Governance of Higher Education explores the work of traditional and contemporary higher education scholarship worldwide, providing readers with an understanding of the assumptions, historical traditions, and paradigms that have shaped the scholarship on governance. Bringing together the vast and disparate writings that form the higher education governance literature—including frameworks drawn from a range of disciplines and global scholarship—this book synthesizes the significant theoretical, conceptual, and empirical scholarship to advance the research and practice of governance. Coverage includes the structures of governance, cultures and practices, the collegial tradition, the new managed environment of the academy, and the politics and processes of governance. As universities across the globe face a myriad of challenges and multiple stakeholder demands, Governance of Higher Education offers scholars, practitioners, and higher education graduate students an essential resource for advancing research and the practice of governance.

This volume explores convergence and divergence in the governance of higher education systems from a global and comparative perspective.

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.

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 book documents experimentation with various policy and governance approaches that produce structural differences in the composition and organisation of Asia’s higher education systems. In view of the wide variation in the public and private provision of higher education, it showcases how issues of access, equity and modes of participation are addressed, how institutional and programme quality are managed and how academic labour is treated and developed. The book both maps these differences and analyses the country-level dynamics, policy approaches and the problems faced by a variety of states in Asia in the race to develop competitive higher education systems. Focusing on the intersection of governance and higher education policy, it addresses the challenges facing higher education in Asia and the national responses of governments in terms of the organisation of the sector.

Comprises a collection of 40 readings to aid in understanding the multiple nuances of how colleges or postsecondary educational institutions are organized, governed, and administered. Areas addressed are classic organization theory, traditional administrative and governance models, campus climate an

"Locus of Authority argues that every issue facing today's colleges and universities, from stagnant degree completion rates to worrisome cost increases, is exacerbated by a century-old system of governance that desperately requires change. While prior studies have focused on boards of trustees and presidents, few have looked at the place of faculty within the governance system. Specifically addressing faculty roles in this structure, William G. Bowen and Eugene M. Tobin ask: do higher education institutions have what it takes to reform effectively from within? Bowen and Tobin use case studies of four very different institutions--the University of California, Princeton University, Macalester College, and the City University of New York--to demonstrate that college and university governance has capably adjusted to the necessities of the moment and that governance norms and policies should be assessed in the context of historical events. The authors examine how faculty roles have evolved since colonial days to drive change but also to stand in the way of it. Bowen and Tobin make the case that successful reform depends on the artful consideration of technological, financial, and cultural developments, such as the explosion in online learning. Stressing that they do not want to diminish faculty roles but to facilitate their most useful contributions, Bowen and Tobin explore whether departments remain the best ways through which to organize decision making and if the concepts of academic freedom and shared governance need to be sharpened and redefined. Locus of Authority shows that the consequences of not addressing college and university governance are more than the nation can afford"--