This paper is a brief but critical survey of some theories of organizational culture. It outlines the theories of culture borrowed from anthropology by social scientists interested in 'complex organizations', and locates these theories in an historical debate regarding their 'proper' use. The paper argues the need for a conceptual distinction between culture and social structure, and asserts that the culture of organizational life cannot be analyzed in terms of a universal unitary concept. The argument concludes by suggesting 'conceptual tools' for interpreting culture — symbol, ideational systems, myth and ritual — and how they might be used in analysis.

No abstract

Much of the writing on higher education in recent years has tended to assume that the new management push in higher education is both universal and irreversible. This paper, however, presents evidence from Portugal to challenge that assumption. While elements of the new managerialism are clearly evident in the perceptions and attitudes of academics in charge of the basic academic units (departments/ schools and faculties) in the country's universities and polytechnics, academic management remains faced with a complex, contradictory and conflicting set of demands and expectations which is likely to take a considerable time to resolve.

No abstract

No abstract

The policies of the Australian federal government are clearly intended to bring about a fundamental transformation of the country's higher education system. The Australian case, however, presents several paradoxes. Policy changes are being initiated by a federal government that has no legislative control over state chartered higher education institutions. While the federal government wishes to see a more diversified and adaptive higher education system, it seems to be implementing a reward structure for individual institutions and academics which encourages imitation of the elite universities. Although government claims that its new policy initiatives are designed to debureaucratize the system, a significant proportion of the Australian academic community claims that government is centralizing control. This article explores these and other issues facing Australian higher education, not for the purpose of resolving the seeming paradoxes, but to suggest a particular research agenda for investigating change in higher education.There can be no doubt that over the last three years or so change has been a fundamental characteristic of the Australian higher education system. This does not imply that stability was the distinguishing feature of the system in the past, nor does the statement define the profundity of change: seminal or cosmetic; long-lasting or temporal; revolutionary or incremental. Too often, description of events in higher education assumes implicitly one or more concepts of change -adaptation, evolution, determination, development, etc. -in such a way that the unarticulated concepts are substituted for the object of study. The substance of change and the consequences (intended or otherwise) are first of all empirical questions which themselves demand investigation through a particular and explicitly stated theoretical perspective. It is the purpose of this article to locate the examination of change in Australian higher education within a particular theoretical/conceptual frame of reference.To begin this task, definitions of higher education are in order, both descriptive and analytical.

No abstract

No abstract