The Conflict Between “New” and “Old” Governance Following the Introduction of Performance-Based Funding in German Medical Departments

Chapter
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 41)

Abstract

The chapter uses an empirical study of the introduction of performance-based funding in German medical departments to argue that academics might not lose their autonomy within the institutional structure of their departments. This finding is contrary to theoretical claims that recent university reforms have taken autonomy from academics and given it to university administrators. Document analyses and 22 key informant interviews were conducted and showed that senior members of the departments examined were often even able to increase their autonomy in comparison to more recently tenured academics, who indeed seem to be more affected by reforms. At the same time, university administrators have gained some autonomy and authority within German medical departments. The findings suggest that the distribution of autonomy through new public management inspired governance reforms at universities is not a zero-sum game, and certain win-win situations are possible – especially when factors such as reputation and seniority are taken into account.

Keywords

Faculty Member Medical Department Science Policy Established Actor Research Coordinator 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments 

The project GOMED is financed by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the research initiative “New Governance of Science.” I gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of my colleagues Dr René Krempkow and Joerg Neufeld from the Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ), as well as the feedback of the science policy research group at the Social Science Research Center Berlin and Uta Landrock (also iFQ). I am also indebted to Jeff Purchla for his advice and support.

References

  1. Baker, D., & Lenhardt, G. (2008). The institutional crisis of the German research university. Higher Education Policy, 21, 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2005 [2002]). Expertenwissen und Forschungspraxis: die modernisierungstheoretische und die methodische Debatte um die Experten. Zur Einfuehrung in ein unuebersichtliches Problemfeld. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung (pp. 7–30). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  3. Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (Eds.). (2005 [2002]). Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
  5. Braun, D. (1997). Die politische Steuerung der Wissenschaft: Ein Beitrag zum “kooperativen Staat”. Frankfurt, Main/New York: Campus.Google Scholar
  6. Braun, D., & Merrien, F.-X. (Eds.). (1999). Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations (pp. 137–152). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Decker, O., Beutel, M., & Braehler, E. (2004). Deep impact—evaluation in the sciences. Sozial- und Praeventivmedizin, 49, 10–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DFG. (1999). Denkschrift klinische Forschung. Bonn.Google Scholar
  11. Feller, I. (2009). Performance measurement and the governance of American academic science. Minerva, 47, 323–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  13. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.Google Scholar
  14. Huether, O. (2010). Von der Kollegialitaet zur Hierarchie? Eine Analyse des New Managerialism in den Landeshochschulgesetzen. Dissertation Universitaet Hamburg.Google Scholar
  15. Kehm, B., & Lanzendorf, U. (Eds.). (2006). Reforming university governance. Changing conditions for research in four European countries. Bonn: Lemmens.Google Scholar
  16. Kruecken, G., Meier, F., & Mueller, A. (2007). Information, cooperation, and the blurring of boundaries—technology transfer in German and American discourses. Higher Education, 53(6), 675–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. March, J. G. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin, B., & Whitley, R. (2010). The UK research assessment exercise. In R. Whitley, J. Glaeser, & L. Engwall (Eds.), Reconfiguring knowledge production (pp. 51–80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2003). Experteninterview. In R. Bohnsack, W. Marotzki, & M. Meuser (Eds.), Hauptbegriffe Qualitativer Sozialforschung. Ein Woerterbuch (pp. 57–59). Opladen: Leske und Budrich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2005 [1991]). ExpertInneninterviews—vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung (pp. 71–93). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  21. Muench, R. (2007). Die akademische Elite: Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz. Frankfurt, Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  22. Muench, R. (2009). Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten: Bildung und Wissenschaft unter dem Regime von PISA. Frankfurt, Main: McKinsey & Co, Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  23. Muench, R. (2011). Akademischer Kapitalismus: Über die politische Ökonomie der Hochschulreform. Frankfurt, Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  24. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Power, M. (1997). The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Schimank, U. (2005). ‘New public management’ and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation. Minerva, 43(4), 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schuetze, F. (1977). Die Technik des narrativen Interviews in Interaktionsfeldstudien—dargestellt an einem Projekt zur Erforschung von kommunalen Machtstrukturen. Manuscript.Google Scholar
  28. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Whitley, R. (2007). Changing governance of public sciences: The consequences of establishing research evaluation systems for knowledge production in different countries and scientific fields. In R. Whitley & J. Glaeser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. WR. (1999). Empfehlungen zur Struktur der Hochschulmedizin. Bonn.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Forschungsgruppe WissenschaftspolitikBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations