Diversity of Higher Education Institutions in Networked Knowledge Societies: A Comparative Examination

  • John Brennan
  • Vassiliki Papatsiba
  • Sofia Branco Sousa
  • David M. Hoffman
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective book series (CHAC, volume 15)

Abstract

Within and across many expanded and diversified higher education systems, the recognition and understanding of differences between institutions becomes especially challenging. Forms of both ‘vertical’ and ‘horizontal’ differentiation frequently exist alongside each other, though with increasing attention given to the former. Institutional boundaries become more porous within intra-sector and cross-sector collaborations, as networks become increasingly important in both. Do the ways in which different kinds of higher education institutions interact within networks, as well as the nature of those networks, differ? To what extent do network configurations become platforms for distinct knowledge trajectories to develop? It is possible to detect trends of both convergence and differentiation in these developments within and across higher education systems, reflecting global, national, regional and local influences? In order to capture these trends empirically, the CINHEKS research team developed and applied a form of comparative grid analysis with which to construct profiles of 28 higher education institutions drawn from five countries: Finland, Germany, Portugal, the UK and the USA. Based largely on public information from institutional websites, profile grids were constructed to capture institutional characteristics in terms of context/mission, knowledge organisation, knowledge production, knowledge transmission and knowledge transfer. Within each grid, institutions were compared in respect of dimensions such as local/global, teaching/research, disciplinary/inter-disciplinary, considerable or little networking, inter-sectoral/cross-sectoral orientation, intellectual/entrepreneurial rationales, collaborative/individual approaches etc. The profiles revealed most institutions to be explicitly active in partnerships and networks. Most were active in both intra-sector and cross-sector partnerships. Patterns of difference and convergence emerged though, with the five national systems differentially located across the grids. Two key dimensions reflecting the differences were those of ‘domain’ – intra-sector or cross sector networking – and ‘mission’ – knowledge as a ‘private’ or a ‘public’ good.

Keywords

Institutional profiles Grid analysis Knowledge organisation Knowledge production Knowledge transmission Knowledge transfer 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barnett, R. (2010). The collaborative university: Challenges and possibilities. In Partnerships, collected articles from the learning and teaching conference. Brighton: University of Brighton.Google Scholar
  2. Barnett, R. (2011). The coming of the ecological university. Oxford Review of Education, 3(4), 439–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1992). Process and structure in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bourgeois, L. J., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1988). Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments: Four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science, 34(7), 816–835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan, J. L. (2011). Is there a future for higher education institutions in the knowledge society? In European Review. London: Academica Europaea.Google Scholar
  7. Brennan, J. L. (2013). Higher education differentiation and the myth of meritocracy: The case of the UK. In P. Zgaga, U. Teichler, & J. L. Brennan (Eds.), The globalisation challenge for higher education: convergence or diversity; centres or peripheries. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  8. Burris, V. (2004). The academic caste system: Prestige hierarchies in PhD exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 69, 239–264.Google Scholar
  9. Burt, R. S., & Minor, M. J. (Eds.). (1983). Applied network analysis – A methodological introduction. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, B. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Duque, R. B., Ynalvez, M., Sooryamoorthy, R., Mbatia, P., Dzorgbo, D. B. S., & Shrum, W. (2005). Collaboration paradox: Scientific productivity, the Internet, and problems of research in developing areas. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 755–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–535.Google Scholar
  15. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research into contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Hammersley, M. (2013). The myth of research-based policy & practice. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kauppinen, I. (2012). Towards transnational academic capitalism. Higher Education, 64, 543–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kosmützky, A., & Nokkala, T. (2014). Challenges and trends in international comparative higher education. Higher Education, 67(4), 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Papatsiba, V. (2013). The idea of collaboration in the academy, its epistemic and social potentials and risks for knowledge generation. Policy Futures in Education, 11(4), 436–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Papatsiba, V. (2014). Policy goals of European integration and competitiveness in academic collaborations: An examination of Joint Master’s and Erasmus Mundus programmes. Higher Education Policy, 2, 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peters, M. (2010). The idea of openness: Open education and education for openness. In M. Peters, P. Ghiraldelli, B. Žarnić, & A. Gibbons (Eds.), The encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Retrieved from: http://www.ffst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/doku.php?id=open_education_and_education_for_openness
  24. Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In Research in organizational behavior (pp. 295–336). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pusser, B., Kempner, K., Marginson, S., & Ordorika, M. (Eds.). (2012). Universities and the public sphere: Knowledge creation and state building in the era of globalization. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Röbken, H. (2008). The formation and development of co-operations among South African Universities – A social network perspective. Higher Education, 56, 685–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shahjahan, R. A., & Kezar, A. (2013). Beyond the “national container”: Addressing methodological nationalism in higher education research. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slaughter, S., & Cantwell, B. (2011). Transatlantic moves to the market: The United States and the European Union. Higher Education. doi: 10.1007/s10734-011-9460-9.Google Scholar
  29. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Teichler, U. (2007). Higher education systems: Conceptual frameworks, comparative perspectives, empirical findings. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Tight, M. (2012). Researching higher education. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Trow, M. (1974). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. In Policies for higher education: General report on the conference on Future Structures of Post-Secondary Education (pp. 55–101). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  34. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Brennan
    • 1
  • Vassiliki Papatsiba
    • 2
  • Sofia Branco Sousa
    • 3
  • David M. Hoffman
    • 4
  1. 1.The Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.Centre for the Study of Higher EducationThe University of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  3. 3.Center for Social StudiesThe University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal
  4. 4.Finnish Institute for Educational ResearchUniversity of JyväskyläJyväskylänFinland

Personalised recommendations