Meeting 2/99 of the Deans Discussion Group was held between 4.00 pm and 9.20 pm on Tuesday, 4 May 1999 in the Monash City Office, Level 11, 30 Collins Street, Melbourne.

Professor D A Robinson, Vice-Chancellor and President, Presiding

Professor P LeP Darvall, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Research and Development)

Professor A W Lindsay, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Planning)

Mr P B Wade, General Manager

Professor J K Redmond, Dean, Faculty of Art and Design

Professor T Threadgold, Acting Dean, Faculty of Arts

Professor J A Rickard, Dean, Faculty of Business & Economics

Professor J Rosenberg, Dean, Faculty of Information Technology

Professor R T White, Dean, Faculty of Education

Professor M L Brisk, Dean, Faculty of Engineering

Professor S Parker, Dean, Faculty of Law

Professor N Saunders, Dean, Faculty of Medicine

Professor C B Chapman, Dean, Faculty of Pharmacy

Professor R W Davies, Dean, Faculty of Science

Professor M Evans, Associate Chair, Academic Board

Professor J Warren, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Monash University Malaysia Campus

Professor Lee Weng Keng, Executive Director, Monash University Malaysia Campus

Secretary:

Mr P Siggins, Manager, University Secretariat

Members noted that Professor Maloney would not be present.

Professor Merran Evans, Professor Jim Warren (Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Malaysia Campus) and Mr Lee Weng Keng (Executive Director, Malaysia Campus) were in attendance.

The notes of Deans Discussion Group meeting 1/99 held 16^th March were received.

Professor Warren requested the meeting give consideration to the following:

Professor Warren requested Deans to give consideration to membership of faculties of staff of the Malaysia Campus. Deans were asked to consider inclusion of names of such staff in faculty handbooks and some form of representation on faculty boards. In discussion, it was noted that handbooks were to be replaced by a consolidated calendar volume but that handbooks would exist on the WWW. It was suggested that representation on faculty boards would be handled through the standard mechanisms set out in the faculty's legislation although actual participation in meetings would necessitate use of voice points at meetings. Deans agreed to give attention to this matter.

In discussion, the suggestion that Monash University Malaysia Campus might pay an annual amount to faculties based on student enrolments was not opposed and it was agreed that Professor Warren would further discuss the detail of this matter with participating faculties.

The group endorsed the approach taken as outlined in Professor Warren's paper.

In discussion of this item, concerns were raised in relation to the situation if large numbers of students of Monash University Malaysia Campus wished to study for a semester in Victoria. The Vice-Chancellor suggested that there would need to be further discussions of the issue of tuition fees to identify and sort out anticipated problems.

The Vice-Chancellor opened discussion. The meeting should have a broad ranging discussion focussing on 2020 and then discuss faculties and campuses later.

The aim was to extract 6-8 themes from the material provided by Deans for the next iteration of the Monash Plan. Discussion initially focussed on the contribution from the Faculty of Arts. Professor Threadgold highlighted Monash as a global university in Australia. Monash was distinctive because of its diversity of students and there was a need to develop the curriculum in relation to that diversity. Diversity should be seen as a resource.

Discussion led on to concepts of global as opposed to international. The Vice-Chancellor commented that these were distinct concepts with different meanings. Global refers to location of operations whilst international refers to a mindset, an outlook, a philosophy about the world. A paradigm for universities might be established with local and global on one axis and parochial and international on the other.

Arising from the Arts comments was the concept of the 'Australianess' of Monash. This was an attractive quality of the University reflecting Australia's multi-culturalism, egalitarianism and spirited way of life. These qualities were exemplified at Monash and could be reflected in the Plan.

Professor White commented on Australia as a 'broker nation' and suggested that it would be worthwhile considering capitalising on Australia's differences from both the USA and UK. There was wide respect for Australian values and independent attitudes. In the academic context, Australia was not considered to be an intellectual imperialist and might in fact be considered an intellectual broker.

There was comment on the need for Australian students to be multi-lingual. Should languages be taught in all courses? In response it was commented that the trend was in the other direction - increasingly courses in other countries are taught in English. With respect to globalisation, it was noted that at Flinders University a globalisation stream had been incorporated into courses. At Wollongong, an internationalisation core curriculum had been established which allowed students to select subjects from a list. Professor Threadgold noted that the LTOP working party had revealed a wide range of small scale efforts across the University toward increasing the internationalisation of the Monash curriculum.

Discussion returned to Australianess and Professor Parker commented that as the University evolved, there would be traces of Australianess in its overall profile in the future reflecting the origins of the University. Mr Lee observed that the Australian higher education system was located between that of the USA and UK and uniquely combined the liberal arts breadth of the American system with the intellectual depth of the United Kingdom system.

The Vice-Chancellor observed that to be realistic, Australia is normally a second choice destination for overseas students.

Professor White emphasised that Australia is in a position to absorb scholarship from a variety of directions and to capitalize on its unique access to many cultures. The University should be conscious of its potential to market a unique Australian synthesis of influences.

Professor Lindsay suggested that in the very long term only vestigial remnants of Monash may be in Australia but that the vast bulk of its operations may be located in wealthy overseas countries. Mr Wade related this to the car industry noting that Volvo only received a minor income from vehicles sold in Sweden but was represented all around the world. Notwithstanding its global operation, people still described Volvo as Swedish.

The Vice-Chancellor identified two types of strategies for Monash - does the University wish to pursue the development of further campuses as per the Malaysian model or to establish itself globally with further developments along the lines of Monash's involvement with Kings College, London University. Or, does the University want to expand using both models? In the subsequent discussion, analogies with the car industry were employed and Mr Wade noted that for many companies the translation of their manufacturing bases to other countries resulted in increased profitability. However, companies adopting this model had to be prepared for significant returns to be left in the country providing the product. Similarly, Monash would have to be prepared to leave significant returns in the country teaching the Monash program.

Consensus was not reached in relation to expansion models. There was some doubt expressed about the desirability of setting up further campuses along the lines of the Malaysian model. The view was expressed that the University should be campus-based but must be flexible in developing its overseas operation. A member emphasised that learning is a social activity and that a combination of flexible modes of learning and face-to-face learning are essential. In the near future, all students would be participating in learning through mixed-mode delivery. The Vice-Chancellor emphasised that key alliances such as with Kings make the University attractive to other potential partners. The University's links into other parts of the world, for example, Southern Africa, South East Asia, also make Monash attractive. However, for an integrated operation, it would be essential to have credit transfer arrangements and academic policies across the Monash alliance articulated and implemented.

The Vice-Chancellor introduced discussion noting that the Plan this time would be a very different document from that of in previous years. It would be a concise public document that could also be used for both public and internal purposes. The Vice-Chancellor raised the question of whether the focus for the document this year should be on 2020, with the issue of the distinctive role of each campus and faculty reserved for later iterations. It was commented that the most important element in the plan would be its capacity to inspire the staff about the University and where the University was headed. There was support expressed for the creation of a short document defining the principles guiding the University and establishing the framework for faculty and campus developments.

In discussion, it was emphasised that there would need to be a high level of acceptance among Deans of the planning document and it would need to be stated that Deans subscribe to it. In response to this comment, Professor Evans explained the time table for development of the plan.

Discussion turned to differentiation in the higher education system and differentiation within Monash itself. Members noted that differentiation existed within all levels of the University structure.

There was also discussion of long term time frames and the Vice-Chancellor suggested that in preparing a planning document, it would be useful to identify features of the world in the Year 2020, to cultivate an approach whereby the University defines the world rather than merely reacting to it and to address the means by which the University creates an environment of intellectual excitement. In responding to the Vice-Chancellor's comment, Professor Darvall suggested that the imperatives facing the University in the long term were the unlimited human desire for face-to-face contact, improved quality of life, communication, travel, being international and understanding the world. People will always thrust in these directions notwithstanding perceived barriers. At the same time, the world was under increasing pressure environmentally.

The Vice-Chancellor commented that it would be useful for the University to be reminded of what Monash was like in 1980 and that a paragraph or graph could be included in the Plan contrasting the University's present situation and the University in 1980. The Vice-Chancellor raised the question as to whether the guiding principles that informed the University's operation in 1980 had survived or whether they had been superseded. Professor Darvall commented that the guiding principles of innovation, engagement and internationalisation were still current. Professor Rosenberg suggested that in 1980, teaching excellence as a guiding principle did not have the same profile as it does currently.

Professor Lindsay commented on the principle of differentiation and suggested that differentiation is quite subtle and requires a sophisticated strategy across all the dimensions. Ideally, academic units would be strong in both teaching and research, but it is possible for units to contribute in one field. Some units might be seen as feeder lines to other units within the University.

There was further discussion about the environment of education in 2020. A modern large global university in the future must seek to understand and lead the way on key issues - in Professor Darvall's view, issues such as climate change, environmental degradation, resources, human population movement and growth would be prominent. By 2020, the world would be an overcrowded and intense environment. The Vice-Chancellor emphasised that a major university attempts to address the major issues. In the planning document, it would not necessarily have to specify those major issues but it would establish its pro-active stance.

Professor Threadgold commented that a major University engages with societal change, leads debate about it and does not merely react to it. With respect to curriculum change, this was very difficult to predict even in the short term, but a major university drives such change. While a core set of disciplines may always be difficult to identify, a major university maintains a flexible approach whilst being mindful of abiding academic values and principles.

Professor Threadgold also raised the issue of gender suggesting that the Plan should reflect the University's commitment to men and women providing intellectual leadership.

The Vice-Chancellor commented on the discipline profile of the University and the need for strengthening the performance of staff so that the University might compete in designated disciplines locally, nationally and internationally. In this context, there was comment on the need to strengthen the research effort of the University.

The Vice-Chancellor emphasised that it was vital for Deans to inform him of where the University stood in terms of disciplines. There was a need for honesty in assessing relative discipline strengths across the faculties. It was further suggested that the discipline configuration of the University could be considered - the current 10 faculty structure may not be the ideal configuration.

Professor Redmond commented on the measures used to determine the University's performance and observed that the system tended to be self-referential. He questioned how the University is really perceived and the capacity for the University to survive if it did not have a clear assessment of its performance.

Reflecting on the research effort, Mr Wade commented on the need to ration the research dollar carefully and specifically. Each faculty must define its research strengths just as faculties had defined their LTOP lead sites.

The Vice-Chancellor commented that the international reputation of the University may depend on the development of a crop of quality centres that could be ranked with world leaders.

Discussion moved to the concept of self-reliance. The Vice-Chancellor highlighted the need to establish as much autonomy as possible and to define the future for Monash while the current favourable situation prevailed.

Mr Wade emphasised the need for rigorous decision making regarding spending on support activities. The income level of the University would not undergo major growth in the near future. But there was a need to put in place information technology and other technical support. A rigorous approach to resource allocation would have to be adopted in this situation. He noted the level of faculty funds and observed that faculty balances would need to be mobilised in the service of these faculties.

Mr Wade also commented on the need to cut the 'dross' out of the University's daily operating costs. Internal and external administrative processes that were frustrating the efficient operation of the University should be confronted or stripped away.

It was agreed that at the next meeting of the Deans Discussion Group, there would be a discussion of administrative processes that should be reviewed and/or dispensed with.

The next ordinary meeting of the Committee of Deans will be held at 2.15 pm on Tuesday, 25 May 1999 in the Sir George Lush Room.

The next meeting of the Deans Discussion Group will be held at 4.00 pm on Tuesday, 15 June 1999 in the City Office.