Academics’ work and the concept of “profession” an australian case study

ACADEMICS’ WORK AND THE CONCEPT OF “PROFESSION”: AN AUSTRALIAN CASE STUDY Terrie Ferman M.Phil (Griffith University), B.A (The University of Queensland), Teaching Cert (Mt Gravatt Teachers College), Dip Teaching ESL (Royal Society of Arts) This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Centre for Learning Innovation Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology 2011 Keywords Academic, academia, occupation, profession, university, higher education, Australia Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study i Abstract Universities in Australia and elsewhere have changed considerably in recent years Inevitably, this has meant that the work of academics has also changed Academics’ work is of importance because they are key players in universities and universities matter to the nation economically and intellectually in advancing knowledge and its practical application Through the changes and challenges that have characterised academia in recent years, there is an assumption that academics’ work is representative of a profession This research study investigates how academics construct their own perspectives regarding the academic “profession” The study is theoretically informed by Freidson’s theory that conceptualises professions as occupations if they are in control of their work rather than it being under the control of either the market or of their employing institutions Two research questions guide this study The first question investigates how academics might construct their work in ideal terms and the second one investigates the extent to which such constructions might constitute a “profession” A qualitative case study was conducted within two Australian universities In all, twenty academics from ten disciplines took part in the study that consisted of a focus group and fifteen individual interviews The study was conducted in three phases during which a conceptual framework of academics’ work was developed across three versions This framework acted both a prompt to discussion and as a potential expression of academics’ work The first version of the framework was developed from the literature during the first phase of the study This early framework was used during the second phase of the study when five academics took part in a focus group ii Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study After the focus group, the second version of the framework was developed and used with fifteen academics in individual interviews during phase three of the study The third version of the framework was the outcome of a synthesis of the themes that were identified in the data The discussion data from the focus group and the individual interviews were analysed through a content analysis approach that identified four major themes The first theme was that academics reported that their work would ideally be located within universities committed to using their expert knowledge to serve the world The second theme was that academics reported that they wanted sufficient thinking time and reasonable workloads to undertake the intellectual work that they regard as their core responsibility, particularly in relation to undertaking research They argued against heavy routine administrative workloads and sought a continuation of current flexible working arrangements The third theme was that teaching qualifications should not be mandated but that there should be a continuation of the present practice of universities offering academics the opportunity to undertake formal teaching qualifications if they wish to Finally, academics reported that they wanted values that have traditionally mattered to academia to continue to be respected and practised: autonomy, collegiality and collaborative relationships, altruism and service, and intellectual integrity These themes are sympathetic to Freidson’s theory of professions in all but one matter: the non-mandatory nature of formal qualifications which he regards as absolutely essential for the performance of the complex intellectual work that characterises occupations that are professions The study places the issue of academic professionalism on the policy agenda for universities wishing to identify academics’ work as a profession The study contributes a theory-based and data-informed conceptual framework for academics’ Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study iii work that can be considered in negotiating the nature and extent of their work The framework provides a means of analysing what “academic professionalism” might mean; it adds specificity to such discussions by exploring a particular definition of profession, namely Freidson’s theory of professions as occupations that are in control of their own work The study contributes to the development of theories around higher education concepts of academic professionalism and, in so doing, links that theoretical contribution to the wider professions field iv Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study Table of Contents Keywords i Abstract ii Table of Contents v List of Figures viii List of Tables viii List of Abbreviations ix Statement of Original Authorship x Acknowledgments xi Preface xii CHAPTER 1: ACADEMICS’ WORK: A PROFESSION? 1.1 The Importance of Universities and of Academics’ Work 1.2 Influential Contextual Factors Within Universities 1.3 The Research Issue and Rationale for the Study 12 1.4 Aims of the Study and Research Questions 18 1.5 Research Design 19 1.6 Significance and Contribution of the Study 20 1.7 Summary of Chapter 21 1.8 Thesis Outline 22 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: PROFESSIONS AND ACADEMICS’ WORK 27 2.1 Academics’ Work 28 2.1.1 Continuing Professional Development (CPD): Relevance to the concept of profession 29 2.1.2 Teaching qualifications: Relevance to the concept of profession 33 2.1.3 The shifting scene of academics’ work: Relevance to the concept of profession 38 2.1.4 Summary of section 2.1 39 2.2 Concepts of “Profession” Within and Beyond Academia 40 2.2.1 Knowledge as part of professionalism 45 2.2.2 Values as part of professionalism 48 2.2.3 Other aspects of professions 63 2.2.4 Summary of section 2.2 70 2.3 Freidson’s Theory of Professions as Self-Controlling Occupations 71 2.4 Summary of Chapter 78 CHAPTER 3: DEVELOPMENT OF A PROVISIONAL CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR ACADEMICS’ WORK (VERSION 1) 81 3.1 Rationale for Scoping Version of the Framework 86 3.2 Summary of Chapter 87 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 89 4.1 The Research Design: A Qualitative Approach 89 4.2 Case Study Methodology 91 4.3 The Research Context: Sites and Participants 93 Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study v 4.4 Data Collection Methods 97 4.4.1 Focus groups: Advantages and disadvantages 97 4.4.2 Individual interviews: Advantages and disadvantages 99 4.5 Data Collection Processes 102 4.5.1 Data collection processes common to the focus group and the individual interviews 102 4.5.2 Data collection processes specific to the focus group 106 4.5.3 Data collection processes specific to the individual interviews 111 4.6 Data Analysis 114 4.6.1 Data analysis: Determining the unit of analysis 115 4.6.2 Data analysis: Processes common to focus group and interview data 119 4.6.3 Data analysis: Additional steps for interview data 124 4.6.4 Data analysis: Amalgamating the two data sets 127 4.6.5 Building in reflective practice and reflexivity 128 4.7 Trustworthiness 132 4.8 Limitations of the Study 134 4.9 Summary of Chapter 135 CHAPTER 5: FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF A PROVISIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR ACADEMICS’ WORK (VERSION 2) 137 5.1 Differences Between Versions and of the Framework 143 5.2 Summary of Chapter 148 CHAPTER 6: ACADEMICS RELATE THEIR WORK TO THE WIDER WORLD 151 6.1 Explanation of Presentation of all Findings 151 6.2 Universities: Their Purpose and Engagement With the World 152 6.3 Examining the Current Organisational Model 157 6.3.1 The current organisational model: Supporting comments 158 6.3.2 The current organisational model: Some reservations 164 6.4 Summary of Findings for the First Theme 168 CHAPTER 7: ACADEMICS SEEK CHANGES IN THEIR WORK 171 7.1 Re-balancing Responsibilities 171 7.2 More Time and Less Pressure 176 7.3 Enabling More Research 182 7.3.1 The role of research qualifications 183 7.4 Summary of Findings for the Second Theme 185 CHAPTER 8: ACADEMICS DISCUSS UNIVERSITY TEACHING 187 8.1 Arguments for Teaching Qualifications 188 8.2 Arguments Against Teaching Qualifications 193 8.2.1 Perceived efficacy of qualifications 193 8.2.2 Conceptions of teaching 196 8.2.3 Poor rewards for teaching 199 8.2.4 Summary of findings for “Arguments against teaching qualifications” 201 8.3 Summary of Findings for the Third Theme 202 CHAPTER 9: ACADEMICS CARE ABOUT VALUES 203 9.1 Autonomy 204 9.2 Integrity and Ethics 218 9.3 Collegiality and Collaboration 221 vi Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study 9.4 Altruism and Service 226 9.5 An Over-riding Value for Academics’ Work 232 9.6 Summary of Findings for the Fourth Theme 233 9.7 Summary of Findings for Research Question 233 CHAPTER 10: ACADEMICS’ WORK: PARTICIPANTS’ PREFERRED CONSTRUCTIONS AND PROFESSIONAL THEORY 235 10.1 First Theme: Academics Relate their Work to the Wider World 236 10.2 Second Theme: Academics Seek Changes in Their Work 237 10.3 Third Theme: Academics Discuss University Teaching 238 10.4 Fourth Theme: Academics Care About Values 240 10.5 Summary of Findings for Research Question 242 CHAPTER 11: THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK RE-CONSIDERED (VERSION 3) 245 11.1 Summary of Chapter 11 251 CHAPTER 12: CONCLUSION 253 12.1 Context of the Study 253 12.2 Achieving the Aims and Answering the Research Questions 254 12.3 Implications of the Study: Introductory Comments 256 12.3.1 Implications for academics 257 12.3.2 Implications for theorists and researchers 258 12.3.3 Implications for policy makers 261 12.4 Limitations of the Study 269 12.5 Directions for Future Research 271 12.6 A Final Word 272 REFERENCES 275 APPENDICES 295 Appendix A Literature Review: An Early Tracking Table 295 Appendix B Research Participants 306 Appendix C Focus Group Invitation Email and Information Kit 309 Appendix D Individual Interview Invitation Email and Information Kit 319 Appendix E Changes in Questions Between Focus Group and Individual Interviews 325 Appendix F The Data Analysis Processes and the Informing Literature 326 Appendix G Overview of the Data Analysis Strategy 328 Appendix H Analysis of the Interview Data: A Reflective Process 329 Appendix I Example of Interviewee’s Individual Data File 330 Appendix J Example of a Theme File 334 Appendix K Example of a Data Table (Interviewees 1-4) 335 Appendix L Opinions of the Corporate University Model 339 Appendix M Teaching Qualifications: For & Against 340 Appendix N (a) Interview Participants’ Opinions Concerning Values 342 Appendix N (b) Interview Participants’ Prioritising of Values in the Prompting Framework 343 Appendix O An Ideal Conceptualisation of Academics’ Work: All Participants’ Input Compared to Freidson 344 Appendix P Revisions Between Versions and of Conceptual Framework 345 Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study vii List of Figures Figure 4.1 Conceptual Framework (Version 2): Interview Handout 113 Figure 4.2 Data gathering tool for interviews 114 Figure 11.1 Conceptual Framework (Version 3) & Informing Themes 247 List of Tables Table 3.1 Conceptual Framework (Version 1) 83 Table 4.1 Conceptual Framework (Version 1): Focus Group Handout 108 Table 4.2 Changes to Discussion Questions 109 Table 4.3 Changes to Research Questions 110 Table 4.4 Layout of Transcriptions of Focus Group and Interview Data 116 Table 5.1 Relationships between Freidson’s Theory of Occupational Control and Version of the Conceptual Framework 141 Table 5.2 Conceptual Framework (Version 2) 142 Table 5.3 Versions and of the Conceptual Framework 144 Table 5.4 Values in Versions and of the Conceptual Framework 145 Table 11.1 Phases of the Study, Actions and Outcomes 245 Table 1, Appendix B Research Participant Details 307 Table 1, Appendix B (cont) 308 viii Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study Question (a) Do any particular (academic) values underlie your ideal picture? At first, I thought Leanne’s response was a bit on the sparse side perhaps because she hadn’t had a chance to think about the interview in advance BUT in fact she mentioned an improved body of knowledge and providing a quality experience for students My view is that these are functions not values BUT the first one (about knowledge) is in fact very close to the proposed over-riding value Question (b) what you see as the place of knowledge in academics’ work, is it important? Discipline knowledge was mentioned; she said she didn’t consider it to be the be-all and end-all Question (c) (a question about autonomy) – Feels that because of the kind of work they do, academics need some autonomy but also pointed out the down sides of autonomy (people just refusing to be guided towards better practice at times e.g re assessment) [cf Roseanne’s views] Re working conditions She needs a window – i.e this is not an issue for her; maybe she didn’t see working conditions very broadly? However, she pointed out that a proposed new building on campus is apparently going to have open plan offices for academics This will impact negatively on their ability to think and to deal with students confidentially Question There is some talk of the academic occupation being a profession Your views on this? Do you see any advantages or disadvantages to this? Thinks that academic occupation resembles a profession in some ways BUT not all Would be good to be a profession because this would force proper teaching standards, qualifications and abilities She defined a profession as having a standard of education, a code of professional conduct, an entry requirement and professionals being active in their discipline Question Please comment on the framework Please number the components in your ideal order of priority See above UNPROMPTED over-riding value 332 Appendices No real response Can’t just make one statement Prompted over-riding value She thought this was too narrow – felt it suggested that only univs did this and it’s the world (not just unis) that deal with knowledge [interesting comment because just about everyone else who was asked about this agreed largely with the proposal about unis pursuing, creating, disseminating etc knowledge [but, having said that the rest of the world does the knowledge thing, she didn’t say what it is that unis should/do] Question a Do you primarily consider yourself to be a researcher, a teacher, or other (academic developer, administrator, entrepreneur, knowledge worker, consultant)? On the diagram Leanne placed herself quite close to research and said she was happy being there However, I really got the feeling that her major conceptualisation was as an administrator Question b On the DIAGRAM provided, can you mark where you are now? (X) Near research On the DIAGAM provided, can you mark where you would like to be? (*) near research Appendices 333 Appendix J Example of a Theme File Comments made in 1st part of interview (Pre-framework) Direct data Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Irene) Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Lachlan) Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Roseanne) Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Leah) Indirect data Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Candice) Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jilly) ============================================================ Comments made in 2nd part of interview (Post-framework) Direct data Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Jilly) Indirect data Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Leisha) Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Leah) Theme file notes were kept in chronological order of interviews 334 Appendices Appendix K Example of a Data Table (Interviewees 1-4) Bold indicates issues of importance to participants (Irene) AN IDEAL 1st thing said: • Balance of teaching, research, camaraderie with other academics; more research, less admin.; too much teaching and admin (workload issue) • Importance of research to teaching; scholarship • CPD • a proud physical space – linked to identity teaching qualifications matter • • generational change; effects of this • student feedback – quality of life • collaborative spirit; collegiality (incl relationships: Appendices (Candice) AN IDEAL 1st thing said: • -research • -writing • -a bit of teaching balance (Leisha) AN IDEAL 1st thing said: • more time for writing, reading, discussion, reflection (Jilly) AN IDEAL: 1st thing said • flexibility (which she later relates to autonomy) • variety PRIOR TO THE FRAMEWORK levels of influence (global – • time local via research, teaching, course development) • research is important • flexibility • variety • research – teaching link • identity: self; others • integrity - research rigour • scholarship of teaching • personal values & academic values – aligned • • collaboration • likes flexibility • teaching is important (conception of teaching as a relationship – time is needed for this) • teaching as a relationship / how conceived • • • service to the community service within the uni altruism • pressure to maintain teaching evaluation scores • research – not her preference but matters to the uni • smaller classes • respect/trust 335 with non-academic staff) (generational issues) – respect is linked to admin power; and is hierarchical re other academics • promotion • less admin • service (internal) • connection and engagement • scholarship of teaching (PROMPTED; not supportive of this) • autonomy • change within her school ‘unrest’ • relationships: - between academics - between admin staff and academics - between academics and students • • • 336 nature of a uni – whether it’s about teaching, research or both academics advance the field doubts about commercialisation Appendices AFTER FW 1st thing said: values are especially good AFTER FW 1st thing said: the ability to research and have an open mind AFTER FW 1st thing said: CPD – not strongly supported AFTER FW 1st thing said: autonomy top priority Values – the most important thing top priority • Values/disciplinary knowledge (CPD embedded)/research knowledge (CPD embedded) autonomy top priority • autonomy • values tie it all together top priority • autonomy PROFESSION • professions • teaching quals are important • terminology (‘professional’ staff) BEING AN ACADEMIC JOB SATISFACTION Appendices PROFESSION • re higher order thinking • can be tacit • autonomy is about professionalism; flexibility is part of autonomy • idea of a profession can be tacit BEING AN ACADEMIC • -permeates all areas of your life JOB SATISFACTION • love my job (see UNE study) • appreciates being treated as a other points other points (re values) • uni practice – compromised (working with oil companyl) – corporate model critiqued (research grants with industry; decision re whether it’s a research or teaching uni) • terminology (lecturer vs teacher) PROFESSION academia is more than a career – it’s ‘an intangible thing’ if a job deals with people, it’s more than a career • respect (related to relationships) PROFESSION yes law BEING AN ACADEMIC by research expert; research is what academics BEING AN ACADEMIC - about theory (rather than practice) JOB SATISFACTION • loves the job • gets satisfaction from writing, JOB SATISFACTION seems very satisfied 337 professional; has flexibility; is trusted, opinion is valued WORKING CONDITIONS WORKING CONDITIONS • time pressures PUBLIC ATTITUDE TO ACADEMICS PUBLIC ATTITUDE TO ACADEMICS 338 • teaching and one-to-one engagement WORKING CONDITIONS • time pressures • very large classes • pressure to keep up high evaluations • lots of change • lack of respect from admin • lack of respect from older academics • difficulty of achieving promotion PUBLIC ATTITUDE TO ACADEMICS WORKING CONDITIONS loves the flexibility no complaints PUBLIC ATTITUDE TO ACADEMICS not much respect Appendices Appendix L Opinions of the Corporate University Model In favour of the corporate model Critical of the corporate model Opinion unknown/ambivalent Academics relatively new to academia (2½ years) Jilly (Law) – B years Leisha (Architecture) – A years Candice (Education) – B ½ years Lachlan (Law) –A years William (Education) – C years Experienced academics (10 – 36 years) Roseanne (Architecture) E 20 years Leah (Law) – D 20 years Irene (Architecture) – C 29 years Larry (Engineering) – C 31 years Focus Group (10 years +) – Karen (Health) – E 21 years in academia Ivan (Engineering) – C 17 years Henry (Health) – 26 years in academia Peter (Education) 30 years Leanne (Science) 36 years Simon (Science) 21 years Appendices 339 Appendix M Teaching Qualifications: For & Against Discipline & level Architecture C Teaching qualified? no teaching quals Candice Education B Grad Dip (Secondary) Leisha Architecture A no teaching quals Jilly Law B no teaching quals Lachlan Law A no teaching quals Roseanne Architecture E Law D Dip Ad Voc Ed Larry Engineering C no teaching quals Ivan Engineering C no teaching quals Peter Education C Master of Education Name Irene Leah Leanne Science D Simon Science D William Education C Henry Health E Health E Karen 340 Pro teaching quals YES but hasn’t got them Not in support NO but has got them NO hasn’t got them YES but hasn’t got them YES has got them YES but hasn’t got them YES but hasn’t got them PhD in Education Bachelor of Education no teaching quals no teaching quals YES has got them for education for other disciplines NO hasn’t got them NA YES but hasn’t got them NO but has got them YES has got them (approx) ? NO hasn’t got them PhD in Ed Grad Cert in Higher Education no teaching quals NO hasn’t got them no teaching quals Ranking of quals on prompting framework (1 – 9) not in top not in top Appendices A note on these figures: of the 15 people interviewed, person (Peter) said that Education lecturers needed teaching qualifications but lecturers in other disciplines did not This ‘double voter’ is counted as a ‘not in favour’ as he effectively highlighted the importance of discipline knowledge for Education academics Another indication of the importance or otherwise that this group of academics placed on teaching qualifications may be gleaned from their prioritising task during the second part of the interviews When asked to prioritise the components of the prompting framework, participants placed teaching qualifications at various points along the continuum from 1st to 9th position For one reason or another, clear rankings were obtained from only 10 of the 14 participants The highest unambiguous rating (in 2nd place) came from an Education lecturer This data did not amount to an overwhelming endorsement of the need for teaching qualifications Appendices 341 Appendix N (a) Interview Participants’ Opinions Concerning Values Participants who listed values in their top three priorities Participants who spoke spontaneously about values in the early part of the interview Participants for whom values were comparatively unimportant (not mentioned spontaneously and/or not rated in the top three) Irene Henry Karen Larry Leisha Candice Lachlan Roseanne Irene Henry Karen Larry Leisha Peter Jilly Leah Ivan Leanne Simon William 342 Appendices Appendix N (b) Interview Participants’ Prioritising of Values in the Prompting Framework Participants who ranked values in their top three priorities Values appearing in participants’ top three + notes Irene 1st priority: values generally * Larry 1st priority: values generally Henry 1st priority: values generally (Other components flow from values.) Karen 1st priority: values generally Candice 1st priority: Located values as her first priority equal to disciplinary knowledge (with CPD embedded), research knowledge (with CPD embedded) and autonomy Lachlan 2nd priority: all of the values and their sub-sections Roseanne 2nd priority: autonomy, altruism, collegiality 3rd priority: intellectual rigour, intellectual integrity (moral courage); these are embedded in discipline, teaching and research knowledge Leisha values tied together her top three priorities (autonomy, kinds of knowledge research, teaching and discipline; and research qualifications) * “Values generally” refers to those listed on the prompting framework, namely intellectual rigour, intellectual integrity (with moral courage as a sub-heading), autonomy, altruism and collegiality Appendices 343 Appendix O An Ideal Conceptualisation of Academics’ Work: All Participants’ Input Compared to Freidson Major Areas of Congruence Between Interview Participants and the Focus Group & Freidson’s Theory Interview Participants Focus Group Relationship to Freidson’s Theory knowledge is important (too much admin) knowledge is important (too much admin) importance of complex knowledge Freidson rejects routine work for professions altruism and service behaving ethically importance of ethical behaviour autonomy (conceived as choice and flexibility) autonomy (conceived as the freedom to make judgments) importance of professionals making judgments based on their expertise adequate resources adequate resources importance of professionals having adequate resources to their work doubts about the corporate model of the university doubts about the economic model of the university Freidson rejects market models integrity and ethics ethical judgment adherence to a transcendent value Other (Less Major) Areas of Congruence Between Interview Participants and the Focus Group & Freidson’s Theory Interview Participants Focus Group desire to specialise in area of disciplinary expertise not mutlitask on trivial tasks e.g admin Relationship to Freidson’s Theory specialisation is key to the complex work of professions pay not the key thing pay needs to be adequate but not excessive vocation sense of lifelong commitment Areas of Non-congruence Between Interview Participants and the Focus Group & Relationship to Freidson’s Theory Interview Participants Focus Group Relationship to Freidson’s Theory teaching qualifications (optional rather than mandatory) issue did not emerge from the data qualifications are key to Freidson’s theory; they are what gives professionals their warrant to operative autonomously and to apply their judgment collegiality a minor issue Not a major focus for Freidson, 2001 Defers to Weber and Waters in this regard 344 Appendices Appendix P Revisions Between Versions and of Conceptual Framework Version Version Comments on revisions Retentions research qualifications research qualifications (optional) teaching qualifications teaching qualifications (optional) autonomy autonomy altruism altruism support was neutral; however, no strong objections were raised; in reality, these qualifications are already effectively mandated via the requirement for a PhD divided opinion on their importance; would, therefore, not mandate them considered important in different forms: choice, flexibility, the freedom to make judgments Retained despite some reservations from three participants a wish for this was clearly present in the data Partial retention intellectual integrity (moral courage) intellectual integrity sufficient support for intellectual integrity but not for moral courage Retention & extension collegiality collegiality + collaborative relationships a wish for this was quite strongly present in the data; the term “collaborative relationships” is added to “collegiality” Additions a university environment committed to serving the world service research activity reasonable workloads and sufficient time Appendices the original framework did not include a wide world contextualising component; the revised framework does while not a main theme, its inclusion is based on its connection to altruism and its connection to the first theme of universities serving the world a very strong theme in the data a very strong theme in the data 345 Version Version Comments on revisions Omissions discipline knowledge research knowledge teaching knowledge did not elicit sufficient comment in its own right did not elicit sufficient comment in its own right did not elicit sufficient comment in its own right NOTE: Consideration was given to retaining knowledge as a taken-for-granted component Participants were strong in their wish to more research; research requires complex knowledge In the final analysis, however, there was insufficient explicit data to retain knowledge CPD: discipline CPD: research CPD: teaching intellectual rigour moral courage 346 did not elicit sufficient comment did not elicit sufficient comment did not elicit sufficient comment did not elicit sufficient comment the term “moral courage” may have been problematic; it drew very limited comment Appendices ... data-informed conceptual framework for academics’ Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study iii work that can be considered in negotiating the nature and extent of their work. .. gorgeous mother Jack, my lovely sisters Anna and Elaine, my generous Auntie Millie and my beaut brother Baz Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study xi Preface The road... and Participants 93 Academics’ Work and the Concept of “Profession”: An Australian Case Study v 4.4 Data Collection Methods 97 4.4.1 Focus groups: Advantages and disadvantages