Universities are important public institutions and are seen as key drivers for a country’s economic and intellectual development. Their ability to deliver relevant research and education at the highest level have an impact on growth and progress in society, and governments attempt to control and govern the development of the universities. It is no longer left to the individual researcher or the institution to determine the role of the university. Universities have traditionally had a special role in society with a high degree of autonomy and independence. They have been described as a self-governing Republic of Science and their internal organization is characterized as "academic tribes". However, universities can also be viewed as institutions with somewhat similar characteristics as other public institutions with highly professionalized staff. Governing the Reformed University is a coherent volume based on a unique data set. The aim of the book is to quantitatively and qualitatively understand and explain how reforms and management instruments are implemented and how it influences different levels of the organization from the top management level to the employees within universities. It contributes to the knowledge of reform and reform impact in higher education. It also adds to our understanding of management and governance at universities and through which mechanisms management works at universities. This book builds on and adds to the knowledge of studies of reform and governance at universities. The data used in the book consists of a number of data sets and is collected as part of a comprehensive research project. Academics and policy makers alike in the fields of public administration, public management, public policy, educational studies and accountancy will find this of high interest.
The fascination with the commercial value of research, coupled with the rise of neo-liberal 'new public management' in the public sector, has led to the rise of a managerial class in the university. These essays focus on the widespread use of business models and market principles that have undermined the autonomy of the professoriate.
Higher education reforms have been on the agenda of Western European countries for 25 years, trying to deal with self governed professional bureaucracies politically weakened by massification when an emerging common understanding enhanced their role as major actors in knowledge based economies. While university systems are deeply embedded in national settings, the ex post rationale of still on-going reforms is surprisingly uniform and “de-nationalized”. They promote (1) the “organizational turn” of universities, to varying extent substituting collegial loosely coupled entities by “integrated, goal-oriented entities deliberately choosing their own actions (and therefore open to differentiation), that can thus be held responsible for what they do” (2) the diversification of stakeholders, supposedly offering solutions to problems as various as the democratisation of universities, the shrinking of State budget resources and the diversification of university missions offering answers to changes in the making and in the use of science. When it comes to accounting for these reforms, two grand narratives of public management share the floor. NPM implies a strengthening of the capacity of the core State to direct public services organizations through management by objectives and results or contractualization, assessment, evaluation and. “Governance” focuses on “network-based” governance systems, where coordinating power and control are collectively shared between the major ‘social actors or partners’ at all levels of the decision-making system. Our results suggest that all higher education systems under study were more or less transformed according to both these narratives. It is therefore needed to understand how they combine or create contradictions. This leads us to test a third neo-weberian model. This model reaffirms the role of the State, of representative democracy, (central, regional and local), of public law (suitably modernized), preserves the idea of a public service with a distinctive status, culture and terms and conditions. It shifts from an internal orientation to bureaucratic rules towards an external orientation in meeting citizens’ needs and wishes by means of standardization of work processes and their products, based on a distinctive public service and a particular legal order survived as the foundations beneath the various packages of modernizing reforms. This book traces the national dynamics of public policies, organizational design and steering tools in seven European higher education and research systems, using these narratives to interpret and test the actual changes and the degree of national specificities and European convergence. This book is not a sum of national chapters like other presumably comparative. It does not intend to tell once again the story of the transformation of the relationships between the state and universities. It tries to use Higher education system to discuss issues on state intervention and steering and more generally the NPM, governance and neo-weberian models in a specific field. Furthermore, this book intends breaking the walls between specialists in higher education and specialist in public management and research policy. This well rooted division of labour is less that ever justified as the university mission in research (fundamental, applied, strategic) is underscored by commentors and reformers themselves. For that reason, we have chosen to observe the consequences of the dynamics of public policies, organizational design and steering tools on two specific issues related to the development of research training and organizing within universities: the transformation of research funding on the one hand and the expansion of graduate studies and doctoral schools on the other.
Leveraging the natural experiment caused by the dissolution of the USSR and its uniform approach to higher education, this book focuses on university governance across the former Soviet countries, making it essential reading for researchers, students and policy makers. This title is also available as open access on Cambridge Core.
"Mouritzen and Opstrup's book is a most welcome addition to the subject of the management of academic performance. It is certainly well-worth reading and considering."—Bruno S. Frey, Permanent Visiting Professor at the University of Basel and Research Director CREMA - Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts, Switzerland "Performance Management at Universities could not possibly be more timely. With universities and university faculty throughout the world being pressed to give more evidence and more precise indicators about their productivity, this thoughtful contribution provides a much needed and unusually thoughtful analysis of the possibilities and pitfalls found in current approaches to university performance evaluation. Given policy-makers’ and politicians’ calls for evidence-based management and evaluation, let us hope that policy-makers heed their own rhetoric and act on the evidence provided here. The authors show that performance measures, while sometimes beneficial, are subject to gaming and manipulation and that more precision does not necessarily equate with better performance, but rather altered performance. This superb book should be read by anyone interested higher education evaluation as well as by those who are subjected to it."—Barry Bozeman, Regents' Professor, Arizona Centennial Professor of Technology Policy and Public Management, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, USA "In Performance Management at Universities, Mouritzen and Opstrup definitively answer the question: What are the effects of national university performance-based funding schemes that use bibliometric indicators? As these schemes have proliferated, the question has become urgent. The authors marshal comprehensive data on the Danish university system to sift through the many predictions commonly made by academics newly subject to these systems to identify what actually happened to Danish research as the system took hold." —Diana Hicks, Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA, and first author on the Leiden Manifesto on research metrics This book gives an account of what can happen when performance management is introduced at universities. How do scholars – for better or worse – respond to a system which counts the number of articles and books? Many myths exist about scholar’s reactions: They cheat, slice their production to the least publishable unit, become more risk averse and will go for the low-hanging fruits; in short, they develop a “taste for publication” at the cost of a “taste of science”. Systematic knowledge about the consequences of such systems for the motivation, behavior and productivity of university scholars is in short supply. The book is a major contribution to remedy this situation.
This book examines governance reforms in higher education in six European countries: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, and Portugal. It focuses in particular on the governance of the systems and institutions in these countries. The book shows that each of the national reform processes has been characterised by its own specific pathways embedded in the country’s specific socio-economic contexts and cultures, but also has a number of features in common with the other countries and processes. The first chapter of the book presents a conceptual framework to analyse the reform processes as an ’implementation game’ played by several actors with diverse interests. The second chapter describes the national reform processes of the six selected countries, giving a voice to the individual university rectors and officials who played an important role during the reform processes. Their stories constitute a vivid narrative of the government drivers of reform and of the rationales of the institutions as main partners in the reform processes. These narratives are analysed, complemented by, and contrasted with a review of the literature on the subject in the third chapter. The final chapter consist of concluding remarks and lessons learned.
Governance is becoming increasingly important in universities just as it is in the wider world of commerce and banking. Historically, universities were run by their academic communities but as mass higher education has taken root, as university research has become a critical element in national economies and as the demand for more accountability both financial and in academic performance has grown, pressure has mounted for a ‘modernisation’ of governance structures. One aspect of ‘modernisation’, particularly important in many European systems, and in Japan, has been the decision by governments to give institutions greater autonomy, more control over their budgets and legal responsibility for the employment of their staff. International trends to introduce greater competition between institutions, to encourage greater institutional differentiation and give greater play to market forces has led to an emphasis on leadership, a more systematic involvement of external stakeholders and a more ‘corporate style of governance. At the same time this has often led to a sense of loss of collegiality, a redistribution of authority and a growing gap between the ‘centre’ and the ‘periphery’ within universities. This book analyses governance change in nine major higher education systems, Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, the UK and the USA, each account being the result of independent research by a leading authority in the field and describes how a convergence of governance structures has been mediated by the historical, cultural, political and social characteristics of the different systems. Michael Shattock is a leading authority on university governance; this study offers the most up to date account of governance reform in a range of higher education systems, an analysis of the common trends and an assessment of their impact on the idea of a university. It will be essential reading for academics, postgraduates and practitioners in higher education.
This book addresses three central questions in contemporary university governance: (1) How and why has academic governance in Anglophone nations changed in recent years and what impact have these changes had on current practices? (2) How do power relations within universities affect decisions about teaching and research and what are the implications for academic voices? (3) How can those involved in university governance and management improve academic governance processes and outcomes and why is it important that they do so? The book explores these issues in clear, concise and accessible language that will appeal to higher education researchers and governance practitioners alike. It draws on extensive empirical data from key national systems in the Anglophone world but goes beyond the simply descriptive to analyse and explain.
This book explores the historical and social foundations of Canadian higher education and provides a detailed analysis of university boards within this broader context of university governance. By examining rich empirical data from a sociological perspective, it offers unique insights into the role of boards, and the structures and practices that frame their work. It explores board composition, the professional backgrounds of board members, how members perceive their role, and the complex relationships between the board and the university president. The authors also compare and contrast the Canadian experience with governance reforms in Europe and other regions over recent decades. Drawing on multiple theoretical perspectives, the authors provide a nuanced analysis of the role of boards in terms of oversight, protecting university autonomy, representing societal interests, and dealing with increasing complexity and expectations. This innovative, original study makes an enormous contribution to our understanding of the role and work of Canadian university boards, and to international scholarship on higher education governance. It will appeal to scholars and researchers with interests across higher education, international and comparative education, and the sociology of education.
This book examines the transformative power and the limitations of one of Europe’s most significant university reforms from an ethnographic and historical perspective. It incorporates voices positioned across university and policy-making hierarchies in its analysis of how Danish universities have been transformed. To do this, the book continually juxtaposes two meanings of ‘enactment’: a top-down view based on laws and institutional power, and a bottom-up view of multiple actors shaping their institution in day-to-day life and in actively contested changes. By conceiving of the university as ‘enacted’ in both ways at once, the book explores how and why the university comes to be imagined and instantiated in new ways. The book traces the arguments for reform through a two-decade long, dynamic struggle between international forums and national industrial, political and academic interests over the definition of the university. It discusses which ideas finally became dominant and how this happened. It looks at government reforms from 2003 onwards, and, by means of notable ‘telling moments’, explains how the governance and management of the university were transformed. It examines how academics found room to manoeuvre between contesting discourses that affect their identity and work. Finally, it shows how students engaged with new versions of historical debates about their participation in shaping their own education, their institution and society.
