Advertisement

Governance of Universities and Scientific Innovation

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

Abstract

In this chapter the tension between the tendency of scientific disciplines to “diversify” and the capacities of universities to give new scientific fields an institutional “home” is tackled. The assumption is that new scientific fields must find support among scientists and cognitive units of universities in order to be included. As science is a strongly competitive social field, inclusion often meets resistance. It is argued in this chapter that opportunities for new scientific fields to be included depend on the kind of governance regimes ruling universities. A comparison of the former bureaucratic-oligarchic governance model in most European universities with the existing new public management governance model demonstrates that the propensity of universities to include new scientific fields has increased though there might be a price to pay in terms of which fields stand a chance of being integrated and in terms of institutional possibilities for the invention of new ideas.

Keywords

Scientific Field Economic Capital Corporate Identity Management Layer Governance Regime 
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.

References

  1. Agasisti, T., & Catalono, G. (2006). Governance models of university systems – Towards quasi-markets? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(3), 245–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlind, G. S. (2005). Academic growth and development – How do university academics experience it? Higher Education, 50, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amaral, A., Meek, V. L., & Larsen, I. M. (Eds.). (2003). The higher education managerial revolution? Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1992). Process and structure in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.Google Scholar
  6. Ben-David, J. (1971). The scientist’s role in society. A comparative study. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Ben-David, J. (1991). Scientific growth. Essays on the social organization and ethos of science. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blume, S. (1974). Towards a political sociology of science. New York: Free Press/Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Blume, S. (1985). After the darkest hour integrity and engagement in the development of university research. In B. Wittrock & A. Elzinga (Eds.), The university research system (pp. 139–163). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.Google Scholar
  10. Bonaccorsi, A. (2007). Explaining poor performance of European science: Institutions versus policies. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bonaccorsi, A. (2008). Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva, 46(3), 285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonaccorsi, A. (2010). New forms of complementarity in science. Minerva, 48(4), 355–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bourdieu, P. (2001). Science de la science et réflexivité. Paris: Raisons d’Agir Editions.Google Scholar
  15. Braun, D., & Merrien, F.-X. (1999a). Governance of universities and modernisation of the state. In D. Braun & F.-X. Merrien (Eds.), Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view (pp. 9–33). London/Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  16. Braun, D., & Merrien, F.-X. (Eds.). (1999b). Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view. London/Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  17. Brock, W. A., & Durlauf, S. N. (1999). A formal model of theory choice in science. Economic Theory, 14(1), 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2001). New public management. The transformation of ideas and practices. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  19. Chubin, D. E. (1976). The conceptualization of scientific specialties. The Sociological Quarterly, 17(4), 448–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  21. Clark, B. R. (1995). Complexity and differentiation: The deepening problem of university integration. In D. Dill & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly (pp. 159–169). Oxford: IAU Press/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Clark, B. R. (1996). Substantive growth and innovative organization: New categories for higher education research. Higher Education, 32(4), 417–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Issues in higher education. Bingley: Elsevier Science Regional Sales.Google Scholar
  24. Clark, B. R. (2008). On higher education. Selected writings, 1956–2006. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administration Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Coleman, J. S. (1986). Individual interests and collective action. Selected essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Collins, H. M. (1983). The sociology of scientific knowledge: Studies of contemporary science. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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. Disciplinary approaches, interfaces, and integration (pp. 137–152). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Dewatripont, M., Thys-Clement, F., & Wilkin, L. (Eds.). (2002). European universities: Change and convergence? Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.Google Scholar
  32. Elzinga, A. (1987). Internal and external regulatives in research and higher education systems. In R. Preforms (Ed.), Disciplinary perspectives on higher education and research (Report No. 37). Stockholm: University of Stockholm GSHR.Google Scholar
  33. Evans, C. (1995). Choosing people: Recruitment and selection as leverage on subjects and disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 20(3), 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Felt, U. (2004). University autonomy in Europe. In Magna Charta Observatory (Ed.), Managing university autonomy. Shifting paradigms in university research (pp. 15–108). Bologna: Magna Charta Observatory.Google Scholar
  35. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, J. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. London/Amsterdam: Feffer & Simons Inc.Google Scholar
  37. Kitcher, P. (1995). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Kuhn, T. S. (1968). The history of science. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. XIV, pp. 74–83). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. Larsen, M. I. (2003). Departmental leadership in Norwegian universities – In between two models of governance? In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? (pp. 71–88). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Lawn, M., & Keiner, E. (2006). Editorial. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Metzger, W. P. (1978). Academic freedom and scientific freedom. Daedalus, 107(2), 93–114.Google Scholar
  43. Metzger, W. P. (1987). The academic profession in the United States. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National, disciplinary and institutional settings (pp. 123–208). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  44. Mirowski, P., & Sent, E.-M. (Eds.). (2002). Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Mullins, N. (1972). The development of a scientific speciality: The phage group and the origins of molecular biology. Minerva, 10, 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Musselin, C. (2007). The transformation of academic work: Facts and analysis (Research and occasional paper series, Center for Studies in Higher Education). Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
  47. Musselin, C. (2008). Editorial. European Journal of Education, 43(3), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., & Ferlie, E. (Eds.). (2009). University governance: Western European comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Ruscio, K. P. (1986). Bridging specializations: Reflections from biology and political science. The Review of Higher Education, 10(1), 29–45.Google Scholar
  50. Schimank, U. (1994). Hochschulforschung im Schatten der Lehre. Frankfurt a.M: Campus.Google Scholar
  51. Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Spiegel-Rösing, I. (1974). Disziplinäre Strategien der Statussicherung. Homo, 25(1), 11–37.Google Scholar
  54. Tapper, E. R., & Salter, B. G. (1995). The changing idea of university autonomy. Studies in Higher Education, 20, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Taylor, J. S., de Machado, M. L., & Peterson, M. W. (2008). Leadership and strategic management: Keys to institutional priorities and planning. European Journal of Education, 43(3), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K., & Vandenberg, R. L. J. (2008). A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy, 37(8), 1255–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. van Vught, F. A. (Ed.). (1989). Governmental strategies and innovation in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  58. Whitley, R. (Ed.). (1974). Social processes of scientific development. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.Google Scholar
  59. Whitley, R. (1977). Changes in the social and intellectual organization of the sciences. In P. Mendelsohn & R. Whitley (Eds.), The social production of scientific knowledge (pp. 143–169). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Whitley, R. (2003). Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: The impact of institutional frameworks on the organization of academic science. Research Policy, 32(6), 1015–1029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Whitley, R. (2008, June). Changing authority relations in public science systems and their consequences for the direction and organization of research (Working Paper Series). Manchester: Manchester Business School.Google Scholar
  63. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut d’Etudes Politiques et InternationalesUniversité de LausanneLausanneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations