This thesis traces the stages which led to the establishment of the Australian Defence Force Academy. The origins of the Academy are to be found in the 1950s. The perceived need for highly qualified technical officers to handle the technological demands of the future was complemented by a perception that officers with degree-level education would be better equipped to make decisions and provide strategic advice to government than their less educated counterparts. The emergence of the tri-Service Academy concept is discussed in some detail to highlight the constantly increasing involvement in the proposal by people and organisations from outside the defence community. The struggle between the three Services, eager to retain control over their officers' education, and the Department of Defence with its ambition to rationalise common defence functions, is described. The heated debate over the proposal to establish an armed forces university resulted in the rejection of the proposal by the Parliament Standing Committee on Public Works. The response from the Government and the Department of Defence was a modified proposal, acceptable to most of Casey University's critics, but flawed in its basic structure. Some aspects of the Academy's performance are described and compared to the performance and experiences of the Australian single-Service colleges which preceded it and some comparable overseas institutions. The paper concludes by revisiting some of the proposals presented as alternative models for the Academy during the Public Works Committee hearings in 1978/9. These may well provide a sound basis for the future development of the Australian Defence Force Academy.

This thesis is a case study of educational process in the leadership development program of the Australian Defence Force Academy. The intention is to determine the relative emphasis in educational process on the conventional command and managerial compliance (Type A) style and the emergent contingent and creative (Type B) style of leadership. The Type A style is theorised as emphasizing hierarchy and control, whereas the emphasis in a Type B style is on adaptive and entrepreneurial behaviour. This study looks at the learning process in a cultural and structural context rather than focus on curriculum and instructional design. Research in this wider context is intended to enable development processes to successfully bridge a gap between theory and practice, implicit in studies that identify theories 'in-operation' as different from the theories 'espoused' (Argyris 1992, Savage 1996). In terms of espoused and in-use theory, the study seeks to produce a valid and reliable result to the question: what is the relative emphasis on the two leadership styles in the operation of the three educational mechanisms of curriculum, pedagogy (teaching practice) and assessment? The quantitative analysis of results (n = 114) draws attention to both leadership styles in terms of two and three-way relationships of style, cadet or work group and service type. The data shows that both Type A and Type B leadership styles are evident in the general conversation of the organisation. This trend is present as espoused theory in the curriculum of the Defence Academy. However, the data also confirm a clear and strong emphasis towards command and managerial compliance as theory-in-use, particularly by cadets. This emphasis is noticeably evident in the teaching and assessment practice of the Defence Academy. Other research outcomes include the observation that: Contextually, while studies show it is difficult to isolate skills from their cultural and biographical context (Watkins, 1991:15), this study suggests that it is equally difficult to isolate skills development from this context. There is a strong task or instrumental link identified by cadet responses in terms of content and development process at the Defence Academy, in contrast to the wider developmental emphasis in general literature and senior officer interviews. There is a lack of awareness of teaching strategies and development activity consistent with espoused Type B leadership theory and curriculum content. This gap is compounded by the use in the Defence Academy of personnel without teaching expertise or suitable developmental experience. The socialisation of cadets into the military workplace is the primary purpose of training. This purpose appears taken for granted by all concerned - staff, cadets and senior officers. Defence Academy development processes appear to be faced with a dilemma. Arguably, training and learning from experience are limited approaches to development. Training, which involves learning by replication, and learning from experience, which is largely imitative, are both of little use when people are faced with novel and ambiguous situations. This study suggests that in order to support the development of capabilities that go beyond training based competence a learning and development approach is needed. This more expansive approach requires educational planners to consider the cultural and social context that can inadvertently promote the status quo in practice over espoused outcomes.