Advertisement

On Striking The Right Notes: Shifts In Governance And The Organisational Transformation Of Universities

  • Jürgen Enders
  • Harry De Boer
  • Liudvika Leisyte
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 24)

During the last decades traditional state-centered governing arrangements have been critiqued and replaced by alternative modes of governance. These shifts have been driven by economic, ideological and pragmatic motives (Pierre and Peters 2000; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000). The introduction of alternative ways of exercising collective control and influencing society has led to a widespread interest in the concept of ‘governance’. Recent overviews — amongst others by Rhodes (2000), Pierre and Peters (2000), Peters (2001), van Kersbergen and van Waarden (2004), Hajer et al. (2004) — discuss the differences and similarities among the various governance approaches as well as the absence of a general agreed-upon definition of the governance concept. At the same time, they leave no doubt that the forms and mechanisms of governance, the location of governance, the governing capabilities and the styles of governance have not only been discussed but have been modified or substantially changed. The consequences of such changes are seldom linear, most of the time unpredictable and contestable. Are they ‘merely a way of wrapping government in a new paper which is more palatable to the public, or does the idea represent something qualitatively new and different?’ (Pierre and Peters 2000: 68)

On the basis of governance, new public management and organisational change literature, we discuss changes in the ways of governing and organising universities as professional public sector organisations. We will argue that traditional and alternative ways of governing and organising universities form a hybrid of deeply embedded old and ‘sedimenting’ new structures and processes. Therefore, transformational change in the public sector may remain more limited in scope and depth than has often been argued by the proponents of alternative steering models (for the case of higher education, see also Kogan et al. 2006; Askling and Henkel 2006). We will support our view with empirical data drawn from a number of studies on change and stability in higher education policies and organisational practices in the Netherlands over the last three decades (a.o. Maassen and van Vught 1989; Binsbergen et al. 1991; Goedegebuure et al. 1993; Westerheijden 1997; Rip 1998; de Weert 2000; Jongbloed 2003; de Boer 2003; Huisman and Toonen 2004; Jeliazkova and Westerheijden 2004). In these studies macro-level changes in higher education policy in national and cross-national perspectives as well as processes of organisational change in universities have been investigated.

Keywords

High Education High Education System Corporate Actor Organisational Transformation Executive Board 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Askling, B. and M. Henkel. “Higher Education Institutions.” In Kogan, M., M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie and M. Henkel (eds). Transforming Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006, 85–100.Google Scholar
  2. Becher, T. Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Cultures of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: SRHE/OUP, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. Bijleveld, R.J. and L.C.J. Goedegebuure. “The Paralyzing Effects of a Balanced Power System: An Analysis of the Introduction of the Conditional Funding System in University Research.” In Maasen, P. and F. van Vught (eds). Dutch Higher Education in Transition: Policy Issues in Higher Education in the Netherlands. Culemborg: Lemma, 1989, 99–110.Google Scholar
  4. Binsbergen, P.A., H.F. de Boer, H.P. Potman and F.A. van Vught. Hoopvol perspectief of ijdele hoop? Onderzoek naar de werking van het planningsproces op het beleidsterrein van het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek. 's-Gravenhage: DOP (Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen), 1991.Google Scholar
  5. Bleiklie, I. “The New Public Management and the Pursuit of Knowledge”. Notat 9411. Bergen: LOS,1994.Google Scholar
  6. Bradach, J.L. and R.G. Eccles. “Price, Authority, and Trust: From Ideal Types to Plural Forms.” Annual Review of Sociology 15 (1989): 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braun, D. and F.-X. Merrien. “Governance of Universities and Modernisation of the State: Analytical Aspects.” In Braun, D. and F.-X. Merrien (eds). Towards a New Model of Governance for Universities? A Comparative View. London/Philidelphia: Jessica Kingsley, 1999, 9–33.Google Scholar
  8. Brunnson, N. The Organisation of Hypocrisy. Talk, Decisions and Actions in Organisations. Chichester: Wiley, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. Brunnson, N. and K. Sahlin-Andersson. “Constructing Organisations: The Example of Public Sector Reform.” Organisation Studies 21.4 (2000): 721–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, B.R. The Higher Education System: Academic Organisation in Cross-national Perspective.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, B.R. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon, 1998.Google Scholar
  12. Clarke, J. and J. Newman. The Managerial State: Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking of Social Welfare. London: Sage, 1997.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, M.D., J.G. March and J.P. Olsen. “A Garbage Can Model of Organisational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17.1 (1972): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Boer, H.F. Institutionele analyse en professionele autonomie. Een empirisch-verklarende studie naar de doorwerking van de wet “Modernisering Universitaire Bestuursorganisatie” (MUB) (dissertatie).Enschede: CHEPS, 2003.Google Scholar
  15. de Boer, H., B. Denters and L. Goedegebuure. “On boards and Councils; Shaky Balances Considered. The governance of Dutch universities.” Higher Education Policy 11.2–3 (1998): 153–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Boer, H., J. Enders and D. Westerheijden. “From Paper to Practice: Two Reforms and Their Consequences in Dutch Higher Education.” In Gornitzka, A., M. Kogan and A. Amaral (eds). Reform and Change in Higher Education. Analyzing Policy Implementation. Dordrecht: Springer, 2005, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. de Weert, E. “Pressures and Prospects Facing the Academic Profession in the Netherlands.” In Altbach, P.G. (ed.). The Changing Academic Workplace. Comparative Perspectives. Chestnut, MA: Boston College Center for International Higher Education, 2000, 105–132.Google Scholar
  18. Deem, R. “New Managerialism in Higher Education: The Management of Performance and Cultures.”International Studies in the Sociology of Education 8.1 (1998): 47–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Denison, D.R. “Towards a Process Based Theory of Organisational Design: Can Organisations Be Designed Around Value-chains and Networks.” Advances in Strategic Management 14 (1997): 1–44.Google Scholar
  20. Dill, D. and B. Sporn (eds). Emerging Patterns of Social Demand and University Reform: Through a Glass Darkly. Oxford: Pergamon, 1995.Google Scholar
  21. Enders, J. Governing the Academic Commons: About Blurring Boundaries, Blistering Organisations, and Growing Demands, the CHEPS Inaugurals. Enschede: CHEPS University of Twente, 2002.Google Scholar
  22. Ferlie, E., L. Ashburner, L. Fitzgerald and A. Pettigrew. The New Public Management in Actio. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  23. Goedegebuure, L., F. Kaiser, P. Maassen, L.V. Meek, F. van Vught and E. de Weert. “International Perspectives on Trends and Issues in Higher Education Policy.” In Goedegebuure, L., F. Kaiser, P. Maassen, L. Meek, F. van Vught and E. de Weert (eds). Higher Education Policy. An International Perspective. Oxford: IAU/Pergamon, 1993, 315–348.Google Scholar
  24. Goodman, P. The Community of Scholars. New York: Random House, 1962.Google Scholar
  25. Gornitzka, Å. and P. Maassen. “Hybrid Steering Approaches with Respect to European Higher Education.” Higher Education Policy 13.3 (2000): 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Greenwood, R. and B. Hinings. “Understanding Radical Organisational Change. Bringing Together the Old and the New Institutionalism.” Academe of Management Review 21.4 (1996): 1022–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hajer, M.A., J.P.M. van Tatenhove and C. Laurent. Nieuwe vormen van governance. Bilthoven: RIVM, 2004.Google Scholar
  28. Hazeu, C.A. Systeem en gedrag in het wetenschappelijk onderzoek. 's-Gravenhage, Vuga, 1989.Google Scholar
  29. Henkel, M. Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education. London/Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley, 2000.Google Scholar
  30. Hinings, B., R. Greenwood and D. Cooper. “The Dynamics of Change in Large Accounting Firms.” In Brock, D., M. Powell and C.R. Hinings (eds). Restructering the Professional Organisation. London: Routledge, 1999, 131–153.Google Scholar
  31. HOAK-nota. Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en Kwaliteit. Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal 1985–1986 19 253, 1985.Google Scholar
  32. HOOP. Hoger Onderwijs en Onderzoek Plan. 's-Gravenhage: Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen, 1987, 2004.Google Scholar
  33. Huisman, J. and T. Toonen. “The Netherlands: A Mixed Pattern of Control”. In Hood, C., O. James, B.G., Peters and C. Scott (eds). Controlling Modern Government. Variety, Commonality and Change.Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2004, 108–113.Google Scholar
  34. Jeliazkova, M. and D. Westerheijden. “The Netherlands: A Leader in Quality Assurance Follows the Accreditation Trend.” In Schwarz, S. and D. Westerheijden (eds). Accreditation and Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004, 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jongbloed, B. “Marketisation in Higher Education, Clark's Triangle and the Essential Ingredients of Markets.” Higher Education Quarterly 57.2 (2003): 110–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jongbloed, B. and C. Salerno. De bekostiging van het universitaire onderwijs en onderzoek in Nederland: Modellen, thema's en trends, AWT-achtergrondstudie. Den Haag: AWT, 2003.Google Scholar
  37. Jongbloed, B. and L.Goedegebuure. “From the Entrepreneurial University to the Stakeholder University.” Proceedings of the International Congress on “Universities and Regional development in the Knowledge Society”, Universitat Politécnica de Catalunya Barcelona, 12–14 November 2001.Google Scholar
  38. Kogan, M., M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie and M. Henkel (eds). Transforming Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006.Google Scholar
  39. Lijphart, A. The Politics of Accommodation. Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1968.Google Scholar
  40. Maassen, P. Governmental Steering and the Academic Culture: The Intangibility of the Human Factor in Dutch and German universities. Utrecht: De Tijdstroom, 1996.Google Scholar
  41. Maassen, P. and F. van Vught (eds). Dutch Higher Education in Transition. Culemborg: LEMMA, 1989.Google Scholar
  42. Maassen, P. and F. van Vught. “An intriguing Janus-head. The two faces of the new governmental strategy for higher education in the Netherlands.” European Journal of Education 23.1–2 (1988): 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. March, J.G. and H.A. Simon. Organisations. New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
  44. Marginson, S. and M. Considine. The Enterprise University. Power, Governance and Reinvention in Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  45. McNulty, T. and E. Ferlie. “Process Transformation: Limitations to Radical Organisational Change within Public Service Organisations.” Organisation Studies 25.8 (2004): 1389–1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Millett, J.D. Academic Community. An essay on Organisation. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962.Google Scholar
  47. Mintzberg, H. Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organisations. London: Prentice-Hall, 1983.Google Scholar
  48. Mitnick, B.M. The Political Economy of Regulation. Creating, Designing and Removing Regulatory Reforms. New York: Columbia University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  49. Neave, G. and F.A. van Vught. “Conclusion.” In G. Neave and F.A. van Vught (eds). Prometheus Bound. The Changing Relationship Between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon, 1991, 239–255.Google Scholar
  50. Peters, B.G. The Future of Governing. Lawrence, KS: University press of Kansas, 2001.Google Scholar
  51. Pettigrew, A. The Awakening Giant. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1985.Google Scholar
  52. Pettigrew, A. “Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm.” Journal of Management Studies 24.6 (1987): 649–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pierre, J. and B.G. Peters. Governance, Politics and the State. Houndmills Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000.Google Scholar
  54. Pollitt, C. and G. Bouckaert. Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis. Oxford/New York:Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  55. Rhodes, R.A.W. “Governance and Public Administration.” In Pierre, J. (ed.). Debating Governance: Authority, Steering, and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 54–90.Google Scholar
  56. Rip, A. Steering and Effectiveness in a Developing Knowledge Society. Proceedings of a workshop at the University of Twente, 7 October 1997. Utrecht, Lemma, 1998.Google Scholar
  57. Schimank, U., B. Kehm and J. Enders. “Institutional Mechanisms of Problem Processing of the German University System: Status quo and New Developments.” In D. Braun and F.-X. Merrien (eds). Towards a New Model of Governance for Universities? A Comparative View London/Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley, 1999, 179–194.Google Scholar
  58. Scott, W.R. Institutions and Organisations. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001.Google Scholar
  59. Spaapen, J.B. and C.A.M. van Suyt. De moeizame relatie tussen beleid en onderzoek. Evaluatie vijf jaar Voorwaardelijke Financiering. 's-Gravenhage, Staatsdrukkerij, 1988.Google Scholar
  60. Theisens, H. The State of Change. Dissertation, Enschede: CHEPS, University of Twente, 2003.Google Scholar
  61. Tjeldvoll, A. “The Service University in the Global Marketplace.” European Education 30.4 (1997): 5–19.Google Scholar
  62. Tushman, M. and E. Romanelli. “Organisational Evolution: A Metamorphic Model of Convergence and Reorientation.” In Cummings, L.L. and B. Staw (eds). Research in Organisation Behaviour. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1985, 171–222.Google Scholar
  63. van Kersbergen, K. and F. van Waarden. “‘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 (2004): 143–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. van Vught, F.A. Plan- en marktcoördinatie in het hoger onderwijs. Enschede, Universiteit Twente/Centrum voor Studies van het Hoger Onderwijsbeleid CSHOB, 1987.Google Scholar
  65. Weick, K.E. “Educational Organisation as Loosely Coupled Systems.” Administrative Science Quarterly 21.1 (1976): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weick, K.E. “The Management of Organisational Change among Loosely Coupled Elements.” In Goodman, P. (ed.) Change in Organisation. San Francisco, CA: Jossy Bass, 1982, 375–408.Google Scholar
  67. Westerheijden, D. “A Solid Base for Decisions: Use of the VSNU Research Evaluations in Dutch Universities.” Higher Education 33.4 (1997): 397–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. WHW. Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal 21 073, 1993.Google Scholar
  69. WRR. Van oude en nieuwe kennis. De gevolgen van ICT voor het kennisbeleid. 's-Gravenhage, Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, 2002.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen Enders
    • 1
  • Harry De Boer
    • 1
  • Liudvika Leisyte
  1. 1.University of TwenteNetherlands

Personalised recommendations