The Strategic Responses of English and Dutch University Life Scientists to the Changes in their Institutional Environments

  • Liudvika Leisyte
  • Jürgen Enders


The governing of publicly-funded research in the Western European countries has become multi-dimensional and multi-layered (De Boer et al., 2007, Leisyte et al., 2010, Whitley et al., 2010). Increasingly, the role of various intermediary bodies, such as research councils, has become important in external funding of university research. Competition for resources and changing state steering of research through various policy mechanisms, such as performance-based funding, accountability, quality control and performance measurement have been brought to the fore. In part, higher education and research reforms, largely inspired by New Public Management approaches, aimed to make the systems and their organisations more efficient and effective by providing more power to managers in public universities. In such a context, the initiatives and actions of external funding bodies and university managers are likely to have changed the rules of the game for researchers. It is still poorly understood how university researchers respond to these attempts to change these rules. How are their institutional environments reshaped and how do they respond?


Research Unit Institutional Environment External Funding Strategic Response Governance Dimension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Leisyte, L. (2007). Public sector reform in dutch higher education: The organizational transformation of the university. Public Administration, 85(1), 27–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Enders, J., & Schmoch, U. (2010). The research field of medical biotechnology. In D. Jansen (Ed.), Governance and performance in the German public research sector. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Enders, J., de Boer, H., & Leisyte, L. (2009). New pubic management and the academic profession: The rationalisation of academic work revisited. In J. Enders & E. de Weert (Eds.), The changing face of academic life. Analytical and comparative perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Enders, J. (2002). Governing the academic commons: About blurring boundaries, blistering organisations, and growing demands. In The CHEPS inaugural lectures 2002 (pp. 69–105). Enschede: CHEPS.Google Scholar
  5. Enzing, C. (2000). Bijlage 2 bij de integrale nota biotechnologie; dossier biotechnologie. Samengesteld in opdracht van het ministerie van economische zaken. Delft: TNO.Google Scholar
  6. Freeman, J., & Barley, S. T. (1990). The strategic analysis of inter-organizational relations in biotechnology. In R. Loveridge & M. Pitt (Eds.), The strategic management of technological innovation. J. Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Fulton, O. (2003). Managerialism in UK universities: Unstable hybridity and the complications of implementation. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? (pp. 155–178). Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identities and policy change in higher education (Vol. 46). London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Hessels, L. K. (2010). Science and the struggle for relevance. Oisterwijk: Uigeverij BOXPress.Google Scholar
  11. Houwink, E. H. (1989). Biotechnology, controlled use of biological information. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Kenney, M. (1986). Biotechnology: The industrial-university complex. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jongbloed, B. (2007). Steering the Dutch academic research enterprise: Universities’ responses to project funding and performance monitoring. Paper presented at the CHER conference ‘The Research Mission of the University’. University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
  14. Knorr-Cetina, K. D. (1982). Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science. Social Studies of Science and Public Policy, 12, 101–130.Google Scholar
  15. Krücken. G., & Meier, F. (2006). Turning the university into an organizational actor. In D. Drori, J. Meyer, & H. Hwang (Eds.), Globalization and organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills/ London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Lehenkari, J. (2003). On the borderline of food and drug: Constructing credibility and markets for a functional food product. Science as Culture, 12(4), 499–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leisyte, L., Enders, J., & De Boer, H. (2010). The strategic responses of university research units to the changes in research governance. In R. Whitley, L. Engwall, & J. Gläser (Eds.), Reconfiguring the public sciences: Changing authority relationships and their consequences for intellectual innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Leisyte, L. (2010, June 10–12). University research commercialization policies and their implementation in the Netherlands and USA. Paper presented at the CHER ‘Effects of Higher Education Reforms’, Oslo.Google Scholar
  20. Leisyte, L. (2007). University governance and academic research. PhD dissertation, CHEPS, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  21. Leisyte, L., de Boer, H., & Enders, J. (2006). England—the prototype of the ‘Evaluative State’. In B. Kehm & U. Lanzendorf (Eds.), Reforming university governance. Changing conditions for research in four European countries. Bonn: Lemmens.Google Scholar
  22. Morris, N. (2004). Scientists responding to science policy. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  23. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.Google Scholar
  24. Orsenigo, L. (1989). The emergence of biotechnology. London: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Rip, A. (2002). Strategic research,post-modern universities and research training. Paper presented at the Science, Training and Career, Changing Modes of Knowledge Production and Labour Markets, University of Twente, Enschede.Google Scholar
  26. Schimank, U., Kehm, B., & Enders, J. (1999). Institutional mechanisms of problem processing of the German University System: Status quo and new developments. In D. Braun & F. X. Merrien (Eds.), Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view (53th ed.). London and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Van der Most, F. (2009). Research councils facing new science and technology. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  28. Whitley, R., Gläser, J., & Engwall, L. (2010). Reconfiguring knowledge production. Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Sense Publishers 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liudvika Leisyte
  • Jürgen Enders

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations