Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Epistemic Governance in Higher Education pp 13–60Cite as

Governance: Governance of and in Higher Education

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Business ((BRIEFSBUSINESS))

Abstract

Conventionally, in a standard understanding, governance is being associated with governments. However, governance also could be used more generally with regard to strategies and decision-making of political and non-political organizations and institutions. Under the general title of “good governance” the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) defines governance as: “the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented)”.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In context of higher education, the concept of the organization conceives higher education more as a “social organization”, focusing also on the social structures and processes of the (individual) members in such organizations. The perspective of HEIs (Higher Education Institutions), on the contrary, emphasizes seeing higher education in reference to institutional aspects, exactly as a “(public) institution”, looking more closely on the (official) functioning of the higher-education institution internally and the (governance) interaction between the higher-education institution and the government and other external institutional actors. Universities and other HEIs, therefore, can always be approached from an organizational as well as an institutional perspective. The glossary of EVALAG (Evaluationsagentur Baden-Württemberg) states here: “Die Begriffe ‘Institution’ und ‘Organisation’ sprechen zwei unterschiedliche Aspekte der Hochschule an: Die Hochschule als soziale Organisation ist gekennzeichnet durch das Zusammenwirken von Individuen und Kollektiven auf der Grundlage geronnener sozialer Regeln. Organisationen haben die Fähigkeit zur kollektiven Willensbildung und Steuerung des Handelns bzw. Verhaltens ihrer Mitglieder. Die Hochschule als (staatliche) Institution ist gekennzeichnet durch Regelwerke der Verteilung und Ausübung von Macht, der Festlegung von Zuständigkeiten und Verantwortlichkeiten, der Verfügung über Ressourcen sowie durch Hierarchien bestimmter Ausprägung” (EVALAG 2011, p 1).

  2. 2.

    Later, in Sect. 3.2.2, we develop how the underlying “knowledge paradigms” of higher education express a decisive influence on the higher education system.

  3. 3.

    See later in Sect. 3.2.3, how Rhodes (1996) influenced the “Network Governance” narrative of Ferlie et al. (2009).

  4. 4.

    See also Rhodes (2008) and Rhodes et al. (2009).

  5. 5.

    According to Raab (1994, pp 17, 20), Walter Kickert presented his article (Kickert 1995) already earlier as a paper during a workshop organized by the European Consortium for Political Research at the University of Essex, back in 1991.

  6. 6.

    For an example of an interesting analysis of the applicability of systems or networks to the field of research policy, see Kritzinger et al. (2006).

  7. 7.

    “Zum einen hat sich eine systemische Steuerungstheorie damit auseinanderzusetzen, dass die neuere Systemtheorie Steuerung überhaupt nur in der Form der Selbststeuerung begreiflich machen kann. Sie betont mit triftigen Gründen die Eigenlogik, Autonomie und operative Geschlossenheit komplexer System und schließt daraus, dass eine direkte externe Beeinflussung oder Steuerung keinen Erfolg haben kann” (Willke 1998, p 1).

  8. 8.

    “Es erscheint deshalb angebracht, eine angemessene Konzeption der Intervention in komplexe Sozialsysteme zu entwickeln. Diese sollte nicht mehr auf der Vorstellung direkter kausaler Steuerung gründen, sondern auf der Vorstellung einer Anleitung zur Selbststeuerung. Komplexe Systeme, die an ihren eigenen spezialisierten Operationsmodus gebunden sind, können Außenwirkungen überhaupt nur dann als Informationsangebote ‘verstehen’ und auswerten, wenn diese in einer Form vorliegen, die nach den Suchschemata (Beobachtungskriterien, Leitdifferenzen) des intervenierten Systems Sinn machen” (Willke 1989, p 130).

  9. 9.

    “Erst die allmähliche Einsicht in die Besonderheiten der Operationsweise komplexer, selbstreferentieller Systeme verhilft dazu, die Problematik korrigierender Intervention in einen geeigneteren Bezugsrahmen zu bringen: in denjenigen der Bedingungen der Möglichkeit einer kontrollierten Anregung zur Selbständerung autonomer Systeme” (Willke 1989, p 130).

  10. 10.

    “Möglich sind kontextuelle Interventionen, die in Form einer Optionenpolitik die Kontextbedingungen für ein System oder Problembereich verändern und andere Optionen ins Spiel bringen. Ich habe dies in anderen Arbeiten ausführlich als Idee der dezentralen Kontextsteuerung erörtert… Und erst die Fähigkeit zu einem reflexiven Verstehen der Operationslogik anderer Systeme ermöglicht es einem Akteur, Interventionen so anzusetzen, dass damit Änderungsprozesse nicht blockiert, sondern Anreize zur Selbständerung gegeben werden” (Willke 1989, p 134).

  11. 11.

    “In der neueren Systemtheorie tritt dieses Paradigma von Teil und Ganzem in den Hintergrund und wird ersetzt durch die leitende Vorstellung einer Differenz von System und Umwelt. Zwar bilden entwickelte Systeme, etwa Gesellschaften, durchaus auch interne Umwelten aus im Sinne domestizierter Räume, in denen sich die Subsysteme des Gesamtsystems bewegen. Doch kann das Verhältnis zwischen Systemen und Subsystemen nicht mehr begriffen werden als die Beziehung zwischen einem Ganzen und seinen Teilen. Vielmehr wird es nun verstanden als intersystemische Beziehung, welche im Medium einer gemeinsamen unterschiedlichen Umwelt die je spezifischen System-Umwelt-Relationen partiell autonomer Systeme umfasst” (Willke 1989, p 86).

  12. 12.

    It could be argued that institutionally (de facto) the supranational EU resembles only a “weak state”, i.e. a weak government. However, in terms of sustainable policy, the EU imposes a regime of “strong governance” (at least in some policy fields). The proposition here, for the EU, would be the paradoxical correlation of a weak government in combination with strong governance.

  13. 13.

    “Moderation of politics” falls here more in line with a “negotiation of politics”, when Kuhlmann (1998, p 167) emphasizes that his book reflects on “… zu den Bedingungen der Möglichkeit der Moderation von Politik und der Bedeutung von Evaluationsverfahren als Moderationsmedium”.

  14. 14.

    See and review later, in Sect. 3.2.2, the arguments, how the “self-rationale” and the underlying “knowledge paradigms” of higher education interfere and interplay.

  15. 15.

    Referring to systems theoretical notions, “external governance” also could be interpreted as something that constitutes (co-constitutes) an “external environment” for institutions, sectors and systems, since institutions (sectors, systems) must adapt or at least reflect on their external (social, societal) environments, including external governance attempts (see again our analysis in Sect. 3.1 and the specific references to Willke 1989, and Luhmann 1988).

  16. 16.

    Lundvall (1992, p 18) describes this knowledge in and for the knowledge economy in the following terms: “Knowledge does not decrease in value when used. On the contrary, its use increases its value; i.e. knowledge is not scarce in the same sense as other natural resources and technical artifacts. Some elements of knowledge may be transferred, easily, between economic agents while others are tacit and embodied in individual, or collective, agents.”

  17. 17.

    Conceptually, of course, political economy and the knowledge economy can be constructed or interpreted as an antithesis. This is partially done by Leydesdorff (2012, pp 25, 32), when he asserts: “In a knowledge-based economy—as against a political economy—the structure of society is continuously upset by transformations which originate from the techno-sciences. … The transformation from a political economy to a knowledge-based economy became a major driver of the competition at the macro-level after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the demise of the Soviet Union (1990–1991). The political economy was gradually transformed into a knowledge-based economy because the battle between different ways of shaping political economies has become obsolete”. In our analysis, presented here, we are more inclined of not interpreting political economy and knowledge-based economy (knowledge economy) as conceptually adverse. We prefer to understand the knowledge economy as defining and delivering a specific context for political economy or the development of political economy.

  18. 18.

    It is almost impossible to imagine a progress of knowledge economy and knowledge society (in context of the twenty-first century, but also later) without a further development of higher education, whatever form higher education may take in the future.

  19. 19.

    In context of our analysis we leave it open whether or not “epistemic” and “epistemological” could be used interchangeable or whether there is (a slight) difference in meaning.

  20. 20.

    See also Vadrot (2008) for an earlier writing of Vadrot.

  21. 21.

    It would be a separate, but of course interesting discourse, to inquire, how epistemic governance may relate to “epistemic communities” (e.g., Carayannis et al. 2012) or “epistemic democracy” (for example, Fuerstein 2008; Rothstein 2011).

  22. 22.

    This observation can be verified easily by a word retrieval command of the indicated (electronic) document. In a modern policy context, it probably would be unthinkable that such a comprehensive and important macro-level strategy paper has no explicit references to innovation. We see here, to which extent the word and term of “innovation” already has diffused out into our every-day professional language during the course of the last half century. But this certainly was not the case before or earlier in the twentieth century.

  23. 23.

    See also: Danilda et al. 2009.

  24. 24.

    “The Quintuple Helix model is interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary at the same time: the complexity of the five-helix structure implies that a full analytical understanding of all helices requires the continuous involvement of the whole disciplinary spectrum, ranging from the natural sciences (because of the natural environment) to the social sciences and humanities (because of society, democracy and the economy). The Quintuple Helix also is transdisciplinary, since it can be used as a frame of reference for decision-making in connection to knowledge, innovation and the (natural) environment” (Carayannis and Campbell 2011, p 62). See, furthermore, Campbell and Campbell (2011, pp 15–16, 23–27).

  25. 25.

    One may formulate the proposition that the term “knowledge production” in Gibbons et al. (1994) already incorporates the whole spectrum of “knowledge production” and “knowledge creation”. An attempted distinction could emphasize that in context of higher education, knowledge creation is more basic or fundamental than knowledge production. However, throughout the whole text here, the terms of knowledge creation and knowledge production are being used in an interchangeable way and manner.

  26. 26.

    This emphasis on application, however, certainly does not imply that basic research becomes replaced by applied research. This would be a misperception or wrong interpretation (Gibbons et al. 1994, pp 4, 33–34).

  27. 27.

    In Sect. 3.2.4 we again iterate our quality definitions of Mode 1 and Mode 2 (presented here) by linking Mode 1 and Mode 2 to possible “quality dimensions” of quality assurance, quality enhancement and quality management in and of higher education.

  28. 28.

    On a further discussion of interdisciplinarity (“Interdisziplinarität”), see also Arnold (2009, pp 65–97).

  29. 29.

    For interesting, creative and innovative examples of integrating and analytically combining research in fields and disciplines of the social sciences and natural sciences, see furthermore: Gottweis 1998; Hindmarsh and Prainsack 2010; and Prainsack and Wolinsky 2010.

  30. 30.

    Civil society represents explicitly one reference for the Quadruple Helix innovation system, by this also co-constituting the Quadruple Helix (Carayannis and Campbell 2009, p 207; 2011; 2012, pp 13–14).

  31. 31.

    See also the concluding analytical wrap-up in the Conclusion (Chap. 4).

  32. 32.

    In pragmatic terms, of course, the empirical trend still would have to be verified: “It remains to be seen, whether cross-employment has the capability to establish itself as an additional and positively-defined role model for academic careers in higher education, in parallel to the already existing role mode of tenure-track (tenure)” (Carayannis and Campbell 2012, p 26).

  33. 33.

    “Governance erscheint dabei oft als eine flexible und zu begrüßende Alternative zu den alternativen Ordnungsmechanismen Hierarchie und Markt. Sie wird als selbstorganisierter Prozess dargestellt, der in interorganisationalen Netzwerken autonomer AkteurInnen aus Staat, Wirtschaft und Zivilgesellschaft stattfindet, die in der politikwissenschaftlichen und soziologischen Literatur implizit oft auch als gleichrangig beschrieben werden” (Biegelbauer 2010, p 11). See also and compare with Krücken 2003a and 2003b, and Krücken et al. 2007.

  34. 34.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_in_higher_education (retrieved on Feb 7, 2011).

  35. 35.

    Reference is made here to Neave (2007).

  36. 36.

    In the federal and de-centralized German higher education system, not the national government, but the Länder (the German provinces at the sub-national level that could be categorized as sub-national “states”) carry the primary responsibility for higher education and the higher education institutions.

  37. 37.

    On Austria, Kehm and Lanzendorf (2006c, p 205) comment in the following way: “In less than five years, Austria has gone almost as far as the forerunners of reform in more than 20 years of implementing and refining reforms”.

  38. 38.

    Systems theory is also inclined to emphasize ideas in reference to self-governance.

  39. 39.

    Consequently, we may ask whether entrepreneurial universities do not also demand and require “academic firms” as the complementary opposite for comprehensively unfolding the entrepreneurial drive (Campbell and Güttel 2005, pp 170–172)? As already elaborated in Sect. 3.2.2, we might experience a co-evolution of Mode 1, Mode 2 (= entrepreneurial universities?) and Mode 3 universities (and of university sub-units) on the one hand, and of academic firms and commercial firms on the other. This co-evolution potentially marks a dominant trajectory scenario for the advancement of knowledge societies and knowledge economies.

  40. 40.

    The article in Higher Education was titled by Ferlie et al. (2008): “The Steering of Higher Education Systems: A Public Management Perspective”. Whereas, the book chapter is being titled (Ferlie et al. 2009): “The Governance of Higher Education Systems: A Public Management Perspective”. This could be taken as a metaphorical illustration, how conceptually ambiguous it may be in many and several cases, to decide, whether one should speak of governance or of steering in higher education. For both approaches (versions of wording) a reasonable reasoning can be provided.

  41. 41.

    This asserted public management perspective certainly has plausibility for higher education in Europe. In the U.S., the situation already is more complex (see again Figs. 2.4 and 2.6 in Sect. 2.2): there, the dominance of private financing in and of tertiary education obviously challenges the proposition that higher education in the U.S. would resemble a public or semi-public sector. The American particularity has not really been addressed by Ferlie et al. (2009). Besides the U.S., there are also other OECD countries with a strong private funding component for tertiary education: for example, Canada, Japan, South Korea, and Chile (OECD 2009, p 211).

  42. 42.

    In their earlier article in Higher Education, Ferlie et al. (2008, pp 334–340) even speak of “Three main narratives of public sector reforming and how they apply to higher education”. In addition to New Public Management and Network governance, they present the “Neo-Weberian narrative” as the third narrative. This structure then was reduced to two narratives in Ferlie et al. (2009, pp 12–18).

  43. 43.

    Compare also again with Magalhães and Amaral (2009, p 188).

  44. 44.

    New Public Management, here, incorporates many references to quality assurance, quality enhancement and quality management (see the follow-up Sect. 3.2.4 later).

  45. 45.

    Compare also with Rhodes (1996). Some of the features of the “Network Governance” narrative (Ferlie et al. 2009) already are being explicitly addressed by Rhodes’ (1996) “Governing without Government”.

  46. 46.

    This here allows for conceptual cross-references with and to the self-rationale, self-organization, self-steering and self-governance in systems theory (see Sect. 3.1).

  47. 47.

    This understanding clearly cross-refers to notions of systems theory.

  48. 48.

    See again our definition of knowledge paradigms for epistemic governance of and in higher education in Sect. 3.2.2).

  49. 49.

    ENQA is the acronym for: the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.

  50. 50.

    Teichler (2006) names and lists the following quality assurance approaches in higher education: assessment, reviews, evaluation, accreditation (licensing), and audit.

  51. 51.

    In terminological terms, when one is interested in distinguishing between assessment and evaluation, the assertion may be that an evaluation represents a comprehensive and deeper-going form of assessment, while the assessment falls more in line with an “evaluation light”. However, in practical policy terms, the distinctions can be blurred, if not even sometimes misleading. The UK Research Assessment Exercise (now REF, the Research Excellence Framework) is an international example for one of the most comprehensive ex-post evaluation systems of university research that ever was implemented and existed empirically, however, it is being called an “assessment”, and not an “evaluation” (even though evaluation might have been the better wording here).

  52. 52.

    See also again the “New Public Management narrative” of Ferlie et al. (2009) in Sect. 3.2.3, with the specific references to markets.

  53. 53.

    In practice, very different designs of evaluation are possible. For example, the University of Applied Arts in Vienna implemented and still is in the process of implementing an evaluation system of teaching, which encourages the autonomy but also self-responsibility of the lecturers (Blimlinger et al. 2010). Evaluation also can be challenged by new trends, such as globalization or also the diffusion and arrival of new media, such as the digital media (Pfeffer 2012).

  54. 54.

    Concerning the RAE 2008, see: http://www.rae.ac.uk/.

  55. 55.

    On REF, see: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/ref/.

  56. 56.

    The acronym HEFCs stands for: Higher Education Funding Councils (in the UK).

  57. 57.

    Such a possible shift in sensitivities of university management would be compatible with propositions of New Public Management, NPM (see our discussion back in Sect. 3.2.3).

  58. 58.

    See here some of the relating ideas and arguments in Dubina et al. (2012).

  59. 59.

    Depicted more narrowly, one may ask (Campbell 2003, p 111: Is there a “co-evolution of research quality and research evaluation”?

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies, Alpen-Adria-University Klagenfurt, Schottenfeldgasse 29, 1070, Vienna, Austria

    David F. J. Campbell

  2. Unit for Quality Enhancement, University of Applied Arts Vienna, Oskar Kokoschka-Platz 2, 1010, Vienna, Austria

    David F. J. Campbell

  3. School of Business, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 20052, USA

    Elias G. Carayannis

Authors
  1. David F. J. Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elias G. Carayannis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David F. J. Campbell .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Campbell, D.F.J., Carayannis, E.G. (2012). Governance: Governance of and in Higher Education. In: Epistemic Governance in Higher Education. SpringerBriefs in Business. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4418-3_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation