Abstract
This chapter outlines the new architecture of university decision-making after implementation of the University Law of 2003. Reform of higher education in Denmark involved fundamental changes to the governance structure of Danish universities. Global policy efforts to transform universities in ways that are perceived as fitting with the needs of the emerging global knowledge economy are taken as a starting point for ethnographic exploration of the enactment of reform after the 2003 ‘policy moment’. The chapter starts by exploring the values and expectations of newly appointed governing board members and follows them as they engage in realizing the university through daily decision-making processes. Whilst the intent of the Law was clear (to transform universities to better serve societal ends, conceived largely in terms of economic relevance) governing board members from outside the university and those elected from within understood this transformational project very differently. Nevertheless, the new regulatory regime for universities, not least contract steering and executive management, together with the often contradictory imperative of market competition shaped and constrained how stakeholders enacted governance processes.
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.
I would like to acknowledge the substantial support provided Nathalia Brichet who played a major role in collecting the data reported here, and who provided much insight into reform processes in the three case study universities. Susan Wright was also actively involved in many of the formal interviews.
- 2.
Prior to 2003 most Danish universities were governed by a konsistorium: the university’s highest executive committee, chaired by the rector and consisting of 14 members: 5 representatives of the management (including the rector and deans who were themselves directly elected by all employees and students), 2 elected represntatives of academic staff, 2 elected represntatives of administrative staff, 3 elected represntatives of students, and 2 external members appointed by the Danish Council for Research Policy and the chair of education councils. For practical purposes the konsistorium combined the functions of the Council and the Senate found in many other university systems. Decision-making and institutional oversight were functions internal to the university with final recourse to the Minister in cases of deep disagreement, academic misconduct or students’ complaints. In the 2003 reformed system, a new governing board (bestyrelesen) took on the functions of a Council, and there was no Senate. They were accountable to the minister and were responsible for the statutes, strategy, approving the budget, and appointing the rector, and they took over from the rector responsibility for the development contract, although the rector’s powers over internal management were also strengthened (Ørberg 2007). The new governing boards consisted of a majority of external members, thus significantly limiting internal representation by academic and support staff and students. One governing board comprised 13 members (with seven externals); five other governing boards had 11 members (with six externals); two had 9 members (with 5 externals); one was undecided, and three other universities did not previously have a konsistorium, so were unchanged. External governing board members were nominated by the universities (often by the out-going konsistorium) and formally appointed by the Minister (Rasmussen 2004: 4).
- 3.
An early study of the first generation of 47external members of the governing boards found that 62 percent were men and 38 percent female. Of these, some 13 percent were non-Danish nationals, although all could communicate and work in Danish. Some two-thirds had research experience and over half had post-graduation experience within the university sector. Whilst slightly more than half now worked in major private firms such as Arla, Novo Nordisk, Grundfos and Mærsk, some 40 percent came from public authorities or other public-funded institutions. Sixty percent of all governing board members from this first generation were either serving CEOs or chairs of boards elsewhere. Between half and 75 percent of Danish university governing board members had some form of earlier affiliation with the university via their own earlier higher education or by virtue of the relation of their firm to the university (Rasmussen 2004).
- 4.
It should be noted here that many department leaders failed to create these structures. This was later specified as one of their obligations in the 2011Amendment to the Law.
- 5.
This institution which was founded in 1858 merged into the University of Copenhagen in 2007 as the Faculty of Life Sciences.
- 6.
The Ministry’s own website uses the term ‘suggested indicators’ in English as its translation of the Danish term ‘resultatkrav’ although this does not capture the essentially imposed nature of the request.
References
Aarhus University. (2010). Aarhus University Development Contract 2008–2010. http://www.au.dk/en/about/uni/policy/developmentcontract/ Accessed 20 Aug 2015.
Anderson-Levitt, K. (2003). A world culture of schooling? In K. Anderson-Levitt (Ed.), Local meanings, global schooling: Anthropology and world culture theory (pp. 1–26). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Apple, M. (2001). Educating the right way: Markets, standards, God and inequality. New York/London: Routledge.
Baird, J. (1997). Accountability of university governing bodies in Australia: Issues for proponents of corporate models. Tertiary Education and Management, 3(1), 72–82.
Barry, A., Osborne, T., & Rose, N. (1996). Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neoliberalism and rationalities of government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Boden, R., & Wright, S. (2011). Markets, managerialism and measurement: Organisational transformation of universities in UK and Denmark. In J. E. Kristensen, M. Raffnsøe-Møller, & H. Nørreklit (Eds.), University in measures (pp. 79–99). Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.
Bourdieu, P. (2003). Firing back: Against the tyranny of the market 2. London: Verso.
Brink, P. (2006). An insight into the history of the 2003 University Law and some of the ideas that surrounded it (Working Papers on University Reform no. 4). Copenhagen: Danish University of Education.
Burtscher, C., Pasqualoni, P.-P., & Scott, A. (2006). Universities and the regulatory framework: The Austrian university system in transition. Social Epistemology: A Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Policy, 20(3–4), 241–258.
Copenhagen University. (2007). Københavns Universitets udviklingskontrakt 2008–10. Copenhagen: Københavns Universitet. http://rektorat.ku.dk/styring/udviklingskontrakt/udviklingskontrakt2008_2010.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2015.
Danish Council for Research Policy (Danmarks Forskningsråd). (1999). Ledelse af Universiteter – oplæg fra Danmarks Forskningsråd (Leadership in Danish universities). Copenhagen: Danmarks Forskningsråd.
Danish Parliament (Folketinget). (2003). Lov om universiteter (universitetsloven) (Law on universities [the university law]). Retsinfo. http://www.retsinfo.dk/_GETDOCI_/ACCN/A20030040330-REGL. Accessed 31 Oct 2006.
Danish University and Property Agency. (2011). Development contracts for universities. Copenhagen: Universitets- og Bygningsstyrelsen. http://www.ubst.dk/en/universities-in-denmark/development-contracts. Accessed 29 Sept 2011.
Ferguson, J. (1999). Expectations of modernity: Myths and meanings of urban life on the Zambian Copperbelt. Berkeley: University of California.
Ferguson, J. (2006). Global shadows: Africa in the neo-liberal world order. Durham: Duke University Press.
FORSKERforum. (2007). Hvad tænker erhversfolk om universitetet? [What does the business community think about the university?]. No 213: 23.
Gjørup, J., Hjortdal, H., Jensen, T., Lerborg, L., Nielsen, C., Refslund, N., Suppli, J., & Winkel, J. S. (2007, March 29). Tilgiv os – vi vidste ikke, hvad vi gjorde [Forgive us: we didn’t know what we were doing]. Politiken. http://politiken.dk/debat/kroniken/ECE274053/tilgiv-os%2D%2D-vi-vidste-ikke-hvad-vi-gjorde/. Accessed 20 Aug 2015.
Gornitizka, Å., & Maassen, P. (2011). University governance reforms, global scripts and the ‘Nordic Model’. Accounting for policy change? In J. Schmid, S. K. Amos, J. Schrader, & A. Thiel (Eds.), Welten der Bildung? Vergleichende Analysen von Bildungspolitik und Bildungssystemen (pp. 149–177). Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlag.
Growth Forum (Vækstforum). (2011, Januar). Internationalt konkurrence-dygtige universiteter (Møde i Vækstforum den 21). Copenhagen: Statsministeriet. http://www.stm.dk/multimedia/internationalt_konkurrencedygtige_universiteter.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2016.
Huisman, J., de Boer, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2006). The perception of participation in executive governance structures in Dutch universities. Tertiary Education Management, 12, 227–239.
Keiding, P. (2007). Lykketoft og Jelved: Vi startede bureakratiet [Lykketoft and Jelved: We started the bureaucracy]. Information. 31(March), 6–7. http://www.information.dk/138354. Accessed 3 Aug 2015.
Kim, T. (2008). Changing university governance and management in the U.K. and elsewhere under market conditions: Issues of quality assurance and accountability. Intellectual Economics, 2(4), 35–42.
MacLure, M. (2006). The bone in the throat: Some uncertain thoughts on baroque method. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), 729–745.
Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maroy, C. (2012). Towards post-bureaucratic modes of governance: A European perspective. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World yearbook of education: Policy borrowing and lending (pp. 62–79). New York: Routledge.
Mathies, C., & Slaughter, S. (2013). University trustees as channels between academe and industry: Toward an understanding of the executive science network. Research Policy, 4, 1286–1300.
Meister-Scheytt, C., & Scott, A. (2009). Governing disciplines: Reform and placation in the Austrian university system. In J. Huisman (Ed.), International perspectives on the governance of higher education (pp. 2–86). London: Routledge.
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling). (2002). Political agreement on a university reform. Copenhagen: Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling.
Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling). (2009). The university evaluation report. Copenhagen: Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling.
Moutsios, S. (2013). The de-Europeanization of the university under the Bologna process. Thesis Eleven, 119(1), 22–46.
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345.
Ramirez, F. O. (2003). The global model and national legacies. In K. Anderson-Levitt (Ed.), Local meanings, global schooling: Anthropology and world culture theory (pp. 239–254). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rasmussen, J. G. (2004, September 5–8). Who governs the Danish universities in the knowledge society? Paper presented at 26th Annual EAIR Forum. Universitat Politècnica de Cataluyna.
Rasmussen, A. F. (2006). Statsministerens tale på VL-døgn 25 januar 2006 [Prime Minister’s speech to the Danish Management Society Summit no. 25, January 2006]. http://www.stm.dk/_p_7525.html. Accessed 20 Aug 2015.
Roskilde University. (2008). Roskilde university performance contract 2009–2010. Roskilde: Roskilde University.
Shore, C., & Nugent, S. (2002). Elite cultures: Anthropological perspectives (ASA monographs no 38). London: Routledge.
Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1997). Anthropology of policy. London: Routledge.
Steiner-Khamsi, G., & Stolpe, I. (2006). Educational import: Local encounters with global forces in Mongolia. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stronach, I. (2010). Globalizing education, educating the local: How method made us mad. New York: Routledge.
Tsing, A. L. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Ørberg, J. W. (2007, May). Who speaks for the university? Leglislative frameworks for Fanish university leadership 1970–2003 (Working Papers on University Reform no. 5). http://edu.au.dk/fileadmin/www.dpu.dk/forskning/forskningsprogrammer/epoke/workingpapers/om-dpu_institutter_paedagogisk-antropologi_new-managementx2c-new-identities_working-papers_20070611113532_working-paper-5%2D%2Dwho-speaks-for-the-university2.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2015.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carney, S. (2019). Governing the Post-Bureaucratic University. In: Enacting the University: Danish University Reform in an Ethnographic Perspective. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 53. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1921-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1921-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1919-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1921-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)