The starting point in the meta-analysis is an examination of the size of the IS presence in Australian universities. It is hypothesised that the size of the IS presence can be related to the mechanisms of control for IS in Australian universities. For example, where there are few staff, or where the student/staff ratio is high, it is likely to be more difficult for staff to demonstrate mechanisms of control, such as engagement in research that is able to attract research funding, or involvement in the introduction or management of IS publication outlets.

Table 12.1 lists the 39 universities in Australia—37 public and two private (Bond and Notre Dame). Marginson and Considine (2000) characterised the public universities as ‘Sandstones’, ‘Redbricks’, ‘Gumtrees’, ‘Unitechs’ and ‘New Universities’. The six Sandstones were founded in Australia before World War I. The three Redbricks were founded in the 1940s and 1950s. The 10 Gumtrees are postwar and pre-Dawkins general universities founded between the early 1960s and mid-1970s. The five Unitechs are former large institutes of technology formed post-Dawkins. The 13 New Universities are other post-Dawkins universities, often formed out of colleges of advanced education; several New Universities are specialist regional and/or distance-education providers.

The number of universities identified in the seven regions varied from a single university in Tasmania to 10 in the most populous state, New South Wales (NSW). Although Tasmania has the smallest population of the six Australian states, the Australian Capital Territory has a smaller population again. Three campuses of the one university service Tasmania, while the Australian Capital Territory has three universities. The number of IS groups in universities in the regions (more than one IS group was reported in several universities) ranged from one in Tasmania to 10 in New South Wales. From Table 12.2, it can be seen that the size of the IS presence in each university (staff and students) varied considerably. It is important to note that the numbers in Table 12.2 are very much in flux, representing a consolidation of indicative data gathered over a period when IS was in the process of major change. The NSW figures are also notably incomplete. Hence, the values in the table should not be regarded as precise. In spite of the acknowledged limitations in precision of the figures, it is felt that some meaningful differences and broad trends can be discerned from the numbers in Table 12.2.

Although a few universities had no IS presence, some universities had multiple IS groups. As expected, larger universities were those most likely to have multiple IS groups. Although the data are incomplete, it can be seen that all universities in some states had an IS presence, while this was not the case in Western Australia and South Australia, and most noticeably not the case in New South Wales.

From the number of IS staff and students reported, it appears that a considerable variation in both exist across the universities. Some inconsistencies, however, in the way that the figures for both were reported across the regions could affect the extent to which conclusions can be drawn. For example, whether the staff members reported were full-time or part-time, and included support staff, might not be consistent from one region to another. Similarly, student numbers reported from the states might not be reported on a consistent basis, as some could relate to student numbers studying IS, student numbers undertaking an IS major, or equivalent full-time student units (EFTSU). To allow for possible inconsistencies, only broad patterns will be discussed.

The authors of the Queensland case study suggested that the number of IS academics was a better guide to the size of the IS presence than other characteristics. If this is the case—and even if the count is normalised against population—it is apparent that Victoria is the Australian region with the greatest IS presence. Victoria had about three times the number of IS academic staff reported in the region with the next highest number, which was Queensland, although in New South Wales not all universities were canvassed. A large variation was seen in the number of staff in different IS groups. The Australian Catholic University was reported to have just three IS staff, while a total of 92 staff was reported at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University.

The number of IS students also varied considerably within and across the states. The Australian Catholic University reported just 76 IS students, while there were up to 1000 IS students each at Monash University and the University of Ballarat.

Considerable variation was also seen in the ratio between the number of IS staff and the number of IS students. This characteristic is very likely to impact on teaching loads and therefore research outputs and other aspects relevant to mechanisms of control. Some states appeared to have an over-representation of IS staff for the student numbers reported—for example, in Western Australia, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory—while the reverse was indicated in other states—for example, South Australia and Tasmania. Some of the differences could be accounted for by different approaches to delivery of courses to offshore students. For example, the majority of the IS students reported for Tasmania were offshore. Although Australian staff are involved in delivery to offshore IS students, there are, however, also offshore staff not employed by the University of Tasmania who are excluded from the figures.

The study was undertaken in the aftermath of the ‘dotcom implosion’ about 2000. It was therefore unsurprising that many states reported declines in student and staff numbers in recent years. All interviewees in Western Australia reported both declines. The authors of the Tasmanian and Queensland chapters referred to reduced enrolments, while Victoria reported IS staff cuts at two of its large universities. South Australia commented in particular on a decline in local student enrolments. Western Australia reported declining enrolments in specialist IS programs, local students and postgraduate students. Queensland predicted that the demand for IS places in universities in that state would lag behind the demand for IS practitioner skills. Reference was made to the difficulty of attracting research students to one university that was not located in a state capital. The Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA), however, had experienced growth in PhD and graduate course-work enrolments. It is too early to know whether the declines in student and staff counts have been a lengthy lull or a shift to a new and considerably lower plateau.

The raw student/staff ratios calculated from the data provided in several of the state reports are anomalous. This presumably arises from distinctly different definitions of student counts adopted (enrolled count versus EFTSUs). Comments arising from Table 12.2, however, provide some assistance in explaining some of the variation in the ratio between student and staff numbers in the different regions. In particular, a strong IS presence was reported in some universities in Queensland relative to the size of the university (Central Queensland University and the University of Southern Queensland), although in general in that state the IS presence was consistent with the size of the university. The West Australian case reported that the post-Dawkins (post-1987) institutions in that state had a strong IS presence, while it was more limited at the other universities. Like Western Australia, New South Wales reported a strong IS presence at some universities (the UNSW and the UTS), with a smaller presence at the others. The ACT report commented on the generally strong IS staff numbers relative to the size of the universities, as did Victoria. The ACT report highlighted the strong staff numbers relative to student enrolments, which was apparent in the comparison made against the other states, and was seen also in Western Australia and Victoria. Although Tasmania reported that the School of Information Systems was the fourth-largest school at the University of Tasmania in 2005, by 2007, its presence had declined and it merged with the School of Computing at the start of 2008.