Teaching and research are organised differently between subject domains: attempts to construct typologies of higher education institutions, however, often do not include quantitative indicators concerning subject mix which would allow systematic comparisons of large numbers of higher education institutions among different countries, as the availability of data for such indicators is limited. In this paper, we present an exploratory approach for the construction of such indicators. The database constructed in the AQUAMETH project, which includes also data disaggregated at the disciplinary level, is explored with the aim of understanding patterns of subject mix. For six European countries, an exploratory and descriptive analysis of staff composition divided in four large domains (medical sciences, engineering and technology, natural sciences and social sciences and humanities) is performed, which leads to a classification distinguishing between specialist and generalist institutions. Among the latter, a further distinction is made based on the presence or absence of a medical department. Preliminary exploration of this classification and its comparison with other indicators show the influence of long term dynamics on the subject mix of individual higher education institutions, but also underline disciplinary differences, for example regarding student to staff ratios, as well as national patterns, for example regarding the number of PhD degrees per 100 undergraduate students. Despite its many limitations, this exploratory approach allows defining a classification of higher education institutions that accounts for a large share of differences between the analysed higher education institutions.

This article deals with the current reform of European doctoral education. It is argued that the concrete results of the reform can be better understood by analysing changes in the management of doctoral programmes. This rests on the case study of a Norwegian PhD programme in finance and is based on an analytical framework composed of three public management narratives: New Public Management (NPM), Network Governance (NG) and Neo‐Weberian‐State (NWS). The latter allows for a particular focus on the instruments, actors and objectives of governance. The article concludes that the examined doctoral programme's management story can be divided into two episodes. The first — the ‘internationalisation’ episode — is shaped by the academic profession in finance which uses a wide range of constraining NPM instruments and applies them in a comprehensive manner to doctoral education in order to achieve its overall objective, namely to implement an internationally competitive PhD programme. The second — the ‘integration’ episode — is about a recently developed policy instrument with relatively non‐constraining NWS elements, used by the State to establish National Research Schools. The latter are principally aimed at the better development and coordination of doctoral training between small and large higher education institutions. Due to those differences between the two episodes in terms of constraining character and scope, the reform of the examined doctoral programme is strongly shaped by the first episode. Hence, the reform essentially consists in a doctoral programme with an international and academic character.

No abstract

This research group at the Department of administration and organisation theory has existed under different headings or names. In one period the current name, Knowledge and politics, was a reminder of the relationship to the conferences "Knowledge and politics". From 2003 to 2008 conferences were organised in Bergen; in 2008 "Elitism vs. creativity? The political and economic construction of knowledge hierarchies in times of mass higher education", in 2007 "America-a model for Europe? Comparing regions in the debate on higher education and research", in 2006 "Towards a New Contract Between Universities and Society?", in 2005 "The Bologna Process and the Shaping of the Future Knowledge Societies", in 2004 "Politics and knowledge: Democratizing knowledge in times of the expert" and in 2003 "Knowledge and politics-towards the new knowledge society throughout my doctoral project. Especially in the last stages of the dissertation the motivation and clear comments from my supervisor have been crucial. Thanks to my co-supervisor, Professor Christine Musselin, for commenting on drafts and for creating an opportunity for me to host Centre de Sociologie des Organisations in Paris. Also thanks to the PhD network around higher education research which developed in relation to the project "Steering of Universities" and Euredocs (European research and higher education doctoral studies). In particular the collaboration with Lukas Baschung has been rewarding for the dissertation. Not least I want to thank my colleagues at the Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies and in particular members of the group Culture, Power and Meaning: Ole Brekke, Gry Brandser, Kristin L. Hope and Knut Grove. I also want to thank Ingrid Helgøy for backing me up in the last stages of the PhD project. Thanks to my in-laws for caring and for being inclusive. Thanks to my good friends Line, Sylva and Serine for lots of laughter and getting my mind off my PhD! I want to show my gratitude to my parents, Olga and Kjell. Thanks to my mother for her support and care; she has been the symbol of my yonder*-being in between Norwegian and Colombian culture. Thanks to my father, who passed away a year ago, but during my childhood aroused my curiosity for knowledge and invited in reflection. Lastly I want to thank my husband Atle for unconditional and priceless support throughout the doctoral project. Having been in the same boat with our individual doctoral projects has first and foremost been enrichment. I have the greatest respect for your professional and intellectual feedback. And finally thanks to my two beloved sons Daniel and Alfred who in different periods have been born into your mother's educational pathway. Thanks for being you. Gigliola *Yonder refers to "between here and there" in Siri Hustvedts "A plea for eros." 8 This section draws on ideas from the SUN project as discussed in "University governance. Western European Comparative Perspectives" (Paradeise et al. 2009).

Traditionally, European doctoral education has principally taken place within the binary relationship of professors and their doctoral students according to the apprenticeship model. However, in the last one to two decades, this model has been questioned. Governments and higher education institutions (HEIs) reform doctoral education by establishing and running structured doctoral programmes or Doctoral Schools. Inspired by American Graduate Schools, various forms of Doctoral Schools have been increasingly emerging in many European HEIs. This article identifies, characterises and critically assesses the principal changes in doctoral education practices introduced through Doctoral Schools on the basis of eight case studies carried out in Swiss and Norwegian HEIs. The empirical analysis results in the identification of six types of changes which concern doctoral students’ recruitment, curricular component, supervision, scientific exchange, tracking and their career. These changes lead to four kind of trends – which vary according to the case study – consisting of a structuring, standardisation and opening of doctoral education, whereas its academic character is maintained. If greater competitiveness, better scientific quality and higher graduating rates may be achieved, problems in terms of ‘brain drain’, workload, supervision, innovation and careers may even be reinforced or at least not completely solved.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract