Abstract
For a long time, studies on public management have underlined the central role of new public management (NPM) and neglected other new forms of public management. Kickert (Public management and administrative reform in Western Europe. Edward Elgar Publications, Cheltenham/Lyme, 1997) developed an alternative, the network governance (NG) narrative. With reference to a number of central NPM and NG elements, this chapter analyzes the management reform of Swiss and Norwegian doctoral education in the last 10 years by taking into account four variables, namely type of national political system (federal vs. centralized), disciplinary profile (specialist vs. generalist), size of higher education institutions (HEIs) and the type of scientific discipline (soft vs. hard and pure vs. applied). Thus, it examines the extent to which elements of one or other of the public management narratives appear according to the four variables. On the basis of this analysis, the following thesis composed of two ideal types can be posited: on the one hand, elements of NPM have the best chance of application in the case of hard and applied sciences situated in small, specialist HEIs within centralized countries. On the other hand, it is the NG narrative which is likely to apply to soft pure sciences situated in larger, generalist HEIs of federal countries.
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.
Only the male gender is used in the interests of brevity.
- 2.
Varying denominations appear in higher education studies and political documents. Besides the mentioned terms, “research school”— especially in Nordic countries—or “graduate school” are also in use. The term “graduate school” may be particularly misleading because in its country of origin, the USA, it includes both the master and doctoral levels, whereas in many European HEIs it is limited to the doctoral level.
- 3.
According to Ferlie et al. (2009), new public management and network governance are not purely analytical and theoretical frameworks aiming at comprehension (in the Weberian sense), yet they both mix technical, political and normative elements. They are therefore called narratives.
- 4.
The idea of the “Governance Equalizer” consists in the consideration that a change in one governance dimension does not necessarily directly influence a change in another governance dimension. For instance, less state regulation does not necessarily imply more market orientation. Hence, rather than suggesting a governance model which puts different dimensions in direct relation, de Boer et al. (2008) suggest an equalizer containing several dimensions, each of which can increase or decrease more or less independently of the others.
References
Amaral, A., Meek, V. L., & Larsen, I. M. (Eds.). (2003). The higher education managerial revolution? Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (Eds.). (2005). Multi-level governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baschung, L. (2013). Doctoral educations’s reform in Switzerland and Norway. A public management analysis. Bern/Berlin/Bruxelles/Frankfurt am Main/New York/Oxford/Wien: Peter Lang.
Becher, T., & Trowler, R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories. Intellectual inquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Braun, D. (1999). Changing governance models in higher education: The case of the new managerialism. Swiss Political Science Review, 5(3), 1–24.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). Introduction – Theoretical approach and research questions. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), Transcending new public management. The transformation of public sector reforms (pp. 1–15). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2008). Chapter 3. Comparing higher education governance systems in four European countries. In N. Soguel & P. Jaccard (Eds.), Governance and performance of education systems (pp. 35–54). Dordrecht: Springer.
Deem, R., Hillyard, S., & Reed, M. (2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism. The changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ferlie, E., Musselin, C., & Andresani, G.-L. (2009). The steering 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. 1–19). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gingras, Y., & Gemme, B. (2006). L’emprise du champ scientifique sur le champ universitaire et ses effets. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 164, 51–60.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.
Hood, C. (1995). The “new public management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(2–3), 93–109.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.
Kehm, B. (2006). Doctoral education in Europe and North America: A comparative analysis. In U. Teichler (Ed.), The formative years of scholars (pp. 67–78). London: Portland Press.
Kickert, W. (1997). Public management and administrative reform in Western Europe. Cheltenham/Lyme: Edward Elgar Publications.
Lepori, B., Baschung, L., & Probst, C. (2010). Patterns of subject mix in higher education institutions: A first empirical analysis using the AQUAMETH database. Minerva, 48, 73–99.
Meek, V. L. (2003). Introduction. In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? (pp. 1–29). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Mora, J. G. (2001). Governance and management in the new university. Tertiary Education and Management, 7(2), 95–110.
Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform. A comparative analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance. Buckingham: Oxford University Press.
Schimank, U. (2005). New public management’ and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation. Minerva, 43(4), 361–376.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Baschung, L. (2014). Patterns of University Governance: Insights Based on an Analysis of Doctoral Education’s Management Reform. In: Musselin, C., Teixeira, P. (eds) Reforming Higher Education. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 41. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7028-7_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7028-7_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7027-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7028-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)