Inside Higher Ed comenta hoy el reciente informe de la Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), titulado The Future of the Professoriate: Academic Freedom, Peer Review, and Shared Governance, de Neil W. Hamilton and Jerry G. Gaff.
Este informe explora diversas dimensiones de la profesión académica que hoy se experimenta profundas transformaciones, como muestra el Boletín Nº 4 del Programa Anillo (SOC01) en Políticas de Educación Superior editado por Andrés Bernasconi.
El report de la AAC&U analiza en particular las responsabilidades públicas de una profesión sujeta al control de la revisión por pares y las fallas que esta forma de autonomía y autogobierno social paecen estar presentando en el mundo desarrollado. [Ver comentario completo de Inisde Higher Ed más abajo].
Puede complementarse la lectura de este comentario e informa con el artículo Out of the Loop, publicado tamnbién hioy en Inside Higher Ed, en el cual se da cuenta de la percepción que tienen los académicos de diferentes paíoses del mundo, en especial en EE.UU., Canadá e Inglaterra, sobre su declinante poder dentro de las universidades y su baja influencia sobre las decisiones en diversos aspectos institucionales de sus universidades.
Por su parte, Philip Altbach, en el foro que actualmente se desarrolla en la Red en preparación de la próxima Conferencia Mundial de la Educación Superior, formula la siguiente observación sobre la profesión académica en países en desarrollo:
Lis Lange makes a very important point by focusing on the qualifications of the academic profession. Globally, we are in many ways moving in a negative direction. More university teachers are part-time and have little time to devote to their teaching or their students. It is very likely (we have no firm data) that the average academic qualifications of lecturers is declining–in many developing countries, many have only a bachelors degree.
Generally, university teachers are given no preparation at all in how to teach or in assessment. In short, mass higher education has produced a cadre of increasingly poorly prepared and badly paid teachers. Without a well qualified and committed academic profession, there is no possibility at all of high quality instruction or learning.
Philip Altbach

A Crisis of Ethic Proportion
Inside Higher Ed, June 12, 2009
By Neil W. Hamilton
The financial sector catastrophe and consequent worldwide recession are a crisis of “ethic” proportion, in Vanguard founder John Bogle’s words. Higher education’s own responsibility for the failures of ethical leadership in business, the gatekeeper professions, and government should trigger a careful self-assessment. Could it be that the academic profession, whose members both educate and serve as role models in the formation years for leaders in business, government, and all the other peer review professions, is falling short in its own ethical responsibilities?
A major theme of “The Future of the Professoriate: Academic Freedom, Peer Review, and Shared Governance,” the first in the Association of American Colleges and Universities’ new Intentional Leadership in the New Academy series of essays, is that the academic profession has been failing for many years in its ethical duty to acculturate new entrants into the tradition and ethics of the profession. The central argument in “The Future of the Professoriate” is that members of a peer-review profession cannot aggressively justify and defend their control over professional work when they do not both understand the profession’s social contract and internalize their responsibilities under the social contract. The social contract of each peer-review profession is the tacit agreement between society and members of a profession that regulates their relationship with each other, in particular the profession’s control over professional work. Essentially, in order for the public to grant a peer-review profession more autonomy and control over the work different from the control that society and employers exercise over other occupations, the public must trust that the profession and its members will use the autonomy at least to some degree to benefit the public in the area of the profession’s responsibility, not abuse occupational control over the work merely to serve self-interest.
The simple fact is that all the data available indicate that a substantial proportion of graduate students and faculty members do not clearly understand the profession’s social contract, academic freedom, shared governance, and each professor’s and the faculty’s specific duties that justify the profession’s claims to autonomy. Osmosis-like diffusion of these concepts and duties does not work. There must be required education on professional ethics for graduate students and entering and veteran faculty just as there is for law students in all states and members of the legal profession in many states. (Academic Ethics (American Council on Education/Oryx Press, 2002) outlines the content of this education.)
The governing boards of many colleges and universities represent the public in the social contract between the public and the academic profession. “The Future of the Professoriate” argues that the boards and their senior administrative teams have faced substantial market changes in higher education in recent decades; the current budgetary disaster driven by reduced taxpayer support for public higher education and reduced endowments is among the most difficult of these market changes. While members of all peer-review professions carry an ongoing burden to justify to the public (and the boards representing the public) the profession’s occupational control over the work, carrying this burden is particularly critical during a time of rapid market change.
The report’s analysis is that during this period of market change, the academic profession has been almost totally missing in action in mounting a robust public defense of both how the public benefits from the profession’s autonomy and control over its work in the form of academic freedom, peer review, and shared governance and how the profession and its members are actively fulfilling their duties under the social contract. Paradoxically, while we are educators, we are not educating. The situation is similar to the failure of the medical profession to mount a robust public defense of its autonomy during the 1980s and 1990s when the health care market changed toward managed care that dramatically reduced the medical profession’s control over its professional work.
At a significant swath of institutions, the academic profession’s defense of the social contract has focused on rights and job security. As Eliot Freidson in Professionalism: The Third Logic (University of Chicago Press, 2001) has observed, when the peer-review professions defend their social contracts, they typically rely on a rhetoric of rights, job security, and “good intentions, which [are] belied by the patently self-interested character of many of their activities. What they almost never do is spell out the principles underlying the institutions that organize and support the way they do their work and take active responsibility for [the realization of the principles].” They do not undertake responsibility for assuring the quality of their members’ work. The academic profession’s anemic defense of its social contract confirms Freidson’s observation.
The predicable result of an anemic defense of a profession’s social contract during a time of market change is that the society and employers will restructure control of the profession’s work toward the regulatory and employer control typical for other occupations — essentially the default employment arrangements in a market economy. This is what has been happening to the academic profession. The boards at many colleges and universities have been renegotiating a sweeping change in the academic profession’s social contract over many years to reduce the profession’s autonomy and control over professional work. “The Future of the Professoriate” details how the renegotiation is most evident with the dramatic increase in contingent faculty to the point that, by 2003, 59 percent of all newly hired full-time faculty started in non-tenure-track positions.
The academic profession must not resign itself to the current trend toward contingent faculty, but it cannot reverse the trends toward a higher proportion of contingent faculty and less occupational control over professional work by employing a rhetoric of rights, job security, and good intentions. However, professors cannot defend the social contract without both having the knowledge necessary to make the defense and actively meeting their duties under the social contract. The single most important step for the profession is improving the acculturation of graduate students and veteran academics into the tradition and ethics of the profession. The best starting point at each institution may be a simple faculty self-assessment of the degree to which the faculty is helping new and veteran faculty members understand and internalize both the minimum standards of competence and ethical conduct for the profession (the ethics of duty) and the core values and ideals of the profession (the ethics of aspiration).
If the academic profession at many institutions does not undertake these responsibilities, then this crisis of ethic proportion will continue, and the trajectory for the academic profession for the next twenty years will, in all likelihood, look like the trajectory for the last thirty years. Members of the profession will continue a slow transformation toward employment as technical experts subject to the dominant market model of employer control over work.
While many in the profession believe the battle is against oppressive governing boards, administrators, and market forces, the battle is actually for the soul of the profession. Imagine a world in which each professor at an institution had fully internalized the tradition and ethics of the profession. We are educators. From a position of knowledge and moral authority, not just self-interest, we could then convince the public — and, most importantly, the governing boards and administrative leadership who are trustees for the public good of creating and disseminating knowledge — that academic freedom, peer review, and shared governance best serve the institution’s mission.
Neil Hamilton is professor of law and director of the Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions at the University of St. Thomas.