Abstract
This chapter is being guided by the following main research question: How does the academic profession perceive the evaluation of research and teaching in higher education? Possible governance references for higher education may be the “New Public Management (NPM)” and “Network Governance”. For further discussion, and based on empirical results of our analysis, we want to formulate three propositions. (1) “Bad NPM” or “good NPM” governance in combination with the evaluation of research and teaching: fair evaluations represent evaluation systems not over-steered by top-down (bureaucratic) governance approaches. Good NPM would be a performance-based, evaluation-based and quality-based governance of higher education in mutual configurations. (2) Different NPM country clusters of governance and evaluation: depending on the applied “dimension” (indicator, indicator package) of governance and evaluation, different country clusters of NPM governance in higher education show up. There does not exist a single map of NPM governance in higher education in Europe. This should be regarded as an argument in favor of the manifold opportunities of developing evaluation creatively. (3) Evaluation-based governance of research and teaching: universities are more inclined toward research-oriented evaluation systems linked to governance, while other higher education institutions often lean toward teaching-oriented evaluation systems. There is a challenge how to “cross-fertilize” evaluation approaches in research and teaching.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
Let us briefly reflect on the theoretical concepts of knowledge, knowledge production and innovation systems. While earlier theories (models) were narrower, there is now greater sensitivity for context. Considering current theories, we could assert that there is a certain tendency to conceptualise and understand knowledge in a continuously broader sense (see Carayannis and Campbell 2012). Knowledge and knowledge production (research, teaching and education) represent crucial features of and for universities and other HEIs.
- 3.
- 4.
Portugal is the only country where, in a university context, most senior staff (based on their replies) assigned the decisive influence on the evaluation of university research to external governance.
- 5.
For example, one consequence of the evaluation-of-teaching-system at the University of Applied Arts in Vienna is that it has implemented a relationship of mutual trust between lecturers and the leadership of the university, where the lecturers are the “only owners” of the (of their) evaluation results (see Blimlinger et al. 2010).
- 6.
For the discussion of a comprehensive model of the evaluation of university (and university-related) research in Austria, see Campbell and Felderer (1999).
- 7.
An alternative interpretation here may be that respondents of other higher education institutions associated the performance-based and evaluation-based resource allocation (as a concept and term) more closely to research than to teaching.
- 8.
In our following discussion here we also refer to results of the factor analysis in Sect. 10.4.
References
Barker, K. (2007). The UK research assessment exercise: The evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Evaluation, 16(1), 3–12.
Bleiklie, I., Enders, J., Lepori, B., & Musselin, C. (2011). New public management, network governance and the university as a changing professional organization. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to new public management (pp. 161–176). Hertfordshire: MPG Group.
Blimlinger, E., Bruckmann, M., Campbell, D. F. J., Kernegger, B., Krieger, V., Mann, S., Mateus-Berr, R., Putz-Plecko, B., Raith, K., Rendl-Denk, E., Schnell, V., & Wiala, M. (2010). Teaching, quality, evaluation: An applied concept. Vienna: University of Applied Arts Vienna. http://www.uni-ak.ac.at/uqe/download/TeachingEvaluation_AppliedConcept.pdf.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. (1997). Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
Campbell, D. F. J. (1997). Evaluating academic research in Germany: Patterns and policies (Political Science Series, No. 48). Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies//IHS. http://www.ihs.ac.at/vienna/publication.php?tool_e_action=download_file&id=422
Campbell, D. F. J. (1999). Evaluation universitärer Forschung: Entwicklungstrends und neue Strategiemuster für wissenschaftsbasierte Gesellschaften [Evaluation of university research. Trends and new strategies for science-based societies]. SWS-Rundschau, 39(4), 363–383.
Campbell, D. F. J. (2003). The evaluation of university research in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. In P. Shapira & S. Kuhlmann (Eds.), Learning from science and technology policy evaluation: Experiences from the United States and Europe (pp. 98–131). Camberley: Edward Elgar.
Campbell, D. F. J. (2006a). The research assessment exercise 2008 in the United Kingdom. Newsletter der Plattform Forschungs- und Technologieevaluierung (FTEVAL) 28, 32–47. http://www.fteval.at/cms/assets/files/newsletter/Newsletter_28.pdf
Campbell, D. F. J. (2006b). The university/business research networks in science and technology: Knowledge production trends in the United States, European Union and Japan. In E. G. Carayannis & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters: A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia (pp. 67–100). Westport: Praeger.
Campbell, D. F. J., & Carayannis, E. G. (2013). Epistemic governance in higher education. Quality enhancement of universities for development. New York: Springer. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/organization/book/978-1-4614-4417-6
Campbell, D. F. J., & Felderer, B. (1999). Empfehlungen zur Evaluation universitärer und außeruniversitärer Forschung in Österreich [Recommendations for the evaluation of university and university-related research in Austria] (Political Science Series, No. 66). Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies//IHS. http://www.ihs.ac.at/vienna/publication.php?tool_e_action=download_file&id=342
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (Eds.). (2006). Knowledge creation, diffusion and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. Westport: Praeger.
Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). Mode 3 knowledge production in Quadruple Helix innovation systems: 21st-century democracy, innovation, and entrepreneurship for development. New York: Springer. http://www.springer.com/business+%26+management/book/978-1-4614-2061-3.
Denters, B., van Heffen, O., Huisman, J., & Klok, P.-J. (Eds.). (2003). The rise of interactive governance and quasi-markets. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
ENQA. (2009). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (3rd ed.). Helsinki: European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso.
Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2008). The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspective. Higher Education, 56(3), 325–348.
Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G. (2009). The governance of higher education systems: A public management perspective. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University governance: Western European comparative perspectives (pp. 1–20). Dordrecht: Springer.
Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41, 277–304.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
HEFCE. (2010). Guide to funding: How HEFCE allocates its funds. Bristol: HEFCE. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2010/10_24/10_24.pdf.
LeGrand, J., & Bartlett, W. (1993). Quasi-markets and social policy. London: Macmillan Press.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re-thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). Mode 2 revisited: The new production of knowledge. Minerva, 41, 179–194.
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2006). Re-thinking science: Mode 2 in societal context. In E. G. Carayannis & D. F. J. Campbell (Eds.), Knowledge creation, diffusion, and use in innovation networks and knowledge clusters. A comparative systems approach across the United States, Europe and Asia (pp. 39–51). Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
OECD. (2008). Tertiary education for the knowledge society. Special features: Governance, funding, quality (Vol. 1). Paris: OECD.
Pechar, H. (2006). Vom Vertrauensvorschuss zur Rechenschaftspflicht: Der Paradigmenwechsel in der britischen Hochschul- und Forschungspolitik seit 1980 [From credit of trust to accountability: shift of paradigm in UK higher education and research policy since 1980]. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 35(1), 57–73.
Teichler, U. (2006). Was ist Qualität? [What is quality?] In V. Chalvet & W. Dreger (Eds.), Von der Qualitätssicherung der Lehre zur Qualitätsentwicklung als Prinzip der Hochschulsteuerung [From quality assurance in teaching to quality enhancement as a principle of governance in higher education] (Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik, Vol. 1/2006, pp. 168–184). Bonn: Hochschulkonferenz.
Whitley, R. (2007). Changing governance of the public sciences: The consequences of establishing research evaluation systems for knowledge production in different countries and scientific fields. In R. Whitley & J. Gläser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 1–25). Dordrecht: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Campbell, D.F.J. (2013). New University Governance: How the Academic Profession Perceives the Evaluation of Research and Teaching. In: Teichler, U., Höhle, E. (eds) The Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Europe: Findings of a Survey in Twelve Countries. The Changing Academy – The Changing Academic Profession in International Comparative Perspective, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5977-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5977-0_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5976-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5977-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)