Dear colleagues,
I ceased being editor of the Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management at the end of 2016, and this was a role I played with considerable pride for some 16 years. For most of that time, things went smoothly.
If my term officially finished at the end of 2016, why am I writing this ‘Letter from the editor’ in 2017? There is a simple reason: the publishing cycle from submission of manuscripts to the publisher and distribution of the print version of the journal is typically six or seven weeks, and longer over the Christmas break. Therefore, the papers in this issue have been with the publisher since late October 2016.
In this issue, we have papers from authors in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, Thailand, the UK and the USA, on a wide range of topics. First cab off the rank is Kerry Shephard’s clear summary of submissions to the recent government review of New Zealand’s tertiary education. He identified three broad themes, relating to competition, trust and the purpose of educational endeavour in the submissions.
Next, Andrew Gunn and Michael Mintrom discuss the rising profile of ‘non-academic research impact’, including perceptions of relevance and impact of research. They conclude that non-academic impact should be selectively promoted and evaluated. This can happen without undermining academic freedom and research excellence, they say.
Then follows a study on increased direct costs of higher education to students in the US, and whether this has affected enrolments. This concern is in light of the known impact of economic conditions on enrolments. Increasing costs of fees have had an impact on students’ capacity to pay, and perhaps enrolment no longer rises in periods of higher unemployment. Another US-based study comes from Jason Coupet, who looked specifically at the distribution of public funding (from state and federal governments), and the impact of this distribution on the efficiency of historically black colleges and universities. This five-year study suggests that higher proportions of state revenues have a negative impact on efficiency. ‘State governments should consider their political roles in assessing the performance of [these universities]’, says the author.
Next is a paper from and about Thai higher education. Authors Payear Sangiumvibool and Supasith Chonglerttham consider ‘performance-based funding’, and the impact its implementation has had on universities’ provision of continuing and lifelong education to the general public. This is an important interaction that universities in most of the world have beyond the interactions with their enrolled students.
Moving now to Spain, the paper by Vladimir Martínez-Bello, Ángela Martínez-Rojas and Javier Molina-García examines the representation of physical activity on official media sites of Spanish universities. Their conclusion is that promotion of physical activity on the internet should occur by promoting a comprehensive view on healthy behaviours and should include diversity ‘as a norm rather than the exception’.
The next paper presents an analysis of the organising principles at three US universities over a 15-year period. Stevie Upton and Jarrett Warshaw undertook this examination because of the ‘ascendency of market behaviours in public universities’, and universities becoming ‘industry-like organisations’. The authors tell us that ‘hybrid logics’ can provide a framework in which universities can ‘manage tensions in their mission’.
Finally, hardy perennial author of (critical) studies about world university ranking Kaycheng Soh presents us with ‘the seven deadly sins’ of ranking, and highlights the statistical problems inherent in the methodology of ranking agencies. He notes that ‘these issues render the validity of ranking results suspect’. Of course, as we all know, if a ranking scheme ranks our university highly, it must be valid! This paper and those that preceded it in this issue present more than enough for university managers and administrators, and higher education analysts alike.
Having briefly described the contents of this issue, perhaps I could indulge myself by offering a couple of observations about being an editor in my last ‘Letter from the editor’. The Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management increased from two issues at the start of its life, to six issues a year now. In early days, the pressure to publish was less than it is now, so the number of papers has increased steadily over the years.
The pressure to publish in English-language journals has also meant an increase in the number of papers submitted to journals like ours from authors who do not have English as their first language. Of course, such authors should have their English revised by a professional or a native speaker, but many do not do so. I have heard that some unscrupulous authors send papers to multiple journals, in the hope of having editors and peer reviewers revise English expression and suggest improvements to content. Personally, I hope that this does not happen very often, but I do recall one paper a couple of years back: the authors withdrew it, but not until I’d spent several hours helping make it publishable.
Another challenge is that with the increased number of papers to consider, if authors do not submit papers per the required style, it adds to the workload of editors, reviewers and copy editors. Perhaps some editors do not concern themselves with ‘style’, but this journal started its life being self-published, so its editors always saw it as their responsibility to make sure that the end product had a consistent appearance. In those early days, we did not have the luxury of a team of professional copy editors to rely on; we had to get it looking right ourselves! Try to imagine how long it takes to re-punctuate 40 or 50 incorrectly rendered references. Style and format of references is the most common author transgression, but most journals have increasing lists of style requirements, and it is hard to understand why authors would not follow these. Many papers are ‘desk rejected’ without going for peer review. Authors should do all they can to submit ‘in style’ papers to avoid desk rejection.
Having observed these few negatives, editing has many positive elements. Perhaps the biggest positive of all comes from helping a novice writer to get their work into print. As with any endeavour, getting published follows a learning curve: dexterity comes with experience. It should also be remembered that our journal is different from most in the higher education discipline: the Journal was established 39 years ago by an association of administrators, joined in recent years by an organisation that seeks to improve management and leadership. Papers by university administrators and managers now make up a smaller proportion of the total than in earlier years, but our journal remains an important one for those of us that don’t have academic appointments. Many administrators are now as well-qualified as their academic colleagues, so elements of the divide between ‘academic’ and ‘general’ are less stark with the advent of the doctoral-qualified administrator. Of course, when administrators write a paper, they typically do it in their own time: publishing scholarly work is not part of the duties statement of the typical administrator!
Getting papers into print does not happen without assistance from people other than the editor. Scholarly journals are required to conduct a process of peer review, and this places a burden on those asked to review. Therefore, special thanks are due to all the individuals who have participated in the review process as blind peer reviewers. Whilst offering thanks, the Routledge production team also deserve to be remembered. It is these people who ensure that a high-quality product comes out as the culmination of submitting a paper to a journal.
And now the future! Your new editors are to be Peter Bentley and Carroll Graham from the University of Melbourne and University Technology Sydney, respectively. Fortunately, my experience as editor was that the ‘why do I bother’ moments were few and far between, but of course, there are moments in the life of an editor that are like that. I hope that my successors experience as few of these as I did.
Signing off for the last time, your humble ex-editor,