Higher Education Policy

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 427–444 | Cite as

Effects of Managerialism on the Perceptions of Higher Education in Portugal

  • Rui A Santiago
  • Teresa Carvalho
Article

Abstract

How does the rhetoric of managerialism influence actors' perceptions about the ultimate goals of Portuguese higher education (HE)? From the data, based on interviews, three major themes were extracted: teaching/research relationship, HE's cultural and social relevance, and its economical relevance. The actors' narratives led to the conclusion that the ‘managerialist rhetoric’ is not dominant. In the teaching/research relationship, most actors considered that research should be the main force behind teaching. In cultural and social relevance, the actors' discourses reflect an idea of HE based on ‘traditional’ academic values. Finally, a more utilitarian perspective of HE emerges in some actors' discourses about developing a closer connection both between teaching and the labour market and between research and economic competitive needs.

Keywords

higher education politics managerialism portugal teaching and research economic social/cultural relevance 

References

  1. Amaral, A., Correia, F., Magalhães, A., Pires, M., Santiago, R.A. and Teixeira, P. (2002) O Ensino Superior pela Mão da Economia, Porto: CIPES/FUP.Google Scholar
  2. Amaral, A., Fulton, O. and Larsen, I. (2003) ‘A Managerial Revolution?’, in A. Amaral, L. Meek and I. Larsen (eds.) The Higher Education Managerial Revolution? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amaral, A., Magalhães, A. and Santiago, R. (2003) ‘The Rise of Academic Managerialism in Portugal’, in A. Amaral, L. Meek and I. Larsen (eds.) The Higher Education Managerial Revolution?, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, R. (1990) The Idea of Higher Education, Buckingham: SHRE/Open University.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, R. (2000) ‘Reconfiguring the University’, in P. Scott (ed.) Higher Education Re-formed, London: Farmer Press, pp. 114–129.Google Scholar
  6. Birnbaum, R. (2000) Management Fads in Higher Education, Where They Come From, What They Do, Why They Fail, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/A Wiley Company.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, J. and Newman, J. (1997) The Managerial State, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  8. Deem, R. (1998) ‘New-managerialism and higher education: the management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom’, International Studies in Sociology of Education 8: 1:47–1:70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deem, R. (2001) ‘Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepeneurialism in universities: is the local dimension important?’, Comparative Education 1: 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitzsimons, P. (2000) ‘Neoliberalism and social capital: reinventing community’, Paper Presented at the AEREA Conference, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  11. Fulton, O. (2003) ‘Managerialism in UK Universities: Unstable Hybridity and the Complications of Implementation’, in A. Amaral, L. Meek and I. Larsen (eds.) The Higher Education Managerial Revolution? Dordrehct: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kogan, M. and Bauer, M. (2000) ‘Change and Continuity: Some Conclusions’, in M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie and M. Henkel (eds.) Transforming Higher Education, A Comparative Study, London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, pp. 199–214.Google Scholar
  13. Limoges, C. (1996) L'université à la Croisée des Chemins: Une Mission à affirmer, Une Gestion à reformer, Québec: Gouvernement du Québec.Google Scholar
  14. Meek, V. (2003) ‘Governance and Management of Australian Higher Education: Enemies Within and Without’, L. Amaral, L. Meek and I. Larsen (eds.) The Higher Education Managerial Revolution? Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 179–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller, H. (1995) The Management of Changes in Universities, Buckingham: SHRE/Open University.Google Scholar
  16. Miller, H. (1998) ‘Managing academics in Canada and the United Kingdom’, International Studies in Sociology of Education 8: 1:3–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Neave, G. and van Vught, F. (1994) ‘Conclusions’, in G. Neave and F. van Vught (eds.) Prometheus Bound, the Changing relationship Between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe, Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 239–255.Google Scholar
  18. Reed, M. (2002) ‘New Managerialism, Professional Power and Organisational Governance in UK Universities: a Review and Assessment’, in A. Amaral, G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds.) Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Scott, P. (1995) The Meaning of Mass Higher Education, Buckingham: SHRE/Open University.Google Scholar
  20. Scott, P. (2000) ‘A Tale of Three Revolutions? Science, Society and the University’, in P. Scott (ed.) Higher Education Re-formed, London: Farmer Press, pp. 190–203.Google Scholar
  21. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997) Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and The Entrepreneurial University, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  22. van Vught, F. (1997) ‘The Effects of Alternative Governance Structures, a Comparative Analysis of Higher Education Policy in Five EU Members States’, in B. Steunenberg and F. van Vught (eds.) Political Institutions and Public Policy, Perspectives on European Decision Making, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Universities 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rui A Santiago
    • 1
  • Teresa Carvalho
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Aveiro and CIPESMatosinhosPortugal

Personalised recommendations