Harry de Boer

With internationalisation in higher education becoming part of the mainstream activities of many higher education institutions and continuously gaining in importance, there is a growing expectation that universities be able to define the added value of the international dimension. Accordingly, there is some growth in the attention paid to measuring the impact of internationalisation on the institutional mission. In Europe, internationalisation has

Dit rapport bevat de uitkomsten van een studie naar de inrichting en werking van de interne allocatiemodellen van de Vlaamse universiteiten. Doel is inzicht te verschaffen in de verdeelsleutels die Vlaamse universiteiten gebruiken om onderwijs- en onderzoeksgelden te verdelen over de faculteiten binnen de universiteit. Deze verdeelsleutels zijn sterk ingegeven door de parameters gehanteerd in het financieringsmodel dat de Vlaamse overheid gebruikt om de basisfinanciering voor de universiteiten te berekenen. Speciale aandacht in de evaluatie gaat uit naar de puntengewichten – dit zijn de parameters die tot op zekere hoogte de kostprijsverschillen tussen de verschillende wetenschapsgebieden weerspiegelen.

Indonesian higher education has experienced significant changes over the last decade. In 1999, the government published an overall strategy for decentralisation and enhancement of local autonomy in many sectors, including (higher) education. Indonesian higher education reforms have forced universities to restructure their internal university governance to become more entrepreneurial. These new types of internal university governance are likely to affect the institutions' leadership and management. This paper discusses the approach and findings of a study on the managerial leadership styles of deans in Indonesian universities. The study aims to get a better understanding of styles exhibited by deans manifested in their behaviours. Using the theories of reasoned action and planned behaviour, in combination with the competing values framework, a large-scale survey was conducted to gather information on the deans' behaviours, attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioura...

In using an ideational approach of policy analysis, this chapter describes and analyses the establishment and institutionalisation of a research function as the second core task of the Dutch universities of applied sciences Universities of Applied Sciences (UAS) in the period 2001–2015. The overarching goal of this structural reform is to contribute to the strengthening of the innovative capacity of the Netherlands by the optimal use of the UAS sector in delivering highly skilled modern graduates and services needed by regional industry and the public sector. At the turn of the millennium, several instruments have been introduced to strengthen the UAS research function such as by means of the introduction of new staff positions at the UAS, grants for practice-oriented research and grants for the establishment of Centres of Expertise. The government provided the funding for these initiatives through additional budgets, alongside the operational basic grant, initially as temporary funding, and independent national agencies were established to manage the reform initiatives. In the 15 years since the first steps were taken, the research function of UAS has obtained a structural and indispensable position in Dutch higher education. In this respect, the structural reform has been successful. Nonetheless, in the chapter, a number of critical observations are being made.

Appropriate governance is seen as a precondition for achieving the goals of maintaining or creating effective, competitive and attractive higher education systems (De Boer et al., 2012; van Vught, 1989a). In response to the challenges stemming from developments such as the emergence of mass higher education, globalization, privatization and fiscal crises, and inspired by neoliberal ideologies (such as New Public Management), contemporary governments continuously are in pursuit of approaches to governance that ‘fit’ (see also Clark, 1983b). The topic of governance finds itself in the centre of higher education politics and policies.

In this first decade of the twenty-first century, universities seem to be caught up in grand contradictions (Clark 1998: 146). They have, for instance, to do more and more with less money, to maintain the expanding cultural heritage with the best of the past and at the same time quickly and flexibly develop new fields of study and modes of thought, and to respond to everyone’s demands because all are ‘stakeholders’. It is, however, not only the ‘angry world outside’ that puts pressure on universities, but also the dynamics of science itself, with its accelerating pace of knowledge growth, specialization and reconfiguration. To deal with these contradictions, problems and tensions, or if one likes to dramatize, to survive in the increasingly tight and competitive world of higher education, universities should have an organisational structure that is able to swiftly respond to this rapidly changing environment. Most of us would tend to agree with this conclusion, but then what should the university decision making structure look like? There are, and have always been, significant differences of opinion on the answer to this question.

The annual procession in the Luxemburg town of Echternach is famous for its laborious manner of reaching its end: two steps forward, one step back. In this paper, we will maintain that the policy of the Dutch government over the period of c.1982–2007 resembles an Echternach procession in reverse: every time it took two steps back from control over higher education, it took one step ahead again. It was not a random oscillation between the two extremes NPM and NG, but the trend certainly was not linear either. We address policy developments in Dutch higher education and research in the last two and a half decades in order to explore shifts in governance of universities. Our aim is to elaborate upon the consequences of such shifts on doctoral training and on research funding for universities, for which extensive treatment of the general reforms in higher education and research are necessary. Based on the two concepts of NPM and NG, and as a result of the Echternach-like movements from one policy paper to the next regulation or the following instrument mix, concrete societal sub-systems or policy fields can now be understood as mixtures of the two. In turning to the governance of university systems, we make use of already existing typologies of basic dimensions of the modes of coordination of this societal sub-sector. In the following, and in more detail than the two main ideal types that structure this book, we distinguish five modes of co-ordination: state regulation, stakeholder guidance, academic self-governance, managerial self-governance, and competition.

ABSTRACT During the last decades traditional state-centered governing arrangements have been critiqued and replaced by alternative modes of governance. These shifts have been driven by economic, ideological and pragmatic motives (Pierre and Peters 2000; Pollitt and Bouckaert 2000). The introduction of alternative ways of exercising collective control and influencing society has led to a widespread interest in the concept of ‘governance’. Recent overviews — amongst others by Rhodes (2000), Pierre and Peters (2000), Peters (2001), van Kersbergen and van Waarden (2004), Hajer et al. (2004) — discuss the differences and similarities among the various governance approaches as well as the absence of a general agreed-upon definition of the governance concept. At the same time, they leave no doubt that the forms and mechanisms of governance, the location of governance, the governing capabilities and the styles of governance have not only been discussed but have been modified or substantially changed. The consequences of such changes are seldom linear, most of the time unpredictable and contestable. Are they ‘merely a way of wrapping government in a new paper which is more palatable to the public, or does the idea represent something qualitatively new and different?’ (Pierre and Peters 2000: 68) On the basis of governance, new public management and organisational change literature, we discuss changes in the ways of governing and organising universities as professional public sector organisations. We will argue that traditional and alternative ways of governing and organising universities form a hybrid of deeply embedded old and ‘sedimenting’ new structures and processes. Therefore, transformational change in the public sector may remain more limited in scope and depth than has often been argued by the proponents of alternative steering models (for the case of higher education, see also Kogan et al. 2006; Askling and Henkel 2006). We will support our view with empirical data drawn from a number of studies on change and stability in higher education policies and organisational practices in the Netherlands over the last three decades (a.o. Maassen and van Vught 1989; Binsbergen et al. 1991; Goedegebuure et al. 1993; Westerheijden 1997; Rip 1998; de Weert 2000; Jongbloed 2003; de Boer 2003; Huisman and Toonen 2004; Jeliazkova and Westerheijden 2004). In these studies macro-level changes in higher education policy in national and cross-national perspectives as well as processes of organisational change in universities have been investigated.

ABSTRACT The objective of this chapter is to present an analytical framework that encourages further research on middle management in higher education and that will help us to further understand how universities are being led and managed. It is argued that notwithstanding the contributions in this volume, in general, middle management in higher education is under-researched. Given that middle-management positions are becoming increasingly important because of a number of external and internal environmental changes, this in itself is problematic. To the extent that middle management in higher education has been the object of study, with a few exceptions, this has been done largely through case studies in an Anglo-American context. Drawing on the Competing Values Framework, a framework is proposed that could facilitate a more empirical research agenda linking leadership styles to organisational effectiveness.

The New Public Management movement promoting private sector management practices in public sector bureaucracies has impacted higher education institutions in many countries, including Australia and the Netherlands. In these two countries, as elsewhere, universities are being asked to be more entrepreneurial, financially self-sufficient and innovative, while at the same time having their performance assessed and held accountable with respect to

In this first decade of the twenty-first century, universities seem to be caught up in grand contradictions (Clark 1998: 146). They have, for instance, to do more and more with less money, to maintain the expanding cultural heritage with the best of the past and at the same time quickly and flexibly develop new fields of study and modes of thought, and to respond to everyone’s demands because all are ‘stakeholders’. It is, however, not only the ‘angry world outside’ that puts pressure on universities, but also the dynamics of science itself, with its accelerating pace of knowledge growth, specialization and reconfiguration. To deal with these contradictions, problems and tensions, or if one likes to dramatize, to survive in the increasingly tight and competitive world of higher education, universities should have an organisational structure that is able to swiftly respond to this rapidly changing environment. Most of us would tend to agree with this conclusion, but then what should the university decision making structure look like? There are, and have always been, significant differences of opinion on the answer to this question.

The story begins here. Or rather in Copenhagen fifteen years ago. And in New York shortly afterwards. The French street furniture company JCDecaux was tussling with the problem of introducing advertising columns, bus stops and all their other bits of street furniture in Copenhagen. The city needed a new inventory, but recognised with icey, cocksure, dismissive provincial arrogance, how something

ABSTRACT Concluding Observations From the presentations of the survey outcomes is has become clear that substantial differences exist between both types of institutions as well as between countries. To a large extent, the results for the universities in particular still reflect the dominant notion of professional expertise, especially where the primary processes of teaching and research are concerned. At the same time, it also has become clear that the role of the central institutional administration is a non-negligible factor in higher education, especially for what we can call the ‘non-primary processes’ issues. With respect to differences between countries, the study shows substantial variation between the countries. This alone appears to provide sufficient basis to question the general assumption of the continental model. On the European continent clearly different institutional governance systems exist, and it would appear logical to relate these to the different ways in which national governments in these systems have changed their policies and policy priorities over the years. However, to shed further light on these differences, a more detailed analysis of the data will have to be performed, for example relating the survey out-comes to differences in governmental steering paradigms.

The university as an organization is changing, incorporating elements of private sector management in an academic setting. In these transforming universities middle management has changed as well. In this contribution changes in the role and position of the academic deanship are analysed in more detail. On the basis of a literature review, a description of the deanship is provided, including the main challenges this position entails. It is argued that the deanship has become more demanding, more senior, more strategic, more complex and more managerial in nature, though within the overall context of academe. We illustrate both the complexity and changing nature of the deanship by drawing on two empirical studies. Since research on middle management in universities is still rather thin, more research is welcome. Therefore we conclude with some suggestions for further research to enhance our understanding of what we see as a key management position within today's universities.

ABSTRACT As one of the first countries in Europe to do so, The Netherlands moved towards a new relationship between the state and the higher education institutions in the mid‐1980s. Autonomy, quality and accountability were key considerations in this move. In 2006 the Dutch government proposed another radical innovation in its approach to higher education governance, based on the concepts of duties of care and codes of conduct. In this article the new approach is critically discussed and its potential and drawbacks highlighted.

Steering higher education through the establishment of a “contract” between the state and the individual higher education institution is becoming an increasingly popular way of regulating the relationship between the two actors in the Nordic countries. This article addresses ...

... Juli 2010. Fathi, Nazila, 2010: Iran: Strike by Merchants Spreads at Tehran Bazaar. ... In: Miller James N.; Parthemore, Christine; Campbell, Kurt M.; Ross, Dennis; Maloney, Suzanne; Carter, Ashton B.; Nasr, Vali Haass, Richard N., 2008: Iran: Assessing US Strategic Options. ...