Institutional Evaluation, Management Practices and Capitalist Redesign of The University: A Case Study

  • Denise Leite
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 3)

Abstract

This chapter is a product of reflections on continuing research projects1 concerning institutional evaluation. The evaluation processes of nine universities2 from four countries were researched. I worked in partnership with colleagues from these countries and was supported mainly by CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) and FAPERGS (Foundation for Support of Research in the State of Rio Grande do Sul). The main objective of the project was to understand the impact and changes associated with university evaluations. I focused on pedagogical innovation. The theory that sustains the cases researched is based on Buchbinder’s conceptions (1993) about ‘market-oriented universities’, on Cowen’s (1996) discussions about ‘performative universities’ and on Barrow’s (1996) conception about the university of ‘selective excellence’. As background, I used the Portuguese social theorist B.S. Santos’(1994) notion of the ‘university of ideas’ instead of the ‘idea of the university’. This allowed me to examine the cases with respect to their contradictions and differences instead of their similarities. At the beginning, I was in search of participative practices as an innovative evaluation methodology. But when discussing the performance results of the evaluation processes I realised that another important change was occurring — the capitalist redesigning of universities. This redesigning is associated with the improvement of management of corporate boards, aiming at the markets and the resolution of institutional problems. Once the problems are identified — along with more competitive issues — strategies are articulated. These strategies are internally directed to the boundaries of efficiency and effectiveness with the central scope of ‘doing more with less’ and externally directed to new publics and to the market visibility of the institution. The changes cannot be understood as a linear and direct result of internal evaluations. Many factors are relevant to this new university performance, including the introduction of educational reforms and national evaluation and accreditation processes, institutionalised in the 1990s, in Latin American higher education. International pressures on universities can also be identified as a factor affecting internal change.

Keywords

Shrinkage Coherence Assure Arena Milo 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amaral, A. and M. Polidori. “Quality Evaluation in Brazil: A Competency Based Approach?” Higher Education Policy 12 (1999): 177–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arocena, R. and J. Sutz.”La nueva reforma universitaria vista desde el Uruguay.” Separata Revista Avaliação 3.10 (2001): 5–15.Google Scholar
  3. Barrow, C. “The Strategy of Selective Excellence: Redesigning Higher Education for Global Competition in a Post-modern Society.” Higher Education 41 (1996): 447–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogdan, R. and S.K. Bilden. Qualitative Research for Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1982.Google Scholar
  5. Buchbinder, H. “The Market Oriented University and the Changing Role of Knowledge.” Higher Education 26 (1993): 331–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowen, R. “Performativity, Post-modernity and the University.” Comparative Education 32.2 (1996): 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fanelli, A.M.G. “Los indicadores de las políticas de reforma universitaria Argentina: balance de la situatión actual y perspectivas futuras.” Seminario Regional Taller: Gestion, evaluatión y acreditación de instituciones de educatión superior. Buenos Aires: FLACSO, 6-10 November, 2000, 1–35.Google Scholar
  8. HRK (Hocshschul Rektoren Conferenz). Relatorio de um grupo de consultores da HRK acerca da situação e do desempenho das IES no estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil e das perspectivas de uma política estadual coordenadora de fomenta. Bonn, Germany: HRK, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Kells, H.R. “Higher Education Evaluation Systems for Latin América: An Analysis of Recent Experiences and Formulation of a Generalized Model.” Higher Education Policy 9 (1996): 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kent, Rollin (Comp.). Los tentas críticos de la educatión superior en América Latina vol. 2: Los años 90. Expansión privada, evaluatión y posgrado. México: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1997.Google Scholar
  11. Kent, Rollin. Experiencias de reforma de la educatión superior en América Latina: los años 90. México: Plaza y Valdez, 2001.Google Scholar
  12. Krotsh, P. “El peso de la traditión y las recientes tendencias de privatizatión en la universidad Argentina: hacia una relatión público-privado.” Revista Avaliação 2.4 (1997): 31–43.Google Scholar
  13. Leite, D. “Avaliação institucional e a produção de novas subjetividades.” In Dias, J. and D. Ristoff (eds). Universidade desconstruída: avaliação institutional e resistência. Florianöpolis: Ed. Insular, 2000, 129–147.Google Scholar
  14. Leite, D. “Avaliação institucional, reformas e redesenho capitalista das universidades.” Revista Avaliação 7.2 (2002): 29–418.Google Scholar
  15. Leite, D., M. Mollis and C. Contera. Inovação e avaliação institucional: efeitos e mudanças na missão das universidades contemporâneas. Porto Alegre: Evangraf Editora, 2002.Google Scholar
  16. Leite, D., R. Santiago, M.C. Loréa Leite and C. Sarrico. Avaliação, auto-análise e gestão das universidades: um estudo conjunto Brasil-Portugal. Final Report. Porto Alegre, Br-Aveiro, Pt: CNPq-ICCTI, FAPERGS, 2002.Google Scholar
  17. Leonardos, Ana, C.A. Gomes and Robert Walker. “Estudo de caso aplicado às inovaçães educacionais: uma metodologia.” Brasília, INEP, Série Documental: Inovações, n. 1, dez., 1992.Google Scholar
  18. Miles, Mathew and A.M. Huberman. Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications, 1994.Google Scholar
  19. Mollis, M. La universidad Argentina en tránsita. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. Mollis, M. “La privatizatión de la educatión superior desde la perspectiva del sur que no habla inglés.” Revista del IICE 19 (2002): 13–21, Marzo.Google Scholar
  21. OECD. Education at a Glance. Indicators 2001. Paris: OECD, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O Estado de São Paulo. Editorial. O futuro do ensino superior. São Paulo, SP, 23 November 2002, 2.Google Scholar
  23. Rodriguez Gömez, Roberto and Armando Alcantara Santuario. “La reforma de la educatión superior en América Latina en la perspectiva de los organismos internationales.” Revisa Espanola de Education Comparada 6 (2000): 177–207.Google Scholar
  24. Santiago, R. Evaluation, Institutional Self-analysis and Higher Education Management. Research Project. Aveiro, Pt, FCT and Sapiens Project, 2002.Google Scholar
  25. Santos, B.S. Pela Mão de Alice. O social e o politico na pós-modernidade. Porto: Afrontamento, 1994.Google Scholar
  26. Sguissardi, W. Avaliação universitária em questäo. Reformas do estado e da educação superior. São Paulo: Autores Associados, 1997.Google Scholar
  27. Slaughter, S. and L.L. Leslie. Academic Capitalism. Politics, Polities and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. UNISINOS. Gianotti, Suzana (Org.) Projeta de avaliação institucional. Säo Leopoldo: UNISINOS, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. UNISINOS. Missão e perspectivas 1994–2003. São Leopoldo: UNISINOS, 1994–2003Google Scholar
  30. UNISINOS. Relatório de Atividades 97. São Leopoldo: UNISINOS, 1998.Google Scholar
  31. Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd edn. London: Sage Publications, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denise Leite

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations