Ethics, Education and Work: Reflections on Cooperative Education in the New University System

Ethics and the University

Ethics- What does it mean?

Formal definitions aside, ethics is perhaps most easily understood as that branch of philosophy which is concerned with the question: "What ought I/we to do?" The his­tory of ethics points to multiple perspectives and definitions, seman­tic arguments. ambiguities of lan­guage, the logic of linguistics, and the illusive power of alliteration! 1 One approach to unravel some of these issues is to identify a frame­work in which ethical issues can be viewed and reviewed. This paper presents a framework that can be used to explore the ethical dilemmas that arise in cooperative education (co-op) within the university envi­ronment.

A Framework for Theories of Ethics

One approach to ethics taken by Petrick and Quinn ( 1997) is to relate ethics theories to established management theories (see Figure 1). This model effectively com­bines theoretical orientations of two disciplines: applied ethics and business management. The applied ethics theories (Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics, System Development Ethics and Teleological Ethics) are represented in the large box and management theories in the inner oval (Human Relations Theory, Internal Process Theory, Open Systems Theory and Rational Goal Theory). The frame­work indicates that the axes of flexibility/control and internal/ external orientation effectively iden­tify four theory groupings identified in the inner boxes. Hence, virtue theories relate to character building in three arenas: personal, work, and professional behaviour. Systems development theories connect with open systems management theories that relate to individual growth, group development, and relation­ships between groups.

In the lower segment of the table that emphasizes control, ethics theories split between approaches relating to rights and principles and those oriented towards outcomes, or conse­quences. Outcomes can be seen economically (usually relating to utilitarianism) or in terms of happiness/pleasure (the Greek notion of Eudemonia). Principles, couched in terms of duties and obliga­tions to society, prescribe acceptable behaviour in either a business or social context (deontology). The ethical theories in these two quartiles are the most commonly identified by business ethics writers and follow the traditions of philosophy that focused on controlling human behaviour. These themes provide a platform to review devel­opment of post secondary education in Australia in both historical and contemporary settings.

An Ethical Perspective of the Traditional University

When we reflect on theoretical applied ethics as outlined in the framework, we can identify those inherent in the concept of a university. The concern of humans to determine moral grounds and knowledge emerged early and resulted in the Greek philosophy schools. Those schools, and many of the great seminaries and monasteries (the institutions that were the precursors of the university), debated the meaning of human existence. As the university system developed in the post Enlightenment 18th and 19th centuries in Europe and England, philosophy studies were created and became the basis for ethical analysis of "control" of the individual, of society and of its institutions. This was evidenced in the work of teleology and deontology philoso­phers such as Kant, Bentham and Mills (Bullock, 1985).

In Australia, universities were started in the second half of the nineteenth century (Turney in McIntyre & Marginson, 1999) "to discharge the duties and offices belonging to the higher grades of society" and to provide "mental culture and improvement." The ethical themes addressed by universities at this stage could be identified as individual character, personal growth, and ethical egoism. Towards the end of the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th, universities grew with significant support from the professions, particularly the legal, medical and political elite. Macintyre and Marginson (1999, p. 7-9) suggest that university environments were constrained by "lay councils"2 that limited their capacity to offer dissent. In the 30's and 40's however, the notion of "open inquiry that should lead and inform public discussion" was emerging (Macintyre & Marginson, 1999, p. 10). The roles of universities broadened to support work and professional character development and to help develop the control systems relating to social con­tracts and justice, with some recognition of rights. These are aspects of deontological and virtue ethics theories. It was, however, in the "long growth period" after the Second World War that the extensive development of the university sector took place.

Post Was Ethos of the Australian Vocational University

Vocationalism, which dominated the technical, trade, and para-professional education in the first 150 years of education in Australia, moved into the university sector in the last 50 years. In terms of Petrick and Quinn's ( 1997) model of ethics, this shift in education represents teleological theories and extra-organizational system theories. Such theories propose that individuals are developing to fulfil their perceived needs while at the same time adopting a utilitarian approach. Education serves the nation or is useful by providing a solid base for an economically strong community.

Another theme inherent in the post war period was the belief that education should be available to all, regardless of their wealth. Commonwealth Scholarships were introduced in Australia in the 1960's, and in the mid-1970's university education fees were abolished. In the late 1980's fees were reintroduced, but a delayed payments scheme enables graduates to pay once they start earning a salary. Such a policy reflects an ethical perspective that upholds rights and social justice (upholding the historical themes of egalitarianism, equality, and equal opportunity) that Australians like to regard as national characteristics. Deontological theories, those relating to rights and principles, justify this perspective as well.

A corollary of this argument is that the university be a system of meritocracy. Meritocracy beliefs argue that we are all born equals and can achieve our standing in life via a three-tier education that is available to all. We "become significant" via learning, with the university representing the pin­nacle institution that confers the "key." The "key" is a degree that not only rewards the achiever, but ensures or at least promises future success. Individual and professional character building are expected to be developed at university (virtue ethics). This is also congruent with social justice theories as it suggests all can achieve personal merit through higher education.

It was at this time that Australian vocational universities facilitated the introduction of cooper­ative education programs in the 1960's. These programs, while being embodied within an ethical structure of their own, were seen as a very impor­tant vehicle for the promotion and support of the post war values held and promoted by vocational universities. These values, especially in the 60's and 70's, incorporated elements of all the theories outlined in Petrick and Quinn's model (Figure 1).

Ethics and Traditions of Co-operative Education

Cooperative Education in Australian Business Schools

The co-op programs in Australian university business schools usually involve students under­taking a 6-12 month industry placement between the second and final years of their degree. The purpose of a co-op program is to provide students with a structured learning opportunity that integrates their academic and work practices that enhance learning. Not all universities offer these programs, and those that do have different policies about whether co-op is compulsory or optional. The perspectives developed below are built on experi­ences and research into compulsory co-op programs offered by an Australian university.

Principles and Equity

The principles of equity and justice are supported through compulsory co-op schemes. They help those who do not have pre-existing links into the job market. Co-op acts as a countervailing force against the "establishment network" that has tra­ditionally given an advantage to the privileged and "well connected." In compulsory programs, the university aims to ensure that all students are given equal access to available co-op positions. The concept of equity is further enhanced through co-op as it helps students fund their period of study since work periods are usually paid.

Virtues

The concept of "work character" is inherent in co-op programs. By ensuring undergraduates experience normal working conditions, virtues associated with the workplace, such as competence, creativity, honesty, fairness, trustworthiness, co­worker appreciation, task completion, honor, loyalty, dependability, conscientiousness, and dis­cretion (Petrick & Quinn, 1997) are reinforced.

Systems Development

Co-op schemes have, in the past, strengthened the relationships between universities, employers, industry groups, and professions, and build on the need to interact and be inter-dependant in co-cre­ating education and work. As students usually return to the university after a period of work, and are not necessarily committed to returning to the same employer, co-op depends on employers being prepared to take a broader view of their role in creating work. The interactive and inter-dependent relationships bring together the professional, organizational, and societal needs and wants, reflecting the values of each.

Outcomes

Cooperative education is also inherently deon­tological. It enhances the personal future career prospects of students, assists employers to manage their recruitment programs and strengthens the profile of universities as practical providers of rel­evant, vocationally linked education.

This brief analysis demonstrates that co-op, in theory, supports the university in achieving con­sistency of values within and across a number of ethics theories. We suggest that changing economic and social environments, however, challenge the universities' ability to maintain this framework.

Ethics in the New University System (NUS)

In the past 10 years, a growing number of aca­demics are suggesting that many of features of the NUS are antithetical to what a university should be. In Australia, academics such as Marginson (1997), Coady (1999), and Manne (1998) have written about the problems they perceive that the NUS has created. A recent analysis by Ellingsen ( 1999) suggests universities are looking more "like businesses every day." A number of keywords that many find do not fit with traditional notions of a university, are becoming increasingly associated with the NUS. They are "corporatist,'' "manageri­alist," "measurement-driven," "product-based," "profit-motivated," "privatized," "market-oriented," "bureaucratic," and, above all, "big" and "un-edu­cational ! "

On the other hand, some of these terms are not greeted with horror. Many "outsiders" have been dismayed by the capacity of universities to isolate themselves from the rigors of an increasingly com­plex and competitive world. Some social commen­tators believe increased effectiveness and efficiency in universities is long overdue. Chipman ( 1999) suggests that as increasing numbers of young people are seeking further education, changes to the system are inevitable and must be accommo­dated. Others, such as Schank ( 1999) suggest that elitism, an inherent characteristic of the traditional university system, can only be broken down when knowledge dissemination becomes truly 'available to all' which is most likely to happen via informa­tion technology and the internet.

The ethical theory analysis framework may help us reflect on the impact of some of the changes that have been identified and the values they reflect. Clearly, words associated with NUS emphasize outcomes which have a Utilitarian tone. Society is seeking immediately valuable "results" from the NUS. Students want jobs and employers want stu­dents to have a useable "skill-set." Universities in this sense are seen as the "winnowers and graders for society." The required standards are not always articulated and are sometimes conflicting, espe­cially when university education is increasingly identified as a "purchasable product" focused on "skills and competence." In Petrick and Quinn's model ( 1997), the flexibility aspects ( the upper quartiles in Figure I), considered to be valuable in the longer term, are being sacrificed for the short-term concerns for control and certainty. These changes in the NUS have had a significant impact on ethical perspectives of co-op programs.

Cooperative Education in the NUS

Relationships between the university and its students. Throughout the 1990's, Australian uni­versities experienced increasing pressures due to reduced government funding. The impact of these and other changes have been well documented (Coaldrake, 1999). One major consequence of government policy for Australian unversities is that universities are being required to increase their external sources of funding and to reduce operating costs. In universities, where co-op is a cost center and program benefits have not been quantified in monetary terms, many of the factors that helped to sustain co-op are being threatened. The tradi­tional ethical basis of co-op has shifted from an emphasis on virtue, systems development and equity ethics, to utilitarianism. Fewer resources are available to ensure that all students are provided with quality, discipline-related work experiences, resulting in many inappropriate job placements being accepted. Likewise, counselling and providing mentor support for students, once an important feature of co-op, is less available as resources are targeted for activities that directly contribute to increasing revenue or reducing costs for the uni­versity. Academics are also less likely to make a personal commitment to the traditional ethos of co-op when the associated demands conflict with the teaching, research, or consulting activities that provide more status or monetary rewards. These examples demonstrate that for NUS there has been a shift from promoting work character, profession­alism, and extra-organizational ethics (upper quar­tiles in Figure 1) to surviving financial and com­petitive pressures by adopting ethical egoism and utilitarianism (lower right quartile in Figure 1).

Another way of surviving the financial pressures of reduced government funding has been for the NUS to increase the number of full fee-paying admissions offered to international students. Co-op, with the promise of gaining work experience while at school has been used as a marketing tool to recruit international students. There are, however, problems with the universities' ability to deliver on this promise. Most employers want co-op students who will be available for graduate recruitment. Co-op students also need to have well-developed communication skills, often influenced by familiarity with an Australian work culture. International stu­dents are therefore less suitable for co-op jobs as currently defined. The restricted access that inter­national students have to co-op opportunities raises the issue of the lack of social justice for our diverse school population. Accusations of "unethical" marketing have also been made. While the latter problem has been addressed by ensuring all students are provided with recruiting material which strongly emphasizes that the university cannot guarantee co-op employment, the lack of access and equity still presents an ethical dilemma. Should universi­ties with compulsory co-op programs admit increasing numbers of international students, given many international students have expectations of gaining Australian co-op jobs despite any dis­claimers made in the marketing material? The offering of alternative work-integrated learning opportunities in a classroom environment is one way of resolving this dilemma. However, these courses have high delivery costs and may not sur­vive in an environment of financial austerity.

Relationship Between Employers, Students and the University. Employers in an environment that emphasizes economic performance have lost some of the benevolent spirit that was once part of co-op. The sense of "nation building" is less evident in the employer attitudes towards co-op today than ten years ago. In the past, co-op foun­dations were established in some business schools with employers funding research and administrative activities. Many of these have subsequently been disbanded, as employers have become more "hard-nosed" about their support. This utilitarian shift is also evidenced by some employers who exploit how co-op can contribute to the company's recruitment strategy or its profitability rather than how the company can contribute to the develop­ment of the students' learning and professionalism.

The NUS also needs to manage ethical dilemmas that arise from the interaction between employers, students, and the NUS. If an employer dismisses a co-op student, does the university maintain stan­dards of professionalism by not placing the student elsewhere or is s/he given a second chance to uphold the university's stated value in work-based learning? If a student finds that s/he is required to undertake "unethical," if not illegal, activities, should the university terminate the placement despite the possibility of offending the employer, who may indeed have been a major supporter of co-op in the past? With the increasing pressure on students to get their own co-op positions, how does the university respond when it becomes evident that students have lied in the process of attaining their co-op placements?

While the NUS environment has not necessarily encouraged these situations, a tougher employment climate has reduced staff's efforts to effectively influence the process and results of the co-op experience. Employers are less forgiving, expect greater acquiescence from new employees, and students have to fight harder to get and keep positions. Universities, in trying to balance the needs of both students and employers against their own financial and performance pressures, often adopt a practical, if not survival, approach to resolving their dilemmas.

As universities are forced to be more "respon­sive" to the needs of employer organizations, their independence is curtailed. Their bargaining power to maintain the broader framework of ethics, out­lined above, is decreased. Ultimately as the co-op scenario illustrates, the basis of the partnership relationships becomes focused on short-term benefits. As co-op programs involve temporary employment, generally less than a year, it is easy for all parties to become driven by immediate concerns. Many of those aware of the philosophical roots of co-op know that this is a very thin justifi­cation for decision-making. The far richer and more long-term theories, in effect the other three quartiles in the Petrick and Quinn model (Figure 1), are being increasingly neglected. Ultimately, as the co-op experience suggests, everyone loses; students, employers, and the NUS.

Possible Responses to the Ethical Dilemmas

How then can universities change the ethical values on which co-op decisions are made? It is surprising to find that, in reviewing the Journal of Cooperative Education over 20 years, only three articles have addressed either ethical or legal issues. This indicates that the relationships between uni­versities, employers, and students are rarely dis­cussed in terms of vocational and technical ethics. While humanities or education faculty often reflect publicly on these issues, the emphasis on utility and practicality in higher education circles has diminished their influence.

Some would argue the NUS is at the mercy of the broader society. Until people outside the uni­ versity sector see the world in less "economically rationalistic" ways, universities are forced to pur­sue utilitarian policies. Others however, both in Australia and overseas, are fomenting the debate in ways that are likely to lead to a re-evaluation of the university's role ( Coady, 1999; Coaldrake, 1999). In Australia, a new Association for the Public University has recently been formed, with a mission to raise awareness of the problems the university sector is facing. While much of its initial agenda was being driven by the need to protect the courses in humanities from an over emphasis on vocationalism, more recent discussions are being directed to broader societal concerns. Greater public debate may help raise awareness of the emerging utilitarian ethical orientation in univer­sities and the ensuing problems.

The consideration of ethics within universities is currently being addressed in a number of ways. Some universities have devised and circulated a code of ethics. Given the climate that universities face, such documents are often regarded with derision and cynicism. Words in the code such as "professional performance," "harmonious work environment," "openness and fairness," "dignity of all people," "civilized," and "care for the social and natural environment" seem incongruous when put beside the descriptors of the NUS noted above. Considerably more work is therefore necessary than creating an ethics committee and devising a statement of intent. Linking the rhetoric to action requires changes in attitude and behavior amongst both academics and administrators. This can be encouraged through employment policies, staff selection criteria, and reward systems, as well as training, mentoring and counselling.

The teaching of ethics in a variety of programs at universities is heightening student awareness of problems created without consideration of values. As societies review the past decades of strident materialism and the growing disparity between wealth and poverty, there is increasing pressure for universities to take a stronger role in redressing the imbalance. Curricula are being rethought. A more "critical theory" approach to many disciplines rather than a "competency development" approach is evolving in some traditional arenas, such as management and accounting. The ideological positions inherent in many disciplines are being questioned and the ethical practices are being reviewed and discussed. Such movement within the teaching and research arenas is likely to "filter outwards and upwards." If staff are being encouraged to question "ethics" in their courses, it is likely that the university can only benefit.

Conclusion

The ethical analysis of co-op simply highlights a problem within universities that is becoming increasingly apparent to many academics. Universities that become instruments of the domi­nant "controllers" in society lose their value and credibility as "nation-building bedrock" and ulti­mately lose their sense of direction. As this paper suggests, the maintenance of a primarily utilitarian approach in building the relationship between universities and society is unlikely to be an effec­tive strategy in the long-term.

New directions and relationships are, however, unlikely to be forged until economic stability is returned to universities. Even though the emerging relationship with business and society is being re-evaluated, many universities are aware of the need to equip their students with ways of analyzing and challenging their own values as well as the values of the organizations with which they interact. Universities are recognizing that intellectual development of their students includes the exami­nation of beliefs and values. Some universities have already introduced strategies to develop a greater social consciousness in their students who will, in time, be supporting the social and economic development of the communities in which they live. These changes bring about a greater alignment of the university's framework with virtue ethics and bode well for co-op programs that will be more able to focus on the flexibility scale of the ethics paradigm by addressing the personal and profes­sional development of their students.