Advertisement

Tertiary Education and Management

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 335–351 | Cite as

Governance Paradigms of Public Universities: An international comparative study

  • Joe ChristopherEmail author
Article

Abstract

This study aims to develop a conceptual model of the wider influencing forces impacting the governance paradigms of public universities. It draws on the multi-theoretical governance concept and seeks to identify these forces through the lens of chief audit executives using a qualitative research approach. The interview data supported by published literature reveal universities are affected differently by a number of common influencing forces, resulting in different governance paradigms. These findings provide insights as to the causal factors that shape a public university’s governance paradigm. The practical implications of the findings are that these forces need to be taken into account in future governance studies of universities as it provides the basis to determine their stakeholder base; consequent contractual obligations with them; and the governance control mechanisms and processes to be developed and implemented at the board, operational and assurance levels of governance.

Keywords

governance paradigm environmental influencing forces university governance 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aguilera, R. V., Filatotchev, I., Gospel, H., & Jackson, G. (2008). Costs, contingencies and complementarities in corporate governance models. Organisation Science, 19(3), 475–494.Google Scholar
  2. Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
  3. Barnett, K. (2011). System members at odds: Managing divergent perspectives in the higher education change process. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(2), 131–140.Google Scholar
  4. Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2008). Tensions in HE leadership: Towards a multi-level model of leadership practice. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 358–376.Google Scholar
  7. Boyd, B. (1990). Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11(6), 419–430.Google Scholar
  8. Brennan, N. M., & Solomon, J. (2008). Corporate governance, accountability, and mechanisms of accountability: An overview. Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 21(7), 885–906.Google Scholar
  9. Christopher, J. (2010). Corporate governance—a multi-theoretical approach to recognizing the wider influencing forces impacting on organizations. Critical Perspectives of Accounting, 21(8), 683–695.Google Scholar
  10. Churchman, D. (2002). Voices of the academy: Academics’ responses to the corporatization of academia. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5/6), 643–656.Google Scholar
  11. Clarke, T. (2005). Accounting for Enron: Shareholder value and stakeholder interest. Corporate Governance, 13(5), 598–612.Google Scholar
  12. Coates, H., Dobson, I., Friedman, T., Goedegebuure, L., & Meek, L. (2009). The attractiveness of the Australian academic profession: A comparative analysis. Melbourne: LH Martin Institute of Higher Education Leadership and Management.Google Scholar
  13. Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (1994). Bankruptcy and corporate governance: The impact of board composition and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 1603–1617.Google Scholar
  14. Daily, C. M., Dalton, D. R., & Canella, A. A. (2003). Corporate governance: Decades of dialogue and data. Academy of Management Review, 28(3), 371–382.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.Google Scholar
  16. Deem, R. (1998). New managerialism and higher education: The management of performance and cultures in universities in the UK. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 48–63.Google Scholar
  17. Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  18. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  19. Eckel, P., & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  20. Filatotchev, I. (2008). Developing an organizational theory of corporate governance. Comments on Henry L. Tosi, Jr. ‘Quo Vadis? Suggestions for future corporate governance research”. Journal of Management Governance, 12(2), 171–180.Google Scholar
  21. Freeman, E. (1994). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Gales, L., & Kesner, I. (1994). An analysis of board of director size and composition in bankrupt organizations. Journal of Business Research, 30(3), 271–282.Google Scholar
  23. Goedegebuure, L., & Hayden, M. (2007). Overview: Governance in higher education—concepts and issues. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
  24. Goh, J. W. P. (2009). Globalization’s culture consequences of MBA education across Australia and Singapore: Sophistry or truth? Higher Education, 58(2), 131–155.Google Scholar
  25. Gramling, A. A., Maletta, M., Schneider, A., & Church, B. (2004). The role of the internal audit function in corporate governance: A synthesis of the extant internal audit literature and directions for future research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 23, 194–244.Google Scholar
  26. Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67–91.Google Scholar
  27. Harman, K., & Treadgold, E. (2007). Changing patterns of governance for Australian universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(1), 13–29.Google Scholar
  28. Hillman, A. J., Canella, A. A., & Paetzold, R. L. (2000). The resource dependency role of corporate directors: Strategic adaptation of board composition in response to environmental change. Journal of Management Studies, 37(2), 235–255.Google Scholar
  29. Holton, R. (2000). Globalization’s cultural consequences. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 570(4), 140–152.Google Scholar
  30. Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). Strategic practices: An activity theory perspective on continuity and change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 23–55.Google Scholar
  31. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, J. L., Daily, C. M., & Ellstrand, A. E. (1996). Board of directors: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22(3), 409–438.Google Scholar
  33. Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Maykut, R., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  35. Meek, V. L., & Hayden, M. (2005). The governance of public universities in Australia: Trends and contemporary issues. In F. Iacobucci & C. Tuohy (Eds.), Taking public universities seriously (pp. 379–401). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  36. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  37. Mok, K. H. (2011). The quest for regional hub of education: Growing heterarchies, organizational hybridization, and new governance in Singapore and Malaysia. Journal of Education Policy, 26(1), 61–81.Google Scholar
  38. Morshidi, S. (2010). Strategic planning directions of Malaysia’s higher education: University autonomy in the midst of political uncertainties. Higher Education, 59(4), 461–473.Google Scholar
  39. Nagy, J., & Robb, A. (2008). Can universities be good corporate citizens? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(8), 1414–1430.Google Scholar
  40. Neumann, R., & Guthrie, J. (2002). The corporatization of research in Australian higher education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5/6), 721–741.Google Scholar
  41. Parker, L. D. (2007). Financial and external reporting research: The broadening corporate governance challenge. Accounting and Business Research, 37(1), 39–54.Google Scholar
  42. Parker, L. (2011). University corporatization: Driving definition. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(4), 434–450.Google Scholar
  43. Pfeffer, J. (1972). Size and composition of corporate boards of directors: The organization and its environment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(3), 349–364.Google Scholar
  44. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  45. Roberts, J. (2001). Trust and control in Anglo-American systems of corporate governance: The individualizing and socializing effects of processes of accountability. Human Relations, 54(12), 1547–1572.Google Scholar
  46. Roberts, J. (2009). No one is perfect: The limits of transparency and an ethic for “intelligent” accountability. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(8), 957–970.Google Scholar
  47. Roberts, J., Sanderson, P., Barker, R., & Hendry, J. (2006). In the mirror of the market: The disciplinary effects of company/fund manager meetings. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(3), 277–294.Google Scholar
  48. Rumelt, R. P. (1995). Inertia and transformation. In C. A. Montgomery (Ed.), Resource-based and evolutionary theories of the firm (pp. 101–132). Boston, MA: Kluwer-Academic.Google Scholar
  49. Schofer, E., & Meyer, J. W. (2005). The worldwide expansion of higher education in the twentieth century. American Sociological Review, 70(6), 898–920.Google Scholar
  50. Sikka, P. (2008). Corporate governance: What about the workers? Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 21(7), 955–977.Google Scholar
  51. Singh, J., House, R., & Tucker, D. (1986). Organizational change and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 587–611.Google Scholar
  52. Solomon, J. F. (2007). Corporate governance and accountability (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Tahar, S., Niemeyer, C., & Boutellier, R. (2011). Transferral of business management concepts to universities as ambidextrous organizations. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(4), 289–308.Google Scholar
  55. Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26.Google Scholar
  56. Tilling, M. V. (2002). The dialectic of the university in times of revolution—echoes of the industrial revolution? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5–6), 555–574.Google Scholar
  57. Tovar, E., & Cardenosa, J. (2003, December 2–6). Convergence in higher education: Effects and risks. Paper presented at the International Conference on the convergence of knowledge, culture, language and information technologies, Alexandria, Egypt.Google Scholar
  58. Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education change: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 48(4), 483–510.Google Scholar
  59. Vidovich, L., & Currie, J. (2011). Governance and trust in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 43–46.Google Scholar
  60. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–20.Google Scholar
  61. Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Higher Education Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of AccountingCurtin UniversityBentley, PerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations