As international and domestic policy initiatives continue to sweep over higher education, it is of utmost importance to study how those responsible for the implementation of the many initiatives taken perceive and respond to the many expectations about change and renewal. Through three different analytical perspectives — a managerial, a disciplinary, and a stakeholder perspective — the current article offers insights into how educational leaders responsible for the management of study programmes at micro-level interpret external expectations and how they prioritize between them. Based on data derived from a representative sample of Norwegian educational leaders, the current article finds — somewhat surprisingly — that the managerial perspective is less relevant for understanding the sense-making of educational leaders and how they prioritize between different tasks in their daily work. Disciplinary and the stakeholder perspectives are in this respect more relevant for explaining the practices related to programme management. The study provides indications of a (continued) gap between macro-level policy-making and its implementation at micro-level. In the conclusion, the findings are reflected upon and implications for policy and practice are outlined.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Becher, T. and Trowler, P. (2001) Academic tribes and territories, Buckingham: Open University Press.
Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2011) Teaching for quality learning, Berkshire: McGraw-Hill.
Blackmore, P. (2007) ‘Disciplinary differences in academic leadership and management and its development: a significant factor?’ Research in Post-Compulsory Education 12(12): 225–239.
Bleiklie, I. (2005) ‘Academic leadership and emerging knowledge regimes’, in I. Bleiklie and M. Henkel (eds.) Governing Knowledge. A Study of Continuity and Change in Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 189–211.
Bleiklie, I. and Frølich, N. (2014) ‘Styring og ledelse i politikk om høyere utdanning’, in N. Frølich, E. Hovdhaugen and L. I. Terum (eds.) Kvalitet, kapasitet og relevans: Utviklingstrekk i norsk høyere utdanning, Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk, pp. 40–58.
Bryman, A. (2007) ‘Effective leadership in higher education: a literature review’, Studies in Higher Education 32(32): 693–710.
Caspersen, J. and Frølich, N. (2014) ‘Læringsutbytte som styringsredskap for ledelsen i høyere utdanning’, in N. Frølich, E. Hovdhaugen and L. I. Terum (eds.) Kvalitet, Kapasitet og Relevans: Utviklingstrekk i Norsk Høyere Utdanning, Oslo: Cappelen Akademisk, pp. 58–80.
Caspersen, J. and Frølich, N. (2015) ‘Managing learning outcomes: Leadership practices and old modes of new governance in higher education’, in E. Reale and E. Primeri (eds.) Universities in Transition. Shifting Institutional and Organizational Boundaries, Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 187–203.
Caspersen, J., Frølich, N. and Muller, J. (2017) ‘Higher education learning outcomes – ambiguity and change in higher education’, European Journal of Education 52(1): 8–19.
Cohen, M. D. and March, J.D. (1974) Leadership and ambiguity: The American College President, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Davies, J., Hides, M.T. and Casey, S. (2001) ‘Leadership in higher education’ Total Quality Management 12(7): 1025–1030.
De Boer, H., File, J. Huisman, J., Seeber, M., Vukasovic, M. and Westerheijden, D. (2017) Policy analysis of structural reforms in higher education. Processes and outcomes. Cham: PalgraveMacmillan.
Elken, M. (2016) ‘‘EU-on-demand’: developing national qualifications frameworks in a multi-level context’, European Educational Research Journal 15(6): 628–643.
Frølich, N., Gulbrandsen, M., Vabø, A., Wiers-Jenssen, J. and Aamodt, P.O. (2016) ‘Kvalitet og samspill i universitets- og høgskolesektoren’. Oslo, Norway: Nordic Institute for studies of Innovation, Research and Education. NIFU-report no. 2.
Gibbs, G., Knapper, C. and Piccinin, S., (eds) (2009) Departmental leadership of teaching in research-intensive universities. London: The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
Henkel, M. (2000) Academic identities and policy change in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Hovdhaugen, E., and Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2015) ‘Hvordan vurderer studenter og nyutdannede utdanningens kvalitet og relevans?’, in N. Frølich (ed.) Hva skjer i universiteter og høyskoler?, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, pp. 51–65.
Irving, K. (2015) ‘Leading learning and teaching: an exploration of ‘local’ leadership in academic departments in the UK’, Tertiary Education and Management 21(3): 186–199.
Jungblut, J., Vukasovic, M., and Stensaker, B. (2015) ‘Student perspectives on quality in higher education’ European Journal of Higher Education 5(2): 157–180.
Karseth, B. and Sivesind, K. (2010) ‘Conceptualising curriculum knowledge within and beyond the national context’, European Journal of Education 45(1): 103–120.
Kehm, B. M., Huisman, J. and Stensaker, B. (2009) The European higher education area: Perspectives on a moving target, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Kehm, B. M., Michelsen, S. and Vabø, A. (2010) ‘Towards the two-cycle degree structure: Bologna, reform and path dependency in German and Norwegian universities’, Higher Education Policy 23(2): 227–245.
Marginson, S. (2011) ‘Higher education and public good’, Higher Education Quarterly 65(4): 411–433.
Maassen, P. and Stensaker, B. (2011) ‘The knowledge triangle, European higher education policy logics and policy implications’, Higher Education 61(6): 757–769.
Musselin, C. (2005) ‘Change or continuity in higher education governance?’ In Bleiklie, I. and Henkel, M. (eds.) Governing knowledge. Dordrecht: Springer.
Møthe, S., Ballangrud, B. and Stensaker, B. (2015) ‘The values and visions of the professional department head: Not so different from the past?’, The International Journal of Educational Management 29(3): 298–308.
Neave, G., and Veiga, A. (2013) ‘The Bologna Process: inception, ‘take up ‘and familiarity’, Higher education 66(1): 59–77.
Ravinet, P. (2008) ‘From voluntary participation to monitored coordination: Why European countries feel increasingly bound by their commitment to the Bologna Process’, European Journal of Education 43(3): 353–367.
Solbrekke, T.D. and Stensaker, B. (2016) ‘Utdanningsledelse. Stimulering av et felles engasjement for studieprogrammene?’, Uniped 39(2): 144–157.
Spooren, P., Brocks, B. and Mortelmans, D. (2013) ‘On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art’, Review of Educational Research 83(4): 598–642.
Støren, L.A., Carlsten, T.C., Reiling, R.B., Olsen, D.S. and Arnesen, C. (2016) Arbeidsgivers vurdering av nyansatte med høyere utdanning og fagskoleutdanning: Underveisrapport, første delrapport. Oslo, Norway: Nordic Institute for studies in Innovation, Research and Education. NIFU-arbeidsnotat no. 16.
Vukasovic, M., Jungblut, J. and Elken, M. (2015) ‘Still the main show in town? Assessing political saliency of the Bologna Process across time and space’, Studies in Higher Education (4): 1–16.
Young, M. (2013) ‘Overcoming the crisis in cirriculum theory: a knowledge-based approach’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 45(2): 101–118.
About this article
Cite this article
Stensaker, B., Frølich, N. & Aamodt, P.O. Policy, Perceptions, and Practice: A Study of Educational Leadership and Their Balancing of Expectations and Interests at Micro-level. High Educ Policy (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0115-7
- educational leadership