Content area
Full Text
This paper pursues a line of critique that was put forward by Cooksey and Gates (1995a,b). Our approach reviews, critically, the recent reports of Karpin and Hilmer. In particular we examine some of the basic assumptions underlying the approaches taken in these reports with specific emphasis on contemporary human resource management theory. We first explore the conditions under which these reports were generated and how these conditions may have impacted on report recommendations. In addition this exploration points to significant difficulties with the quality of the reports themselves. We then examine the lack of critical attention given by the reports to the vagaries of the 'human condition' which are complex and unpredictable and which tend to lead the reports to produce overly simplistic and unrealistic recommendations and expectations for business. Finally, the implications for SMEs are considered
Importance of independent academic institutions to challenging discipline bias
The independence of academic institutions from governments has often been held as sacred to the effective and critical development and promulgation of ideas. Unfortunately, this independence appears to have been eroded in recent years with many tertiary institutions becoming *arms' of government administration and policy. While this paper is not about this independence problem, we hope it will contribute to this critical tradition of exploration of thoughts and ideas. More specifically, we hope it contributes to healthy debate about the two recent government reports mentioned above, namely the so-called Hilmer and Karpin enquiries, which have the potential to have far-reaching effects on Australian business and ultimately, society. In our view, independent critical thought and review are essential to a healthy and vigorous civilisation.
One of the disturbing features of government policy, and government intrusion into the market place and education, is that the reports and committees of enquiries they have established have generally failed to incorporate a critical academic perspective into the deliberations and final reports and recommendations. While 'independent' agents were commissioned to review various aspects of enquiry, the extent to which these agents were independent, and were capable of critical appraisal is not clear.
In addition, in calling for submissions to various enquiries, submissions were taken from a nonrepresentative collection of vested interests including the very institutions that were most likely to be affected by the...