Departing DVC sees challenges for ANU

Prior to her departure to become Vice-Chancellor of Edith Cowan University in Western Australia, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Professor Millicent Poole talked to Shelly Simonds about some of the issues facing the ANU - especially its women.

What are your views on the general direction of education under the Howard government?

I feel concerned because the policy papers prior to the election suggested that there would not be severe cuts to higher education and of course there have been cuts. Senator Vanstone calls them nicks but when you add 1 per cent, 3 per cent, 1 per cent, 1 per cent, that's more than a nick. When you combine this with unfunded salary increases under enterprise bargaining, universities effectively have a 15 to 20 per cent cut, which becomes very difficult to absorb.

I think we should be building our national university system up, not thinking about how to cut, to destabilise. I guess there is more of a move towards privatisation and deregulation but I think the consequences of that have not been thought through properly.

We've seen more women entering ANU academic positions, at least last year, but why aren't more women moving up through the ranks of the University?

Well, it's an interesting question and in fact we've commissioned an external consultant to investigate that for us. Of course, ANU has explored this question in the research schools for some years.

There are a number of explanations; one is that not enough women are coming through the university system, and that when more women do come in, in a matter of time there will be the flow through. But I think that theory, called the Cohort Theory, is a little naive because it doesn't take into account that there are many more structural barriers and many more cultural constraints women encounter as they try to get promotions. I mean, so many factors. There are the simple things like access to mentors who will teach you the academic game. And it's much easier for young male academics to get good mentors to help them in terms of getting research grants or making the international contacts and so on.

Plus there are all those attitudes, values and perceptions of women in the culture of academia. Women having to have multiple roles and multiple responsibilities with family and work. The dual overload is a reality and there haven't been enough support structures built into academia even though academia is one of the most flexible professions you can think of. For general staff there aren't the career pathways available anyway, and I think general staff who are women have a harder time than academic staff.

What's the next step for the University in trying to improve the gender balance?

There's the report I mentioned and that report is going to give examples of best practice in the system Australia wide. It has looked at all the affirmative action plans nationally and will bring out examples of best practice in other universities which have been able to overcome some of these barriers and will hopefully give strategies for the future.

But the strategies will involve mentoring schemes, workshops for women, in terms of how to get research grants, valuing the things women do.

I've just completed an interesting study with the Carnegie Foundation in the United States with a young academic in Sydney showing that women by and large are more oriented to teaching in universities and that men are more oriented to research and that the reward structure values research. But women are the good campus citizens who take on that pastoral care role for students and are more likely to be given responsibility for coordinating large classes and marking assignments in large classes. So women themselves are probably disadvantaging their own career tracks by their strong commitment to their teaching, pastoral and good citizen roles compared with many men.

I personally like data and I like looking at patterns and trends. I think if you can show the trends are not improving in terms of social equity, you've got to ask yourself, not only, "Is this fair or just?" but "Isn't this a waste of good human capital in terms of the economic models that people are using?" When you're not using the talents of women in society it's a great national loss in terms of the knowledge and expertise the country needs.

At a recent meeting there was praise for you as someone willing to ask the hard questions. What is it like having to be the one to bring up these difficult questions on gender issues?

Certainly it has not been easy for me to ask those questions in an institution like ANU; but because it's been one of my portfolio responsibilities I've done it. Plus I do have a personal commitment to equal opportunity for both men and women.

Today the University faces budget cuts and staff reductions; what needs to be done to ensure gender equity isn't compromised because of these cuts?

I think it's going to be quite difficult for equity agendas to survive and thrive in the current climate. I say that because there are more women in the system who are untenured and on contracts and it's easier not to renew contracts than to declare tenured staff involuntarily redundant.

I think what I've been trying to do with deans, and with others, is to encourage them to look at their staffing profile and to look at gender aspects when they are restructuring or when they do have to make involuntary redundancies to make sure that women are not the victims.

What insight in terms of management have you gained at ANU?

One of the main things in terms of management is that it's terribly important for senior management to have good lines of communication with academic and general staff. ANU has a very collegial system and yet there are perceptions that people in the Chancellery are fairly remote and aloof from the University.

I'll be looking at time-efficient ways of dealing with committee structures; but doing it without disempowering staff, so that staff are participating in real decisions rather than feeling that it's drama and theatre and that the real decisions are made elsewhere.

I think any structure that has the Deans, Deputy Vice-Chancellors, Pro Vice-Chancellors and the Vice-Chancellor can have a real communication jam.

Information, I think, is either held for power purposes or for blockage purposes and so management looks as though it is not communicating.

So I'm going to think very hard about how I can tackle communication because I think it's one of the key issues in a university; communication about where you're going, what you're doing with your resources, why you are doing it, and keeping people moving together. That's my aspiration.

Your position here as Deputy Vice-Chancellor is a fairly new one. As you're leaving, what are your thoughts on this role? Does it work? Is this a structure that should stay in place?

The structure is currently being reviewed by a special working party chaired by Professor Peter Karmel. To make personal observations on the structure, I think, currently, it doesn't enhance the integration of the University or foster as much cooperation between the Institute and the Faculties as it might.

There needs to be a more holistic structure, a more functional one, where there's a deputy vice-chancellor research, a deputy vice-chancellor academic, deputy vice-chancellor resources, who have cross university responsibility and are not seen as belonging primarily to the faculties, the institute or whatever.