Diversity in Australian higher education?

Abstract

Abstract. This study explores systematic relationships between management attitudes about recent transitions in the funding and structure of higher education in Australia (Meek and Goedegebuure, 1989) and the domains of the taxonomy emerging from ongoing organisational effectiveness research based on these institutions (Lysons, 1990b). The results reinforce the integrity of the previously established 4 group framework and flesh-out more fine-grained issues which may militate against the smooth transition of amalgamated institutions to university status, on the one hand, and the enhancement of diversity on the other.

Predicting a taxonomy of organisational effectiveness in U.K. higher educational institutions

“…This most recent second round of mergers and amalgamations in Australia's higher educational history has caused incredible turmoil in this early stage of transition. Some argue this will at best take a very long time to achieve (Goedegebuure et al 1993) while others maintain that in many cases it simply may never effectively consummate to produce outcomes of university standard in the international arena (Lysons 1993).…”

What do positioning paths of universities tell about the diversity of higher education systems? An exploratory study

“…In particular, the status of HEIs has been widely investigated to understand why HEIs can deviate from the expected increasing differentiation vis-àvis higher competition (Brewer et al 2002;Van Vught, 2008;Brankovic 2018). On the one hand, it has been shown how low-status HEIs tend to copy higher-status HEIs to gain legitimacy, even in competitive contexts like the US, Australia and other English-speaking countries (Riesman 1956;Goedegebuure et al 1993;Codling and Meek 2006;Toma 2012). Competition for prestige is said to be more relevant than that for resources and mimicking more appealing than a more 'rational' differentiation (Van Vught 2008).…”

“…However, empirical evidence on the determinants (institutional pressures, competition) and outcomes of diversity has been rather contradictory with distinctive patterns highlighted in highly institutionalized contexts (Kraatz and Zajac 1996;Bonaccorsi and Daraio 2007;Rossi 2009) and convergence processes found in increasing competitive contexts, where a growth in diversity was expected (Goedegebuure et al 1993;Rossi 2010).…”

Institutional Diversity in Ontario’s University Sector: A Policy Debate Analysis

“…Structural higher education policy changes have been introduced over the years in Australia (Goedegebuure, Coates, Van der Lee, & Meek, 2009;Meek & O'Neill, 1996;), Latin America, (Balán, 2012), the Netherlands (Huisman, 1996;Veerman, 2010), Finland (Kivinen & Rinne, 1996), South Africa (Singh, 2008), Italy (Rossi, 2010), Portugal (Teixeira, Rocha, Biscaia, & Cardoso, 2012), and Romania (Vlăsceanu & Hâncean, 2012). These changes have primarily focused on systemic diversity (differences in the type of institution and size of institution; Birnbaum, 1983) and programmatic diversity (differences in degree level, mission and program emphasis; Birnbaum, 1983).…”