Advertisement

Conclusion: University Ambiguities and Analytic Eclecticism

  • Mitchell YoungEmail author
  • Rómulo Pinheiro
  • Karel Šima
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education book series (PSGHE)

Abstract

This volume has examined six cases of university engagement in peripheral regions. While these regions have often been overlooked in the mainstream literature on university-region dynamics because they do not readily offer up success stories, they do facilitate an exploration into the challenges and difficulties that arise at the intersection of the university and region. Beginning with a theory rooted in institutionalist literature that depicts the university as a set of five ambiguities rather than as a coherent whole, the chapters have sought to apply the ambiguities of intention, causality, history, structure, and meaning to their regional context. In this conclusion, we pull together all six case studies, showing how each of them dissects and analyzes one or more of these ambiguities through a complementary theory, and in so doing delves deeply in the inter-nested and co-evolving systems of university, region, industry, and policy. We argue further that by engaging with a wide range of complementary theories to interrogate these ambiguities and by providing insights valuable for both academics and practitioners, the volume as a whole represents an application of the methodology of analytic eclecticism.

References

  1. Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., Hoxby, C., Mas-Colelle, M., & Sapir, A. (2008). Higher aspirations: An agenda for reforming European universities. Retrieved from Brussels http://bruegel.org/2008/06/higher-aspirations-an-agenda-for-reforming-european-universities/
  2. Battilana, J., Leca, B., & Boxenbaum, E. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. Buckingham: SRHE.Google Scholar
  4. Benneworth, P., Coenen, L., Moodysson, J., & Asheim, B. (2009). Exploring the multiple roles of Lund university in strengthening Scania’s regional innovation system: Towards institutional learning? European Planning Studies, 17(11), 1645–1664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19(1), 69–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berg, L., & Pinheiro, R. (2016). Handling different institutional logics in the public sector: Comparing management in Norwegian universities and hospitals. In R. Pinheiro, F. Ramirez, K. Vrabæk, & L. Geschwind (Eds.), Towards a comparative institutionalism: Forms, dynamics and logics across health care and higher education fields: Vol. Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 145–168). Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar
  7. Boschma, R. (2007). Path creation, path dependence and regional development. Path Dependence and the Evolution of City Regional Economies, Working Paper Series, 197, 40–55.Google Scholar
  8. Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2011). The ashgate research companion to new public management. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  9. Christensen, T., Lægreid, P., Roness, P. G., & Røvik, K. A. (2007). Organization theory and the public sector: Instrument, culture and myth. Milton Park: Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drucker, J., & Goldstein, H. (2007). Assessing the regional economic development impacts of universities: A review of current approaches. International Regional Science Review, 30(1), 20–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Enders, J., Kehm, B., & Schimank, U. (2015). Turning universities into actors on quasi-markets: How new public management reforms affect academic research. In D. Jansen & I. Pruisken (Eds.), The changing governance of higher education and research higher education dynamics (pp. 89–103). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. (2006). Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: Education, research, and innovation. COM (2006) 208 final.Google Scholar
  14. Florida, R. (2006). The flight of the creative class: The new global competition for talent. Liberal Education, 92(3), 22–29.Google Scholar
  15. Geschwind, L., & Pinheiro, R. M. (2017). Raising the summit or flattening the agora? The elitist turn in science policy in Northern Europe. Journal of Baltic Studies, 48(4), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gornitzka, Å., Kogan, M., & Amaral, A. (2005). Reform and change in higher education: Analysing policy implementation. Consortium of higher education researchers. Conference proceedings. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Gornitzka, Å., & Maassen, P. A. M. (2000). Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European higher education. Higher Education Policy, 13(3), 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen, H. F., Geschwind, L., Kivisto, J., Pekkola, E., Pinheiro, R., & Pulkkinen, K. (forthcoming). Balancing accountability and trust: Higher education reforms in the Nordic countries.Google Scholar
  19. Hazelkorn, E. (2015). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2003). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Huisman, J. (2009). International perspectives on the governance of higher education: Alternative frameworks for coordination. Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Isaksen, A. (2014). Industrial development in thin regions: Trapped in path extension? Journal of Economic Geography, 15(3), 585–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  24. Lester, R., & Sotarauta, M. (Eds.). (2007). Innovation, universities and the competitiveness of regions. Helsinki: Tekes.Google Scholar
  25. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  26. Olsen, J. P. (2007). The institutional dynamics of the European university. In P. Maassen & J. Olsen (Eds.), University dynamics and European integration (pp. 25–54). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oquist, G., & Benner, M. (2012). Fostering breakthrough research: A comparative study. Halmstad: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  28. Piattoni, S. (2010). The theory of multi-level governance: Conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pierson, P., & Skocpol, T. (2002). Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. In I. Katznelson & H. Milne (Eds.), Political science: The state of the discipline Vol. Centennial (pp. 693–721). W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  30. Pinheiro, R. (2012). University ambiguity and institutionalization: A tale of three regions. In R. Pinheiro, P. Benneworth, & G. A. Jones (Eds.), Universities and regional development: A critical assessment of tensions and contradictions (pp. 35–55). Milton Park and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Pinheiro, R. (2014). Strategic change in the periphery: The case of the University of Oulu. In T. Aarrevaara & E. Berg (Eds.), Higher education and research in academe–Who should pay? Luleå: Luleå Tekniska Universitet.Google Scholar
  32. Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., & Aarrevaara, T. (Eds.). (2016). Mergers in higher education: The experiences from Northern Europe. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Pinheiro, R., Wengenge-Ouma, G., Balbachevsky, E., & Cai, Y. (2015). The role of higher education in society and the changing institutionalized features in higher education. In J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. Dill, & M. Souto-Otero (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance (pp. 225–242). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinheiro, R., & Young, M. (2017). The university as an adaptive resilient organization: A complex systems perspective. In J. Huisman & M. Tight (Eds.), Theory and method in higher education research (pp. 119–136). Bingley: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Sabatier, P., & Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal, 8(4), 538–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sil, R., & Katzenstein, P. J. (2010). Beyond paradigms: Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  38. Vang, J., & Asheim, B. (2006). Regions, absorptive capacity and strategic coupling with high-tech TNCs lessons from India and China. Science Technology Society, 11(1), 39–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Young, M., Sørensen, M. P., Bloch, C., & Degn, L. (2017). Systemic rejection: Political pressures seen from the science system. Higher Education, 74(3), 491–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mitchell Young
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rómulo Pinheiro
    • 3
  • Karel Šima
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Higher Education StudiesPragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.Faculty of Social SciencesCharles UniversityPragueCzech Republic
  3. 3.University of Agder and AgderforskningKristiansandNorway

Personalised recommendations