Higher Education

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 127–154 | Cite as

Academic accountability and university adaptation: The architecture of an academic learning organization

  • David D. Dill


Over the last decade universities have been subjected to various forms of academic accountability designed to maintain or improve the quality of their teaching and learning. A shared perspective of many of these accountability processes is that universities should become skilled at creating knowledge for the improvement of teaching and learning, and at modifying their behavior to reflect this new knowledge. In short, that universities should become “learning organizations.” What are the organizational characteristics of an academic learning organization? The paper will address this question by reviewing the adaptations in organizational structure and governance reported by universities attempting to improve the quality of their teaching and learning processes.


Learning Process Organizational Structure Learning Organization Organizational Characteristic Academic Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Adler, P. (1990). 'Shared learning', Management Science36(8), 938-957.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, P. (1993). 'Designed for learning: A tale of two auto plants', Sloan Management Review3, 85-94.Google Scholar
  3. Ashby, E. (1963). 'Decision making in the academic world', in Halmos, P. (ed.), Sociological Studies in British University Education. Keele: University of Keele, pp. 93-100.Google Scholar
  4. Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Braxton, J.M. and Hargens, L.L. (1996). 'Variations among academic disciplines: Analytical frameworks and research', in Smart, J. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, B.R. (1983). The Higher Education System. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, B.R. (1998). The Entrepreneurial University. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, M.D. and March, J.G. (1986). Leadership and Ambiguity (revised edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, M.D. and Sproull, L.S. (eds.) (1996). Organizational Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Demsetz, H. (1991). 'The theory of the firm revisited', in Williamson, O.E. and Winter, S.G. (eds.), The Nature of the Firm. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 159-178.Google Scholar
  11. Dill, D.D. (1992). 'Quality by design: Toward a framework for academic quality management', in Smart, J. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 8. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 37-83.Google Scholar
  12. Dill, D.D. (1995). 'Through Deming's eyes: A cross-national analysis of quality assurance policies in higher education', Quality in Higher Education1(2), 95-110.Google Scholar
  13. Dill, D.D. (1997). 'Quality assurance policies and their impacts on academic institutions', LLinE2(4), 200-208.Google Scholar
  14. Dill, D.D. (1999). 'Student learning and academic choice: The rule of coherence', in Brennan, J., Fedrowitz, J., Huber, M. and Shah, T. (eds.), What Kind of University? International Perspectives on Knowledge, Participation and Governance. Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 56-70.Google Scholar
  15. Dill, D.D. and Sporn, B. (1995). 'University 2001: What will the university of the twenty-first century look like?', in Dill, D.D. and Sporn, B. (eds.), Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform: Through a Glass Darkly. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 212-236.Google Scholar
  16. Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). 'Disciplines of organizational learning: Contributions and critiques', Human Relations50(9), 1085-1113.Google Scholar
  17. Garvin (1993). 'Building a learning organization', Harvard Business Review71(4), 78-84.Google Scholar
  18. Gibbons, M. (1995). 'The university as an instrument for the development of science and basic research: The implications of mode 2 science', in Dill, D.D. and Sporn, B. (eds.), Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform: Through a Glass Darkly. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 90-104.Google Scholar
  19. Grant, R.M. (1996). 'Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration', Organization Science7(4), 375-387.Google Scholar
  20. Gumport, P. and Sporn, B. (1999). 'Organizational adaptation and restructuring in higher education', in Smart, J. (ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research. New York: Agathon Press, pp. 104-145.Google Scholar
  21. Hayes, R.H., Wheelwright, S.C. and Clark, K.B. (1988). Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the Learning Organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hedberg, B.L., Nystrom, P.C. and Starbuck, W.H. (1976). 'Camping on seesaws: Prescriptions for a self-designing organization', Administrative Science Quarterly2, 39-52.Google Scholar
  23. Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B. (1990). 'Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms', Administrative Science Quarterly35, 9-30.Google Scholar
  24. Huber, G.P. (1991). 'Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literature', Organization Science2, 88-115.Google Scholar
  25. Kerr, C. (1993). 'Universal issues in the development of higher education', in Balderston, J.B. and Balderston, F.E. (eds.), Higher Education in Indonesia: Evolution and Reform. Berkeley: Center for Studies in Higher Education, University of California Press, pp. 19-35.Google Scholar
  26. Kim, D.H. (1993). 'The link between individual and organizational learning', Sloan Management Review35(1), 37-50.Google Scholar
  27. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). 'Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development', Strategic Management Journal13, 111-125.Google Scholar
  28. Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988). 'Organizational learning', Annual Review of Sociology14, 319-340.Google Scholar
  29. March, J.G. (1991). 'Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning', Organization Science2(1), 71-87.Google Scholar
  30. March, J.G., Sproull, L.S. and Tamuz, M. (1991). 'Learning from samples of one or fewer', Organization Science2(1), 1-13.Google Scholar
  31. Massy, W.F. (ed.) (1996). Resource Allocation in Higher Education. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mets, L. (1997). 'Program review', in Peterson, M.W., Dill, D.D. and Mets, L.A. (eds.), Planning and Management for a Changing Environment: A Handbook on Redesigning Postsecondary Institutions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, pp. 88-105.Google Scholar
  33. Meyer, J.W. and Rowan, B. (1977). 'Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony', American Journal of Sociology83, 440-463.Google Scholar
  34. Neave, G. (1988). 'On the cultivation of quality, efficiency and enterprise: An overview of recent trends in higher education in western Europe, 1986-1988', European Journal of Education23(1/2), 7-23.Google Scholar
  35. Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Pascarella, E.T. and Terenzini, P.T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and Insights From Twenty Years of Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Peace-Lenn, M. (1997) 'Introduction', in Peace-Lenn, M. and Campos, L.B. (eds.), Globalization of the Professions and the Quality Imperative: Trade Agreements and Professional Accreditation, Certification, and Licensure. Madison, WI: Magna.Google Scholar
  38. Prahalad, C.K. and Hamel, G. (1990). 'The core competence of the corporation', Harvard Business Review3, 79-91.Google Scholar
  39. Rothschild, M. and White, L.J. (1993). 'The university in the marketplace: Some insights and some puzzles', in Clotfelter, C.T. and Rothschild, M. (eds.), Studies of Supply and Demand in Higher Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 11-37.Google Scholar
  40. Senge, P. (1990a). The Fifth Dimension: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  41. Senge, P. (1990b). 'The leader's new work: Building learning organizations', Sloan Management Review32(1), 7-23.Google Scholar
  42. Shulman, L.S. (1993). 'Teaching as community property: Putting an end to pedagogical solitude', Change25, 6-7.Google Scholar
  43. Szulanski, G. (1996). 'Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm', Strategic Management Journal17, 27-43.Google Scholar
  44. Trow, M.A. (1983). 'Organizing the biological sciences at Berkeley', Change15, 28-53.Google Scholar
  45. Tsang, E.W.K. (1997). 'Organizational learning and the learning organization: A dichotomy between descriptive and prescriptive research', Human Relations50(1), 73-89.Google Scholar
  46. Wildavsky, A. (1972). 'The self-evaluating organization', Public Administration Review32(5), 509-520.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • David D. Dill
    • 1
  1. 1.University of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel Hill

Personalised recommendations