Abstract
The existence of information asymmetry has ascended to a significant role in higher education systems. The article makes an attempt to conceptualise the interaction of universities with their environment, stakeholders, and the state by paying special attention to the role and substance of information asymmetry. The existence of information asymmetries has spurred a range of actions by external stakeholders of universities to overcome information asymmetries. The article specifies the nature of these actions and analyses their impact and potential for the reduction of information asymmetry.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Amaral, A., & Magalhães, A. (2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders in European higher education. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 1–21). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Ben-Ner, A., & van Hoomissen, T. (1991). Nonprofit organizations in the mixed economy: A demand and supply analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 62(4), 519–550.
Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Blau, P. M. (1973). The organization of academic work. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cave, M., Hanney, S., Henkel, M., & Kogan, M. (1997). The use of performance measures in higher education: The challenge of the quality movement (Higher Education Policy Series 34) (3rd ed.). London: Jessica Kingsley.
Clotfelter, C. T. (1996). Buying the best: Cost escalation in elite higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Cremonini, L., Westerheijden, D., & Enders, J. (2008). Disseminating the right information to the right audience: Cultural determinants in the use (and misuse) of rankings. Higher Education, 55, 373–385.
de Boer, H. (2002). Trust, the essence of governance? In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp. 43–61). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dill, D. D. (2006, September 9). Convergence and diversity: The role and influence of university rankings. A Keynote Address presented at the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers (CHER), University of Kassel, Germany.
Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2004). Transparency and quality in higher education markets. In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? (pp. 61–85). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49, 495–533.
Downs, A. (1967). Inside bureaucracy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown (14th printing).
Ewell, P. T. (1999). Linking performance measures to resource allocation: Exploring unmapped terrain. Quality in Higher Education, 5(3), 191–209.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
Goedegebuure, L. J. C., Maassen, P. A. M., & Westerheijden, D. F. (Eds.). (1990). Peer review and performance indicators: Quality assessment in British and Dutch higher education. Utrecht: Lemma.
Hölttä, S. (1995). Towards the self-regulative university (Doctoral dissertation, University of Joensuu). Publications in Social Sciences, No. 23.
Johnes, J., & Taylor, J. (1990). Performance measures in higher education: UK universities. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University Press.
Jones, G. R. (2004). Organization theory, design and change. New Jersey: Pearson (4th printing).
Jongbloed, B. (2003). Marketisation in higher education, Clark’s triangle and the essential ingredients of markets. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 110–135.
Jongbloed, B. (2006). Strengthening consumer choice in higher education. In P. Teixeira, B. D. Johnstone, M. J. Rosa, & H. Vossensteyn (Eds.), Cost-sharing and accessibility in higher education: A fairer deal? (pp. 19–50). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Jongbloed, B., & Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303–324.
Jongbloed, B., & Vossensteyn, H. (2001). Keeping up performances: An international survey of performance-based funding in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(2), 127–145.
Kivistö, J. A. (2005). The government-higher education institution relationship: Theoretical considerations from the perspective of agency theory. Tertiary Education and Management, 11, 1–17.
Kivistö, J. A. (2007). Agency theory as a framework for the government-university relationship (Doctoral dissertation, Higher Education Group/Tampere University Press).
Koelman, J., & Venniker, R. (2001). Public funding of academic research: The research assessment exercise of the UK, Higher education reform: Getting the incentives right (pp. 101–117). Enschede: CHEPS.
Lewis, D. R., Hendel, D. D., & Kallsen, L. (2007). Performance measures as a foundation of institutional autonomy: Implications for higher education institutions in Europe. Tertiary Education and Management, 13(3), 203–226.
Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization and management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ministry of Education. (2004). Management and steering of higher education in Finland. Publications of the Ministry of Education, Finland 2004:20. Helsinki: Ministry of Education, Department for Education and Science Policy.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pike, G. R. (2004). Measuring quality: A comparison of U.S. news rankings and NSSE benchmarks. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 193–208.
Poch, S., & Wolverton, M. (2006). Transfer student graduation efficiency and university administrators: New bedfellows. Innovative Higher Education, 30(4), 233–250.
Salmi, J., & Saroyan, A. (2006). League tables as policy instruments: Uses and misuses. Higher Education Management and Policy, 19(2), 31–68.
Schmidtlein, F. A. (2004). Assumptions commonly underlying government quality assessment practices. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(4), 263–285.
Usher, A., & Savino, M. (2006). A world of difference: A global survey of university league tables (Canadian Education Report Series). Virginia Beach, VA: Educational Policy Institute.
van der Wende, M. (2008). Rankings and classifications in higher education: A European perspective. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 23, pp. 49–71). Dordrecht: Springer.
van Raan, A. F. J. (2005). Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods. Scientometrics, 62(1), 133–143.
Vroeijenstijn, A. I. (1995). Improvement and accountability: Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis: Guide for external quality assessment in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Weingart, P. (2005). Impact of bibliometrics upon science system: Inadvertent consequences? Scientometrics, 62(1), 117–131.
Yunker, J. A. (2005). The dubious utility of the value-added concept in higher education: The case of accounting. Economics of Education Review, 24, 355–367.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kivistö, J., Hölttä, S. Information as a Regulative Element in Higher Education Systems. Tert Educ Manag 14, 331–344 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1080/13583880802496813
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13583880802496813