A Continuing Role For Academics: The Governance of UK Universities in the Post–Dearing Era (original) (raw)
Related papers
The changing face of English universities: reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century
In this paper we examine the creation and expansion of the English university system. We show how the enormous increase in student numbers, which began with the Robbins Report (1963), led to successive governments cutting universities' funding and compelling them to act more like business enterprises than educational institutions. In turn, vice-chancellors have become more similar to powerful chief executives, collegial forms of control have been significantly reduced and academic staff increasingly work in an environment in which they are told what to teach, how to teach, what research to conduct and where to publish. However, we show that this can be dysfunctional not only for staff, but also for senior managers. In place of this dysfunctional centralism, we argue for a win-win form of collegiality, which is compatible with rapid decision-making at the university centre and effective execution of change at the local/ departmental level.
Understanding the origins, evolution and state of play in UK university governance
Understanding the process of evolution of university governance types, and the links between them, is important for appreciating current debates over university accountability and management. Shattock (2006) observed that there are four models of university governance in the United Kingdom: Oxbridge, ancient Scottish, civic university and higher education corporation. These four types, or species, of university governance structures came to exist after centuries of evolution. Each type grew out of earlier models and yet all of these models continue to operate in the twenty-first century.
governance during the last decade, identifying points of continuity in the policy and political environment in the United Kingdom as well as points of difference. External drivers are discussed as part of the increasingly dynamic and volatile operating conditions for higher education. Institutions' internal governance arrangements are presented within a framework drawn from Clarke's studies of entrepreneurial universities. The final section of the article argues for a re-interpretation and strengthening of collegial forms of governance, using models and examples drawn from innovative private sector companies that can indicate useful directions for higher education institutions so that they are better fitted to meet 21st century challenges. While the analysis is focused on the UK, the lessons are more widely applicable. bs_bs_banner Higher Education Quarterly, 0951-5224
MANAGING UNIVERSITIES: FROM COLLEGIALITY TO SHARED GOVERNANCE
This work is a introductory review on strategic management of Universities. University management is deeply connected with the ontology of the academic community and the university, unlike other institutions. It is important, but rarely mentioned, to link the ongoing debate in academic literature on the management of universities with current global and local changes through this point of view. Today, one of the most important agenda items of the academic community is how to balance the substantial features of University, and productivity expectations. In this work, the relationship between the principles of management and the collegiality is questioned and different approaches are addressed.
Neo-Collegiality: Restoring Academic Engagement in the Managerial University
University staff are their institutions’ key resource. They are an intelligent, articulate and highly educated group. Despite this, university staff in the UK have little say in how their institutions are managed. As the survey in this paper shows, they would like a more decisive and influential voice. It is over two decades since the collegiality of yesteryear was deemed unviable for modern universities and a new managerial approach became the norm. However, the managerial initiatives which seemed shiny and new then have lost both lustre and novelty now. Current management research argues that hierarchical models are outdated and inappropriate in knowledge-based sectors. Technological advances offer previously undreamed of ways for staff across universities to influence, interact and take decisions. Flatter structures enable greater autonomy and flexibility serving more effectively the needs of student and academic, teaching and research. Neo-collegiality is not about a return to some largely imagined cloistered past. It recognises the necessity of many of the changes wrought by the New Public Management reforms of previous decades. However, neocollegiality asserts that the time is now ripe for managerial paradigms to shift. Neo-collegiality offers the restoration of broader, more collegial decision-making processes to create a professional, efficient and appropriately 21st century management approach. Such processes engage academic and professional staff across institutions, adopting and adapting a range of flexible and innovative means as appropriate to the distinctive features of individual universities in the UK’s large and varied higher education sector.
International Studies in Sociology of Education, 1998
The paper examines the applicability of recent theories positing the existence of new approaches to the management of public sector institutions, to current organisational forms and management strategies in universities in the United Kingdom. The term 'new managerialism' is generally used to refer to the adoption by public sector organisations of organisational forms, technologies, management practices and values more commonly found in the private business sector. Particular attention is paid to the writings of John Clarke and Janet Newman. Their discussion of organisational forms (including Newman's attention to the gendering of such forms), technologies and narratives under 'new managerialist' regimes and of the tensions between managing cultures and performances in organisations operating under 'new managerial' regimes, are then drawn upon to analyse two different instances of organisational regimes and management practices in universities. The first of these is based on an exploratory study of a small group of feminist academic managers in higher education, where questions are raised about the possible links between feminist values and what Trow has termed 'soft' approaches to management, as opposed to the 'hard' management practices of 'new managerialism'. The second example is an insider account of changes to organisational forms and technologies resulting from a severe financial crisis at Lancaster University, where a shortage of resources seems to have precipitated at least some moves in the direction of 'new managerialism', even if the attempt to change organisational cultures has so far been uneven.