Suggestions that psychology lacks academic substance are common. Recently, in an article in the Australian newspaper, Emeritus Professor John Sutcliffe described it as a “dicky-shirt” discipline -- all form and no substance (Sutcliffe, 1994). He wrapped his observation into a general attack on the Dawkins education reforms which he correctly blames for eroding the intellectual core of Australian academic life. Many academics share Sutcliffe's concerns.

The Dawkins reforms are an uneasy blend of populism and commercialism aimed at achieving the Labour government's economic goal of a “clever country”. Most conspicuously, they have involved the incorporation of former technical institutes into large multi-campus universities. The result has been the physical extension of a university presence across the country into some improbable rural backwaters. Inevitably these dramatic changes in the size and spread of universities have been accompanied by a change in the definition of the role of universities. Topics of study which were once the domain of lower tier tertiary institutions now find a place in the core academic centres. The result has been a shift in the balance of academic interest from abstract to applied research and teaching.

Feeding into these changes has been what Sutcliffe describes as a “money-driven” ethos. After decades of intervention to redress inequalities and irrationalities stemming from the operation of free markets, Labour governments in various parts of the West have capitulated to historical forces and pre-emptively embraced the free enterprise policies of the traditional right.