academics’ experiences of academic freedom at the University of Bologna and the National University of Singapore?

To what extent is academic freedom – in particular, academic freedom in higher education teaching – important for academics at the University of Bologna and the National University of Singapore?

I will argue that academic freedom is a complex concept that is perceived differently by individuals according to the cultural, regional, national, institutional, and especially the individual contexts. One’s own experience and own point of reference for comparing the personal situation play a significant role when evaluating academic values. Due to the

significance of the individual situation – which includes the career stage, the role in the own faculty, the close academic community, and superiors – inter-individual differences are often more incisive than cultural differences are. Nevertheless, the policy context plays an important role for framing the working conditions and setting a framework for the possibility to exercise and experience academic freedom. Furthermore, I will show that academic freedom especially in teaching is a complex issue that not only includes open attacks on academic freedom but inherits many sublet dimensions. Hence, I will argue that a continuous dialogue about academic freedom is needed even in a legal environment in which academic freedom is granted.

Academic freedom is important not only in research but also in teaching in order to maintain a high educational level. This is true not only for academics at the University of Bologna but also for those working at the National University of Singapore. Aspects of the importance of freedom in academic work can be found in both cultural contexts; therefore, academic freedom seems to be important also outside Europe and the Western world from a contemporary perspective at least for some academics at the National University of Singapore.

To answer the research questions, this work will draw on a qualitative research design. The choice to use a predominantly qualitative approach is based on the research topic as it tries to gather a more complete, detailed, and complex overview of the topic than a purely quantitative design would allow (Punch 2005). The research process is composed of multiple methods to obtain a broad and comprehensive picture of the research problem. It includes, on one hand, an analysis of policy texts in order to frame the regional, national, and institutional contexts of each case. On the other hand, semi-structured in depth-interviews with academics from different disciplines and at different career stages from both universities are included. The policy analysis is meant to contextualise each case and to show to what extent the experience and perception of academic freedom depend on the context. The interviews with academics from both universities depict the individual dimensions of academic freedom and situate a rather complex and abstract concept in the day-to-day situations of academics.

The methodological and theoretical framework of the project is based on Elder-Vass’s (2012) combination of realist theory with social constructionism, outlined in his book “The reality of social construction”. This seems to be beneficial as it combines different theoretical approaches in a coherent way by developing a social theory that draws mainly on sociology and philosophy, but also includes arguments advanced by psychology, history, and linguistics.

Additionally, his theoretical stance is a contemporary way of looking at the world and thus

provides a good frame to investigate experiences and perceptions of academic freedom in contemporary universities. In particular, the idea of norm circles, which will be outlined in Chapter 4.2, is a good tool to explain in which situations academic freedom is or is not exercised.

In alignment with the theoretical framework, the data is approached from an interpretative perspective (Denzin 2001). The core method of analysis of the empirical and documentary data is thematic analysis. The main reason for using one method of data analysis for all data is that it secures the comparability of different sources of data. Thematic analysis is chosen as it is an appropriate tool to identify patterns and to describe a variety of aspects of the research topic.

In other words, it can depict the context as well as individual experiences and hence serves as a solid basis for the exploration of the research topic (Braun and Clark 2006). Furthermore, it gives an overview of patterns included in the data and, therefore, can depict similarities and differences between different sources, places and cultures (Bryman 2008; Braun and Clarke 2006).

In order to combine the dimension of comparison with an interpretative research design, a research methodology that was developed by three UNIKE fellows and me structures and guides the data collection, analysis and presentation of this study. Using this new approach that we call “interpretative comparison” leads to an additional methodological research question that supplements the previously stated theoretical and conceptual research questions.

What are the practical benefits that interpretative comparison offers for deepening the understanding of academic freedom in different cultural spaces?

This thesis shows that interpretative comparison has benefits for researching certain aspects of academic freedom. It is suitable for depicting a diverse picture of the concept and for illuminating rather subtle dimensions of academic freedom that are not predominant in research and literature on academic freedom. This approach is also useful for depicting counter-discourses on academic freedom and for investigating the concept from the perspective of the interviewees without implying a certain definition. Nevertheless, interpretative comparison is not an appropriate tool for measuring the degree of academic freedom, judging the situation of academic freedom in a certain context, or providing a final definition of the concept. It aims at depicting diversity instead of generalisation.

This monograph consists of six chapters. Whereas the first chapter serves as an introduction to the whole text, the second chapter sets the scene by giving an insight into the perception of academic values over time. It depicts the state-of-the-art knowledge about academic freedom and teaching in contemporary universities and shows how academic values are justified in different times and cultures. As an overview of the topics, it deals with academic freedom in different regions and places without focusing solely on Europe and the Asia Pacific Rim. This chapter starts with a short overview of the history of universities in relation to academic values in order to contextualise the topic. In the following part, it engages with the key concepts of this thesis. First, it discusses the role of contemporary universities including its relation with society, research, teaching and learning and the third mission of modern universities. Second, it describes the relationship of university autonomy with different governance systems and its relationship to academic freedom. The third part of this chapter finally engages with academic freedom, the key concept of this work, by giving some preliminary definitions, by justifying it and elaborating on the problem of the ownership – the academic community or the individual – of academic freedom.

The third chapter complements the rather theoretical and scholarly based second chapter by showing how academic freedom is implemented in practice. In the first part, different accounts of academic freedom from non-governmental and governmental institutions, such as the already mentioned Magna Charta Observatory, the Council of Europe and the European Council, the American Association of University Professors, Scholars at Risk and UNESCO, are given. This includes the discussion of their key publications and policies on the topic. Next,

In document ACADEMIC FREEDOM IN TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE AND THE ASIA PACIFIC RIM (Strani 31-41)