Higher education reforms have been on the agenda of Western European countries for 25 years, trying to deal with self governed professional bureaucracies politically weakened by massification when an emerging common understanding enhanced their role as major actors in knowledge based economies. While university systems are deeply embedded in national settings, the ex post rationale of still on-going reforms is surprisingly uniform and “de-nationalized”. They promote (1) the “organizational turn” of universities, to varying extent substituting collegial loosely coupled entities by “integrated, goal-oriented entities deliberately choosing their own actions (and therefore open to differentiation), that can thus be held responsible for what they do” (2) the diversification of stakeholders, supposedly offering solutions to problems as various as the democratisation of universities, the shrinking of State budget resources and the diversification of university missions offering answers to changes in the making and in the use of science. When it comes to accounting for these reforms, two grand narratives of public management share the floor. NPM implies a strengthening of the capacity of the core State to direct public services organizations through management by objectives and results or contractualization, assessment, evaluation and. “Governance” focuses on “network-based” governance systems, where coordinating power and control are collectively shared between the major ‘social actors or partners’ at all levels of the decision-making system. Our results suggest that all higher education systems under study were more or less transformed according to both these narratives. It is therefore needed to understand how they combine or create contradictions. This leads us to test a third neo-weberian model. This model reaffirms the role of the State, of representative democracy, (central, regional and local), of public law (suitably modernized), preserves the idea of a public service with a distinctive status, culture and terms and conditions. It shifts from an internal orientation to bureaucratic rules towards an external orientation in meeting citizens’ needs and wishes by means of standardization of work processes and their products, based on a distinctive public service and a particular legal order survived as the foundations beneath the various packages of modernizing reforms. This book traces the national dynamics of public policies, organizational design and steering tools in seven European higher education and research systems, using these narratives to interpret and test the actual changes and the degree of national specificities and European convergence. This book is not a sum of national chapters like other presumably comparative. It does not intend to tell once again the story of the transformation of the relationships between the state and universities. It tries to use Higher education system to discuss issues on state intervention and steering and more generally the NPM, governance and neo-weberian models in a specific field. Furthermore, this book intends breaking the walls between specialists in higher education and specialist in public management and research policy. This well rooted division of labour is less that ever justified as the university mission in research (fundamental, applied, strategic) is underscored by commentors and reformers themselves. For that reason, we have chosen to observe the consequences of the dynamics of public policies, organizational design and steering tools on two specific issues related to the development of research training and organizing within universities: the transformation of research funding on the one hand and the expansion of graduate studies and doctoral schools on the other.

Governance is becoming increasingly important in universities just as it is in the wider world of commerce and banking. Historically, universities were run by their academic communities but as mass higher education has taken root, as university research has become a critical element in national economies and as the demand for more accountability both financial and in academic performance has grown, pressure has mounted for a ‘modernisation’ of governance structures. One aspect of ‘modernisation’, particularly important in many European systems, and in Japan, has been the decision by governments to give institutions greater autonomy, more control over their budgets and legal responsibility for the employment of their staff. International trends to introduce greater competition between institutions, to encourage greater institutional differentiation and give greater play to market forces has led to an emphasis on leadership, a more systematic involvement of external stakeholders and a more ‘corporate style of governance. At the same time this has often led to a sense of loss of collegiality, a redistribution of authority and a growing gap between the ‘centre’ and the ‘periphery’ within universities. This book analyses governance change in nine major higher education systems, Australia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, the UK and the USA, each account being the result of independent research by a leading authority in the field and describes how a convergence of governance structures has been mediated by the historical, cultural, political and social characteristics of the different systems. Michael Shattock is a leading authority on university governance; this study offers the most up to date account of governance reform in a range of higher education systems, an analysis of the common trends and an assessment of their impact on the idea of a university. It will be essential reading for academics, postgraduates and practitioners in higher education.

The cyberspace revolution means that university structures have become less hierarchical; success therefore depends heavily on an appropriate system of governance. This book examines university governance in research-intensive universities and offers appropriate initiatives and recommendations.

There was a time when the faculty governed universities. Not anymore. The Rise and Decline of Faculty Governance is the first history of shared governance in American higher education. Drawing on archival materials and extensive published sources, Larry G. Gerber shows how the professionalization of college teachers coincided with the rise of the modern university in the late nineteenth century and was the principal justification for granting teachers power in making educational decisions. In the twentieth century, the efforts of these governing faculties were directly responsible for molding American higher education into the finest academic system in the world. In recent decades, however, the growing complexity of “multiversities” and the application of business strategies to manage these institutions threatened the concept of faculty governance. Faculty shifted from being autonomous professionals to being “employees.” The casualization of the academic labor market, Gerber argues, threatens to erode the quality of universities. As more faculty become contingent employees, rather than tenured career professionals enjoying both job security and intellectual autonomy, universities become factories in the knowledge economy. In addition to tracing the evolution of faculty decision making, this historical narrative provides readers with an important perspective on contemporary debates about the best way to manage America’s colleges and universities. Gerber also reflects on whether American colleges and universities will be able to retain their position of global preeminence in an increasingly market-driven environment, given that the system of governance that helped make their success possible has been fundamentally altered.

Effective governance is now more important than ever to ensure that universities preserve the autonomy fundamental to the vital role they play in our society. These exciting institutions are at the forefront of research and teaching and are expected to be drivers and facilitators of social and technological change, innovation, commercialization, and knowledge transfer. As educators and recipients of significant public funds, they are the focus of public opinion and close financial scrutiny, and must work to comply with ever-changing government policy and increasing regulation. This book is for those who want to learn more about and to participate in university governance. The governance context for universities is unique, and playing a positive and effective role in university governance requires understanding this exceptionality: important concepts, the complex stakeholder context, decision-making structures, and the allocation of responsibilities within the university sector. An Introduction to University Governance is a resource to support current and prospective university governance professionals and those serving on university boards and academic governing bodies, and will be of interest to members of government, consultants, lawyers, mediators, arbitrators, and others who work closely with universities. It is intended to be an accessible rather than an academic book, written to encourage more effective university governance with more engaged participants within the over-150 universities in Canada.

This is the most comprehensive international discussion of higher education governance ever published. It presents a critical analysis of governance issues and reforms in: Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the UK, and the USA. The book explores different theoretical perspectives and presents new empirical evidence on system and institutional governance issues.

This volume seeks to identify and explore the dynamics of global forces on the development of higher education in Asia, in particular, how neoliberalism has affected reforms on university governance and management in the region. It includes a set of country-specific studies on how various countries have responded to the dominant neoliberal ideology at the systemic, institutional, and process levels. The focus is on the relationship between the state and the universities, which is usually reflected in the degree of autonomy and accountability allowed in a particular higher education system. The selected countries are Cambodia, China, Indonesia, India, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand. Each case study examines the establishment of corporatised or autonomous universities in the country focusing on (i) the acts, reports, and/or policies that led to such a move as well as the rationales behind the move; (ii) the changes in the governance and organisational structure of the universities, highlighting the kinds of autonomy that the universities have; (iii) the new management strategies, techniques, and practices that have been introduced to the university including the internal and external quality assurance mechanisms, and (iv) some of the tensions, conflicts, and acts of resistance that may have emerged.