Improving Dispute Resolution in Australian Universities: Options for the future

Abstract

Disputes in Australian universities cost millions of dollars each year that could be spent more fruitfully on core activities such as research and teaching. This paper uses three case studies to examine what we know about disputes and dispute resolution in Australian universities. The impact of changing higher education funding and policy on disputes in universities is examined. Finally, the paper considers how conflict handling in universities might be improved. It looks, in particular, at proposals for a national university ombuds and the use of alternative methods of dispute resolution and integrated conflict management systems in Australian universities.

Acknowledgements

Thanks and acknowledgement go especially to Rosemary Lyster. I benefited from many discussions with her on the strengths and limits of the ombuds role in the preparation of this paper. I also acknowledge the research assistance of Rowena Braddock. The research was supported by a grant from the Legal Scholarship Support Fund in the Faculty of Law, Sydney University.

Notes

The terms ombuds and ombudsman are both used to describe the role. Ombuds is preferred here, with ombudsman used where that term is the title of a particular officer, for example, the NSW Ombudsman.

The author holds the Abbott Tout Chair in Litigation and Dispute Resolution at Sydney University. She convened the Panel of Dispute Conciliators at the university for several years and has acted as a mediator in disputes between staff and between staff and students. She has provided training courses on conflict management for heads of department and academic managers and has learned much from the participants about how they dealt with conflicts in their various jobs. She was Pro Dean for Staff Development for over two years and dealt with staff conflict in that role. As a consultant, she has been involved in training and dispute systems design for a number of organisations.