Advertisement

An International Comparative Perspective on Higher Education Institutions’ Governance and Management—Portugal, Finland, and Brazil

  • Sara Margarida Alpendre DiogoEmail author
  • Milka Alves Correia Barbosa
  • Maria Teresa Geraldo Carvalho
Chapter
Part of the Intercultural Studies in Education book series (ISE)

Abstract

Reforms in higher education (HE) in the last decades have been influenced by global and international trends associated with two parallel processes: questioning of the nation-state and the gradual decomposition of the welfare state (Carvalho and Santiago in Professionalism, Managerialism and Reform in Higher Education and the Health Services: The European Welfare State and the Rise of the Knowledge Society. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015; Kwiek in Higher Education in Europe 26:27–38, 2001). These processes intersect with the influence of neo-liberal ideas, strongly diffused by international organizations (Amaral and Neave in International Organizations and Higher Education Policy: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally. Routledge, London, pp. 82–98, 2009; Ball in Policy Futures in Education 14:1046–1059, 2016). According to Stephan Ball (Policy Futures in Education 14:1046–1059, 2016), neo-liberal influences in HE can be summarized by three interrelated and interdependent technologies: market, management, and performance. These technologies were translated in the emergence of new management and governance models within higher education institutions (HEIs) in such a way that institutional governance became an international issue (Reed and Meek in Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. xv–xxxi, 2002). It has been acknowledged that changes in governance and management structures in HE all over the world include transformations in the Humboldtian principles of organization along with changes in the collegial model of decision-making and a redefinition of power relations, where external stakeholders and new professionals assume a relevant role within academia (Capano in Public Administration 89:1622–1642, 2011; Reed and Meek in Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. xv–xxxi, 2002; Welch in Higher Education in Southeast Asia: Blurring Borders, Changing Balance. Taylor & Francis, 2011), with implications on academics’ work (Blackmore et al. in Re-positioning University Governance and Academic Work. Sense Publishers, 2010; Carvalho and Santiago in Higher Education Policy 23:397–411, 2010; Marginson in Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22:23–35, 2000). Nevertheless, few comparative international perspectives have been developed, especially when considering the need to include countries with distinct historical processes of nation-state creation, different welfare state models and diverse levels of economic development, and social and cultural characteristics. There is, indeed, a study gap on New Public Management (NPM) constructs and their application “with little understanding of several important cultural dimensions” (Stromquist in Compare 30:261–264, 2000). This chapter compares the perceived changes in HEI management and its impact on academics in three countries: Brazil, Finland, and Portugal. Data analysis relies on a qualitative approach, empirically based on 70 interviews conducted in the 3 countries to top and middle academic managers, following the same interviewing guidelines. Despite significant differences in systems’ organization and funding, cultures’ governance and management, and professionals’ and students’ profiles, there are more similar views on changes in governance and management and its impact on academics than expected. In these countries, academics expressed similar views on the increased influence of a management culture within their institutions and a loss of professional autonomy.

Keywords

Portugal Brazil Finland Higher Education Institutions Governance Management International organizations New Public Management Globalization 

References

  1. Almeida, A. N., & Vieira, M. M. (2012). From University to Diversity: The Making of Portuguese Higher Education. In G. Neave & A. Amaral (Eds.), Higher Education in Portugal 1974–2009: A Nation, a Generation (pp. 137–159). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. Amaral, A., & Neave, G. (2009). The OECD and Its Influence in Higher Education: A Critical Revision. In R. M. Bassett &. A. Maldonado-Maldonado (Eds.), International Organizations and Higher Education Policy: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally (pp. 82–98). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Amaral, A., & Teixeira, P. (2000). The Rise and Fall of the Private Sector in Portuguese Higher Education. Higher Education Policy, 13(3), 245–266.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8390151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin, A. E., & Gamson, Z. F. (1983). Academic Workplace: New Demands, Heightened Tensions (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10, 1983). ERIC.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, S. J. (2003). The Teacher’s Soul and the Terrors of Performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ball, S. J. (2016). Neoliberal Education? Confronting the Slouching Beast. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8), 1046–1059.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316664259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barbosa, M. A. C. (2015). A influência das políticas públicas e políticas organizacionais para formação de competências gerenciais no papel do professor-gestor no ensino superior: um estudo em uma IES federal (Doctoral), Universidade Federal de Pernambuco.Google Scholar
  8. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How Colleges Work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  9. Blackmore, J., Brennan, M., & Zipin, L. (2010). Re-positioning University Governance and Academic Work (Vol. 41, pp. 1–16). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Bovens, M. A., T’Hart, P., & Peters, B. G. (2002). Success and Failure in Public Governance: A Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE). (2017). Estimativas populacionais para os municípios e para as Unidades da Federação brasileiros em 01.07.2017. Retrieved from https://ww2.ibge.gov.br/home/estatistica/populacao/estimativa2017/default.shtm.
  12. Bresser-Pereira, L. (2008). Construindo o estado republicano. Rio de Janeiro: Editora da Fundação Getúlio Vargas.Google Scholar
  13. Bruckmann, S. (2017). Changes in Governance and Management of Higher Education Institutions in Portugal (PhD Dissertation), Universidade de Aveiro, Aveiro.Google Scholar
  14. Bruckmann, S., & Carvalho, T. (2014). The Reform Process of Portuguese Higher Education Institutions: From Collegial to Managerial Governance. Tertiary Education and Management, 20(3), 193–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Capano, G. (2011). Government Continues to Do Its Job: A Comparative Study of Governance Shifts in the Higher Education Sector. Public Administration, 89(4), 1622–1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carvalho, T., & Diogo, S. (2018). Exploring the Relationship Between Institutional and Professional Autonomy: A Comparative Study Between Portugal and Finland. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 40(1), 18–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carvalho, T., & Santiago, R. (2010). Still Academics After All…. Higher Education Policy, 23(3), 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carvalho, T., & Santiago, R. (2015). Professionalism, Managerialism and Reform in Higher Education and the Health Services: The European Welfare State and the Rise of the Knowledge Society. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  19. Dale, R., & Robertson, S. (2004). Interview with Boaventura de Sousa Santos. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2, 147–160.Google Scholar
  20. Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The New Public Service: Serving Rather Than Steering. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. DGES. (2016). Instituições de Ensino Superior Portuguesas [Portuguese Higher Education Institutions]. Retrieved from http://www.dges.mctes.pt/DGES/pt/Reconhecimento/NARICENIC/Ensino+Superior/Institui%C3%A7%C3%B5es+de+Ensino+Superior+Portuguesas/.
  22. Dias Sobrinho, J. (2010). Avaliação e transformações da educação superior brasileira (1995–2009): do provão ao SINAES. Avaliação: Revista da Avaliação da Educação Superior, 15(1), 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diefenbach, T. (2009). New Public Management in Public Sector Organizations: The Dark Sides of Managerialistic ‘Enlightenment’. Public Administration, 87(4), 892–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Diogo, S. (2016). Changes in Finnish and Portuguese Higher Education Governance: Comparing National and Institutional Responses to the Bologna Process and New Public Management (PhD Monograph), University of Aveiro and University of Jyväskylä, Aveiro and Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  25. Enders, J. (2004). Higher Education, Internationalisation, and the Nation-State: Recent Developments and Challenges to Governance Theory. Higher Education, 47(3), 361–382.  https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.0000016461.98676.30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ésther, A. B., & Melo, M. C. D. O. L. (2008). A construção da identidade gerencial dos gestores da alta administração de universidades federais em Minas Gerais. Cadernos EBAPE. BR, 6(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  27. Gomes, O., Gomide, T., Gomes, M., de Araujo, D., Martins, S., & Faroni, W. (2013). Sentidos e implicações da gestão universitária para os gestores universitários. Revista Gestão Universitária na América Latina-GUAL, 6(4), 234–255.Google Scholar
  28. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and European Integration. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefields Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Kallo, J. (2009). OECD Education Policy: A Comparative and Historical Study Focusing on the Thematic Reviews of Tertiary Education (PhD thesis), Helsinki.Google Scholar
  30. Kauko, J., & Diogo, S. (2011). Comparing Higher Education Reforms in Finland and Portugal. Higher Education Management and Policy, 23(3), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kersbergen, K. V., & Waarden, F. V. (2004). ‘Governance’ as a Bridge Between Disciplines: Cross‐Disciplinary Inspiration Regarding Shifts in Governance and Problems of Governability, Accountability and Legitimacy. European Journal of Political Research, 43(2), 143–171.Google Scholar
  32. Kwiek, M. (2001). Globalization and Higher Education. Higher Education in Europe, 26(1), 27–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maassen, P., & Cloete, N. (2006). Global Reform Trends in Higher Education. In N. Cloete, P. Maassen, R. Fehnel, T. Moja, T. Gibbon, & H. Perold (Eds.), Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local Realities (pp. 7–33). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Magro, D., Secchi, L., & Laus, S. (2013). A nova gestão pública e o produtivismo imposto pela Capes: implicações na produção científica nas universidades. ENCONTRO NACIONAL DA ASSOCIAÇÃO NACIONAL DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO E PESQUISA EM ADMINISTRAÇÃO, 37.Google Scholar
  35. Marginson, S. (2000). Rethinking Academic Work in the Global Era. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(1), 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organization: A Synthesis of the Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Nóvoa, A., & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative Research in Education: A Mode of Governance or a Historical Journey? Comparative Education, 39(4), 423–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. OECD. (2009). OECD Reviews for Tertiary Education. Finland: Retrieved from Paris.Google Scholar
  39. OKM. (2013). Education. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/?lang=en.
  40. OKM. (2016). Education. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/?lang=en.
  41. Pascuci, L., Meyer Junior, V., Magioni, B., & Sena, R. (2016). Managerialism na gestão universitária: Implicações do planejamento estratégico segundo a percepção de gestores de uma universidade pública. Revista Gestão Universitária na América Latina-GUAL, 9(1), 37–59.Google Scholar
  42. Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis-New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pollitt, C., Van Thiel, S., & Homburg, V. (Eds.). (2007). New Public Management in Europe. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  44. Raaper, R. (2016). Tracing Assessment Policy Discourses in Neoliberalised Higher Education Settings. Journal of Education Policy, 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1257160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reed, M., & Meek, L. (2002). Introduction. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance (pp. xv–xxxi). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  46. Ribeiro, D. D. A. (2011). Trajetória institucional da universidade brasileira – A UFBA como reflexo e modelo [Institutional Trajectory of the Brazilian University – The UFBA as a Reflection and Model, Doctoral Thesis], Tese de doutorado, Universidade Federal da Bahia, Salvador, BA, Brasil.Google Scholar
  47. Salminen, A. (2003). New Public Management and Finnish Public Sector Organisations: The Case of Universities. In The Higher Education Managerial Revolution? (pp. 55–69). Springer.Google Scholar
  48. Santiago, R., & Carvalho, T. (2004). Effects of Managerialism on the Perceptions of Higher Education in Portugal. Higher Education Policy, 17(4), 427–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1999). Audit Culture and Anthropology: Neo-Liberalism in British Higher Education. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 5(4), 557–575.Google Scholar
  50. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Stromquist, N. (2000). Editorial. Compare, 30(3), 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tight, M. (2010). Are Academic Workloads Increasing? The Post-war Survey Evidence in the UK. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(2), 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and Higher Education Organizational Change: A Framework for Analysis. Higher Education, 48(4), 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Valentim, I., & Evangelista, S. (2013). Para onde vai o Ensino Universitário Federal Brasileiro? Pistas e Subjetivações a partir da Lei 12.772/2012. Paper presented at the XIII Colóquio Internacional sobre Gestão Universitária nas Américas.Google Scholar
  55. Välimaa, J. (2001). Finnish Higher Education in Transition: Perspectives on Massification and Globalisation. Jyväskylä: Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos.Google Scholar
  56. Välimaa, J. (2004). Nationalisation, Localisation and Globalisation in Finnish Higher Education. Higher Education, 48(1), 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational Organizations as Loosely Coupled Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Welch, A. (2011). Higher Education in Southeast Asia: Blurring Borders, Changing Balance. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sara Margarida Alpendre Diogo
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Milka Alves Correia Barbosa
    • 3
  • Maria Teresa Geraldo Carvalho
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Social, Political and Territorial SciencesUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.CIPES - Research Center on Higher Education PoliciesMatosinhosPortugal
  3. 3.Faculty of Economics, Accounting and ManagementFederal University of AlagoasMaceióBrazil

Personalised recommendations