Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Ben-David, A. Zloczower (1962)
Universities and Academic Systems in Modern SocietiesEuropean Journal of Sociology, 3
Johan Olsen (2007)
The Institutional Dynamics of the European University
Christine Musselin, C. Paradeise (2009)
France: From Incremental Transitions to Institutional Change
I. Bleiklie, M. Kogan (2006)
Comparison and Theories
I. Bleiklie, Stefan Lange (2010)
Competition and Leadership as Drivers in German and Norwegian University ReformsHigher Education Policy, 23
M. Weber (2008)
Economy and society : an outline of interpretive sociology
C. Hood, O. James, B. Peters, C. Scott (2004)
Controlling Modern Government
Malcolm Campbell (1988)
The Academic profession : national, disciplinary, and institutional settingsHistory of Education Quarterly, 28
J. Huisman, L. Meek, F. Wood (2007)
Institutional Diversity in Higher Education: a Cross‐National and Longitudinal AnalysisHigher Education Quarterly, 61
J. Enders, O. Fulton (2002)
Blurring Boundaries and Blistering Institutions: An Introduction
V. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, J. Huisman (2000)
Understanding diversity and differentiation in higher education: an overviewHigher Education Policy, 13
C. Paradeise, E. Reale, Gaële Goastellec, I. Bleiklie (2009)
Universities Steering between Stories and History
I. Bleiklie, M. Kogan (2007)
Organization and Governance of UniversitiesHigher Education Policy, 20
Nils Brunsson, Kerstin Sahlin-Andersson (2000)
Constructing Organizations: The Example of Public Sector ReformOrganization Studies, 21
K. Weick (1976)
Educational organizations as loosely coupled systemsGestión y Estrategia
I. Bleiklie (2009)
Norway: From Tortoise to Eager Beaver?
K. Verhoest, Paul Roness, B. Verschuere, Kristin Rubecksen, Muiris MacCarthaigh (2010)
Autonomy and Control of State Agencies: Comparing States and Agencies
C. Paradeise (2009)
University governance : Western European comparative perspectives
P. Pierson (2000)
Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of PoliticsAmerican Political Science Review, 94
A. Corbett (2005)
Universities and the Europe of knowledge
J. Huisman (2009)
Institutional diversification or convergence
E. Ferlie, Gianluca Andresani (2009)
United Kingdom from Bureau Professionalism to New Public Management
H. Perkin (2007)
History of Universities
M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie, M. Henkel (2000)
Transforming Higher Education: A Comparative Study
B. Lepori, P. Besselaar, M. Dinges, B. Potì, E. Reale, Stig Slipersaeter, Jean Thèves, B. Meulen (2007)
Comparing the evolution of national research policies: what patterns of change?Science and Public Policy, 34
I. Bleiklie (1998)
Justifying the Evaluative State : New Public Management ideals in higher educationEuropean Journal of Education, 33
J. Witte, Marijk Wende, J. Huisman (2008)
Blurring boundaries: how the Bologna process changes the relationship between university and non‐university higher education in Germany, the Netherlands and FranceStudies in Higher Education, 33
K. Verhoest, Paul Roness, B. Verschuere, Kristin Rubecksen, Muiris MacCarthaigh (2010)
Autonomy and Control of State Agencies
I. Bleiklie (2007)
Systemic Integration and Macro SteeringHigher Education Policy, 20
George Keller (1983)
Academic Strategy: The Management Revolution in American Higher Education
[Since their origin in medieval Europe, university power arrangements have been shaped by a tension between two principles of coordination: collegiality and hierarchy. The collegial principle holds that academics as a group of peers make decisions on behalf of the institution. Institutional leaders are elected by and among members of the academic community and negotiate on behalf of the academic peer group with funders and stakeholders to secure the flow of resources to the institution while preserving its autonomy. Collegiality has traditionally been supported by academics who strive to control the working conditions of the institutions in which they work. The hierarchical principle, on the other hand, holds that institutional leaders (rectors, vice-chancellors, presidents) make decisions on behalf of the institution with a view to the interests of major funders and other stakeholders and apply the means necessary to see their decisions implemented by subordinate faculty and department levels. They may be appointed by or otherwise depend upon other actors than their academic peers, be it the government, board of trustees, or private donors. They are, therefore, inclined to try to control the institutions and the academics within them from above. The hierarchical principle has traditionally been promoted by actors (e.g., public or religious authorities, business interests) who wish to use academics and their knowledge in pursuit of their own ends.]
Published: Nov 5, 2015
Keywords: Academic Freedom; High Education System; High Education Policy; Institutional Leader; Institutional Autonomy
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.