Abstract
How do Higher Education Institutions respond to steering attempts in different disciplines? How can different responses be explained? Case studies have been developed in the Italian Higher Education context and at the departmental level, with a focus on government interventions through funding and evaluation of research. The paper tests the predictions of the model proposed by Oliver (1991) to forecast acquiescence and resistance to external pressures, and develops a new model to interpret and predict organisational response from a wider perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The focus is on the organisation’s internal governance rather than on the HE system governance, i.e. on the internal decision process and the distribution of powers among internal actors (in this paper, the departments). An analysis of the Italian HE system governance and of the Italian HEIs internal governance is developed by Capano (2008), Paletta (2004), Paradise et al. (2009), and Seeber (2009).
The reform wave in later years was defined as ‘managerial’.
The principle of autonomy of the universities was introduced, alongside the principle of financial responsibility, and universities were given the power to choose their own personnel. Moreover, an ad hoc institution (Osservatorio degli Atenei) was established with duties concerning research and teaching evaluation (Law 168/1989). Law 59/1997 implemented the decentralisation of public administration activities and introduced the concept of accountability as a fundamental means to guarantee responsibility and transparency. In 1999 the “Osservatorio degli Atenei” became the CNVSU (National Committee for the Evaluation of the Academic System). Decree 224/1999 required that each university create an internal evaluation body (Nucleo di Valutazione—NUV) to support CNVSU evaluation processes.
Commitee for Steering the Evaluation of Research (CIVR).
Quantity was not considered because the number of products was fixed: universities had to send one research output for every four researchers, while research agencies had to send one product for every two researchers. A product in the top 20 of the international quality scale was judged as ‘excellent’, if it was in the top 20–40 it was ‘good’, and so on.
Current Euros; source: CRUI (2008), Il fondo di finanziamento ordinario (1994–2008).
In million dollars 2000: total HERD expenditure in Italy in 2006 was 5.327, compared to 3.477 in Spain, 6.850 in France, 8.134 in the UK, and 9.314 in Germany (OECD, MSTI Database).
Management topics are gaining increasing importance in the Italian context, in relation to both training demands and socio-economic impact. About 7.5% of Italian professors work in economic faculties. Italian researchers dealing with economic subjects are 5.5% of the total professors (MIUR database, CIVR). The average impact (number of citations per article) of Italian publications in the ISI category of ‘management’ grew from 0.44 in the 1990–1994 period to 1.54 in 2000–2004; despite still being below the world average of 1.95, it grew 68% more than the average world growth (Breno et al. 2005). The Italian share in the world’s scientific production in 2000–2004 was 2.1%. In 2006–2007, the number of students attending courses on management topics was 10% the whole student population.
Biomedical Science and Physics comprise disciplines that are widespread and deeply rooted in the Italian context. The impact of Italian articles in the related ISI categories is higher and rising faster than the world average (Breno et al. 2005). Researchers in the Biomedical Science Department mostly work in the Medicine and Biology fields, which represent 24.3% of researchers and receive 19% of the MIUR’s investment in research (MIUR database, CIVR). The field of Physics includes many researchers, also in national research institutes; it represents 12% of researchers and receives 37% of the MIUR’s investment in research (MIUR database, CIVR).
In 2005, the department invested part of the core funding in co-funding national competitive projects (18,000 €). A share of the funds was distributed among the researchers who required support for research (23,000 €, 600 € to each researcher). A share was invested in other actions to support research activity (34,000 €). Source: UNIMORE research evaluation process 2006.
VTR results and the name of the authors of the products were announced during the department council, thus providing an explicit acknowledgement of their work.
The situation has clearly changed in comparison to a decade ago, when talking about evaluation of research would have been a taboo for many researchers. The impact on behaviour might be the next step, as the case of UNIBO partially shows (see Table 2).
AIDEA—Associazione Italiana di Economia Aziendale; see also: http://www.accademiaaidea.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=292&Itemid=91&lang=en.
At UNIBO due to the process promoted by the university, at UNIMORE due to the VTR.
Ferlie et al. 1996.
Researchers at UNIMORE also agreed on increasing the department’s budget through a 5% deduction on revenues from masters and services, to be invested in paying for temporary research contracts.
National Institute for Nuclear Physics. INFN sections are often located inside the university structures, as in Bologna. A portion of the research personnel is internal to the INFN but the majority is from the University. The Director of the INFN section of Bologna is a professor of the Department.
National Institute for Geology and Vulcanology. The INGV is located outside the University. Co-operations and interconnections are not as strong as in the case of the INFN.
According to the concept that ‘without money you can’t do research’ (Biomedical Science).
The banking Foundation Cassa di Risparmio di Modena (FCRM) is a non-profit institution; its mission is to invest for the benefit of the land of Modena; scientific research is one of its investment fields. The esteemed revenues for 2007 are 80.7 million Euros. The FCRM distributes yearly about four times the amount of money distributed by the central administration of UNIMORE.
The budget of the departments does not always include all the available funds, because they may go directly to the budget of the professors or be included in the budget of the research institute.
Some factors explain the strong bond with the Faculty of Bioscience: institutional aspects (the dean of the Faculty is in the Department of Biomedical Science), critical mass (more than one-third of the professors of the Faculty of Bioscience work in the Department of Biomedical Science), and similarities between teaching issues of the faculty and research topics of the department.
References
Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for lemons: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.
Breno, E., Fava, A. G., Guardabasso, V., & Stefanelli, M. (2005). Un aggiornamento sull’impatto della ricerca scientifica e tecnologica italiana in ambito internazionale (1981–2004). CRUI: Analisi Preliminare Roma.
Capano, G. (1999). Italy the endless transition? In D. Braun & F. X. Merrien (Eds.), Towards a new Model of Governance for Universities? A comparative view. Jessica Kingsley: London.
Capano, G. (2008). Looking for serendipity: The problematic reform of government within Italian universities. Higher Education, 55, 481–504.
Clark, B. (1977). Academic power in Italy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Clark, B. (1983). The Higher Education System. Chicago: University of California Press.
Cohen, M. D., & March, J. G. (1974). Leadership and ambiguity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Da Costa, O., Laget, P., Delicado, A., di Pietrogiacomo, P., & Moguerou, P. (2007). Research in University: Changes and challenges in funding and governance. Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies–Joint Research Centre/European Commission.
Di Maggio, P. T., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
Ferlie, E., Ashburner, L., FitzGerald, L., & Pettigrew, A. (1996). The new public management in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giglioli, P. P. (1979). Baroni e burocrati, Bologna, Il Mulino.
Hansmann, H. (1999). The state and the market in Higher Education. New Haven: Yale Law School.
Huisman, J., & Meek, L. (1999). New study programmes at universites: Strategic adaptation versus institutional adjustment. In B. Jongbloed, P. Maassen, & G. Neave (Eds.), From the eye of the storm; Higher Education’s Changing Institutions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Maassen, P., & Gornitzka, A. (1999). Integrating two theoretical perspectives on organizational adaptation. In B. Jongbloed, P. Maassen, & G. Neave (Eds.), From the eye of the storm; Higher Education’s Changing Institutions. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Discovering institutions. New York: The Free Press.
Meek, V. L. (1991). The transformation of Australian higher education from binary to unitary system. Higher Education, 21, 461–494.
Moscati, R. (1991). Italy. In G. Neave & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), Prometheus bound: The changing relationship between government and higher education in Western Europe (pp. 91–108). Oxford: Pergamon Press plc.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic response to institutional processes. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
Ongaro, E., & Vallotti, G. (2008). Public management reform in Italy: Explaining the implementation gap. The International Journal of the Public Sector Management, 21(2), 174–204.
Paletta, A. (2004). Il Governo dell’Università, tra competizione e accountability, Bologna, Il Mulino.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organization; A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
Reale, E. (2003). The evaluation of public research institutions in Italy: Comparing different approaches. International Conference on Evaluation of Government Funded R&D Activities, Fteval, Vien, available at: http://www.fteval.at/papers/data/6/reale/person.html.
Reale, E., & Potì, B. (2009). Changing patterns in the steering of University in Italy: Funding rules and doctoral programmes. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University Governance: Western European comparative perspectives. Springer: Dordrecht.
Reale, E., & Seeber, M. (2007). Changes in funding, evaluation and management in the Italian University: impact on research activity, 20 CHER Conference “The Research Mission of the University”, Dublin, 30th August–1 September.
Rebora, G., & Turri, M. (2009). Governance in Higher Education: An analysis of the Italian experience. In J. Huisman (Ed.), International Perspective on the Governance of Higher Education. Abingdom: Routledge.
Rizzi, D., Silvestri, P. (2000). Mercato, concorrenza e regole nel sistema universitario italiano Università degli studi Ca’ Foscari di Venezia, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, WP.
Seeber, M. (2009). Changes in the governance of the Italian Higher Education system, the role of evaluation and funding as steering tools of research, Doctoral Thesis, Chieti—February 24th 2009, University of Chieti-Pescara—Doctoral course ‘Method and tools of research evaluation’.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reale, E., Seeber, M. Organisation response to institutional pressures in Higher Education: the important role of the disciplines. High Educ 61, 1–22 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9322-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9322-x