Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Governance Paradigms of Public Universities: An international comparative study

  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Berle, A., & Means, G. (1932). The modern corporation and private property. New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Boyd, B. (1990). Corporate linkages and organizational environment: A test of the resource dependence model. Strategic Management Journal, 11(6), 419–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Clarke, T. (2005). Accounting for Enron: Shareholder value and stakeholder interest. Corporate Governance, 13(5), 598–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Eckel, P., & Kezar, A. (2003). Taking the reins: Institutional transformation in higher education. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Freeman, E. (1994). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Goedegebuure, L., & Hayden, M. (2007). Overview: Governance in higher education—concepts and issues. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Gumport, P. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39(1), 67–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harman, K., & Treadgold, E. (2007). Changing patterns of governance for Australian universities. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(1), 13–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Holton, R. (2000). Globalization’s cultural consequences. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 570(4), 140–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P. (2003). Strategic practices: An activity theory perspective on continuity and change. Journal of Management Studies, 40(1), 23–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maykut, R., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Nagy, J., & Robb, A. (2008). Can universities be good corporate citizens? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(8), 1414–1430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann, R., & Guthrie, J. (2002). The corporatization of research in Australian higher education. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 13(5/6), 721–741.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. D. (2007). Financial and external reporting research: The broadening corporate governance challenge. Accounting and Business Research, 37(1), 39–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, L. (2011). University corporatization: Driving definition. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(4), 434–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Sikka, P. (2008). Corporate governance: What about the workers? Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal, 21(7), 955–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J., House, R., & Tucker, D. (1986). Organizational change and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(4), 587–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, J. F. (2007). Corporate governance and accountability (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Teichler, U. (2004). The changing debate on internationalization of higher education. Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education change: A framework for analysis. Higher Education, 48(4), 483–510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vidovich, L., & Currie, J. (2011). Governance and trust in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 43–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbrod, B. A., Ballou, J. P., & Asch, E. D. (2008). Mission and money: Understanding the university. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Accounting, Curtin University, Bentley, Perth, WA, 6845, Australia

    Joe Christopher

Authors
  1. Joe Christopher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joe Christopher.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Christopher, J. Governance Paradigms of Public Universities: An international comparative study. Tert Educ Manag 18, 335–351 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2012.724705

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2012.724705

Keywords

Search

Navigation