Globalization and Its Impact on Academic Culture in Post ...dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/Zornes_D... · Globalization is also tied to massive advances

Globalization and Its Impact on Academic Culture in Post-Secondary

Educational Institutions/Organizations

By

Deborah Zornes

Integrated Studies Project

Submitted to Dr. Barbara Spronk

in partial fulfillment of the requirements of

Master of Arts – Integrated Studies

Athabasca, Alberta

April 25, 2004

MAIS 701 – D. Zornes– April 25, 2004 . . . /2

Table of Contents Introduction ...........................................................................................................3 Globalization .........................................................................................................5

Globalization and Capitalism....................................................................................................... 6 Globalization and Technology..................................................................................................... 7 The Knowledge Economy / Society ............................................................................................ 8

Culture ..................................................................................................................9 Globalization’s Impact on the Culture of Post-Secondary Institutions.................13

Education’s role, tenure, and the nature of academic work...................................................... 15 Changing political culture, neoliberalism, and the role of the government ............................... 20 The changing nature / demands of students............................................................................. 25 Homogenization ........................................................................................................................ 26 Differentiation in institutions and Trans National Corporations................................................. 28 Gender ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Business norms......................................................................................................................... 32 Organizational structure ............................................................................................................ 35 Leadership................................................................................................................................. 38 Power distribution...................................................................................................................... 40 The knowledge society, information and communication technologies .................................... 43 The fourth world ........................................................................................................................ 44

Options / Opportunities .......................................................................................45 Alternatives................................................................................................................................ 50

Next Steps / Further Research............................................................................51 The role of universities / education ........................................................................................... 51 Globalization.............................................................................................................................. 52 Homogenization ........................................................................................................................ 53 Business norms, TNCs, organizational structure, links with industry ....................................... 53 Educational policy, the role with / link to the state .................................................................... 55

Conclusion ..........................................................................................................55 Works Cited ........................................................................................................56


Introduction

Culture is evident in every aspect of our lives. We are part of the culture of humanity, of

the country where we were born and the country where we now live, a part of the culture

of our cities, towns and communities, and part of the culture of our families. Morgan

(1997) notes that “the nature of culture is found in its social norms and customs” (Morgan

1997: 105).

The development of a culture does not happen instantaneously; it takes time, and generally, over

time, it strengthens and entrenches itself in the lives of its members. A complicating factor is the

amount of change occurring in our world and lives at this point in history. We live, notes Webster

(2001), in a time of unprecedented change and transformation which profoundly alters our whole

way of life. Castells (2000) provides a similar observation stating that “life is a series of stable

states, punctuated at rare intervals by major events that occur with great rapidity and help to

establish the next stable era” (Castells 2000: 28), and, he notes that at the end of the twentieth

century, we had lived through one of these intervals.

Among these events and transformations are:

A technological revolution, centered around information technologies;

The growing interdependence of economies throughout the world;

The collapse of Soviet statism and the demise of the international communist

movement;

A restructuring of capitalism;

The global integration of financial markets including:

o The rise of the Asia-Pacific as the new dominating, global manufacturing

center;

o The economic unification of Europe;

o The emergence of a North American regional economy; and

The diversification, then disintegration, of the former Third world (Castells

2000: 1-2).


All of these events / transformations form a part of what has become known as ‘globalization’.

Globalization, in all its various manifestations, has had, and continues to have, a significant

impact on culture. Castells (2000) notes that “in a world of global flows of wealth, power and

images, the search for identity, collective or individual, ascribed or constructed, becomes the

fundamental source of social meaning” (Castells 2000: 3). Furthermore “people increasingly

organize their meaning not around what they do, but on the basis of who they are, or believe they

are” (Castells 2000: 3). When that culture is perceived as threatened, people tend to regroup

around primary identities: religious, ethnic, territorial, national and at times, this leads to tragedy.

The front page of The Globe and Mail from April 2, 2004 showed shocking pictures of murdered

Americans and their mutilated corpses in Fallujah, Iraq. The report on the incident included a

quote by an Iraqi man who noted that it was confusing for many in Iraq to deal with their feelings

– on the one hand, he said, “we hate the Americans so much”, however, on the other, many felt

that this [brutalization and mutilation] shouldn’t happen to anyone, even Americans.

We also form a part of, and influence, the culture of our workplace. Organizational culture can be

defined as

the pattern of basic assumptions which a given group has invented, discovered

or developed in learning to cope with its problems ... which have worked well

enough to be considered valid, and therefore to be taught to new members as

the correct way to perceive, think and feel in relation to those problems ... It is the

assumptions which lie behind the values and which determine the behavior

patterns and the visible artifacts such as architecture, office layout, dress codes,

and so on (Thomas 1985: 11).

Along with the impact on culture in general, globalization also impacts the culture of education

and the culture of organizations and it is these impacts that this paper is focused on. Specifically,

the paper attempts to answer the question ‘what is the impact of globalization on organizational

culture in post-secondary educational intuitions and organizations?’ The paper is structured as

follows: a brief discussion and definition of recent and current literature regarding both

globalization and organizational culture; a discussion of the culture of post-secondary educational


institutions; a detailed review of the impact of globalization on organizational culture from a post-

secondary institutional perspective and the identification of a number of resulting issues; potential

ideas for resolving or at least addressing the issues, and a thorough discussion of areas where

continued and additional research could be undertaken.

Globalization

There are a variety of approaches which can be considered when discussing and/or defining

globalization and these approaches may focus on economic, sociological, institutional, political, or

cultural aspects. It is this variety that makes globalization difficult to classify. Stromquist and

Monkman (2000) note that globalization’s meaning varies depending on the angle that is

emphasized when defining it.

Globalization can be discussed in economic, political and cultural terms. It can be

expressed in neoliberal economic perspectives, critical theory and postmodernity.

It has been applied to cover debates centering on convergence / divergence,

homogenization / heterogenization, and local / global issues. Despite its ability to

capture in its unfolding changes the involvement of the entire world in one way or

another, globalization remains an inexact term for the strong, and perhaps

irreversible, changes in the economy, labor force, technologies, communication,

cultural patterns, and political alliances that it is imposing on every nation

(Stromquist & Monkman 2000: 3).

Burbules & Torres (2000) acknowledge these differing views noting that for some, globalization is

linked with ‘supra-national’ institutions – an institutional approach; for others it signifies an

unprecedented level of global economic processes – an economic approach; and for others it

denotes the rise of neoliberalism in the discussion and development of policy – a policy approach.

In looking at any definition of globalization, there are key / crucial characteristics which are

usually considered. In economic terms, the key characteristic, suggests Burbules & Torress

(2000), is the transition from Fordist to post-Fordist forms of workplace organization; in political

terms it is the loss of nation-state sovereignty; and in cultural terms it is the tension between


increased standards and cultural homogeneity on one hand, and increasing fragmentation on the

other. Cameron and Stein (2000) take a more general or structural approach, seeing globalization

as a “set of processes that connect societies, while fragmenting and transcending the social

structures it confronts” (Cameron & Stein 2000: S15). Gibson-Graham (1996), again focusing on

economic processes, suggests that globalization is

a set of processes by which the world is rapidly being integrated into one

economic space via increased international trade, the internationalization of

production and financial markets, and the internationalization of a commodity

culture promoted by an increasingly networked global telecommunications

system (Gibson-Graham 1996: 121).

Morrow and Torres (2000) look at the origin of globalization and pose three possibilities:

1) that the origins of globalization are part of human civilization and therefore it is

a process that has occurred for as long as humankind has interacted; 2) that

globalization is linked with the origins of capitalism culminating with the

emergence of a global economy in the sixteenth century; and 3) that globalization

is a more recent phenomenon which dates to the mid-twentieth century (Morrow

& Torres 2000: 27-29).

The assumptions and discussion in this paper focus on the third view.

Globalization and Capitalism

The rise of capitalism is one of the most looked at economic factors in relation to globalization.

Money translates to power, and power to control. Capitalism is the dominant economic force

throughout the major nations of the world. It [capitalism] is global and is structured to a large

extent around a network of financial flows. This global capitalism is “oriented toward profit-

maximizing, that is, toward increasing the amount of surplus appropriated by capital on the basis

of the private control over the means of production and circulation” (Castells 2000: 16). As a

result, a ‘global economy’ has development “with the capacity to work as a unit in real time, or a

chosen time, on a planetary scale” (Castells 2000: 101).


Economic restructuring reflects world trends and is characterized by a new international division

of labor; the economic integration of national economies; new exchange relations and

arrangements; the emergence of new areas focused on information and services; the increasing

internationalization of trade; a restructuring of the labor market; a reduction in the power of

unions; a decrease in capital-labor conflict; a shift from a Fordist model of production to a model

based upon increased flexibility; declining costs and increasing speed of moving products and

information from one location of the globe to another; the rise of new forces of production; a shift

from an industrial-mechanical model to one governed by the microchip, robotics, and automatic,

self-regulating machines; the emergence of a high-tech information society based on the

computer; the growing importance of capital-intensive production; an increase in the proportion of

part-time and female workers; the increase in the size and importance of the service sector; and

an ever-increasing financial, technological, and cultural gap between more developed and less-

developed countries (Burbules & Torres 2000). Morrow and Torres (2000) concur and note that

“the new global economy is more fluid and flexible; with multiple lines of power and decision-

making mechanisms, analogous to a spider’s web, as opposed to the static pyramidal

organization of power that characterized the traditional capitalist system” (Morrow & Torres 2000:

30).

Globalization and Technology

Globalization is also tied to massive advances in technology, including information and

communication technologies. We can communicate instantly, in real time, with virtually anyone in

the world by phone or e-mail. We can board an airplane in Canada and be in Europe in 8 hours,

or Australia in 17. All aspects of the way we live and work, the way we produce and consume, are

in the midst of a profound transformation as a result of the revolution in information and

communications technologies and the rise of the global knowledge-based economy (Government

of Canada 2002). Changes in technology, and in particular in information technology, are growing

at an exponential rate. This is evident in integrated broadband networks, the development, growth

and use of the internet, and advances in computer technology. Technology allows us to organize


ourselves around and within networks. Castells (2000) describes a network based social structure

as a “highly dynamic, open system, susceptible to innovating without threatening its balance”

(Castells 2000: 502).

This sets up, according to Castells (2000), a paradigm which includes, at its centre, the following:

Information is the raw material within this networked world; however there is

also the capability for technologies to act on information, not just information

to act on technology;

There is a pervasiveness of the effects of the new technologies. Because

information is an integral part of all human activity, all aspects of our

individual and collective existence are directly shaped by new technologies;

The new technologies are based on flexibility; and

There is a growing convergence of specific technologies into a highly

integrated system (Castells 2000: 70-71).

The Knowledge Economy / Society

The new ‘global world’ emphasizes “knowledge and a deepening specialization of expertise.

Knowledge has replaced other factors of production as the most important commodity” (Cameron

& Stein 2000: S18). The transfer of information, the generation of new information, storing,

accessing and analyzing information is more a part of our lives / society than at any time in the

past. We transfer information instantaneously around the world, research capacity and intensity is

steadily increasing, and more and more information is available to the ‘general public’ than ever

before. In its Knowledge Matters document, the Government of Canada (2002) acknowledges the

importance of the ‘knowledge economy’ noting that “the knowledge-based economy means an

ever-increasing demand for a well-educated and skilled workforce in all parts of the economy and

in all parts of the country” (Government of Canada 2002: 2). By the end of this year, 2004, it is

expected that “more than 70 percent of all new jobs created in Canada will require some form of

post-secondary education and only 6 percent of new jobs will be held by those who have not

finished high school” (Government of Canada 2002: 2).


Stromquist (2002) focuses her discussion of the future on education and notes that in spite of this

‘knowledge society’ and the demand / need for higher levels of knowledge and skills, education is

losing ground as a ‘common’ or ‘public good’. Education is increasingly seen as a commodity and

there is no longer the consistent view that education is a human right. Ironically, at the same time

that the very nature of education is in jeopardy, society is pushing universities to take the lead in

achieving global competitiveness in a knowledge based economy (Mount & Belanger 2001).

Beyond a definition of globalization, and beyond the discussion of globalization and capitalism,

there is also the need for a critical theory of globalization which “overcomes the one sidedness

and ideological biases that permeate most conceptions of this all embracing and complex

phenomenon” (Kellner 2000: 301). A critical theory of globalization, notes Kellner (2000), should

attempt to

specify the interconnections and interdependencies between different levels such

as the economic, political cultural and psychological, as well as between different

flows of products, ideas and information, people, and technology ...While a

critical theory of globalization analyzes both how globalization creates forces of

domination and resistance and seeks and valorizes strategies of resistance to

the oppressive and exploitative aspects of globalization, it avoids one-sided

discourses on globalization that are purely denunciatory, and attempts to

describe both the positive potentials that globalization opens as well as its forces

of domination (Kellner 2000: 304).

Culture

As noted in the introduction, culture permeates all aspects of our lives. In looking at culture,

Kellner (2000) notes that it is the “particularizing, localizing force that distinguished societies and

people from each other” (Kellner 2000: 304). Furthermore, culture has provided a context for local

identities, practices, and the norms of everyday life which serve as a safety zone against the

“invasion of ideas, identities, and forms of life extraneous to the specific local region in question”

(Kellner 2000: 304). Cameron and Stein (2000) understand culture as the “pattern of shared


values that give meaning to individual and collective action embedded within a collective context”

(Cameron & Stein: S20). Beyond this, Cameron and Stein (2000) also consider culture as the

“repository of shared understandings within a community that facilitate collective action”

(Cameron & Stein: S20).

Culture is evident in the organizations in which we work and learn. Organizational culture can be

defined as

the complex set of beliefs, values, and practices that unify a given social group

...culture comprises several subsystems, notably those of organization,

communication, resource allocation, social interaction, reproduction, and

ideology. It also includes such factors as statutes, roles, rituals and traditions,

and the nature of time and space (Stromquist 2002: 65).

Ireland and Hitt (1999) state that

culture provides the context within which strategies are formulated and

implemented. Organizational culture is concerned with decisions, actions,

communication patterns, and communication networks. Formed over the life of a

company, culture reflects what the firm has learned across time through its

responses to the continuous challenges of survival and growth. Culture is rooted

in history, held collectively and is of sufficient complexity to resist many attempts

at direct manipulation. Because it influences how the firm conducts its business,

as well as the methods used to regulate and control the behavior of

organizational citizens, culture can be a competitive advantage (Ireland & Hitt

1999: 9).

. Daumard (2001) concurs with the argument that for organizations, culture can provide a

competitive advantage noting that “a strong corporate culture ...can boost its performance

...understandably a strong culture, one with which the staff can readily identify, has a positive

impact on staff motivation” (Daumard 2001: 68).

Among the ‘basic assumptions, beliefs, values and practices’ that exist as part of the culture of

Canada, are those linked to why we have education. Stromquist (2002) notes that “education is


invoked as a means to prevent the expansion of poverty and to enable countries to enter the

‘knowledge society’” (Stromquist 2002: 181). Mount and Belanger (2001) concur however, they

expand this further and note education’s role in preparing people for the workforce.

Specifically related to education is that it [education] exists to provide both basic and advanced

skills; however, one of the dynamics is that it must do so at a minimum cost. One of the common

beliefs about education is that it brings people together in a ‘global village’ which is, in turn,

sensitive to the differences among various cultures and respects the viewpoints of participants;

however, this has been challenged in recent years and there is the perception that prejudice,

domination and rejection are the result (Mason 1998).

Globalization, and the impact of the new ‘economy’, are changing these basic assumptions

around education. Levin (2003) suggests that government policy in the mid and late 1990s

emphasized institutional productivity and workplace skills in education, as well as closer

institutional-private sector relationships and ventures. Popkewitz (2000), takes a more

philosophical approach in looking at educational reform and sees schooling as the administration,

or the governance, of an individual’s ‘soul’, rather than seeing schooling as an activity to measure

specific programs against social goals. These social goals include justice, equity, and developing

democratic citizens and competent workers. On the other side of the problem – the governance of

the ‘soul’ – the focus is on the ways in which an individual becomes self motivated, self actualized

and empowered.

Stromquist and Monkham (2000) identify four concerns regarding changes to the overall culture

of education as follows: the criteria applied to firms regarding efficiency and productivity are being

extended to schooling, sometimes in an inappropriate fashion; there has been a shift in focus

from a child-centered curriculum to economy-centered vocational training; education appears to

be losing ground as a public good and is instead becoming a marketable commodity; and

teachers’ autonomy, independence, and control over their work is being reduced. Beveridge


(1996) identifies specific concerns with the distortion of the social purposes of education and

schools. This ‘distortion’ has resulted in a focus on primarily preparing the young to compete

better in the global economy. In addition, education, notes Beveridge (1996) is being turned into a

commodity for trade so it becomes subject to new international trade deals for goods and

services (e.g., GATT and NAFTA). What is predicted is that these trade deals will press partners

toward the harmonization of standards in both education and certification of professionals, in

order to facilitate their mobility and the portability of their skills.

Along with these assumptions and ‘norms’ regarding education are those specific to universities

and post-secondary institutions. Universities exist to advance knowledge and are places in which

“people are made aware of the moral situations of their disciplines, are led to question the terms

of life offered by their societies and those they have so far prepared for themselves” (Barr 2002:

321). Post-secondary education’s role, through liberal education, has been the “development of

the whole person, the cultivation of character and citizenship, and the achievement in learning

and living of balance and harmony” (Axelrod, Anisef & Lin 2001: 50). Liberal educators, argue

Axelrod, Anisef and Lin (2001), require students to

demonstrate the ability to think analytically, to question received wisdom, to

express themselves clearly (orally and in writing), to apply different perspectives

and theories to a text or real life situations, and to cultivate one’s own philosophy

and sense of values (Axelrod, Anisef & Lin 2001: 51).

Liberal education also potentially offers new perspectives on contemporary problems. In today’s

world of rapid and uncertain change, this is particularly important. However, the reorientation of

higher education towards assumed market needs has put the humanities, the social sciences and

the fine arts – the core subjects of liberal education – at risk in Canadian universities.

Increasingly, “pressures to prepare students for employment often conflict with the desire to

develop their critical faculties and to encourage them not only to participate in the production of

knowledge but to believe, too, that if they want to, they can change things” (Barr 2002: 322).


Globalization’s Impact on the Culture of Post-Secondary Institutions Within post-secondary institutions, academics have

a deep-seated attachment to their mission of transmitting and creating

knowledge, and derive from this a kind of nobility that is peculiar to them. They

view their mission and unique and themselves as heirs to an age-old institution

whose traditions they are perpetuating (Daumard 2001: 68).

Globalization, as outlined previously in this paper, is having specific impacts on the overall culture

of education, and in tandem, is also impacting the organizations / institutions that develop and

deliver education.

Regardless of how globalization is defined, it cannot be ignored. As Ireland and Hitt (1999)

predict, competition in the 21st century’s global economy will be complex, challenging, and filled

with competitive opportunities and threats. The Government of Canada, in its publication

Knowledge Matters, acknowledges this and notes that “countries that succeed in the 21st century

will be those with citizens who are creative, adaptable and skilled” (Gov’t of Canada 2002: 1).

Through its “Innovation Strategy”, the Government makes it clear that it expects Canada to

succeed. Kernaghan, Marson and Borins (2000) suggest that

globalization challenges public managers to engage in innovative management,

continuous learning and creative thinking, both to increase the nation’s

productivity and competitiveness and to protect industries and individuals from

the adverse effects of the global economy (Kernaghan, Marson & Borins 2000:

5).

The ‘nation’s productivity and competitiveness’ is a key aspect of globalization. Pressures to

compete and succeed in the ‘global economy’ which are driving governments extend to

universities and colleges as well. These pressures are primarily accountability, efficiency, and

maintaining and increasing quality (Caison 2003). As Gaither (2002) notes, efficiency is “not

normally emphasized as a positive academic goal but as a constraint on comprehensiveness and


quality” (Gaither 2002: 28). In spite of this, Stromquist (2002) notes that in many ways,

globalization appears a positive factor for universities and university education. Credentials are

not confined to the country, or state where a school is located; new fields have emerged in recent

years adding new opportunities for research; communication technologies allow for collaborations

between researchers to occur and enable increased flexibility for students; and there is more and

more information ‘out there’ to access. However, on the downside, there are fears that content is

being, or will be, homogenized in this new ‘world’ and that there is a decreased emphasis on

critical thinking. Burbules and Torres (2000) note that on the positive side, globalization has led to

the expansion of

a belief in global human rights and the growth of organizations attempting to

monitor and protect them. On the negative side however, are structural

unemployment, the erosion of organized labor, social exclusion, and in increase

in the gap between rich and poor (Burbules & Torres 2000: 17).

Recent research (Stromquist 2002, Fulford 2001, Caison 2003, Harrison & Dugdale 2003,

Beveridge 1996, Castells 2000, Hickok 1998, Apple 2000, Mason 1998) builds on many of these

concerns and fears and identifies a number of issues affecting the culture of universities as part

of this new environment. These include education’s role in society, tenure and the nature of

academic work; a changing political culture, neoliberalism, and the role of government vis-à-vis

the private sector; the changing nature of the student body and what they demand of institutions;

homogenization of society and educational curricula; differentiation in institutions and the impact

of Trans National Corporations (TNCs); gender; the rise of business norms; new types of

organizational structures; leadership; the distribution of power; the knowledge society, information

and communication technologies; and the development of a ‘fourth world’. Each of these areas

has experienced changes as a result of globalization and these significantly impact the

organizational culture of post-secondary educational institutions. In some cases, these have led

to tensions, hostilities, and general overall uncertainty about the future. These are discussed

further below.


Education’s role, tenure, and the nature of academic work

The mandate of the university is to be as comprehensive as possible and to be outstanding in

quality in terms of creating and passing on new knowledge and putting this knowledge to work

within society. New knowledge means new or expanded topics, courses, and fields of study.

Harrison and Dugdale (2003) suggest that

changes in teaching methods, the nature of the curricula, the size and

composition of the student population, and the impact of information technology

across every facet of college and university life are all challenging the historic

models of what a college or university is and how it fits within the fabric of the city

or community within which it is located (Harrison & Dugdale 2003: 34).

One of the assumptions or ‘myths’ that contribute to the culture of post-secondary institutions is

that they have been ‘self-contained entities’ that operated on their own and were insulated, to

some extent, from political and economic forces. In today’s climate however, the ways in which

institutions are being required to respond to various stakeholders are becoming increasingly

transparent.. Institutions increasingly enter into partnerships with governments, each other, and

private organizations. In addition, the original ‘social purposes’ of education and schools are

being challenged and changed and the focus is now on preparing today’s youth to compete better

in the global economy. Community values (e.g., knowing your neighbors and helping out in the

neighborhood, considering the community as part of a ‘larger’ or extended family, and the transfer

of knowledge to others without any expectation of anything back), are being converted into the

values of the market where people demand a ‘return’ on what they do. Education is subject to this

shift as well and is increasingly being turned into a commodity for trade (Beveridge 1996). Morrow

and Torres (2000) concur noting that the ‘old capitalist order’ which was geared towards

producing a disciplined and reliable workforce, has shifted to the ‘new global economy’ in which

workers are needed who have the capacity to learn quickly and to work in teams. Furthermore, at

a time

when global processes of economic, cultural and workplace restructuring are

having an increasing impact on our work as educators (a time, moreover when

postmodernists want us to focus on the local and particular) many workers,


including teachers and many university employees, are being turned more and

more into narrow technicians with competences; their work and, arguably, their

training, are being re-structured precisely to exclude wider, social, political and

cultural understandings and engagements, as well as imaginings (Barr 2002:

323).

The conventional ideals of academic work include individual independence and autonomy along

with secure full-time employment; authority and power determined by academic standing; control

over academic matters (e.g., curriculum, policy, assessment, research, etc.); increased status for

the pursuit of original research; and wide spread disdain for is seen as the lesser tasks of

administration and management (Coaldrake 2000). It is, as Coaldrake (2000) notes, inevitable

that these academic values and their accompanying work practices have come into conflict with

the demands of externally driven work and the income derived from it. Many faculty members feel

that there has been a corporatization of universities that makes the collegial model increasingly

peripheral to the decision-making process of their own institutions (Mount & Belanger 2001). As a

corollary, work conditions have deteriorated in the following ways: “they (faculty) are supervised

more closely; their teaching loads have increased; they are burdened by numerous accountability

reports; and their control over their intuitions has become minimal” (Mount & Belanger 2001:

143).

Academic departments are experiencing moves which shift authority and control away from the

individual academic. Beyond the teaching loads and administrative work,

academics are increasingly working in teams for both research and teaching.

Most universities now have detailed processes for the development of new

courses and subjects, which require academics to provide unprecedented

justification in terms of market demand and economic viability. Furthermore, the

growing emphasis on establishing and assessing the learning outcomes of

courses requires a more comprehensive view of course structures than might

emerge solely from reflecting the interests of departments or individual academic

staff (Coaldrake 2000: 19).


Further complicating this is the perception that “institutional autonomy has been compromised by

business opportunities and utilitarianism, while undermining their academic freedom” (Mount &

Belanger 2001: 143). Faculty members are skeptical concerning the degree to which university

administrators are committed to the academy’s long standing mandate as a centre of intellectual

activity unconstrained by the agenda of the day (Mount & Belanger 2001). Some academics

worry that there is increasingly “an agenda driven by the corporate sector, and backed by the

government at a time when universities are hungry” (Mount & Belanger 2001: 161).

Tensions are also evident in the ways in which the traditional notions / practices of tenure and

academic freedom are being challenged and even overturned. Caison (2003) suggests that rising

labor costs and rapidly increasing demands for advanced education have resulted in dynamic

changes in traditional approaches to faculty employment. Delanty (2001) notes that as the

university is fully integrated into global capitalism and a new managerialism takes over, there is a

resulting loss of academic freedom. As he further notes, in spite of the changes to our world as a

whole, the justification for tenure has changed little since the middle of the 20th century (Delanty

2001). Tenure was originally established, and continues to be seen, as the structural protector of

academic freedom. Universities have privately funded wings and Centres / Faculties are involved

in various partnerships for pharmaceutical / medical research. In some cases, faculty feel

increasing pressure to ensure that findings confirm certain beliefs. In addition, there are

expectations that research will contribute ‘value to society’. In the medical, sciences, and

engineering fields, this has been traditionally linked to the commercialization of research results.

In the social science and humanities fields, the ‘value to society’ has not been as closely linked,

however this may be changing. The Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada

(SSHRC) is undergoing a transformation process “from granting council to knowledge council”

and there is the perception that an increased emphasis is being placed on the commercialization

of research.


As a result of globalization and of changing organizational cultures, Caison (2003) suggests that

there are a number of weaknesses which exist in relation to tenure:

1. the tenure system makes the college or university inflexible and unable to

cope with a changing financial environment. With reductions in public funding

and widespread tightening of budgets, college and universities are faced with

reorganizing to meet increased demands with fewer resources;

2. tenure functions as a shield for unproductive faculty members. Once a

professor achieves tenure, there is little incentive to remain productive; and

3. the threat of being passed over for tenure limits the creativity and

experimentation of junior faculty. There is an inherent double standard in the

assertion that tenure protects academic freedom. Junior faculty, who aspire

to tenure, often feel the need to conform to the opinions and whims of senior

faculty (Caison 2003: 16).

In response to each of these, I note the following arguments:

1. While colleges and universities may be reorganizing, this does not need to be viewed

as a ‘negative’. While reductions in public funding quite naturally cause concerns they

may also lead to the development of new collaborations with other institutions or with

private industry. These collaborations and partnerships may enable significant new

research opportunities and may leverage funding from other sources not previously

considered. Internally, a reorganization may generate new ideas and opportunities to

look at alternative structures, programs, and ways of doing things.

2. Receiving tenure does not mean that a faculty member will no longer be productive.

In order to achieve tenure, faculty are expected to undertake significant research and

to disseminate that research through presentations, journal articles, books, etc.

Achieving tenure does not mean that research and dissemination will suddenly stop.

Faculty continue to research and publish because of a commitment to their specific

disciplines and areas of interest and to a desire to contribute knowledge to society. In

addition, many faculty serve in a mentorship role to new faculty or to those hoping to

become faculty members and therefore they continue to be productive to serve as

both a guide and a role model.

3. I would suggest that pressures to conform to opinions of established faculty are

linked more to the organization’s culture than to the notion of tenure. If, at the heart of

an organization, the development of new ideas and new research is valued, then any

and all faculty, regardless of whether they have tenure , are more likely to encourage

this. Furthermore, if tenured faculty serve in ‘mentorship’ roles, a culture that


supports innovation would extend to these faculty who would then be supportive of,

and foster, experimentation and creativity both in existing and new faculty.

Rubenstein (2001) also supports the continued role of ‘tenure’ noting that

the traditional and most compelling rationale for academic tenure is that it is the

only sure way to protect independent and disinterested scholarly inquiry. If you

can’t be fired for doing controversial research or teaching contentious ideas, then

this will guarantee the unfettered search for truth (Rubenstein 2001: 6).

For some faculty, tenure and academic freedom is seen as their only ‘protection’ in seeking

ground breaking answers and in being able to challenge the ‘status quo’.

Traditionally, the work of universities centers on four main activities: discovery (research),

teaching, application and integration (Jacob & Hellerstrom 2003) and the emphasis on and

balance amongst them shifts over time. As a result of globalization, integration is becoming more

relevant. There is an increasing demand for universities to integrate domains which originate

outside academic contexts. This is seen in the recent increase in semi-professional courses and

in an increased emphasis on science and technology programs. With regards to research, the

various impacts of globalization have led to an increase in the number of non-tenured, project-

employed academics. As Jacob and Hellerstrom (2003) note, the dilemma is that, on the one

hand

the generation of core knowledge builds upon learning and experience and is

therefore likely to increase when a person remains for a longer period in the

organization. On the other, mobility and work in other academic settings often

contribute to individuals developing new perspectives.... this implies that the

successful conduct of research is dependent upon a delicate combination of

mobility and permanencies in the work structure of the university (Jacob &

Hellerstrom 2003: 51).

Unfortunately, what we see are mostly extremes – employment for life on one side, and

employment for only oneyear at a time on the other. Furthermore, the use of Information and


Communication Technologies (ICTs) for teaching is leading to fears that connecting and

combining campuses and courses online will lead to positions and organizations becoming

redundant. As more and more universities commit to “basing their course offerings on the use of

ICTs, finding an appropriate organizational structure is likely to become a more pressing issue for

university management in the near future” (Jacob & Hellerstrom 2003: 52).

As more and more different types of institutions develop (private-for-profit, Trans National

Corporations [TNCs], corporate universities, etc.), an increased distinction between teaching and

research has also developed.

Whereas formerly there has existed an uneasy balance between the two, it has

now become more typical for the most prestigious institutions to focus on

research ...As teaching becomes less central to a university’s reputation, it is

increasingly relegated to part-time and junior faculty (Stromquist 2002: 105).

Changing political culture, neoliberalism, and the role of the government

The political culture throughout the world is changing. As capitalism continues to expand its reach

and the ‘global economy’ becomes the norm, the role of government, in relation to education, is

changing. Kernaghan, Marson and Borins (2000) suggest that increasingly, most policy issues

facing governments have a transnational dimension. Kettl (2000) concurs noting that globalization

is about action at a distance. The globalization phenomenon, combined with the technologically

driven information and communications revolution, means that public managers must think and

act on a transnational basis.

In their research regarding Foucalt, neoliberalism and the doctrine of self-management, Peters,

Marshall and Fitzsimons (2000) focus on managerialism and educational policy and set these in a

global context. ‘New public management’ (NPM) has been used as the basis for a redesign of

government bureaucracies, educational institutions and the public policy process. New public

management is “focused on the decentralization of management control, disaggregation of large

state bureaucracies into autonomous agencies, a shift from input controls to quantifiable output


measures and performance targets, and an emphasis on short-term performance contracts”

(Peters, Marshall & Fitzsimons 2000: 110).

As Burbules and Torres (2000) outline, the implementation of neoliberal policies in the late 70s

has had a significant impact on our world. They note that as “the economy slowed and state

revenues failed to keep pace with social expenditures, taxpayers began to express resentment

toward those who benefited the most from state revenues” (Burbules & Torres 2000: 5).

Neoliberalism, and the liberalization of the world’s economies, was, and is, seen as the ‘hoped

for’ answer. Neoliberalism expands opportunities for new knowledge and skills, and enables

foreign direct investment. Additionally, it sees the market as the most effective way to determine

levels of production and satisfy people’s needs and demands.

Neoliberalism focuses on three key processes: deregulation; privatization; and liberalization.

Deregulation occurs when the state withdraws its control of economic and financial transactions.

In the province of Alberta this has been seen in the deregulation of natural gas and electricity.

Prior to deregulation, there were controls on natural gas and electricity production and a limit on

the price that could be charged; the impact was that the government would potentially be

expected to subsidize an organization in the event that the costs to develop and deliver the

‘product’ were higher than they could charge. The theory behind deregulation is that supply and

demand within the market will ensure a fair and reasonable price for the specific commodity. In

privatization, services traditionally provided through andby the government are taken over by the

private sector. In Alberta, examples include the privatization of highway maintenance, and of

liquor control boards and liquor stores. Liberalization occurs when domestic productions over

most sectors of the economy is relinquished; control of foreign investment and capital is eased;

trade tariffs and duties are reduced; and foreign companies are permitted to own key enterprises.

Examples in Canada include NAFTA and GATT.


What is happening, suggests Apple (2000), is a ‘conservative restoration’ or ‘conservative

modernization’ of which neoliberalism and neoconservatism are key parts. Neoliberalism is one of

the most powerful elements in this ‘restoration’and has as one of its central tenets that what is

private is ‘good’ and what is public is ‘bad’. Neoliberalsim, notes Apple (2000), suggests that

schools, as they are currently structured, are pits into which money is poured but that do not

provide adequate results. Students are seen as human capital, as future workers who must be

given the required skills and attitudes to compete. Neoconservatism in contrast is guided by a

vision of a strong state and is “largely based in a romantic appraisal of the past, a past in which

‘real knowledge’ and morality reigned supreme, where people ‘knew their place’ and where stable

communities guided by a natural order protected us from the ravages of society” (Apple 2000:

67). Among the policies proposed as part of neoconservatism are; a national curricula, national

testing, a return to higher standards, a revivification of the western tradition, and patriotism (Apple

2000).

As political culture changes, and this new post-bureaucratic state takes hold, there are resulting

implications for economic policy, and increasingly, education is seen as one element of

economic policy. On a positive note, education is deemed to be vital to the competitive economic

advantage of nations (Lingard 2000). Globalization is now taken into consideration and used as a

contextual justification in the establishment of educational policy priorities within national and

provincial educational systems. A global educational policy community is emerging that is both an

effect and a facilitator of globalization and policy convergence across national education systems

(Lingard 2000). Lingard (2000) notes that, in relation to educational policy, the traditional

structures in which policies have been developed have been restructured and reorganized into a

more managerialistic model. In addition, there is an increased corporate influence on the nation-

state. Corporations promote less state intervention and a greater reliance on the free market. The

growing integration of the economy pushes toward a borderless world and provides considerable

evidence for the reduced ability of national governments to control their own economies or to

define their own national economic aims, including their educational goals, needs and priorities.


Burbules and Torres (2000) suggest that the question we face is to what extent the educational

endeavor is affected by processes of globalization that threaten the autonomy of national

educational systems and the sovereignty of the nation-state. Furthermore, they raise the question

of how “globalization is changing the fundamental conditions of an educational system premised

on fitting into a community characterized by proximity and familiarity” (Burbules & Torres 2000: 4).

Blackmore (2000) reinforces the importance of the links between educational policy and

economic needs and reminds us that “policy production is more tightly controlled by the state, to

the exclusion of other stakeholders (such as educators and feminists)” (Blackmore 2000: 134).

This increases the pressure for changes in education, particularly in the governance of

universities. Delanty (2002) notes that “most universities are still run on some degree of academic

self-governance in which professors and students have a dominant voice in the governance of

the university” (Delanty 2002: 186). However, pressures as a result of neo-managerialism and of

the external environment are imposing new demands to be more accountable that are

undermining this self-governance. The result of these external demands is that as performance

indicators and transparency become more the norm in governance, universities can no longer

rely on respect and awe for the academy. Furthermore, “internal review, appraisal schemes, self-

assessments and audits are the natural response to growing state imposed demands” (Delanty

2002: 191) and are now standard at many institutions.

Government funding for education has decreased in many countries leading many universities to

search for program and subject offerings that are likely to yield high revenues and that are low

cost. Mount and Belanger (2001) concur noting that

the past two decades have seen universities operate increasingly in an

environment of diminished financial support from government, amid escalating

demands on their resources. They find themselves in a situation marked by

government deficit control, heavier demands on the public purse, and competing

priorities for government support (Mount & Belanger 2001: 136).


Carnoy (2000) notes that governments are under pressure to reduce the growth of public

spending on education and to find other sources of funding for the expansion of those same

educational systems. In the province of Alberta, for example, competition by post-secondary

institutions for a share of additional funding through various targeted ‘envelopes’ has become the

‘norm’. In the accessibility envelope, for example, universities submit plans to increase

enrollments in key program areas (e.g., health, computing science) which are targeted by the

provincial government. A danger of this, which Stromquist (2002) identifies, is a narrowing of the

curriculum. A further development as a result of these types of changes in focus is a “decreased

attention to critical thinking within the university across countries. Simultaneous with the growth in

the status now enjoyed by instrumental disciplines and professions has been a decreased

importance attached to the development of critical thinking” (Stromquist 2002: 109).

As university funding is tied more and more to graduate employment ‘outcomes’, “research

support from the public and private sector is driven increasingly by business and high technology

needs, and faculty entrepreneurialism and private universities are fostered” (Axelrod, Anisel & Lin

2001: 49).

The impact of these changes on universities is, argues Mount and Belanger (2001), a departure

“from a relatively sheltered, if not government-privileged, environment” (Mount & Belanger 2001:

138). This has forced presidents and senior administrative officers to look outward for new

collaborative arrangements. The “crisis of the university in the knowledge society is three-fold and

can be related to changes in the relation of the university to the state, the market, and culture”

(Delanty 2002: 188). Prior to the rapid pace of globalization since the 1980s, the nation-state was

the principal reference point for the University. Since then

the nation-state has been challenged by a whole range of forces beyond its

control. As science itself becomes supplanted by techno-science, in effect

separating technology and science, the university as that site where basic

scientific knowledge is produced is marginalized … The new global elites do not


need universities any more than they need nation-states (Delanty 2002: 188-

189).

The climate of globalization and the changing face of ‘the state’ will likely result in the state being

less concerned with the welfare of its citizen than with the creation of legal norms that enable the

protection and coherence of the market (Stromquist and Monkman 2000).

The changing nature / demands of students

For post-secondary institutions, student behavior is changing as well. Students increasingly see

themselves as clients who are paying for a service. Today’s fast paced society of ‘instant’

answers and products does not support devoting time to critically assess an issue, research it,

and develop an answer. Students ask e-mail questions and expect to receive a full and complete

answer in short time. Steering them in the direction of more or different research does not meet

their expectations of ‘service’. In the larger society, consumerism is a key factor, and many

students feel that they have an ‘entitlement’ to a passing mark or a credential given that they

have ‘purchased’ their tuition. Furthermore,

corporations play a growing role in shaping university policy and university

funding is tied more and more to graduate employment ‘outcomes’, research

support from the public and private sector is driven increasingly by business and

high technology needs, and faculty entrepreneurialism and private universities

are fostered (Axelrod, Anisef & Lin 2001: 49).

This ‘consumerism’ mentality is damaging to the development of students, particularly as related

to critical thinking. As pressures increase to prepare students for employment, there are

increasing conflicts with the desire to develop their [the students] critical faculties and to

“encourage them not only to participate in the production of knowledge but to believe, too, that if

they want to, they can change things” (Barr 2002: 322). Habermas’ theory of communication

suggests that there should be opportunities for people to “have public, unrestricted discussion,

free from domination, of the suitability and desirability of action-oriented principles following

purposive-rational action” (Stromquist 2002: 72). Unfortunately, the fast-paced society of today,


along with the impact of a global mass media, does not enable communications to play a

transformative role in social relations.

Homogenization

Cameron and Stein (2000) suggest that globalization works to

transcend and even, at times, to supersede national cultures. Its processes

create a common cultural environment where everyone who is ‘connected’ has

access to the same messages, the same icons, and the same calligraphy,

produced and disseminated through tightly controlled transnational corporate

networks of television and film...for the first time, global cultural production is

mass-based rather than elite-based (Cameron & Stein 2000: S20).

The process of globalization is further seen as a blurring of national boundaries, “shifting

solidarities within and between nation-states, and deeply affecting the constitution of national and

interest-group identities” (Morrow & Torres 2000: 29). Increasingly there is the perception “that

the world is rapidly being molded into a shared social space by economic and technological

forces and that developments in one region of the world can have profound consequences for the

life chances of individuals or communities on the other side of the globe” (Levin 2002: 51).

Globalization, notes Stromquist (2000), has given rise to a mass culture in which media

dominates. Furthermore, these world ‘media’ are dominated by a mere nine companies.

Advances in communication technologies, which make chat rooms, teleshopping, and distance

education possible, contribute to that mass culture. English has become the ‘dominant’ global

language and North American culture is spreading throughout the world. Fast food restaurants

are common throughout the world – you can buy a ‘Big Mac’ in Red Square, Moscow, in

Thailand, or in Japan. American films and television are broadcast via satellite, and with few

exceptions, are watched throughout the world. Fulford (2001) argues that for both Americans and

Canadians “sovereignty was difficult enough to maintain even as a vague dream in the age

before the Internet and digital television. Now technology has placed it beyond anyone’s grasp”


(Fulford 2001: 16). In looking at this, we are challenged to think about how we ‘know’ about other

cultures, and the answer is that, for most people, it is through our popular culture – through

various media representations.

McCarthy and Dimitriades (2000) note that for many, what they know and believe about inner city

black and Latino youth is through shows like Cops. Different cultures / peoples are invented and

reinvented in the media, in popular magazines, in newspaper and in television, through music and

popular film. Resentment of certain groups’ ‘rightful place’ is reinforced by key discourses that

occur in popular culture and academic circles – the discourse of origins, the discourse of nation,

the discourse of popular memory and popular history, and the conversationalizing discourse of

the media culture (McCarthy & Dimitriades 2000).

Stromquist (2002) suggests that there is an increasing homogenization of ideas and practices

throughout the world, although I would argue that there is considerable resistance to this as we

see in increased fundamentalist groups in various areas of the world. Indeed, in quoting Gayol

(1996), Mason (1998) suggests that there are two cultural forces in the globalization era: 1)

integrationism, in which there is a homogenization of general values, behaviors and perspectives;

and 2) segregationism, in which there is increasing differentiation and particularism in or between

small groups. The challenge is to counteract the influences of the entertainment industry,

consumer patterns, and the values / norms of the ‘North’.

As post-secondary institutions expand their reach internationally they are challenged to review

and amend the curriculum. As educational systems are increasingly being compared

internationally, pressures result in developing standards, particularly in mathematics and science

(Carnoy 2000). While there may be opportunities in business courses for example, to tailor case

studies and assignments towards the country where they student resides, there are concerns

regarding basic meanings / terms for other courses (e.g., does multiculturalism mean the same in

the US as it does in Canada). Stromquist (2002) concurs noting that there are concerns that there


is a narrowing of the curriculum and that there is, or will be, a homogenization of the curriculum

and of information as a whole.

Mason (1998) suggests three approaches in this regard:

Begin in areas of the curriculum which have a global content;

Develop trans-border or trans-national consortia in which the partners

contribute courses to the whole; and

Focus on the development of resources and of international contacts /

connections rather than on the exportation of courses. In this way, students

have the opportunity to become global citizens.

Differentiation in institutions and Trans National Corporations

Trans National Corporations (TNCs) hold vast power, both economically and politically. In many

cases, TNCs are ambivalent towards the government in a country, particularly the government in

a developing country. TNCs tend to be focused on profit rather than social justice and in a

number of well-publicized instances there is rampant misbehavior on the part of the corporation.

Environmental damage occurs, locals are hired to ‘factory’ jobs at wages that are abysmal,

natural resources are exploited and restrictions are imposed or concessions made. In spite of

promises of wealth and a better standard of living, there is a widening rift between groups who

have skills and mobility to flourish in global markets and those who do not.

As TNCs become both more powerful and more the ‘norm’, there are connections emerging

between these corporations and education systems. There is increasing intervention by business

in public schools, and a push towards standards based education. In cases where corporations

may appear to be staying out of education, they still may have considerable influence on the

policy makers, who do make decisions regarding funding, curriculum, programs, etc. TNCs are, in

fact, actively shaping higher education. We see this close to home with business endowments for

capital assets (e.g., buildings) which the recipient institution can use only for the purposes

stipulated in the endowment, or in the form of very directed scholarships which fund students only


in specific, market-oriented fields. The ‘players’ in business get appointed to University Senates,

and influence political decisions, including where to increase funding (business and IT programs

for example). For universities, a continued concern is whether faculty will be able to conduct

research to strengthen the civil society. Stromquist (2002) notes that

turning knowledge into a global commodity will create severe problems both

because the knowledge to be disseminated originates in center countries and

because the relevance of this knowledge will be decided entirely by a

combination of world class universities and TNCs operating in Information

Technology, biotechnical and publishing fields (Stromquist 2002: 96).

In addition to TNCs, differentiation in the types of institutions offering higher education and

granting degrees is becoming an increasing factor for post-secondary institutions. Publicly funded

traditional universities are no longer the only, or even the main, option for students. Private

universities, technical universities and computing training institutes all compete for a share of the

market. Corporations are setting up educational programs and certifications (e.g., MicroSoft

‘Technician’ certification). Multinational corporations are setting up their own colleges in

collaboration with and through traditional, ‘regular’ universities in several developed countries.

For-profit universities have emerged on the scene in recent years and offer programs that require

minimal lab equipment and focus on market needs and trends. In addition, many corporations

provide directed funding for capital at universities and formal links are developed. Organizations

such as the World Bank and the Global Alliance for Transnational Education (GATE) also are

influencing education. These trends raise serious questions as Stromquist (2002) outlines:

As higher education becomes more dependent on business for its subsistence,

what will happen in countries where there is no tradition and little material base

for corporate-funded research and for donations from alumni and foundations?

What will happen also in societies where poor families cannot contribute to the

tuition of their children? To what extent will the Third World benefit from this

increased collaboration? (Stromquist 2002: 123-124).


Gender

In many areas of the world, globalization has negatively impacted women. Shiva (1997) states

that the impact of globalization is “to take resources and knowledge that have hitherto been under

women’s control, and the control of Third World communities to generate sustenance and

survival, and put them at the service of corporations engaged in global trade and commerce to

generate profits” (Shiva 1997: 22). Furthermore, we now have a small group, chosen not by the

population but by themselves and from among themselves who hold tremendous power and

whose “personal morality is kept on hold while acting in their corporate roles (which for some is

practically twenty-four hours a day)” (Shiva 1997: 24). It is important to note that “in no country do

women have power equivalent to that of men” (Stromquist 2002: 133) and, unfortunately, many

more women are experiencing poverty than before. Krahn & Lowe (1993) note that women are

more likely to be poor than are men. Poverty among women has grown at five times the rate of

growth among men since the early 1970s and the root causes of this can be traced to a

combination of gender-based labour market segmentation and domestic and child-care

responsibilities continuing to be seen as women’s domain (Krahn & Lowe 1993).

Globalization presents new problems and aggravates old ones for feminists. The ‘old problems’

center around women’s dependency on the welfare state; how feminists engage with, and make

claims against, the state; the shifting boundary between the public and private spheres; and how

the state defines what constitutes disadvantage. It is widely believed that with globalization and

the new global economy, there is a shift from a protectionist (welfare) state to a more competitive

state. It is important to note that gender equity is dealt with differently depending upon the nature

of the state (Blackmore 2000). In addition, the emphasis in educational policy is shifting from

input and processes to outcomes. More focus is placed on vocational areas rather than the liberal

arts, and quantitative measures of success are the norm. As Blackmore (2000) notes however,

gender is absent from the ‘mainstream discussions’ of globalization and absent from discussions

regarding educational reform and restructuring.


Globalization has not altered the gendered nature of work nor has it had a huge impact on public

policy. While there may be more opportunities for women in terms of both employment and

education opportunities, there are still serious constraints. Stromquist (2002) notes that it is

difficult for many women to both work and make time for education due in part to the fact that the

sexual division of labor has not altered that much as a result of globalization. Even if time is

available, there has been a focus on increasing human resources in both science and technology,

traditionally male dominated fields, and little or no time is spent preparing women, or minorities, to

be able to succeed in these areas.

Although universities have dispersed management down and across all levels, it is largely located

at the middle management level. In the USA, Canada, Australia and UK, women are moving into

middle management in greater numbers, as Deans and heads of School, and are often positioned

as change agents; however, there are still few women at the ‘top’ levels in executive positions

(Blackmore 2002). Caudron (1999), in her article “The Female Profession”, notes that historically,

throughout the world, wherever women become dominant, status and pay go down. The

American Psychological Association, for example, notes that the average earnings in constant

dollars declined steadily in the 1970’s, corresponding with the rising number of women entering

the profession (Caudron 1999).

Women cope with these issues in many different ways. Bierena (2001) found that success for

women often means accepting and even emulating male behaviour in male-dominated

organisational cultures. She notes that much of the research suggests that masculine traits help

women advance at work and that career success is dictated by assuming masculine attributes,

stereotyping gender roles, and following a set of rules for success. The result of these dynamics,

she argues is the “acculturation of women into male work culture, devaluation of women’s gender

roles, and deprivation of women’s identity” (Bierena 2001: 57). Similar to Bierena’s conclusions,

Probert’s (1999) research finds that some women find themselves behaving more like men in the


workplace and this extends to family responsibilities, including reducing family commitments and

delaying, or not having, children.

Business norms

‘Business norms’ have become a driving force in organizational structure and have a resulting

impact on organizational culture. Educational systems, Stromquist (2002) argues, are becoming

less a public good and more the manifestation of an economic sector concerned with knowledge.

The influence of the business sector on education has resulted in regulatory systems, an

emphasis on accountability, uniform standards and performance based rewards. Unfortunately,

this tends to translate into a semi-scripted curriculum, to ‘teaching to the curriculum’ and to the

support of ‘targeted’ programs (e.g., information technology programs). Of concern is that in a

situation where universities will be linked more to the market and less to the pursuit of truth, it is

likely that

the definition and establishment of quality will become the prerogative of

managerial rather than academic enterprise. It is likely that universities will

become more ‘client’ or ‘customer’ focused.... Life in the university will likely

change under globalization. Intellectuals (read college professors) will become

less the guardians of the search for truth, and administrators will assume a

dominant role. In this regard, norms that have traditionally been part of university

life may come under questioning. One such norm is tenure. In recent years,

several doubts have been raised about its effectiveness (Stromquist 2002: 14).

As Mason (1998) notes, the “focus of business is profit; the focus of a university is knowledge”

(Mason 1998: 151). This business approach or re-engineering, in which teaching would be

rationalized and quantified in an attempt to ensure higher consumer satisfaction, is not, Mason

(1998) argues, the right approach. The university’s unique heritage includes a “complex

relationship between knowledge, communities and credentials” (Mason 1998: 152) and Mason

(1998) further argues that universities can become global providers without losing academic

integrity and quality. For example, rethinking and refining processes of production may, in fact,

result in improvements in support and may lead to the identification of best practices in key areas.


A new global teacher is proposed; a ‘guide’ who would support virtual communities built on a

global perspectives, and challenge a redesign of credential to “reflect mastery not memorisation”

(Mason 1998: 152).

As segmentation becomes an increasing practice in today’s labor market, jobs that have had

‘hourly salaries’ attached to them are being replaced by payment for piecework. Much of this is,

Morrow and Torres (2000) argue, as a result of transnational capitalism and the drive to increase

productivity and profits. This is achieved through the reduction of the actual costs of production,

as well as the

transfer of production activities to tax free zones where there is cheap and highly

skilled labor, limited organized labor, easy, efficient, and cheap access to natural

resources, favorable political conditions, access to better infrastructure and

national resources, larger markets, and tax incentives (Morrow & Torres 2000:

32).

One of concerns Stromquist (2002) notes with these business values is the impact of

‘managerialism’. While in the world of work this assumes workers and managers are on the same

side, it emphasizes compliance rather than questioning in an effort to develop new solutions. In

education, this ‘compliance’ is not a strength, rather it works a cross purposes with the goals of

education. In addition, teachers become managers of students rather than facilitators of wider

knowledge and social values. The focus on standardized test results promotes competition

between students, between schools, districts, regions and countries. This competition further

impacts universities in that they must assume “capitalistic behaviors, including contracting with

business and industry to generate revenues for sustaining university mission and activities” (Levin

2002: 53).

Universities, it is believed,

have succumbed to policies and practices that foster managerialism, elitism,

vocationalism, accountability, and privatization. Stated bluntly, there has been a

shift toward business values, a market agenda, and a barrier to entry for people


from lower socio-economic strata. It is argued that those business values have

also led to insularity among academics, greater closed individualism, a lessened

sense or loss of community – in short the precedence of dehumanizing aspects

of global markets over community and human priorities (Mount & Belanger 2001:

141).

As a result, employers are less willing to provide the benefits of job security and stability, partly

because of increased competition but also because their enhanced global mobility makes them

less dependent on the goodwill of their local work force. Governments are less able to sustain

social safety nets because an important part of their tax base has been lost because of the

increased mobility of capital (Rodrik 1997).

Currie and Subotzky (2000) summarize the effect of globalization practices, such as

entrepreneurialism, managerialism, and privatization on higher education. As institutions are run

more and more as business enterprises in a managerialist fashion, they are being pressured to

generate new forms of income. Institutions are also held accountable

for their responsiveness to social and economic needs, especially regarding their

contribution to regional and national competitiveness in the global economy.

Under these conditions, the entrepreneurial university – characterized by strong

partnership links with hi-tech industry, corresponding new organizational forms of

knowledge production, and a managerial mode of governance – has become the

dominant model of institutional innovation. This competitive, market-oriented

model and the globalization practices that underlie it are in direct tension with the

collegial ethos and with democratic institutional governance and tend to

marginalize higher education concerns about community development, equitable

social renewal, and the public good (Currie & Subotzky 2000: 123).

Furthermore, as universities increasingly compete with each other, there is a danger that this will

gradually limit attention to other areas of academic life that are not income-producing (Stromquist

& Monkman 2000).


Organizational structure

In the past, the traditional bureaucratic structure was seen as the most efficient model, however

this structure came under increased criticism as the globalized economy took hold. As a result, it

was argued that “a flatter organizational arrangement geared toward the production of clearly

stipulated outcomes at the lowest possible cost” (Lingard 2000: 84) was now needed. Ironically,

“while the structural formation of educational systems has been remade as flatter, leaner, and

meaner, there is an emergent consensus that within the globalized economy the production of an

educated workforce judged according to international standards is more important than ever”

(Lingard 2000: 84).

Traditional bureaucracies, in which goals are determined, mission, value and vision statements

set, hierarchical reporting relationships put in place, policies and procedures developed, rewards

and punishments laid out, and tasks assigned are becoming problematic in the new world

(Castells 2000). As a result, many organizations are changing their structure / model to try to

adapt. Increasingly there are shifts from vertical bureaucracies to horizontal corporations. These

new structures are characterized by flat hierarchies; team management with rewards based on

team performance; organizing around process rather than task; measuring performance by

customer satisfaction; maximizing contact with suppliers and customers; and ensuring

information, training and retraining of employees at all levels (Castells 2000). These new

structures are not always embraced by staff. Change is difficult for many employees who feel

comfortable or ‘set’ in current patterns or ways of completing tasks.

Stromquist (2002) notes that there have been significant changes in practices and processes at

universities since the 1980s. These include performance assessment, competition, productivity,

user fees, consumerism, nature of governance and the nature of work. Within Canada, post-

secondary institutions and students are familiar with the McLean’s annual report on Canadian

institutions in which universities are ranked. Within the province of Alberta, aspects of funding are

tied to Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and universities are compared against each other.


Stromquist (2002) notes the increasing trend towards this KPI type of assessment throughout the

post-secondary sector. Among the indicators / criteria used are the quality of students admitted

(based on entrance averages) and the ability of faculty to secure research funding. Unfortunately,

these indicators are not sensitive to specific objectives of universities such as the transference of

knowledge to the general public. As entrance averages go up, a significant portion of the

population is turned away from post-secondary education. In addition, KPIs do not measure the

extent to which students are gaining knowledge and skills in order to become better citizens.

Increasingly, competition is becoming more and more fierce – for students, for research funding,

and for other funding. One of the results Stromquist (2002) identifies with regard to research

funding is that this competition puts the personal productivity and creativity of faculty above the

teaching and training of students. Additionally, research may be channeled towards areas that

have more opportunities for funding than in areas that are not as well funded, sometimes at the

expense of the ‘public good’ and ‘value to society’.

More and more, work tends to be valued for and carried out with economic ends: to realize

productivity and efficiency (Levin 2002). As a result of economic globalization, post-secondary

institutions have moved into a business-like orientation, with its attendant behaviors of efficiency

and productivity” (Levin 2002: 52). The process of globalizing education considers education as a

part of the managerial economy and treats it as “instrumental, altering it form a knowledge to an

acquisition base. ‘The new vocationalism’ in the community college orients curriculum and

instruction to a global economy. In this economy, global capital dominates, production is

increasingly automated, more rapid, and efficient, and the labor force has been restructured and

restratified” (Levin 2002: 67).

The specific result of this vocationalism is in a change from the

liberal arts core to having more of a focus on technology and entrepreneurship.

Faculty described these new applied degree programs as responses to local

business and industry demands for a competitive workforce, and they indicated


that the curriculum was moving not only towards the increased use of technology

but also towards an outcomes-based focus (Levin 2002: 69).

This push is supported in general public discourse. There is a perceived need to

establish closer ties between education and the workplace… the requirements of

the labour market should be met, [and] education should be more relevant and

should help graduates to step into the workplace. Obviously, the public discourse

has become more utilitarian and vocational (Mount & Belanger 2001: 140).

The composition of faculties is changing as well and there is a reduced complement of tenured

professors and a corresponding increase in part-time and term faculty members (Stromquist

2002). Given that part-time and term faculty members normally do not supervise PhD students, it

is ironic that this is occurring at a time when recent studies conducted by the Government of

Canada predict a shortage of ‘highly qualified personnel’ in the next 10+ years – specifically a

shortage of PhD prepared individuals.

There are a number of similarities between private organizational structural issues and those

experienced by post-secondary institutions. Both types of organizations have a legal and social

identity, specific assets, and ownership rights and obligations. Both use human capital to produce

goods or services that meet a marketplace demand and both must make do with scarce

resources. Sophisticated techniques are used with regard to management and measuring output

and results and each organization has its own pattern of work organization, with in-house

procedures and hierarchies (Daumard 2001). There are, or course, significant differences as well.

One of the key differences is related to performance criteria. In business, the criterion is, by and

large, medium term profitability; however, the same does not apply to publicly funded universities

(Daumard 2001). An additional difference is related to customer satisfaction. Universities cannot

guarantee that all students will receive a passing grade, or what that grade may be. Businesses

can do more to guarantee that their products meet customer needs.


Harrison and Dugdale (2003) caution organizations of the difficulty in creating the spirit and

teamwork necessary to generate new ideas and to thrive while trying to use the scarce resource

of time more effectively by implementing a dispersed workforce. Gill and Pitt (1998) state that “the

deconstruction of the traditional organization is inherent in the emerging notion of the virtual

organization which itself is testimony to the very shapelessness of future organizational

arrangements” (Gill & Pitt 1998: 4). These changes in organization result in shifts in power away

from rank and file employees in the direction of top management/ownership (Hickok 1998).

Working relationships are changing, Hickok (1998) suggests, away from being ‘familial’ toward

being more competitive. An additional complication is that the employer-employee relationship

has moved away from long-term and stable in the direction of short-term and contingent.

Leadership

The key for post-secondary institutions, in order to successfully ‘transform’ organizational

structure and compete and survive, is strong leadership in this new environment. Challenges to

firms in the 21st century will be not so much technical or rational as cultural: how to lead the

organization in ways that create and nurture knowledge; how to know when to set machines

aside and rely on instinct and judgment; how to live in a world in which companies have ever

increasing visibility; and how to maintain, as individuals and organizations, the ability to learn

(Ireland & Hitt 1999). Universities are expected to advance knowledge and ensure that “people

are made aware of the moral situations of their disciplines, are led to question the terms of life

offered by their societies and those they have so far prepared for themselves” (Barr 2002: 321).

As business norms become more embedded, those in positions of leadership must challenge the

‘language of industry’ “otherwise a very different role of universities will be fashioned which will

undermine their legitimate role in exploring different options for the future” (Barr 2002: 321).

Recent research (Mount & Belanger 2001) confirms this and suggests that university presidents

are conscious of the pressure for universities to play a major role in attaining Canada’s place in

the global economy.


Furthermore,

university presidents appear to have concluded that they cannot say ‘no’ to the

new imperatives that come with the global economy. At the same time they must

tread a fine line, either out of conviction or because the concept of academic

freedom, central to the unfettered quest for truth, is seen by some of their key

stakeholders (in particular certain members within the faculty and student body)

to be endangered by the intrusion of the corporate presence” (Mount & Belanger

2001: 160).

In addition, there are many faculty members who are skeptical regarding “the degree to which

university administrators are committed to the academy’s long standing mandate as the centre of

intellectual activity unconstrained y the agenda of the day (Mount & Belanger 2001: 161).

Senior administrative officers naturally become the targets of allegations by faculty, staff and the

public. These allegations include that senior management andofficers are:

1) turning postsecondary education away from a public right to an elitist

consumer product; 2) widening the gap between support for the arts-oriented

disciplines on the one hand and the more business/technology focused programs

on the other, mostly in the name of global competitiveness; 3) veering the

research agenda from basic, curiosity-driven questions and serendipitous

discoveries to a saleable product immediately relevant to the private sector; 4)

creating a two-tiered university system composed of well-established and well-to-

do research-intensive schools at one pole and small, regional, and primarily

teaching-focused institutions at the other; and 5) giving undue precedence to free

market and wealth creation tenets at the expense of core academic values such

as autonomy, collegiality, and free thinking (Mount & Belanger 2001: 137).

There is an acknowledged tension (Mignot-Gerard 2003) between administrative leadership and

academic leadership, between the “need to be more managerial and have more control over the

university’s work while preserving its identity” (Mignot-Gerard 2003: 143). Those in positions of

leadership must behave like managers but at the same time, they must somehow retain the trust

and commitment of their academic staff. Askling and Kristensen (2000) note that


one of the central problems of institutional leadership and management is the

ambiguity between, on the one hand, the tendency towards centralism in order to

copy with dynamic and demanding environments, and, on the other hand the

need for decentralization and a respect paid to academic ideals of autonomy

which are collegiate in nature (Askling & Kristensen 2000: 22).

What are the options for those in leadership? How do you manage tensions in changing faculty

roles, in the face of pressures from government and industry to change organizational structure,

and in times of declining funding but increased demand? Recent literature (Oseen 2002, Gill, Pitt

& Levine 1998) suggests transformational leadership as an option, in which

leaders go beyond their task orientation and relationship orientation and display

sensitivity and responsiveness to the needs of followers, are agents of radical

change, are strongly articulate, are willing to take personal risks, and are

idealistic in their visions of the future (Gill, Pitt & Levine 1998: 5).

Ways must be found to link the work of individual academics with the overall direction of the

institution (Coaldrake 2000).

Power redistribution

Globalization results in a shifting of power within the public sphere. At its most basic, notes

Mackie (1991), power is the capacity of individuals or groups to control, influence, or manipulate

others’ behavior, whether these others wish to cooperate or not. Capella (2000) notes that the

‘new’ power that is being imposed on society has a ‘suprastate character’ in that it favors

“monetarism, deregulation, free trading, unrestrained capital flow, and mass privatization”

(Castells 2000: 237). The result of this new power is that there has been a transfer of

fundamental decisions. The power of the suprastate ruler is private but it affects the public sphere

because it determines the policies of the state. As Capella (2000) notes, within this new power

system of globalization, the variety of public policies that the average citizen can influence

through the state political systems decreases considerably.


For universities, the nature of power and the distribution of power is vastly different than in private

sector organizations. In addition, the power that universities hold with governments may be

experiencing a shift as a result of globalization. Demands for accountability, both financial and

social, are much more pronounced than they were in the past. Many organizations which provide

research funding (e.g., Human Resources Skills Development, Industry Canada, etc.) now have

very detailed reporting requirements (e.g., on a quarterly basis). This impacts the power structure

in an organization in many different ways. Financial and / or administrative staff may gain ‘power’

as their involvement / role increases in specific projects, and, as a result, tensions may be felt.

Further complicating issues of ‘power’ is the fact that in universities, the overriding power of the

executive does not really apply in the case of academics with tenure. In terms of the working

population,

academics are in a category of their own and a far cry from those employed in

business. Some have even gone into academia to avoid the private sector. For

others, it is a vocation. They cherish their independence and are unlikely to agree

to move elsewhere against their wishes... They feel they belong as much to their

specialization as their university because their career depends on it. Hence, the

general interests of the university are not among their main concerns. (Daumard

2001: 71).

Interestingly, when an academic decides to become an administrator, “this often means forgoing

any chance of career advancement, and little can be done to prepare somebody for such a

change. This situation is in complete contrast with the private sector” (Daumard 2001: 71).

Hickok (1998) notes that changes in the nature of work as a result of increased global competition

and changing technology, translate into a contingent work force and shifting balance of power

among organization constituents. Castells (2000) expands this idea noting that

we are witnessing the reversal of the historical trend of salarization of work and

socialization of production. The new social and economic organization based on

information technologies aims at decentralizing management, individualizing


work, and customizing markets, thereby segmenting work and fragmenting

societies (Castells 2000: 282).

One of the key areas where power continues to be an issue is with regard to gender. Although

organizations in the developed world have policies regarding discrimination, harassment and

equity in place, problems exist. While these inequities are subtle in some organisations, in some

areas there have been few changes and harassment is blatant and ongoing. Tree planters in

northern British Columbia are primarily university students and are typically in remote campsites

for 8-12 weeks. Increasingly, young women are entering the field and sexual harassment and

gender-based discrimination appear to be central issues (Clark 1998). In her research, Clark

found that those in power held what were seen to be traditional attitudes toward women, and

“because their authority defined the work situation for all workers, it allowed stereotypical roles to

be attributed to women, sexual coercion to be an ongoing threat for women, and gender-based

harassment to be constructed as normative in the tree planting environment” (Clark 1998: 82-83).

Female planters were often described as the most hard working and

conscientious workers on the crew, but traditional qualities were attributed to

women that were offered as explanations for their successes ...‘I think it’s just the

way women are raised – to do monotonous, tedious, repetitive jobs. Like doing

things like chores around the house, stuff like that’ (Clark 1998: 83).

One subject, when asked how changes in gender distribution affected the social dynamics of the

camp setting, responded that he thought “the camp would have been different if there had been

less women and more guys. There may have been more sex” (Clark 1998: 83). For others, the

‘rules’ were much more clearly laid out: “some foremen were known to hire women for their own

sexual benefit, and for the benefit of the crew. One foreman did try to hire, he hired more women

than men. And his concept was then there’d be a good selection of women for his friends, for

himself, for opportunities, for sexual opportunities” (Clark 1998: 83), and “in some cases the

foreman’s power resulted in expectations of sexual compliance ...contributing to what appeared to

be an ongoing threat of sexual coercion” (Clark 1998: 84). And finally, “certain foremen hire

certain female planters based solely on the fact that they think they will be able to sleep with that


person for that planting season. And when that doesn’t happen, and perhaps when they see that

person looking at other people, they become harder on that person” (Clark 1998: 84).

Gender roles and the power distribution of those roles are embedded in our culture. In the past,

and indeed in many households today, women and men fill ‘traditional roles’ including who has

primary responsibility for child care and housework, and who is the primary wage earner. Mixed

into these roles is that nearly always, men control the public domain of economic and political

activities, while women are confirmed to the home. Furthermore, the home, as part of the

domestic realm, is accorded lower value and associated with fewer powers and prerogatives

(Mackie 1991). Furthermore, our perceptions of what girls and boys, women and men, are like

are organized by the myths, stereotypes and attitudes to which our society subscribes (Mackie

1991). With few exceptions, men have been the priests, the sculptors, storytellers, writers, artists

and musicians and males, as the dominant group, have created the gender imagery for both

sexes (Mackie 1991).

Peters, Marshall and Fitzsimons (2000), in reviewing power relations suggest an analysis of these

relations under five areas:

the systems of differentiations that permit one to act upon the actions of others;

types of objectives pursued intentionally by those who act upon the actions of

others when power relations are brought into existence; the means of bringing

power relations into play, by force, compliance, consent, surveillance, or

economic reward; form of institutionalization; degree of rationalization that,

depending upon the situation, endows, elaborates, and legitimates processes for

the exercise of power (Peters, Marshall & Fitzsimons 2000: 113).

The knowledge society, information and communication technologies

New technologies, which contribute to globalization and impact organizational culture, allow

access to information previously unavailable, or difficult to find, but also raise concerns regarding

intellectual property and the control of knowledge. Partly as a result of increased linkages with

business, “information and knowledge is being increasingly protected through commercially


driven exploitation by means of patents, copyrights, and privatization” (Stromquist 2002: 127).

This clashes, in many instances, with the traditional view of, and support for, the open

dissemination of knowledge. In many cases, there is a rising tension as faculty may need to

present research findings and submit papers for publication in order to secure tenure and

additional research funding. If the private sector is involved in the funding of the research, there

may be pressure to keep the results secret until ‘commercialization’ can occur. Jacob and

Hellerstrom (2003) suggest that

the advent of the ‘knowledge society’, and the recognition that knowledge is an

indispensable factor in economic growth, have been interpreted…as

necessitating that universities should be given a central role in initiatives for

national and regional development. Ironically, almost everywhere, the adoption of

this policy principle has been accompanied by cutbacks in public funding to the

higher education sector (Jacob & Hellerstrom 2003: 48).

As Delanty (2002) notes

as knowledge becomes more available and therefore no longer confined to an

institutional space such as the University, it also becomes more contested.

Today, in the knowledge society, with knowledge ever more available as a result

of mass education and developments in reproduction of culture and

communication and as a result of the rise of knowledge professions, it is also

paradoxically more and more unreliable and contested. The university has

experienced this in the ‘culture wars’ over the curriculum, radical multiculturalism

and low culture’s critique of the high culture of the academy” (Delanty 2002: 189).

The fourth world

Extensive research has been undertaken regarding globalization’s impact on the ‘third world’ as

well as on the developed nations of the world. The results of the move of factories to ‘third world’

countries, the shift of ‘help / information desks’ to India, and the impact on women in developing

countries is well documented. New research is also being undertaken regarding the emergence

of a ‘fourth world’ as a result of globalization. This purported ‘fourth world’ is made up of multiple

‘holes’ of social exclusion throughout the planet (e.g., Sub-Saharan Africa, impoverished rural


areas of Latin America and Asia). In addition, and of considerable interest, is the idea that this

‘fourth world’ is also present in every country, and every city and is made up of inner-city ghettos,

groups of unemployed youth, and mega city shanty towns. It is populated by millions of homeless,

incarcerated, prostituted, criminalized, stigmatized, sick, and illiterate persons and is growing in

number and increasing in visibility ((Morrow and Torres 2000). As there is a shift of power and

decision making away from the nation state it further erodes the capability of marginalized

groups to have any impact on their fate – they are the least able to fend for themselves against

global pressures for structural adjustments.

Options / Opportunities

In many ways things appear bleak for educational organizations and as Blackmore (2002)

suggests, “there is now significant debate as to whether universities are in crises, in demise, or

merely being restructured to meet the needs of knowledge-based economies. Globalization is

seen to be the driving force for unsettling the ‘idea’ of the modern university” (Blackmore 2002:

419). In regards to the specific issues noted in the previous section, there are a number of

options for institutions to consider which are touched on below.

Universities are “expected to maintain as always the institutional and academic heritage, to

develop quickly and flexibly new fields of study and modes of thought, and to embrace the

contradictory demands of a rising number of stakeholders” (Mount & Belanger 2001: 136). As a

result, institutions have increasingly perceived themselves faced with a choice, “either prune

some of their core activities or become ‘entrepreneurial’. In varying degree they have opted for

the latter course” (Mount & Belanger 2001: 136). Embracing a more entrepreneurial culture is one

option which would significantly impact organizational culture and would necessitate changes to

the very nature of the organization. Entrepreneurship assumes a much more competitive

structure, a ‘fast paced’ decision making environment, and a much closer relationship between

the goals / directions of the organization and the demands of stakeholders.


In addressing issues regarding tenure, Hickok (1998) advises institutions and staff to ‘let go’ of

the old employment contract and notes that implicit lifetime employment guarantees are

unhealthy both for individuals and organizations and result in a sort of organizational

codependency in which individuals invest enormous energy in trying to control the system and at

the same time have much of their self-worth tied up in trying to live up to the organization’s, not

their own, values (Hickok 1998). This does not necessarily mean the extremes of either ‘life time’

tenure or one-year sessional appointments.

In considering the impact of a potential reduction in the number of non-tenure track and part-time

faculty as well as more staff turnover, there is a corresponding importance of having systems in

place to integrate staff into the culture of the university / college (Caison 2003).

At the center of discussions regarding the impact of globalization, universities need to reaffirm the

commitment to the development of an enlightened citizenship, community participation, and, in

the process assist in the transition of the ‘information society’ to an ‘informed society’ (Axelrod,

Anisef & Lin 2001).

Curriculum, indeed the very nature of curriculum development, is gaining importance in

organizations. Curriculum is being ‘broken down’ into learning objects and placed in learning

object repositories (e.g., CAREO). This provides educators with opportunities to redefine how

courses are developed and structured. For students, having access to learning object repositories

provides opportunities to acquire, almost instantaneously, and from anywhere, information

previously unavailable. Furthermore, research into mobile learning (m-learning) is expected to

lead to opportunities to access information with mobile / wireless devices. Educators need to

keep in mind that “power is always part of the curriculum. Acknowledging the centrality of power

to the teaching-learning process not only shifts attention away from the content, but also unsettles

certain notions of what constitutes progressive teaching; at the same time, it opens up


possibilities for reorganizing classrooms and creates the foundation for vibrant teaching and

learning experiences” (Briskin 1998: 23).

With regards to gender issues, Moghadam (1997) responds with the idea of another stream

within feminism – that of global feminism which is “predicated upon the notion that

notwithstanding cultural, class, and ideological differences among the women of the world, there

is a commonality in the forms of women’s disadvantage and in the forms of women’s

organizations worldwide” (Moghadam 1997: 64). Additionally, global feminism is responding to

the negative aspects of globalization, including problems associated with “structural adjustment,

attacks on women’s security, and the emergence of reactive political-cultural movements,

including various forms of fundamentalism. The strategies and tactics of global feminism

constitute a logical and indeed necessary response to globalization” (Moghadam 1997: 64).

Power structures will always be evident in gender as well. The traditional view of who holds that

power however, is changing. Acknowledging that power relationships exist, looking at who holds

the power and why and whether it is ‘legitimate’ or ‘earned’ power rather than power based on

gender are ways to keep this at the forefront. It is interesting that research notes that the lack of

women in management is an issue, not of education and training, but of power (Gill 1998).

Within organizations, employment equity policies generally state that all individuals, regardless of

their personal characteristics, should be treated fairly in recruitment, hiring, promotions, training,

dismissals, and any other employment decisions (Krahn & Lowe 1993). The difficulty seems to be

in implementing and measuring these policies. It appears that much of the discrimination that

happens is subconscious, that it’s not spoken of, it just happens because individuals assume

certain things about certain groups of people. Probert (1999) suggests that there is a set of

assumptions about women’s attitudes and commitment towards work, the return on learning

investment, informal learning, and how individuals take advantage of various opportunities for

training and development. These assumptions are that women choose less intensive, less


demanding work due to their investment and commitment to the home, while men centre their life

on a full-time, life long job (Probert 1999).

Organizational structure and leadership are likely the key areas where changes have been made,

and will continue to be made, as a result of globalization. Barr (2002) notes that the influence of

‘business norms’ and the “new language from industry must be challenged; otherwise a very

different role for universities will be fashioned which will undermine their legitimate role in

exploring different options for the future” (Barr 2002: 321).

With regard to structure, one option which continues to receive researchers’ attention is to move

organizations towards becoming ‘learning organizations’ (Bass 2000, Senge 1990, Askling &

Kristensen 2000, Rosell 1999, Morgan 1997). Learning organizations are those which are always

looking at ways to improve the organization. They provide criteria for assessing the effects of

changes and seek to create alternatives. For post-secondary institutions, change and growth are

embraced in an attempt to meet student and faculty needs. This transformation would allow for

academic governance and academic freedom, would strengthen the culture and values of the

institution, and provide clear information on strengths and weaknesses (Barr 2002). As noted

earlier, the ‘indicator’ for success in private organizations centers around ‘profit’, however this is

not so for post-secondary institutions. Learning organizations, while taking financial issues into

consideration, also take into consideration globalization, technology, public demand for

accountability, and public policy. Rather than focusing on any one issue, a learning organization

takes multiple factors into account and assesses the impact(s) of each (Rosell 1999). Askling and

Kristensen (2000) identify specific requirements for learning organizations. These include

experimenting and risk taking; monitoring and evaluation; openness, curiosity

and willingness to admit mistakes; built in problem solving mechanisms; the

absence of complacency; and internal and external benchmarking activities

(Askling & Kristensen 2000: 23).


Morgan (1997) builds on this noting that learning organizations have the capacity to “scan and

anticipate change in the wider environment to detect significant variations; develop an ability to

question, challenge and change operating norms and assumptions; and allow an appropriate

strategic direction and pattern of organization to emerge” (Morgan 1997: 90). In looking at people,

and at staff in particular, Senge (1990) suggests that learning organizations are those where

people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and

expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where

people are continually learning how to learn together.

The ideal academic organization, argues Sporn (1999) operates

according to a change-oriented mission with collegial governance structures

providing faculty support and adaptation. A professional management and

entrepreneurial spirit assist the integration of activities and create adaptive

structures. Visionary leaders like president, chancellors, or rectors display a

consistent commitment to change, spreading it over the campus. Finally, through

an incremental change process, adaptive responses are implements (Sporn

1999: 23-33).

At the other end of the scale, the option is to put less emphasis on specific ‘leaders’ and to trust

more in the idea that given an overall structure and goal, an organization will ‘organize’ itself.

Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1999) take this idea further and suggest that “western culture has

harbored some great errors. We have believed that the world is hostile, that we are in a constant

struggle for survival, that the consequence of error is death, that the environment seeks our

destruction” (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers 1999: 11). Furthermore “when we view organizations as

machine-like objects, unavoidable they become complexities of structure, policy and roles. We

build rigid structures incapable of responding. We mistrust the elemental organizing forces of life”

(Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers 1999: 37). In addition, they believe that “life’s natural tendency is to

organize. It organizes into greater levels of complexity to support more diversity and greater

sustainability. Life self-organizes” (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers 1999: 3).


Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers challenge leaders to consider organizations as living systems that

have intelligence, creativeness and the ability to self-organize into effective structures that will

meet the needs and demands of those it serves. They suggest that the most that is needed is to

set overarching goals in place, define what it is that an organization does, and then allow people

to organize themselves and their jobs around that and to trust that they too are intelligent,

creative, self-organizing and meaning-seeking (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers 1999).

A blend of the two is suggested by Jacob and Hellerstrom (2003) in the discussion of

‘heterarchies’ as an alternate structure. Heterarchies are “characterized by minimal hierarchy and

by organizational heterogeneity, with relative autonomy with respect to delegated goal-setting and

opportunity-scanning, but with integration with respect to internal cooperation and shared culture”

(Jacob & Hellerstrom 2003: 62).

In looking at the future transformation of universities, Mason (1998) suggests that this

transformation will include a move “away from lectures as the only or primary reaching method

towards resource-based approaches with decouple the content from the teaching support”

(Mason 1998: 150).

Alternatives

Stromquist (2002) also explores alternatives to globalization – deglobalization (which considers

new forms of relating it the social world without exploiting others) and reglobalization (which

includes global institutions that are more democratic and reflect global society; the transfer of

power and authority to the United Nations; prioritization of funding for sustainable development,

human rights, health, labor standards, and ecological protection over commercial interest; a

governing body to establish a just basis for free trade; a review of both wealth and poverty; and

agrarian reform to generate more economic activity in developing countries). There is also a

suggestion to look at alternatives to capitalism given that capitalism maintains inequality and

poverty as the way to accumulate wealth and power. Another alternative to globalization is


internationalism, which Stromquist (2000) defines as the “promotion of global peace and well-

being through the development and application of international structures, primarily but not solely

of an intergovernmental kind” (Stromquist 2000: 188).

Next Steps / Further Research

We live in an increasingly complex world. For post-secondary institutions, the pressures as a

result of globalization impact the very core of the culture. As such, there is considerable research

which could be undertaken. It is unclear how the various tensions identified will affect the culture

of organizations, but also, how they will impact culture overall. While there is a perception that

universities are independent communities of autonomous and even altruistic scholars, in reality

they are affected by external forces and limited by constraints presented by the world. With the

move to a ‘knowledge-based economy’ and a ‘knowledge society’, the university should be the

key place from which to “advance new visions and ambitions” (Stromquist 2002: 103).As

Coaldrake (2000) notes, society has great expectations of its universities.

They must promote the discovery of new knowledge through research and

educate people to be both knowledgeable and adaptable in a demanding and

uncertain future. They are asked to be responsive to the needs of their local or

regional communities, and to show that they operate efficiently, and where

appropriate, in a business-like manner. Some see universities as central to the

preservation and development of national culture, others view them as engines of

economic development. They provide a home for the development of academic

disciplines, and are asked to apply scholarly study to the problems of the real

works and to the education of various professions. Increasingly they are

expected to raise their own income through student fees, or from research and

education contracts with industry” (Coaldrake 2000: 7).

The role of universities / education

One of the first research questions that arising is whether these expectations are still valid in

society; are these in fact the expectations of government, or universities themselves, of students,


of industry and of the general public. If so, the next logical question is whether they are being

met, and to what extent. While ‘key performance indicators’ and the associated measures /

targets address this to some extent, it is not possible to quantify all aspects of education. “Not

everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted” (Albert

Einstein). While there is considerable research regarding performance indicators, and specific

measures, increased research regarding the ‘intangibles’ should be undertaken. In addition, the

effect of diversity and differentiation; the impact of changing fields / focuses / programs in post-

secondary education in recent years; and the rapidly changing educational and communication

technologies (Stromquist 2002) are all areas for further study. While there is considerable

research which has occurred to date in these areas, the fact that there are such rapid and

continual changes, new research needs to occur. This will allow researchers the opportunity to

analyze past trends, to anticipate new issues, and to examine and develop future directions,

including potential solutions for issues.

Globalization

While there continues to be strong research globalization’s impact throughout the world,

Stromquist (2000) suggests a more focused analysis of how globalization is changing the nature

of schooling and universities, and the impact of the growing interconnection between knowledge

and power. Additional questions are suggested as follows: Is globalization real or merely an

ideology? If globalization is an inexorable trend, how does this affect the political economy of

countries and, in turn, their culture and education? How are moves toward economic restructuring

affecting educational systems worldwide? Is there an international educational organization and

agenda that could create a new hegemony in curriculum, instruction, and pedagogical practices,

in general, as well as in policies concerning school financing, research, and evaluation? Just as

importantly, should there be an international educational organization with this role? Are these

factors and outcomes symmetrical or homogeneous in their implications for all countries and

regions? (Stromquist 2000).


Homogenization

Homogenization, in particular the homoqenization of the curriculum, is another area which

provides a number of potential areas for research. The push for standards in education is

increasing. From the student perspective, students want credentials and education that are

portable. If an individual moves during the course of their studies, s/he wants and expects to

receive credit for the education completed. Across Canada, for most universities, students may

transfer only the equivalent of one-half of the degree / credit requirements. Once a student has

completed a program, s/he expects that the credential will be recognized by other institutions, and

by business / industry. From an academic perspective however, research should be conducted

regarding the impact of standardization on the role of education. While standards are sought,

there are also some instances where differentiation is sought – in particular as related to a

specific region / nation. For some however, there is a resistance to change as it may mean the

distortion / amendment of various concepts within a given field.

Business norms, TNCs, organizational structure, links with industry

As higher education becomes more dependent on business for its subsistence, more questions

will arise. One of the key questions is in trying to determine what will happen in countries where

there is little material base for corporate-funded research and for donations from alumni and

foundations. Furthermore, what will happen in societies where poor families cannot contribute to

the tuition of their children? Will there be a further split between South / North, the ‘haves and the

have nots’? To what extent will the Third World and the identified Fourth World benefit from this

increased collaboration? What are the potential negative impacts of these collaborations? For

example, will culture be ‘eradicated’ in favor of a standard curriculum / educational program

developed without consideration of a society’s unique heritage? Given that learning styles differ

greatly, even within similar groups of learners, what is the impact of trying to ‘slot’ various groups

into specific patterns which may be completely foreign to them? If nations perceive their culture

as threatened, what are the ramifications (e.g., an increased ‘regrouping’ around religious, ethnic,

territorial and national identities)? And if so, what will be the impact on practices and policies on


the providers / developers of education? As more and more different types of institutions are seen

(private-for-profit, Trans National Corporations [TNCs], corporate universities, etc.) an increased

distinction between teaching and research has also developed and further research is needed in

this area as well. As Stromquist (2002) notes,

whereas formerly there has existed an uneasy balance between the two, it has

now become more typical for the most prestigious institutions to focus on

research ...As teaching becomes less central to a university’s reputation, it is

increasingly relegated to part-time and junior faculty (Stromquist 2002: 105).

Another area for research is to consider how virtual work environments will be able to support

distributed physical environments and how they can contribute to the development of

organizational culture and a sense of community (Harrison & Dugdale 2003). For those in

positions of leadership, additional issues are further raised; when staff are ‘distributed’ how do

you ensure or measure and / or review their productivity? This is of particular interest in an

academic environment. Academic work includes the assumption that ‘time’ is needed – time to

research, to critically analyze issues, and to think. How do you monitor whether the time spent in

reflection was, or was not, ‘useful’? Furthermore, how do you build organizational commitment

and strengthen the culture when staff are not ‘onsite’ as often as they traditionally would have

been? How do you ensure collegial activity among staff who no longer gather at the ‘coffee area’

or congregate in the hallways?

Further research regarding organizational structure needs to occur. Are learning organizations

living up to their promise, and how do we measure their impact? If learning organizations are

potentially a positive shift, how do organizations successfully change their structure and their

culture? Even without a major change or shift in structure, various factors such as hierarchy, how

gender issues are either acknowledged, or denied, and dealt with, what types of attitudes / values

are encouraged, and what types of skills are sought in potential and existing employees are all of

interest.


Educational policy, the role with / link to the state

Further research also needs to be undertaken regarding the impact of ‘the state’ on educational

policy. Blackmore (2002) notes that “educational policy is much more closely linked to economic

needs and productivity gains than in the past, and policy production is more tightly controlled by

the state, to the exclusion of other stakeholders (such as educators and feminists)” (Blackmore

2002: 134). Should leaders be more closely attuned to the local / national / international political

climate? In many post-secondary institutions, leaders have been selected from the ‘academic’

community and it is not clear whether this practice best serves the organization for the future? If

leaders are sought more who are connected to business and / or government, is the academic

culture of the organization placed at risk? Are the two naturally in opposition or can they co-exist?

Increasingly there are concerns that business and technology areas are ‘taking over’ the liberal

arts / social science disciplines. How is a balance maintained that meets the needs / demands of

academics, of students, of business / industry, of funding agencies, and of government?

Conclusion Change will happen; we do not live in a ‘stable’ world where all things remain the same.

Globalization, however it is defined, will continue to influence and impact our world. It is also clear

that education and education’s role is changing. Organizations must adapt to change in order to

not only survive, but also to strive and a balance between the various tensions must be sought.

Governments have generally been prepared to accept the arguments that

universities are important for the future; however, this acceptance is dependent

on the capacity of universities to carry the benefits of their work to society at

large. The growing body of analysis into knowledge-based economies and

national innovation systems emphasizes not only the importance of producing

and disseminating knowledge (the traditional domain of university activity), but

also the necessity of establishing multiple linkages between the various players

in the economy, including between universities and industry (Coaldrake 2000: 8)


Works Cited

Apple, M.W. (2000). “Between Neoliberalism and Neoconservatism: Education and Conservatism

in a Global Context.” In Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A. (eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Axelrod, Anisef & Lin, Z. (2001). “Against All Odds? The Enduring Value of Liberal Education in

Universities, Professions, and the Labour Market.” The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 31(2): 47-78.

Askling, B. & Kristensen, B. (2000). “Towards ‘the Learning Organization’: Implications for

Institutional Governance and Leadership.” Higher Education Management 12(2): 17-41. Barr, J. (2002). “Universities After Postmodernism.” International Journal of Lifelong Education

21(4): 321-333. Bass, B.M. (2000). “The Future of Leadership in Learning Organizations.” Journal of Leadership

Studies 7(3). Beveridge, D. (1996). “Globalization and Sustainability: Issues and Options for Adult Education.”

Convergence 29(4): 68-77. Bierena, L.L. (2001). “Women, Work and Learning.” In Fenwick, T. (ed.). Sociocultural

Perspectives on Learning through Work. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 92. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass: 53-62.

Blackmore, J. (2002). “Globalisation and the Restructuring of higher Education for New

Knowledge Economies: New Dangers of Old Habits Troubling Gender Equity Work in Universities?” Higher Education Quarterly 56(4): 419-441.

Blackmore, J. (2000). “Globalization: A Useful Concept for Feminists Rethinking Theory and

Strategies in Education?” In Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A. (eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Briskin, L. (1998). “Negotiating Power in the Classroom: The Example of Group Work.” Canadian

Woman Studies: Women and Education 17(4): 23-28. Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A. (2000). “Globalization and Education: An Introduction.” In Burbules,

N.C. & Torres, C.A. (eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Caison, A.L. (2003). “Tenure Trends in Public, Four-Year Colleges and Universities. Planning for

Higher Education 31(2): 15-25. Cameron, D. & Stein, J.G. (2000). “Globalization, Culture and Society: The State as Place Amidst

Shifting Spaces.” Canadian Public Policy – Analyse de Politiques 26(2): S15-S34. Capella, J.R. (2000). “Globalization, A Fading Citizenship.” In Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A.

(eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge. Carnoy, M. (2000). “Globalization and Educational Reform.” In Stromquist, N.P.& Monkman, K.

(eds.), Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation Across Cultures. Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.


Castells, M. (2000). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Volume 1: The Rise of

the Network Society. 2nd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. Caudron, S. (1999). “The Female Profession.” Training and Development. May 1999: 57-62. Clark, J.P. (1998). “The More Lady you Are, the More they Treat You Like a Lady: Sexual

Harassment and Health Risk for Young Women in a Male-Dominated Work Setting.” Canadian Woman Studies: Women and Work 18(1): 82-85.

Coaldrake. (2000). “Rethinking Academic and University Work.” Higher Education Management

12(3): 7-30. Currie, J. & Subotzky, G. (2000). “Alternative Response to Globalization from European and

South African Universties.” In Stromquist, N.P.& Monkman, K. (eds.), Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation Across Cultures. Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Daumard. (2001). “Enterprise Culture and University Culture.” Higher Education Management

13(2): 67-74. Delanty, G. (2002). “Note on Society: The Governance of Universities: What is the Role of the

University in the Knowledge Society?” Canadian Journal of Sociology 27(2): 185-197. Fulford, R. (2001). “Cultural Dreams, Policy Schemes.” Policy Options 22(10): 15-20. Gaither, G.H. (2002). “A Campus Approach to Efficiency and Productivity.” Planning for Higher

Education 30(3): 27-33. Gibson-Graham, J.K. (1996). The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of

Political Economy. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Gill, R., Levine, H. & Pitt, D.C. (1998). “Leadership and Organizations for the New Millennium.”

Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(4): 46-58. Gill, B. (1998). “Becoming a Leader: Strategies for Women in Education Administration”.

Canadian Woman Studies: Women and Education 17(4), 29-31. Government of Canada. (2002). Knowledge Matters: Skills and Learning for Canadians. Human

Resources Development Canada. Harrison, A. & Dougdale, S. (2003). “The SANE Research Project: Its Implications for Higher

Education.” Planning for Higher Education 31(2): 33-42. Hickok, T.A. (1998). “Downsizing and Organizational Culture.” Journal of Public Administration

and Management 3(3): http://www/pamij.com/ Ireland & Hitt, M.A. (1999). “Achieving and Maintaining Strategic Competitiveness in the 21st

Century: The Role of Strategic Leadership.” The Academy of Management Executive, 13(1): 43-62.

Jacob, M. & Hellstrom, T. (2003). “Organizing the Academy: New Organizational Forms and the

Future of the University.” Higher Education Quarterly 57(1): 48-66.


Kellner, D. (2000). “Globalization and Social Movements: Lessons for Critical Theory and Pedagogy.” In Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A. (eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Kernaghan, K., Marson, B. & Borins, S. (2000). The New Public Organization. Toronto: The

Institute of Public Administration of Canada/L’Institute D’Administration Publique de Canada.

Kettl, D.F. (2000). “The Transformation of Governance: Globalization, Devolution and the Role of

Government.” Public Administration Review 60(6): 488-465. Krahn, H.J. & Lowe, G.S. (1993). Work, Industry and Canadian Society. Nelson: Canada. Levin, J.S. (2002). “In Education and in Work: The Globalized Community College.” The

Canadian Journal of Higher Education 32(2): 47-78. Levin, J.S. (2003). “Two British Columbia University Colleges and the Process of Economic

Globalization.” The Canadian Journal of Higher Education 33(1): 59-86. Lingard, B. (2000). “It Is and It Isn’t: Vernacular Globalization, Educational Policy, and

Restructuring.” In Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A. (eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Mackie, M. (1991). Gender Relations In Canada: Further Explorations.Toronto: Butterworths. Mason, R. (1998). Globalizing Education: Trends and Applications. London: Routledge. McCarthy, C. & Dimitriades, G. (2000). “Globalizing Pedagogies: Power, Resentment, and the

Re-narration of Difference.” In Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A. (eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Mignot-Gerard, S. (2003). “’Leadership’ and ‘Governance’ in the Analysis of University

Organizations: Two concepts in Need of Deconstruction.” Higher Education Management and Policy 15(2): 135-163.

Moghadam, V.M. (1997). “Globalization and Feminism: The Rise of Women’s Organizations in

the Middle East and North Africa.” In Canadian Woman Studies: Bridging North and South, Patterns of Transformation 17(2): 64-27.

Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morrow, R.A. & Torres, C.A. (2000). “The State, Globalization, and Educational Policy.” In

Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A. (eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Mount, J. & Belanger, C. (2001). “Academia Inc.: The Perspective of University Presidents.” The

Canadian Journal of Higher Education 31(2): 135-166. Oseen, C. (2002). MAIS 611: Transformatory Organizing. Course Guide. Athabasca: Athabasca

University. Peters, M., Marhsall, J. & Fitzsimons:(2000). “Managerialism and Educational Policy in a Global

Context: Foucault, Neoliberalism, and the Doctrine of Self-Management.” In Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A. (eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.


Popkewitz, T.S. (2000). “Reform as the Social Administration of the Child: Globalization of Knowledge and Power.” In Burbules, N.C. & Torres, C.A. (eds.). Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. New York: Routledge.

Probert, Belinda (1999). “Gendered Workers and Gendered Work: Implications for Women’s

Learning.” In Boud D. & Garrick, J (eds.). Understanding Learning at Work. New York: Routledge.

Ritzer, G. (2000). The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Rodrik, D. (1997). “Sense and Nonsense in the Globalization Debate.” Foreign Policy 107: 19-38. Rosell, S.A. (1999). “The Learning Organization.” In Renewing Governance: Government by

Learning in the Information Age. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press. Rubenstein, H. (2001). “Tenure Subverts Academic Freedom.” Policy Options 22(10): 6-9. Senge. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. London: Century Business. Shiva, V. (1997). “Economic Globalization, Ecological Feminism, and Sustainable Development.”

In Canadian Woman Studies: Bridging North and South, Patterns of Transformation 17(2): 22-27.

Sporn, B. (1999). “Towards More Adaptive Universities; Trends of Institutional Reform in Europe.”

Higher Education in Europe 24(1): 23-33. Stromquist, N.P. (2002). Education in a Globalized World: The Connectivity of Economic Power,

Technology and Knowledge. Lanham, MA: Rowan and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Stromquist, N.P.& Monkman, K. (2000). “Defining Globalization and Assessing Its Implications on

Knowledge and Education.” In Stromquist, N.P.& Monkman, K. (eds.), Globalization and Education: Integration and Contestation Across Cultures. Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Thomas, M. (1985). “In Search of Culture: Holy Grail or Gravy Train?” Personnel Management,

September. Webster, F. (2001). “A New Politics.” In Webster, F. (ed.), Culture and Politics in the Information

Age: A New Politics? London: Routledge. Wheatley, M.J. & Kellner-Rogers, M. (1996). A Simpler Way. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Publishers.

Globalization and Its Impact on Academic Culture in Post ...dtpr.lib.athabascau.ca/action/download.php?filename=mais/Zornes_D... · Globalization is also tied to massive advances

Documents