Losing autonomy? Restructuring higher education institutions governance and relations between teaching and non-teaching staff

Carvalho, Teresa; Videira, Pedro

doi:10.1080/03075079.2017.1401059

Cited by 35 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, vertical steering of the university governing bodies is not introduced, and academics selected through bottom‐up processes maintain a dominant position and control over the decisions of top governance bodies. Accordingly, power relations inside Portuguese and Italian universities have been minimally reconfigured, and follow findings in recent studies on power distribution in Italy (Donina et al, ), as well as on perceptions of staff in Portugal (Carvalho & Videira, forthcoming). These findings suggest that institutional governance structures in Portugal and Italy are not used by the state as policy instruments designed to steer universities at a distance, and that the role of the state is limited to supervision and legal control of rule‐following, that is in line with Napoleonic administrative tradition (Bleiklie & Michelsen, ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Higher Education institutional governance reforms in the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy: A policy translation perspective addressing the homogeneous/heterogeneous dilemma

Donina

Hasanefendic

2018

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses the homogeneous/heterogeneous dilemma regarding formal arrangements of university central governance structures. Most topical studies argue that these structures are becoming homogeneous across countries and prove it by adopting purposive sampling techniques. Yet, other scholars stress heterogeneity within countries. This paper aims to clarify this dilemma through a multi‐level analysis that simultaneously considers three levels of embeddedness (i.e., supranational, national and institutional), by employing a policy translation perspective, which can accommodate both homogeneity and heterogeneity. The national sample comprises three countries (the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy). The institutional sample is comprehensive and encompasses all public universities within each country. The study discloses heterogeneity in how countries responded to supranational policy pressures as well as heterogeneous responses at the institutional level even when unitary laws are applied. Relying on these findings, we stress the importance of adopting comprehensive (rather than purposive) sampling to infer about international and/or national homogeneity because studies that generalise results based on one/few case studies per country could be biased by the sample selection criteria. In addition, the research implications of our analysis on steering‐at‐a‐distance and on the relation between the grade of cogency of the national laws and homogeneous/heterogeneous reform outcomes are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 78%

Higher Education institutional governance reforms in the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy: A policy translation perspective addressing the homogeneous/heterogeneous dilemma

Donina

Hasanefendic

2018

Higher Education Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a further useful distinction between managerialism and marketisation (Collyer 2015, 328) with the former advancing the surveillance of academics while the latter pushing for 'production-oriented' practices. Academics' opposition to both managerialism and business management practices is evident across the globe, including Australia (Collyer 2015), England (Nixon, Scullion and Hearn 2018), the US (Judson and Taylor 2014), and Portugal (Carvalho and Videira 2019).…”

Section: Marketisationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academics teaching and learning at the nexus: unbundling, marketisation and digitisation in higher education

Czerniewicz

Mogliacci

Walji

et al. 2021

Teaching in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores how academics navigate the Higher Education (HE) landscape being reshaped by the convergence of unbundling, marketisation and digitisation processes. Social Realism distinguishes three layers of social reality (in this case higher education): the empirical, the actual and the real. The empirical layer is presented by the academics and their teaching; the actual are the institutional processes of teaching, learning, assessment, mode of provision (online, blended); the real are the power and regulatory mechanisms that shape the first two and affect academics' agency. Two dimensions of academics' experiences and perceptions are presented. The structural dimension reflects academics' perceptions of the emergent organisation of the education environment including the changing narratives around digitisation, marketisation and unbundling in the context of digital inequalities. The professional dimension aspects play out at the actor level with respect to work-related issues, particularly their own. This dimension is portrayed in academics' concerns about ownership and control.

show abstract

“…Yritysmäisen yliopiston toiminta pohjautuu managerialismiin, joka yliopistokontekstissa tarkoittaa sitä, että yliopiston johdolle luodaan mahdollisuuksia kontrolloida ja säädellä akateemista työtä, jolloin valtaa siirretään akateemiselta yhteisöltä johtajille (Gordon & Whitchurch 2010;Shepherd 2018;Carvalho & Videira 2019).…”

Section: Akateeminen Eetos Yliopistotyön Merkityksellisyyden Rakentamisessaunclassified

Työn merkityksellisyyden rakentaminen ja jännitteet muuttuvassa yliopistossa

Tapanila

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Työn merkityksellisyyden rakentamista ohjaa moraalinen kehys; se auttaa ihmistä valitsemaan asioita, joihin hän sitoutuu. Yksilön moraaliseen kehykseen voi kytkeytyä hänen ammatilleen ominainen eetos. Tarkastelen akateemista professiota, jonka työskentelyedellytyksiä viime vuosikymmeninä toteutetut yliopistouudistukset ovat muovanneet. Kysyn, miten kasvatustieteitä, lääke- ja biotieteitä ja kielitieteitä edustavat tutkija-opettajat suhtautuvat yritysmäisen yliopiston arvostamiin asioihin ja sen heille asettamiin vaatimuksiin sekä millaisia jännitteitä nämä suhtautumistavat ilmentävät liittyen työn merkityksellisyyden rakentamiseen. Aineistona ovat teemakirjoittamisen menetelmällä kerätyt tutkija-opettajien kuvaukset suhteestaan työhönsä ja yliopistossa tapahtuneisiin muutoksiin. Tunnistin aineistosta viisi erilaista suhtautumistapaa: 1) yritysmäisen yliopiston vastustus, 2) työssä kuormittuminen ja resurssipulasta kärsiminen, 3) toimintaedellytysten yleinen analysointi ja kritisointi, 4) tyytyväisyys yliopistotyössä ja 5) itsenäinen, vaikutusvaltainen toimijuus. Eroja suhtautumistavoissa näyttivät tuottavan opetus- ja tutkimustyön resurssien epätasainen jakautuminen sekä tutkija-opettajien erilaiset vaikutusmahdollisuudet ja kokemukset arvostuksen saamisesta työssään. Yliopisto todennäköisesti kykenisi toteuttamaan yhteiskunnallista palvelutehtäväänsä monipuolisemmin, jos arvostusta osoitettaisiin ja resursseja jaettaisiin tasapuolisemmin eri tieteenaloilla ja erilaisissa positioissa tehtävälle yliopistotyölle.

show abstract

Losing autonomy? Restructuring higher education institutions governance and relations between teaching and non-teaching staff

Cited by 35 publications

References 28 publications

Higher Education institutional governance reforms in the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy: A policy translation perspective addressing the homogeneous/heterogeneous dilemma

Higher Education institutional governance reforms in the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy: A policy translation perspective addressing the homogeneous/heterogeneous dilemma

Academics teaching and learning at the nexus: unbundling, marketisation and digitisation in higher education

Työn merkityksellisyyden rakentaminen ja jännitteet muuttuvassa yliopistossa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About