Privatisation and commercialization: two globalizing practices affecting Australian universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fundamental force underpinning neoliberal globalisation is the privatisation of the economy. It is commonly understood that this movement to shift substantial resources from the public sector to the private sector began simultaneously in the United States with the Reagan government and in the United Kingdom with the Thatcher government. From these two countries, privatisation, sometimes referred to as economic rationalism or applying market forces to public sector agencies, spread to other Anglo-derived countries, such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia, and then to many other countries around the world. However, it is noteworthy that many European countries have resisted this trend towards privatisation, especially in regard to universities. An important distinction can be made between the privatisation and the commercialisation of higher education; nevertheless, the fact that there is an interaction between privatisation and commercialisation makes it difficult to untangle the impetus for these practices in universities. Both of these globalising forces are affecting Australia's higher education sector as public universities become more like private institutions and the locus of funding shifts from the taxpayer to students and their families. This privatisation process has been accompanied by commercial behaviour that may put Australia's research base at risk. This article addresses the impact of these two globalising forces on the quality of education and academic freedom in Australian universities. It argues that there is a greater chance that research will be curiosity-driven and critical education will thrive if profit is not the major determinant of university research and teaching agendas. To protect the independence of research and the enviable reputation that Australian universities currently have in providing high quality education, the Commonwealth government may need to reduce its drive to privatise universities and commercialise research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".