Introduction

Controversy erupted in June 2007 about the Queensland University of Technology's (QUT's) suspension of two senior staff for public criticism of the content of a PhD student's project and of the QUT processes that approved it [1, 2, 3].

Their most public criticism was an article in The Australian ('Philistines of relativism at the gates') that focused on the PhD project's relationship with postmodernism [1].

Following their suspension, another QUT staff member published an article on ABC News Opinion asserting that a 'climate of fear' exists at the QUT - ie that staff or students who express critical views fear that they will be penalized.

To provide an internal-to-QUT perspective, comment submitted to the ABC Online Opinion web-site about the 'climate  of fear' claim has been outlined below.

In brief this present document:

• outlines what public comments on the 'climate  of fear' article have to say about both:
  • the dispute (where support was evident for both sides); and
  • the QUT environment (where 'climate of fear' claims were both endorsed and disputed, and where many simply indicated confusion);
• suggests that the dispute and general QUT environment are symptoms of broad issues that needs attention if universities are to properly contribute to the community (eg the nature of social 'knowledge' which is a core product for universities, and parallels with similar problems elsewhere); and
• presents comments on the policy questions underlying those symptoms (eg related problems in public administration; the failure by university reformers to take account of the growing real-world importance of big-picture humanities' issues; and unexplored implications of postmodernism).

It is concluded that a fundamental issue of epistemology (ie the nature of knowledge) is the real subject in dispute..

Thus, whether or not the PhD project that triggered the dispute or the way it was criticised is acceptable, the very public attack by senior academics on post-modern approaches to social knowledge that the QUT officially supports (and subsequent events) indicate the existence of an educational crisis within QUT.

What Public Commentators Said

In relation to the dispute generated by the PhD project and the academics' suspension, public comments on the 'climate of fear' article variously:

• suggest that the PhD project had been misunderstood [1, 2, 3, 4]; 
• support the academics who had criticised the project [eg 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];
• argue that QUT administration was correct in disciplining them for doing so [1, 2, 3, 4,];
• claim that neither side really had the interests of the disabled at heart [1];
• identify a conflict between what the academics' consciences demanded of them, and the formal requirements of QUT's Manual of Policies and Procedures (MOPP) [1]. Moreover the latter was seen to be: complex [1, 2]; mandatory [1]; and unable to deal with complex realities [1];
• suggest there were no clear answers to the issues involved, and that the case was mis-managed by QUT - as it should have been used to explore the complexities involved and to learn [1]; and
• call for a public inquiry into what is going on [1, 2, 3].

In relation to the general environment at QUT, those public comments also indicate:

• support for the 'climate of fear' claim [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7] - or at least for the perception that staff and student concerns about QUT can't be communicated to its management [1]; 
• disagreement with such claims [1, 2, 3, 4]; and
• general confusion about what is actually going on [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].

Looking Behind the Symptoms

This dispute seems to involve more significant issues than are apparent on the surface. For example:

• the criticism directed at the PhD project and QUT policies raised issues that are central to how universities function, because:
  • in simple terms, post-modernism / post-structuralism / relativism involve a radically unconventional approach to social knowledge - one that rejects the notion of public 'truth'. Rather than perceiving independent objectivity (which philosophers might call 'realism' ie that ideas should reflect an external 'reality'), social knowledge is seen primarily as a reflection of internal human biases and assumptions (which might be called 'idealism');
  • a university's core business is dealing with advanced knowledge - and the very nature of what universities produce ('knowledge') is being contested;
  • knowledge is the key factor in modern theories of economic growth [1, 2] and the core of policies now promoted by all governments for increasing economic productivity (eg consider Queensland's Smart State and the federal 'Backing Australia's Ability' programs). The way in which knowledge is handled (eg by universities) is critical to the success or failure of such aspirations. Not all societies regard 'knowledge' the same way, and this can make a huge difference to their economic prospects;

  • cultural issues, whose current academic directions The Australian article deplored, are now very important in global and domestic politics (see below);

  • one observer suggested that incompatible ideologies (which made real communication between the two sides impossible) were involved in the dispute [1]. Another argued that the underlying issue is political [1];
• QUT's Vice Chancellor is reportedly passionately dedicated to the success of a Creative Industries function within the QUT [1]. In some ways this is an 'idealist' alternative (ie one whose insights are derived internally) to the humanities schools (whose insights are derived externally from study of society). The latter were the first-established functions, and traditional core, of universities - which the QUT is now proposing to phase out (a fact that some observers saw as linked to the dispute [1, 2], though others disagreed [1]);
• both the senior academics and the QUT administration appear to have seen the issues involved as very important. For example:
  • there were many options available to the academics to raise concerns about the PhD project internally and discretely, as it was at a very early stage [1, 2, 3], yet they chose to go public. One observer suggested that a 'toxic environment' within QUT left them no other option [1]; 
  • some argue that the penalty the QUT applied for their public criticism was exceptionally severe [1, 2, 3] (though not all do so);
• parallels were drawn by some observers with management deficiencies in public services [1, 2], and it was suggested that universities are now also run on 'managerialist' lines, by persons who are hostile to universities' traditions of free speech [1]. [An aside: In simple terms 'managerialism' involves the assumption that management is a generalist function that requires no depth of knowledge of the specialities that are being managed];
• an intolerance of critical comment was seen to exist in other universities [1, 2];
• academics were seen to need more accountability, though what this means depends on whether universities are primarily means for stimulating learning and debate - or businesses [1].

CPDS Comments on Broader Issues Related to the Dispute 

It appears that:

• the Queensland Government's web-site presents an Ethics Handbook and a (now outdated) Policy Handbook which seem very similar to QUT's MOPP - in that they are complex, idealistic and highly prescriptive. In the case of the state government, these documents had their genesis under the Goss administration - and they provide help in understanding the dysfunctions and crises that Queensland's administration has since suffered. For example,
  • policy seems to be derived 'idealistically' (ie as what politicians want) rather than 'realistically' (ie as what has to be done because of practical constraints) and consultation is emphasised with interest groups rather than with technical specialists;
  • the Ethics Handbook hampers effective action - because it imposes a highly prescriptive 'moral law', and thus impedes ethical judgments appropriate to unexpected circumstances. It is further noted that:
    • the importance of a simple basis for ethical behaviour (ie love for others) is discussed in Competing Civilizations;
    • there are many indications that 'authorities' are being pressured to control of the morality of individual behaviour in Australia - see Moral Foundations of Individual Liberty. Documents like the Ethics Handbook are another step towards limiting individual liberty (and the political / economic benefits it brings);
    • the Ethics Handbook implies something like the moral legalism that Arabic scholars claim that the Quran imposes on Muslim dominated societies - which seems to be a major feature of their inability to achieve the rate of change that material prosperity requires in recent centuries;
• a 'climate of fear' similar to that alleged to exist in the QUT emerged in the Queensland public sector at the time of the Goss administration - as suggested in the following (all quite similar) documents:
  • Driven to Distraction (June 2002)- which outlined a history of the breakdown of the Westminster tradition of an independent professional public service, and the growth of widespread bullying;
  • 'Plague of bullies' (April 2005) - which suggests that, in an environment in which there is no serious requirement for 'senior' staff to have professional credibility, bullying of well-informed subordinates becomes virtually the only management option; 
  • More Silencing and Scapegoating of Public Service Employees? (May 2005) - which highlights the culture of intimidation, secrecy and silencing of staff which was a major feature of the crisis that engulfed Queensland's hospitals; and
  • C'mon Pete its time for action (June 2005) - which suggests that the bullying culture in the public service is a product of its politicisation, and can't be overcome by central political oversight;

• an emphasis on compliance with rules (whether or not doing so accords with common sense, practical needs or leading-edge thinking) appears to be a general consequence of managerialism (ie where 'senior' staff know little of the complexities of the functions they are supposed to be managing);

• because of the traditional weakness of contributions to understanding of public policy issues by civil institutions (including  universities), Queensland's political establishment (including state Cabinet, and the boards of directors of institutions such as the QUT) have little basis for telling when their cronies who speak the rhetoric of trendy reforms aren't as clever or capable as they claim to be - eg see Queensland's Weak Parliament (1999), The Effect of Public Service Politicisation (1999) and Superficial Accountability (2007). 

That direction has notionally been to force teaching and research to make a greater economic contribution (as part of 'Smart State' or Backing Australia's Ability' type agendas) - particularly by making university functions more business-like and market responsive.

For example, the QUT's plan to phase out its humanities functions seemed to be partly rationalised by their inability to attract sponsorship. Moreover, in response to the controversy, the Director of the ARC's Centre for Excellence in Creative Industries and Innovation pointed out [1] that:

• QUT's philosophy is to embody pure disciplinary inputs into professional applications;
• pure humanities functions must not be eroded by management fiat or post-modern relativism,  but there must be a market for such 'non-market' disciplines to justify undertaking them;
• while not everyone likes the Creative Industries approach, student numbers and research interest are high - so the QUT must be doing something right.

The problem is that:

• the basis philosophy underpinning university reforms is weak - because Queensland's / Australia's main obstacle to development of knowledge-based industries has been and is a lack of commercial competence and organization in the mainstream economy to productively use even the knowledge and skills that are already available - see Commentary on 'Smart State' and The Economic Futility of 'Backing Australia's Ability 2'. Moreover:
  • apart from industrial liaison and intellectual property policies, boosting Australia's innovation performance was not critically dependent on changes in universities. Rather it mainly required changes in the mainstream market economy using more effective techniques for accelerating economic development (eg see Defects in Economic Tactics, Strategy and Outcomes, 2000);
  • the most obvious result of adopted innovation strategies has been idealistically-driven attempts to increase the availability of 'smart' inputs to an economic system that has an unnecessarily limited ability to use them productively or to provide strong demand signals to indicate what inputs would really be most productive;
• universities' humanities' functions need rejuvenation because:
  • humanities were the original source of the ideas about government Australia inherited - and Australia's system currently seems to be struggling (see Australia's Governance Crisis, 2003) - and perhaps now needs a first-principles review;
  • culture has many real-world consequences being, for example, a key determinant of peoples' ability to be materially successful (see Competing Civilizations, 2001), and failure to consider those consequences contributes to:
    • in inability to really help societies who suffer political or economic failures as a result of dysfunctional cultural assumptions, or to provide militants with any way to understand their society's problems other than by blaming  external oppression (as Al Qaida does) (op cit); 
    • the great difficulties that have been experienced in dealing with The Challenge of Aboriginal Advancement;
    • the emergence of global financial imbalances (see Structural Incompatibility Puts Global Growth at Risk, 2003), that the Bank of International Settlements now warns could lead to a depression similar to that in the 1930s;
    • an inability to deal adequately with the global refugee crisis (see Complexities in the Refugee Problem, 2001);
    • difficulties in developing an effective global system of governance (see The Second Failure of Globalization?, 2003)
  • major external challenges are emerging to the ideals and values on which Australia's society and political institutions are based (eg from Asia - see China as the Future of the World?);
• the poor quality of Queensland's political system (and abuses of power within government) are largely a consequence of a lack of apolitical institutions able to provide leadership to the community and sound material for debate by their elected representatives. While accountability procedures are built into government machinery, these achieve little if those who are able to question executive government have no way to know what questions need to be asked (see Superficial Accountability);
• while the creative arts have a constructive role in society, the Creative Industries thrust within QUT may be based on an over-estimate of the value of such functions (see The Value of Creativity and Culture, and 'Creative Culture' in Brisbane);

Finally post-modern / relativist assumptions about knowledge have much more complex implications than have been recognised. As noted above, differences about this seem to be central to the crisis that has emerged at QUT.

It also needs to be considered that:

• real limitations on traditional epistemologies have given rise to post-modern / relativist assumptions. However attempts to apply them raises a huge number of practical problems (see Eroding the West's Foundations). For example:
  • if ideas are considered valid because someone believes them, rather than because they usefully describe some external reality then there is no possibility of identifying 'public truth' and thus no point in political debate - so those with social / political power should autocratically and ruthlessly enforce their own assumptions;
  • such 'idealism' is strongly reflected in the state government's Policy Handbook (ie we act on what we wish for, rather than what is required by some external reality);
  • by going down a similar 'idealist' path the QUT could be in some danger of becoming a 'university for the unreal world';
• Western societies, with a classical Greek heritage, have tended to adopt a 'realist' viewpoint and to have social and institutional arrangements which suit that viewpoint (eg rationality in problem solving, political debate). East Asian societies with an ancient Chinese heritage tend to adopt a type of relativist / idealist approach to knowledge (ie they place little value on abstract concepts as a way of knowing about reality) and adopt complementary social and institutional arrangements (eg intuitive problem solving and autocratic exercise of power) that are quite different to those in Western societies (see East Asia). The rising status of the latter operating under the framework of their different epistemology raises very significant issues to which Australia is directly and increasingly exposed;