Voluntary Student Unionism Legislation Impact Study Methodology
Aim of the study
The aim of the study is to assess the impact of the federal voluntary student unionism legislation, passed in late 2005 and which took effect in July 2006, upon the range of activities which were supported previously through compulsory amenities and services fees3 (ASF) collected from all students as a condition of enrolment at university.
Much has been asserted in the debate over the merits of the legislation about the situations prior and subsequent to the implementation of this legislation sector wide and at individual university campuses. The lack of empirical and reliable data to inform that debate on a sector wide basis has prompted this study.
Please note: you can receive the complete VSU Impact Study by email.
Financing and conduct of the study
The study has been conducted by Tertiary Balance Pty Ltd, an independent accounting and consulting firm which has operated in the higher education sector since 1998, under contract from Australian University Sport (AUS) – the peak body for university sport in Australia. The study has been funded jointly by AUS and the Australasian Campus Union Managers’ Association (ACUMA) – the national association for staff employed within the campus services sectors in Australia and New Zealand.
Scope of the study
The study scope is outlined in the Terms of Reference document issued by AUS and is provided in Appendix A. The study scope covers campus services broadly within the on-shore university sector in Australia. For purposes of scope the term campus services means the services traditionally provided by university sport associations, student unions, student guilds, student representative councils (SRCs) and postgraduate student associations. Services of this type provided directly by universities were taken to be within scope. Where private sector or local government operators provide campus services, such as playing fields or cafés but funded by a university or a student association, then these services were taken to be within scope.
Services provided off-campus were excluded from scope except to the extent they were funded by ASF monies. The scope specifically excluded the following non-university parts of the tertiary education sector:
- TAFE sector – whether or not operated by universities as a separate TAFE campus and whether or not operated on a university campus at which higher education students are also enrolled such as the Hawthorn campus of Swinburne University of Technology in Victoria;
- Non-university higher education sector bodies4 such as the Australian Maritime College in Tasmania or the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education Study in the Northern Territory or the Australian Defence Force Academy in the Australian Capital Territory – unless otherwise counted by DEST as at 2005 as part of one of the 38 member universities of Universities Australia (UA) such as the Victoria College of the Arts which is counted within The University of Melbourne; and
- Off-shore campuses of Australian universities such as the Curtin University of Technology campus in Sarawak, Malaysia.
The university sector for purposes of scope was taken to be the 38 member universities of UA as at 12 October 2007.
Neither The University of Notre Dame Australia in Western Australia nor the recently established Carnegie Mellon University campus in South Australia are UA member institutions and accordingly neither were within scope.
According to Department of Education Science and Training (DEST) statistics obtained directly from DEST for purposes of this study, there were 229 separate campuses being operated within Australia in 2005 by the 38 UA member universities. Of these 229 separate UA member university campuses, 51 had 2005 Equivalent Full-time Student Load (EFTSL) of less than 31 per campus. Note that all references to EFTSL in this report are to academic year 2005 figures unless otherwise indicated.
The 51 small campuses each with less than 31 EFTSL between them had a total EFTSL of 640 representing 0.1 per cent of the university sector. To contain cost and time to complete the study these 51 small campuses were excluded from scope. A further six campuses (with total EFTSL of 13,151) which service only full-fee paying domestic or international students and which are operated on behalf of two UA member regional universities by third party commercial entities, were excluded from scope. These were the campuses of:
- Central Queensland University (CQU):
- Gold Coast (EFTSL of 507);
- Brisbane (EFTSL of 1,012);
- Sydney (EFTSL of 5,577);
- Melbourne (EFTSL of 3,519);
- University of Ballarat:
- Sydney (EFTSL of 1,106);
- Melbourne (EFTSL of 1,430).
The above six campuses were excluded from scope to preserve the ‘regional’ character of CQU and Ballarat.
The reasons for excluding these campuses are explained in more detail later in this Chapter. The remaining 172 campuses operated by UA member universities that were within scope between them had a total EFTSL of 609,585 representing 97.8 per cent of the university sector.
A complete list of the 172 university campuses included and the 57 campuses excluded from scope, showing the EFTSL count for each campus, is provided in Appendix B.
The study draws upon statistics from various sources over the period 2003 to the present but for the most part compares the state of campus services in 2007 to that which applied in 2005 – the last full academic year prior to commencement of VSU.
The 2006 year is not used as a reference point because some universities required students to pay ASF as a condition of enrolment for part of that year whereas other universities required students other than those commencing studies in second semester to pay ASF as a condition of enrolment for all of that year. The study scope includes but is not limited to making assessments of the:
- impact upon levels of student participation in campus life;
- impact upon inter-university sport;
- impact upon peak campus services bodies AUS, ACUMA, NUS and CAPA;
- impact upon communities with which universities engage;
- effectiveness of post-VSU government funding inclusive of the VSU Transition Fund grants; and
- likely future impact on campus services projected to 2010.
Aside from the above there are other elements to the study scope and these are fully detailed in the scope document as previously noted at Appendix A.
Overall study design and methodology
Use of both surveys and in-depth interviews
The study design and methodology involved surveys and in-depth interviews of universities and related campus services organisations. Students, as end consumers of campus services, were not surveyed or interviewed. There were four separate survey instruments (questionnaires) used and these were sent out via email to all universities and related campus services organisations nationally. The questionnaires were supplemented by in-depth interviews inclusive of site visits at 16 out of the 38 universities.
Coverage of different university groups
In addition to looking at the impact of VSU on the university sector overall and on the individual universities subject to in-depth interviews the study also looked at the impact on two particular groups of universities within the university sector, namely:
- group of eight (Go8) universities; and
- regional universities.
The Go8 member universities are:
- Australian National University;
- Monash University;
- The University of Adelaide;
- The University of Melbourne;
- The University of New South Wales;
- The University of Queensland;
- The University of Sydney; and
- The University of Western Australia.
There are various definitions of what constitutes ‘regional’ in the university sector. Regional campus is defined in the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines – Regional Loading under HESA as:
A regional campus must be located outside a mainland capital city other than Darwin and in a population centre with fewer than 250,000 people (with the exception of Wollongong).
Under the above definition of regional campus there are 84 campuses operated by UA member universities. These 84 campuses and 6 other campuses operated by institutions that are not UA member universities, are listed at Appendix A to the DEST publication entitled Support for Small Businesses on Regional University Campuses Programme May 2007. The EFTSL count at these 84 regional campuses is 116,091.
For purposes of this study ‘regional’ is defined at the university level and not the campus level. For this study, the 11 regional universities are considered to be:
- Charles Darwin University;
- Central Queensland University;
- Charles Sturt University;
- James Cook University;
- Southern Cross University;
- The University of New England;
- University of Ballarat;
- University of Southern Queensland;
- University of the Sunshine Coast;
- University of Tasmania; and
- University of Wollongong.
As noted earlier the Gold Coast, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne campuses of Central Queensland University and the Sydney and Melbourne campuses of University of Ballarat are not counted within scope and are not included for these purposes as part of the 11 regional universities listed above.
Central Queensland University and the University of Ballarat are not the only regional universities to have campuses in capital cities. However none of the other regional universities operate campuses in the mainland capital cities on a scale comparable to CQU or Ballarat.
In total there are 52 campuses operated nationally by the above regional universities not counting the excluded CQU and Ballarat campuses and not counting any of the previously excluded small campuses (EFTSL < 31). These 52 campuses have a combined EFTSL of 97,424 (compiled from EFTSL figures provided for these campuses in Appendix B).
The definition of ‘regional’ adopted for purposes of this study also excludes the regional campuses of the city or metropolitan universities. Some of the larger regional campuses of the city or metropolitan universities and which are excluded under this approach are the:
- Geelong campus of Deakin University with an EFTSL of 6,139;
- Cumberland campus of The University of Sydney with an EFTSL of 4,045;
- Bendigo campus of La Trobe University with an EFTSL of 3,231;
- Churchill campus of Monash University with an EFTSL of 2,901; and
- Gatton campus of The University of Queensland with an EFTSL of 1,226.
The definition of ‘regional’ adopted for purposes of this study is nevertheless considered to be a not unreasonable substitute for the more accurate definition used by DEST for purposes of the Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines – Regional Loading under HESA.
The advantage of using a university rather than campus based definition of ‘regional’ for purposes of containing the cost and complexity of undertaking this study is that multi-campus universities with both regional and metropolitan campuses and operating under a single management structure for delivery of campus services do not have to disaggregate their reporting down to the campus level.
For example, where a university has a single management structure running sporting services across several different campuses the question of how much money is spent at each campus on sporting services is not always easy to derive compared to the broader question of how much money is spent at the university as a whole on sporting services.
It is considered that had this study adopted a campus based rather than university based definition of ‘regional’ there would have been higher costs and complexity involved in running the study and that there would have been lower response rate to the questionnaires sent to universities with multiple campuses (the large majority of universities in Australia now operate multiple campuses).
Confidentiality and Anonymity
Information was not gathered via the on-line surveys and the in-depth interviews on the basis that it would be kept confidential. Notwithstanding this, undertakings were given that individuals responding to the survey instruments would not be identified and that quotes would only be used with all identifying characteristics removed. The sport, student union and SRC survey instruments each contained the following statement concerning confidentiality and anonymity:
Consistent with the practice which has been adopted for a number of previous surveys of universities on VSU7 it is intended that institutional responses to this survey will be published in a form which identifies the organisation and the information provided. For example, if as a result of VSU your university no longer provides a particular <sporting etc ..> service and you provide that information in this survey then it is intended those details will be published in the final impact report in a way that identifies both your university and the service no longer provided.
No individuals responding to this survey will be identified in the final impact report. Quotes will only be used with all identifying characteristics removed to ensure that neither the author nor the institution concerned can be identified.
The university finance department survey instrument contained the following statement concerning confidentiality:
Consistent with the practice which has been adopted for a number of previous surveys of universities on VSU8 it is intended that institutional responses to this survey will be published in a form which identifies the organisation and the information provided.
Not all organisations which received the survey instruments were willing to participate on the basis that the information provided in their survey response or in-depth interviews would not be kept confidential.
Where individuals who responded to the surveys or participated in the in-depth interviews on behalf of their organisation have been identified in this report, it has in every case been on the basis that the consent of the individual has been obtained.
On-line survey design and composition of respondents
Four separate questionnaires were developed covering the broad areas of:
- Sport;
- Other services (such as student union operation of bar/refectory/etc);
- Representation (for example SRC and PGSA); and
- University finance department.
Draft versions of these questionnaires were developed initially and were distributed to a small number of campus services organisations for user feedback.
The sport, student union and SRC versions of the questionnaires had to be redesigned to accommodate the needs of student guilds9 where the one organisation delivers services typical of more than one of: (a) sports associations; (b) student unions; and (c) SRCs. Other changes were made to the draft questionnaires to accommodate user feedback.
Copies of the four finalised questionnaires are provided in Appendix C.
To facilitate distribution via email of the questionnaires a national database of all relevant10 campus services organisations personnel and university finance directors was compiled – listing university name, campus name, postcode, campus EFTSL, campus services organisation name, contact name of relevant official, title, telephone number, mobile number (where available) and email address.
The national database developed for these purposes went down to individual campus level, covering all relevant campus services organisations personnel at or with responsibility for all 178 campuses of the 38 universities within the scope of the study.
The above database was compiled with assistance from each of DEST, AUS, ACUMA and NUS.
Where information for the above database could not be sourced from relevant peak bodies it was sourced from a combination of university and campus services organisations’ websites, from the Australian University Handbook11 and from direct inquires via telephone. Where more than one organisation was responsible on the one campus for the same broad area of campus services this was noted in the database. For example, at Curtin’s Bentley campus in Western Australia the fitness centre is managed by the university in its own right whereas the s
porting clubs and various other sporting services are managed by Curtin Student Guild. The four finalised questionnaires were each distributed nationally on different dates over the course of late June and early July 2007, via bulk email transmissions.
After distribution of the questionnaires in each case repetitive emails and telephone calls were used to follow up on organisations that had not returned their completed questionnaire(s) in a timely manner. The distribution and receipt cut-off dates for each of the four questionnaire types are shown below in Table 2.1.
| |
Sport |
Union |
SRC |
Finance |
| Date the questionnaire type was distributed |
27 June 2007 |
28 June 2007 |
8 July 2007 |
3 July 2007 |
| Date responses requested by for questionnaire type |
6 July 2007 |
9 July 2007 |
20 July 2007 |
16 July 2007 |
| Date up until responses were accepted for questionnaire type |
3 Sept 2007 |
3 Sept 2007 |
3 Sept 2007 |
3 Sept 2007 |
The number of questionnaires distributed varied depending upon the number of organisations nationally which, at that time, were responsible for delivery of the particular area of campus services covered by each questionnaire type.
For example, the study team identified 49 separate organisations nationally that were responsible for delivery of services typical of student unions whereas 43 separate organisations were identified that were responsible for delivery of sporting services, across the 38 universities subject to this study.
A record was kept (for each different type of questionnaire) of the number of questionnaires distributed, for purposes of calculating response rates.
In those cases where a questionnaire of the same type was issued to the same organisation multiple times, to cover for example circumstances where the original questionnaire issued had been lost or where a person who had received the original questionnaire had gone on leave or been made redundant, the subsequent copies were not counted for purposes of counting the number of questionnaires distributed.
>>> The remainder of this section of the Voluntary Student Unionism Legislation Impact Study is available as a pdf download.
Receive the full ACUMA / AUS VSU Impact Study by email
Simply complete and submit the form below, and we will email you a copy of the full VSU Impact Study, including references and all relevant notes.
|
