Advertisement

Tertiary Education and Management

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 173–185 | Cite as

Coordination between governance actors in universities: the role of policy documents

  • Nikos MacheridisEmail author
Article

Abstract

This article focuses on coordination between governance actors in a public university. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate and analyze policy documents as governance tools that allow departmental management to coordinate with the authorities, the board, and the management at different university levels. A central finding is that the importance of policy documents as governance tools takes expression in two different ways that reinforce and complete each other. One way is connected to the authority role and is manifested by the documentation of certain functions to coordinate the different roles the actors are expected to fulfill. The other is connected to the implementation of a policy document, which is manifested through the policy document, and thus becomes part of the organization’s social life.

Keywords

education governance governance actors coordination governance tool policy documents 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. A special report. New York, NY: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1996). The social life of documents. First Monday, 1(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christopher, J. (2012). Governance paradigms of public universities: An international comparative study. Tertiary Education and Management, 18, 335–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, D. F., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doermann, D., Rivlin, E., & Rosenfeld, A. (1998). The function of documents. Image and Vision Computing, 16, 799–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Donaldson, A. (2007, July). Reflexive writing and the social life of documents. Paper prepared for the 23rd European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) Colloquium, Beyond Waltz — Dances of Individuals and Organizations, Vienna University, Vienna.Google Scholar
  7. Donaldson, L. (1990). The ethereal hand: Organizational economics and management theory. Academy of Management Review, 15, 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. H. (1991). Stewardship theory or agency theory: CEO governance and shareholder returns. Australian Journal of Management, 16, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law & Economics, XXVI, 301–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Freeman, R. (2006). The work the document does: Research, policy, and equity in health. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman, R., & Maybin, J. (2011). Documents, practices and policy. Evidence & Policy, 7, 155–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodall, A. H. (2010). Socrates in the boardroom: Why research universities should be led by top scholars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kivistö, J. (2008). An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the government-university relationship. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30, 339–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kluvers, R., & Tippett, J. (2011). An exploration of stewardship theory in a not-for-profit organisation. Accounting Forum, 35, 275–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Middlehurst, R. (2004). Changing internal governance: A discussion of leadership roles and management structures in UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 58, 258–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morrell, K., & Hewison, A. (2013). Rhetoric in policy texts: The role of enthymeme in Darzi’s review of the NHS. Policy & Politics, 4, 59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Palm, J., & Tornqvist, E. (2008). Governing the sea rescue service in Sweden: Communicating in networks. Journal of Risk Research, 11, 269–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Salter, B. (2002). The external pressures on internal governance of universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 56, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Swedish National Agency for Higher Education. (2012). Report 2012:18 R Swedish universities & universities colleges. Short version of Annual Report 2012. Stockholm: Högskoleverket.Google Scholar
  20. Tricker, B. (2009). Corporate governance: Principles, policies, and practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Turnbull, S. (1997). Corporate governance: Its scope, concerns and theories. Corporate Governance, 5(4), 180–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Yin, R. K. (1981). The case study as a serious research strategy. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 3, 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The European Higher Education Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business AdministrationLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations