Análisis del proceso de trabajo

The German scholar, Peters ( 1983, 1989, 1996) is credited with developing the theory that distance education systems represent an industrialised form of learning. His analysis was first published in German in 1967 (Tait, 1994). Peters argued that not only are the processes of production industrialised but so too are the actual teaching and learning. This Fordist model of distance education is characterised by "strongly bureaucratic procedures ... and [a] commitment to a product development and service paradigm premised on mass production and high volume courses" (Raggatt, 1993, p. 2 1 ). Economies of scale are achieved by both the high volume and the limited range of courses available. The long shelf life of courses justifies the care, time and expense that goes into their development. A quality control approach is usual in this type of system where the emphasis is on ensuring that the prespecified standards are reached. This model is epitomised by the British Open University which for many years during the 1970s and 1980s was used as an exemplar of distance education systems. It has been successfully transplanted into other societies, for example the Indira Ghandi National Open University in India and the Open University of the Netherlands.

Since 1991, there has been considerable and contentious debate in the literature about the perceived inadequacy of the Fordist model for the management and delivery of distance education. In particular because this model is relatively cumbersome and bureaucratic and therefore unable to respond quickly to changing market needs, it does not lend itself to flexible and open approaches to learning and may also compromise contemporary

approaches to and definitions of quality. Since 1993 much of the debate has occurred in the journal, Open Learning. It is focused on management and has had a strong semantic and philosophical component.

Undoubtedly "there is some confusion over terminology" (Rumble, 1995a, p. 1 0), particularly the terms Fordism, Neo-Fordism and Post-Fordism. In his three articles, Rumble (1995a; 1995b; 1995c) addresses the meaning of these terms in relation to modes of production in distance education (see Table 2. 1) especially at the UK Open University. He refutes the allegation that the Open University is essentially a Fordist institution and asserts that its production systems are more flexible and less bureaucratic and its products more variable than writers such as Raggatt ( 1993) seem to imply.

Rumble's first article ( 1995a) examines the issue of industrialisation and rationalisation in distance education. He points out that not all distance education is industrialised and that the application of the concept of Fordism cannot adequately explain the development of distance education. In his second article, Rumble ( 1995b) goes to some lengths to argue that the Open University does not have three key features that a Fordist institution would have - a limited number of courses, courses kept in the academic profile for a long time, and large numbers of students on each course. The last of Rumble's three articles ( 1995c) is devoted to Post-Fordism. In all three articles, Rumble relies heavily on drawing parallels with the automotive and cycle industries for which he is taken to task by Campi on ( 1996).

Table 2.1: Characteristics of Fordist, neo-Fordist, and post-Fordist modes of production in distance education (based on Campion and Renner)

Level of labour - Division of labour - Level of de-skilling Process variability - Vertical integration - Mode - Coverage Product innovation - Product life

- Mass market/mass production

Fordist Low High High Low Centralised Single mode (distance only) National Low Long High (Source: Rumble, 1995c, p. 2) Neo-Fordist Low High High High Central control + local administration Possibly mixed mode International High Short Low Post-Fordist High Low Low High Decentralised

Integrated distance and on-campus

Not stated

H igh

Short Low

To date, several writers have taken issue with Rumble over a number of his arguments and no doubt the debate will continue. Jarvis (1996), for example, makes the point that "it may be necessary to relocate the discussion so that the Open University is not treated as an exemplar of distance education organisations" (p. 4 7). There are many different successful distance education systems and organisations in existence. The small scale mixed or dual mode universities, commonly found in Australia, where there has been a large number of small distance education providers, and in New Zealand, where the small national population has not permitted substantial economies of scale, are far less Fordist in their approach than the Open University. However, the benefits of mass production and the economies of scale deriving from long production runs and uniform services have proved attractive to them and parts of their systems, particularly in materials production, are indeed very industrialised.

In Australia, the move to Distance Education Centres (DECs) in 1988 was an attempt to reap some of these benefits. "It is this [Fordist] production paradigm which has in recent years dominated distance education policy in Australia in a period of substantial restructuring" (Carnpion, 1989, p. 60). It is interesting that the DECs were effectively abandoned in 1993 in favour of the Open Learning Agency of Australia (Stevens, 1994, p. 3 13) which offers considerably more flexibility to the consumers of distance education as well as improved access. This development in distance education will be more fully discussed in the next section.

In an earlier article, Raggatt ( 1993) contends that new entrants to the field of distance education are opting for a Post-Fordist approach, moving away from high volume, standardised products and developing niche markets. He argues that open and distance learning will become more consumer-driven and that "there are also clear indications of readiness to research the needs of potential customers - companies and individuals - and to provide the client-centred services that are wanted" (p. 2 1). The quality approach taken in such a system centres on meeting customer or end-user needs, fitness for purpose, and requires a high degree of flexible specialisation. It is entirely consistent with the customer­ focused business management models that are now being applied in tertiary education. In

an argument that has focused almost entirely on the supply side it is refreshing to see an awareness of demand. Institutions such as Massey University, which are less industrialised in their approach than many, are well placed to meet this challenge.

Campion ( 1996) takes issue with Rumble for another reason, arguing that he appears to believe that "the conceptual framework related to Post-Fordism is a dangerous poison" (p. 4 1). He is critical of Rumble's willingness to take a judgmental approach to the application of the conceptual frameworks associated with Fordism, Neo-Fordism and particularly Post­ Fordism to distance education, rather than using them to inform the debate about

appropriate structures for distance education. Campion believes that the focus of debates such as these should be to "formulate suitable goals for university education in the 2 1st century in the light of new technologies and new cultural contexts, and then considering what type of institutional framework would be best devised to meet these ends." He goes on to suggest that it might even be the type of small scale dual mode institutions that operate in Australia and New Zealand. The debate about Fordism in distance education, he concludes, has at least permitted consideration of a range of options for the future.

In an earlier article Campion (1993) also expressed concern that the debate should be about what a good university should be, rather than how to beat off the competition. "What place quality assurance ... if we cannot articulate what it is about university education that sets it apart?" (p. 60). These philosophical issues have increasingly tended to take second place to the more pragmatic concerns associated with a competitive market and the reduction in funding faced by many tertiary institutions. Nevertheless they are important, and Campion does well to remind us of them.

Peters ( 1996) has also taken issue with Rumble's interpretation of his notion that distance education is the most industrialised form of education. Peters claims that Rumble has misconceived the industrialisation of distance education as referring to the working processes in the institution only and not to the actual teaching and learning. It is Peters' contention that any education system which cannot take place without technical mediation (including letters) and a certain amount of planning and administration, is industrialised. He refutes the argument that face-to-face education, especially with large classes, is also

industrialised claiming that when the communication structure is oral, it is influenced by reciprocal expectations and group dynamics. "The oral interaction process ... is ... clearly pre-industrial - even if it takes place in a highly industrialised environment" (p. 53). Thus conventional teaching can be compared to the artisan phase of production i.e. the learner has to be in the right place at the right time to benefit from the instruction.

Through rationalisation and mechanisation, however, the best teachers of a subject can be employed to create teaching materials which can be sent to thousands or tens of thousands of learners, who use the 'product' at a time and place of their choosing. Mass production, together with the ensuing division of labour and quality control familiar in the industrialisation process; becomes the hallmark of distance education, which offers opportunities to wider and wider numbers just as the industrialised production of books and cars did (Tait, 1994, p. 32).

Peters points out that traditional, face-to-face forms of academic teaching are provmg remarkably resistant to industrialisation. Although he attributes this to the tenacity of university teachers in holding on to them, there is plenty of evidence that the market also values them. For example, the popularity of block mode at Massey University, which is a combination of substantial face-to-face interaction and extramural study materials, supports this.

In support of a Post-Fordist model, Raggatt ( 1993) identifies and discusses some forces of change which undermine the viability of Fordist approaches to distance education. The rapidity of change in some professional and academic areas means that courses or parts of courses can become out of date very quickly. This is particularly so for courses that are affected by changes in national policy or law or that deal with new technologies. Where attempts are made to integrate new material into existing courses, this may create design and pedagogical problems and compromise the quality of the learning experience for the students. This means either that courses should be designed so that these kinds of changes can be incorporated without compromising quality, or that providers should be able to produce new courses quickly and easily utilising the range of high quality desk-top publishing technologies that are now available, or both.

Related to this is the emergence of new academic areas, a point also made by J arvis ( 1996), particularly in education, health and business, which have an emphasis on applied theory and professional development. These niche markets often require specialised courses which

may be externally funded, bringing welcome and increasingly necessary entrepreneurial income to the university... They do not fit easily into university planning cycles and approval systems. Their time scale for development and production is typically short, arising from a need to meet the requirements of a sponsor or to meet new professional demands before other providers do (p. 24).

Course delivery may be 'mixed mode' , a face-to-face component taking place at weekends or in blocks, supplemented by high quality, low cost course materials and supported by other media such as computer or video conferencing. This requires a flexibility and responsiveness on the part of the provider that can be stifled by inflexible and unwieldy bureaucratic structures and systems. As Raggatt points out, desktop publishing technology can be integrated with market information to facilitate just-in-time production which also avoids storage costs. Thus a high degree of product innovation is required with a short product life cycle. This does not lend itself to mass production and is in line with a Post­ F ordist approach.

Like the New Zealand Universities' Academic Audit Unit, Raggatt defines quality as "fitness for purpose". This means providing relevant, up-to- date materials for students using open and flexible approaches to teaching and learning, which meet the needs of a range of stakeholders including students, professional groups, sponsors, academics and the community. It may also involve partnerships or strategic alliances with other professional bodies or providers. Many new contenders in the open learning/distance market are doing just this. For example Black ( 1995) describes an initiative taken by the Centre for Labour Market Studies, University of Leicester, UK, to provide a distance learning MSc in Training which was "launched within one year of identifying a demand from people engaged professionally in training management for an internationally recognised qualification" (p. 37). Course content is multidisciplinary and the course was designed in

consultation with practitioners and policy makers. High quality course materials are both written and prepared for the printer by the Centre staff.

Individual members of staff have their own specific areas of responsibility and expertise, boundaries are diffuse and information is shared and policy decisions are made on a group basis. This facilitates rapid decision making in response to changes or new developments (Black, 1 995, p. 37).

Courses are usually revised on a two year cycle but can be done annually. This is an example of a Post-Fordist approach as described by Raggatt ( 1 993):

Decisions would be devolved to Faculties and Schools working within cost limits and within the broad objectives set by the university but they would otherwise be free to manage their resources. Responsibility for quality control would also be at unit level. Production would be undertaken in multi-skilled teams which would buy in additional specialist skills as necessary. It is the approach being adopted by the new wave of distance learning competitors unfettered by a Fordist past (p. 30).

This approach also enables the provider to stay close to the customer and other stakeholders, respond better to their on-going needs and, where appropriate, involve them in the course design process. However, it requires big changes in the way that work is organised in many tertiary education institutions along with changes in organisational culture. If organisations are leaner, flatter, and less hierarchical they are able to be more responsive. But an implication of this is that traditional career paths change with a movement away from bureaucratic careers with a high degree of structure and predictability towards flexible careers. This involves considerably less security and a much higher degree of risk for many employees, especially in the middle management levels, as they in turn are required to be flexible and work in new ways.

As alluded to already, changes in course design are ·also required but these are facilitated by the range of technologies now available. The modular design of course materials permits considerable flexibility and can also enable customisation and individualisation to be built

into programmes in order to meet the needs of individuals or specific sector groups - an

important component of quality.

However, technology can be used as another means of industrialising distance education and delivering mass education. For example, China has used television as a very effective way of achieving mass education of its population. Some of the newer technologies such as CD Rom, the Internet and email allow considerable interaction of tutors and students and students and students and have much more potential for customisation. They also tend to appeal to governments as after the initial financial outlay, they are cheap to run because users pay. This is sometimes equated with improving quality: "Australian government policy recognises that gains in teaching quality are more dependent on the sensible and creative use of technology than on diminishing student-teacher ratios" (Bottomley, Calvert, Jakupec, & Nicoll 1 995, p. 43).

What is clear is that models such as these should be viewed as ideal types. The application of them to the management and delivery of distance education can assist understanding and development. Elements of Fordism, Neo-Fordism and Post-Fordism can be observed within the same institution and this may be entirely appropriate in order for the organisation to meet its goals and obj ectives. However, in common with many industries in both the manufacturing and service sectors, there has been a general move away from Fordist models in distance education and this has coincided with the movement towards open learning - each facilitates the development of the other. Both require more flexible approaches to the management and organisation of distance education production, delivery and support systems which in turn facilitates customisation and individualisation. Identifying individual learning styles is consistent with adult learning. More open access to higher education has seen a growing emphasis on allowing students to have much more control over their own learning.

2.5 OPEN LEARNING AND MORE FLEXIBLE APPROACHES IN DISTANCE