Abstract
In this chapter the tension between the tendency of scientific disciplines to “diversify” and the capacities of universities to give new scientific fields an institutional “home” is tackled. The assumption is that new scientific fields must find support among scientists and cognitive units of universities in order to be included. As science is a strongly competitive social field, inclusion often meets resistance. It is argued in this chapter that opportunities for new scientific fields to be included depend on the kind of governance regimes ruling universities. A comparison of the former bureaucratic-oligarchic governance model in most European universities with the existing new public management governance model demonstrates that the propensity of universities to include new scientific fields has increased though there might be a price to pay in terms of which fields stand a chance of being integrated and in terms of institutional possibilities for the invention of new ideas.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
© (2011) IEEE. Reprinted, with permission.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A “competition view of science“ is not considered to be a distinctive approach in the sociology of science. Rather, various authors who would not consider them as belonging to one school refer to similar dynamics of scientific production and reproduction, though the use of concepts and their interpretation may still differ. Bourdieu (1975, 2001), Whitley (2000, 2003, 2008), Ziman (2000), and authors arguing from the perspective of “economics of science” (Brock and Durlauf 1999; Kitcher 1995; Mirowski and Sent 2002) belong to this group as does the early work of Latour and Woolgar (1979) and Hagstrom (1965). Recently, Van Rijnsoever et al. (2008) pointed to similar views in the “resource-based view” in organizational sociology. Basic elements in this approach are presumably that science is considered to be a field of cognitive development and also a social field in which actors interact as if in a scientific market. Scientists are driven by curiosity but more importantly by social recognition (reputation) and material advancement of their status in the scientific community. Scientists have individual career interests. As in all markets, the producers of the scientific good are in competition with each other and the use of scientific power and authority in order to gain competitive advantage are important elements in this competition. The dynamics of science, including scientific innovation, are therefore profoundly influenced by competition and social conflicts in the scientific community.
- 2.
Or in the words of Bourdieu (1975: 28): “The dominant are committed to conservation strategies aimed at ensuring the perpetuation of the established scientific order to which their interests are linked.”
- 3.
The bureaucratic-oligarchic model is one model of many, though it is probably the best diffused in Europe. France and the UK differed from this model (Ben-David 1971) as did the East European countries. We will only focus here on the transition from the bureaucratic-oligarchic to the new public management model, as space and time in this chapter are restricted.
- 4.
- 5.
In fact, Bourdieu uses the notion of “capital universitaire” in exactly this sense of having administrative power in the various decision-making boards within universities (Bourdieu 2001). Participation in such boards is itself a kind of capital that can be used to advance own interests (by distributing money, employing people, etc.). We prefer to speak of administrative capital if it concerns the capital based on participation in decision-making boards and reserve the notion of university capital for the symbolic recognition of the university in a more general sense.
- 6.
Organizational goals may be the answer to “societal demands” as expressed by the potential number of students in a cognitive domain: to invest in “creative research” with possible breakthroughs in scientific knowledge; to develop the potential of younger scientists ; to establish links with stakeholders; to develop and support regional development; to support promising areas of research, etc..
- 7.
This is equivalent to what Lawn and Keiner have called the change from knowledge production, in which the “use-value” was relevant, to a knowledge “economy,” in which the “exchange-value” determines the value of new scientific fields (Lawn and Keiner 2006).
References
Agasisti, T., & Catalono, G. (2006). Governance models of university systems – Towards quasi-markets? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28(3), 245–262.
Akerlind, G. S. (2005). Academic growth and development – How do university academics experience it? Higher Education, 50, 1–32.
Amaral, A., Meek, V. L., & Larsen, I. M. (Eds.). (2003). The higher education managerial revolution? Dordrecht: Springer.
Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1992). Process and structure in higher education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Buckingham: Open University Press/SRHE.
Ben-David, J. (1971). The scientist’s role in society. A comparative study. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Ben-David, J. (1991). Scientific growth. Essays on the social organization and ethos of science. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Blume, S. (1974). Towards a political sociology of science. New York: Free Press/Macmillan.
Blume, S. (1985). After the darkest hour integrity and engagement in the development of university research. In B. Wittrock & A. Elzinga (Eds.), The university research system (pp. 139–163). Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Bonaccorsi, A. (2007). Explaining poor performance of European science: Institutions versus policies. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 303–316.
Bonaccorsi, A. (2008). Search regimes and the industrial dynamics of science. Minerva, 46(3), 285–315.
Bonaccorsi, A. (2010). New forms of complementarity in science. Minerva, 48(4), 355–387.
Bourdieu, P. (1975). The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Social Science Information, 14(6), 19–47.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Science de la science et réflexivité. Paris: Raisons d’Agir Editions.
Braun, D., & Merrien, F.-X. (1999a). Governance of universities and modernisation of the state. In D. Braun & F.-X. Merrien (Eds.), Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view (pp. 9–33). London/Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.
Braun, D., & Merrien, F.-X. (Eds.). (1999b). Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view. London/Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley.
Brock, W. A., & Durlauf, S. N. (1999). A formal model of theory choice in science. Economic Theory, 14(1), 113–130.
Christensen, T., & Laegreid, P. (2001). New public management. The transformation of ideas and practices. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Chubin, D. E. (1976). The conceptualization of scientific specialties. The Sociological Quarterly, 17(4), 448–476.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Clark, B. R. (1995). Complexity and differentiation: The deepening problem of university integration. In D. Dill & B. Sporn (Eds.), Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: Through a glass darkly (pp. 159–169). Oxford: IAU Press/Elsevier.
Clark, B. R. (1996). Substantive growth and innovative organization: New categories for higher education research. Higher Education, 32(4), 417–430.
Clark, B. R. (1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational pathways of transformation. Issues in higher education. Bingley: Elsevier Science Regional Sales.
Clark, B. R. (2008). On higher education. Selected writings, 1956–2006. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administration Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1–25.
Coleman, J. S. (1986). Individual interests and collective action. Selected essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Collins, H. M. (1983). The sociology of scientific knowledge: Studies of contemporary science. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 265–285.
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations. Disciplinary approaches, interfaces, and integration (pp. 137–152). 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.
Dewatripont, M., Thys-Clement, F., & Wilkin, L. (Eds.). (2002). European universities: Change and convergence? Brussels: Editions de l’Université de Bruxelles.
Elzinga, A. (1987). Internal and external regulatives in research and higher education systems. In R. Preforms (Ed.), Disciplinary perspectives on higher education and research (Report No. 37). Stockholm: University of Stockholm GSHR.
Evans, C. (1995). Choosing people: Recruitment and selection as leverage on subjects and disciplines. Studies in Higher Education, 20(3), 253–265.
Felt, U. (2004). University autonomy in Europe. In Magna Charta Observatory (Ed.), Managing university autonomy. Shifting paradigms in university research (pp. 15–108). Bologna: Magna Charta Observatory.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, J. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. London/Amsterdam: Feffer & Simons Inc.
Kitcher, P. (1995). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1968). The history of science. In D. L. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (Vol. XIV, pp. 74–83). New York: Free Press.
Larsen, M. I. (2003). Departmental leadership in Norwegian universities – In between two models of governance? In A. Amaral, V. L. Meek, & I. M. Larsen (Eds.), The higher education managerial revolution? (pp. 71–88). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life. The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
Lawn, M., & Keiner, E. (2006). Editorial. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 1–15.
Metzger, W. P. (1978). Academic freedom and scientific freedom. Daedalus, 107(2), 93–114.
Metzger, W. P. (1987). The academic profession in the United States. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National, disciplinary and institutional settings (pp. 123–208). Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Mirowski, P., & Sent, E.-M. (Eds.). (2002). Science bought and sold: Essays in the economics of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mullins, N. (1972). The development of a scientific speciality: The phage group and the origins of molecular biology. Minerva, 10, 51–82.
Musselin, C. (2007). The transformation of academic work: Facts and analysis (Research and occasional paper series, Center for Studies in Higher Education). Berkeley: University of California.
Musselin, C. (2008). Editorial. European Journal of Education, 43(3), 1–3.
Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., & Ferlie, E. (Eds.). (2009). University governance: Western European comparative perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ruscio, K. P. (1986). Bridging specializations: Reflections from biology and political science. The Review of Higher Education, 10(1), 29–45.
Schimank, U. (1994). Hochschulforschung im Schatten der Lehre. Frankfurt a.M: Campus.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (1997). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Spiegel-Rösing, I. (1974). Disziplinäre Strategien der Statussicherung. Homo, 25(1), 11–37.
Tapper, E. R., & Salter, B. G. (1995). The changing idea of university autonomy. Studies in Higher Education, 20, 59–71.
Taylor, J. S., de Machado, M. L., & Peterson, M. W. (2008). Leadership and strategic management: Keys to institutional priorities and planning. European Journal of Education, 43(3), 369–386.
Van Rijnsoever, F. J., Hessels, L. K., & Vandenberg, R. L. J. (2008). A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy, 37(8), 1255–1266.
van Vught, F. A. (Ed.). (1989). Governmental strategies and innovation in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Whitley, R. (Ed.). (1974). Social processes of scientific development. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Whitley, R. (1977). Changes in the social and intellectual organization of the sciences. In P. Mendelsohn & R. Whitley (Eds.), The social production of scientific knowledge (pp. 143–169). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing.
Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Whitley, R. (2003). Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: The impact of institutional frameworks on the organization of academic science. Research Policy, 32(6), 1015–1029.
Whitley, R. (2008, June). Changing authority relations in public science systems and their consequences for the direction and organization of research (Working Paper Series). Manchester: Manchester Business School.
Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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
Braun, D. (2014). Governance of Universities and Scientific Innovation. 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_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7028-7_8
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)