Dokumentvorlage im Format A4

It was published: Antonowicz, Dominik. 2013. External Influences and Local Responses, IN. In Eva Egron-Polak, Jürgen Kohler, Sjur Bergan and Lewis Purser (eds) Leadership and Governance in Higher Education. Handbook for Decision-makers and Administrators. Berlin: RAABE Academic Publishers, vol. 3/ 2013, pp. 59-77.

Dominik Antonowicz

External Influences and Local Responses

The article analyses the dynamics of change in higher education and identifies its main drivers. The systems of higher education are found in-between two conflicting forces: on the one hand external pressure toward convergence, stimulated by growing internationalisation, standarisation of data collected by transnational organizations, and international rankings, and on the other, the influence of the heavily institutionalized socio-political environments in which universities operate, which drive the systems of higher education toward increasing divergence. These contradictory and often conflicting political pressures and academic traditions become a challenge for university management.

Content

Page

1.

Introduction

2

2.

New Political Actors

3

3.

Internationalization of Higher Education

6

4.

Toward Isomorphism

7

5.

Toward Diversity

10

6.

Conclusions

13

For your convenience, all articles have already been organised by chapter and subchapter online at www.lg-handbook.info. This article, C 3-3, has been assigned to: Chapter Subchapter

C: Change Processes: Vision – Decision – Action 3: Identifying and Empowering Change Agents 1

Dominik Antonowicz

1.

Introduction

The main aim of the article is to identify and investigate the various political and institutional1 pressures that are in force in higher education with a particular focus on the main drivers for organisational change. Undoubtedly, the circumstances under which modern higher education institutions operate have recently become more complex and multidimensional and the number of external stakeholders involved in higher education has increased. All the above raise a wide range of challenges for the university management that need to be addressed and also various interests that must be kept in certain balance. In order to do so, certain points need to be borne in mind. Firstly, this endeavor requires exploring the specificities within which each higher education institution operates. While universities are complex organizations that are strongly linked to the transnational world of science and higher education, they are at the same time, strongly embedded in the local context and national academic culture. In other words, while being openly exposed to transnational trends, universities still operate in complicated and heavily institutionalized socio-political environments that vary from country to country. In order to highlight the complexity of the environment in which higher education institutions operate the article draws from two major theoretical perspectives that shed a light on two different logics of changes in modern higher education. The first theoretical perspective is known as the convergence theory ( Meyer and Rowan 1977; Thomas et al. 1987)) that claims that higher education institutions are pushed toward a certain model of university. The article will thus explore the nature of growing normative and mimetic political and institutional pressures. The second perspective is the divergence theory that sees changes from a rather different angle believing that the history, local culture and tradition hold the key to understanding the nature of changes in higher education (Masseen & olsen 2007, Hirst and Thompson 1996). The departure point of the present study is that modern universities, being embedded in well-established local institutional settings, are in a position to confront growing expectations to follow a certain organizational model for higher education institutions. Therefore the article examines a variety of external but also internal tensions that need to be addressed by the leaders of modern universities which are multi-layered and complex organizations. The article presents a series of contradictory and often even conflicting expectations that often become a challenge for university management who 1

Institutional here meaning: of an established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture; of an established custom, law, or relationship in a society or community.

2

www.lg-handbook.info

Leadership and Governance in Higher Education, Volume No. 3, 2013


need to demonstrate their institutional power, strategic actorhood and leadership in order to pursuit institutional goals in this complex sociopolitical environment.

2.

New Political Actors

According to the convergence theory, universities worldwide are facing growing political and institutional pressures to develop after a certain institutional model. The theory is accompanied by a strong belief that external conditions under which modern universities operate are getting similar and determined by external political actors at transnational level. This belief is based on a bulk of studies (e.g. Krücken 2003; Jakobi 2007) illustrating the growing importance of transnational trends in higher education that shape its political, economic and social dimensions. Until the early 1990s, structural higher education policies and trends were clearly national policies and developments but the Sorbone Declaration and the Bologna Declaration became “visible starting points for supra-national action to make the pattern of the national higher education systems more similar across Europe” (Teichler 2006, p. 455).

The convergence theory

The above mentioned studies claim that higher education policy has recently become increasingly influenced by transnational trends in regards to its different aspects such as the structure of education, employment relations or university governance. Countries with comparable economic, political and institutional environment are expected to develop comparable policy agendas.

The influence of transnational trends

This was followed by the emergence of new political actors such as think-tanks, non-governmental organizations and consulting firms, which are all now seen as central elements of modern knowledge producing systems (Krücken 2003: 316). Not only have they become important players in shaping educational and research policy but they also affect directly higher education systems. This influence is exercised primarily through the collection of data and the consequent analyses: an enormous amount of data on education and recently also research is collected, that covers a number of detailed issues including also higher education. “By all means this is not a mechanical process but it is rather a product of some transnational agencies that define, translate and disseminate changes worldwide, acting as institutional carries” (Vaira 2004, p. 488).

New important players

Gradually, the data collected became standardized worldwide in order to allow for comparisons and comparative analyses. In general, standarisation itself has become the means by which conformity is achieved, as countries are expected to collect data on similar things.

The power of standardization



3

Dominik Antonowicz

This puts indirect pressure on countries to focus national policies on issues/aspects that are being measured. And, as Marek Kwiek (2006) notes, higher education has never been so much researched and analyzed by transnational organizations as nowadays. The role of transnational organizations

Among these political actors a leading role is played by organizations such as the World Bank, the IMF and the OECD that enjoy both the professional authority and the informal power to formulate and disseminate policy priorities and organizational models by setting benchmarks for indicators and reviewing countries‟ policies with respect to a wide range of aspects in the public realm such as education, research, entrepreneurship and innovations etc. Despite the often questionable accountability of these organizations, they define the new contexts, imperatives, ends and means in which higher education institutions should perform. By doing so, they also act “as elaboration and dissemination agencies on a global scale, they contribute to construct and structure a de-localized and global organizational field that both national higher education policies and institutions have to face and in which they operate” (Vaira 2004, pp. 488–489). For example the World Bank – one of the major transnational players in the field – sets its own political priorities in higher education and has developed policies to guide developing countries in „the appropriate direction‟. Transnational organizations hold such strong political power because, as mentioned above, they enjoy high professional authority and consequently can „name and shame‟ countries and institutions that do not follow certain models of development. In addition, organizations such as the World Bank can also exercise direct economic impact by setting criteria and pre-conditions for countries in order to receive financial aid or loans. In general, transnational organizations work towards policy coordination that is expected to minimize the “spillovers” that might be associated with individual governments acting independently (Chapman and Greenaway 2006: 1058). Therefore one can easily observe the trend of increasing convergence of higher education policy and the search for best practices worldwide, whether this is labeled „policy transfer‟, „policy diffusion‟ or simply „benchmarking‟. This seems to be the most effective way to encourage developing countries to improve their performance by following the example of successful participants and implementing their best practices. Multilateral agencies and the World Bank in particular act as persuaders rather than enforcers. Nevertheless, there are also examples (Chapman and Greenaway 2006) demonstrating that if similar pre-conditions, a government‟s core political objectives and above all similar institutions are not present, the process of policy diffusion could often lead to no major changes. Hence, even though organizations such as the World Bank and the OECD do work in developing countries, the policy diffusion in higher education seems to be particularly visible among the OECD members.

4




The role of transnational organizations is not always neutral and completely free from any political influence that big players in the field exercise. Research conducted by Anja Jakobi points out that since the 1980s the OECD turned its interest to education and emphasized its economic relevance (OECD 1985, 1989). At the same time, the UK and the USA left UNECSO in the 1980s, reportedly on the grounds that UNESCO did not incorporate into its agenda the issue of measuring student outcomes, and instead shifted the money to the OECD that conducts analysis of education from an economic point of view (for details see Jakobi (2007:44). But not only countries exercise power over transnational professional organizations: some of the most powerful benchmarks in higher education are global, regional or national rankings. Their impact on national polices and strategies of individual higher education institutions is hard to undermine; thus, a number of countries decided to join this global “arms‟ race”. However, given the financial cost of becoming and remaining a world-class university, it should come as no surprise that in this race serious contenders are only institutions from the wealthiest nations. Nevertheless, political aspirations to develop „global players‟ are demonstrated by almost every country, regardless of insufficient financial resources. In general, governments all over the world increasingly seek to concentrate the taxpayers‟ money on fewer, better funded and critical-mass institutions (Palfreyman & Tapper 2009:207). In other words, they aim to build flagship universities that would fit the criteria that most respected global rakings share, which are research output, citations in English as the lingua franca of modern science (as discussed in detail in Marginson and van der Wende 2007) etc. Any ranking is based on certain criteria and benchmarks that formulate a preferable model of a university, and which – as it is always with ranking – establish a hierarchical order and create both winners and losers. Therefore, the inevitable clash of interest while establishing criteria of assessment of university ranking should not come as a surprise. For example, in 2013, the League of European Research Universities (LERU), which represents 21 leading research-intensive universities, announced that it pulled out its support for the U- Multirank project that claims to offer an alternative (more multidimensional) ranking system to those mainly focused on research performance. The popularity of global university rankings reflects the internationalization of higher education and a preference for the research-intensive university which is often seen as „the most appropriate model‟ for an academic institution.


The role of rankings


5

Dominik Antonowicz

3.

Internationalization of Higher Education

“In the new social and political environment introduced by globalization theories and practices, it is not only the World Bank, the OECD and the IMF, from among global organizations, that are extremely interested in stimulating new visions of higher education on a global scale; the World Trade Organization (WTO) has also become concerned with the unrestricted import and export of higher education within a set of complex rules in the WTO protocols” (Kwiek 2006, p. 66). The power and influence of transnational organizations would not be so strong if higher education were not so much internationalized. Higher Education became a serious social, economic and political concern in the 1980s. Internationalization has recently become one of the most dominant and visible trends in higher education, challenging the modern university as a project of the nation state and its cultural identity (Kwiek 2010). And as Kazuhiro Ebuchi (1997) has argued “internationalization” in the context of higher education refers to a process of attainment and assimilation of international rules and standards into higher education. Long-term trends show increasing crossborder influence at both policy and institutional level. Internationalization as a driver for change

Having stated this, it should leave little doubt that internationalization itself has become one of the most important drivers for change in higher education and as Torres and Morrow (2000, p. 44) acknowledge “perhaps no place has been more subject to these processes of internationalization and globalization than university”. And Ulrich Teichler (2004) identifies several examples that spread across various countries, among which are the emergence of mass higher education, establishing a non-university higher education sector, quality assurance and funding various aspects of university performance. It needs to be noted that international elements in higher education are not completely new, although in the last two centuries higher education was more embedded in the national context and became a central institution in the process of building modern nation-states and national cultures. Therefore, during the 19th and 20th centuries one can observe growing differences between national systems of higher education that reflected the respective countries‟ political culture and institutional logic that was followed by various models of university governance (predominantly the German, French, English and American models). “The construction of the nation-state in Western Europe rested on a discourse which turned around its political, cultural and historic heritage conceived as uniting the citizens of a given state around them. To this, the university was an undissolvable part. Both by its teaching and by the research it undertook in the cultural and human sciences it challenged, reaffirmed, and reinterpreted the nation‟s fortune in the past and its right to legitimacy in the present” (Neave 2001, p. 47).

6




Modern higher education operates in a completely different environment. The new phase of internationalization took off in the late 1970s and involves much more than academics, students, cosmopolitan values and the universal canon of knowledge, as was the case in medieval times. This new wave of “internationalization” is dominantly characterized by policy trends and political agendas set above national system of higher education and which are defined by a more complex setting of multi-level actors and transnational forces (among others, van der Wende 2001). Accordingly, higher education institutions found themselves between „the rock and the hard place‟ in their effort to find their way between the growing pressure of transnational trends and the national institutional constellation and academic culture in which they are embedded. This produces inevitable conflicts that need to be handled by management at different layers of university governance. As Teichler and Jahr note, the global script is related mostly to organizational goals and international standards of conducting research while key organizational issues such funding, regulatory framework, governance, curricula or credentials are still formally set at national level (Teichler and Jahr 2001, pp 455–456).

HEIs found between divergence and convergence forces

In the last two decades the power of the national states to pursue their individual political goals in higher education has seriously declined. Higher education has gradually become globalized and driven by the transnational quasi-market both in regards to teaching and research. Many observe that higher education institutions, including those regionally oriented, have to wrestle with expectations to be internationally recognized or research intensive because these are the main drivers of academic reputation. This stays at odds with the traditional „equal but different‟ approach to various types of higher education institutions; the market-like environment is pushing for a hierarchical order (replacing the previous, mostly horizontal one) which leads to growing similarities between universities and specific teaching and research activities that diffuse regardless of the borders of nationstates (Hazelkorn 2011).

Declining power of nation states

4.

Toward Isomorphism

Higher education is facing growing political, economic and institutional pressures to evolve toward some form of institutional uniformity and this converging process is referred to by various names such as globalization from above perspective, top-down macro process (Vaira 2004). World polity theorists, such as John Meyer, John Boli or Francisco Ramirez, claim that national systems of higher education evolve in a similar direction “by gradually acquiring common characteristics as the trends push them (the national systems of HE) towards a common model” (Bleiklie 2007, p. 395).These theorists emphasize that



7

Dominik Antonowicz

national systems should acquire a number of common characteristics that none of them had before and, hence, this contributes to growing isomorphism (Meyer and Rowan 1977; Thomas, et al. 1987). The convergence theory tries to provide a theoretical background for growing transnational similarities in higher education. It argues that transnational processes push individual higher education systems in the same direction and force them to converge to the appropriate (economic, effective and efficient) proposed model. The same process is at work with higher education institutions that are pressed to adopt trends and to respond to external constraints and normative pressure by structural adaptation and imitation (DiMaggio, Walter and Powell 1991). Converging processes at work

There are a number of examples that illustrate the strength of external pressure and diffusion of certain trends or institutional settings such as the expansion of higher education, the entrepreneurial model of university, the three tier structure of education (bachelor-master-doctoral) or the modernization of employment relations in higher education. None of the European political actors have the political power to implement any of the above mentioned novelties but these trends have dominated European higher education in the last two decades firmly contributing to establishing the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). However, a converging process can take place in different forms: Torben Heinze and Christopher Knill (2008) distinguish two types of convergence: vertical (sigma convergence) and horizontal (delta convergence). The vertical model refers to a situation in which a domestic structure becomes more similar to a specific (in this case foreign) model and it refers to adopting an existing model in another system or country. By contrast, the horizontal model fits a situation in which several structures become more similar among themselves by developing into a common model which none of them possessed before. These two converging models could be applied in order to understand the phenomenon of growing isomorphism in higher education institutions that adjust their structure and organization to a dominant model (or models) (often seen as the most appropriate) regardless the of the uniqueness, history and sometimes even the exceptional position of individual universities.

The introduction and establishment of new concepts]

Growing isomorphism among systems of higher education as well as higher education institutions is the effect of external pressure that is also exercised by transnational organizations. However, transnational organizations themselves have limited direct coercive power over universities. In Europe, universities are largely financed by the taxpayers‟ money and formally operate under national regulation but it is widely acknowledged that transnational organizations target national governments which are responsible for policy in higher education. For example the World Bank has been advocating „the expansion of higher education‟ and „equality to access‟ while the OECD for instance is inclined towards an economically driven agenda, as can be inferred by

8




its expressed support for the „entrepreneurial university‟, „knowledge transfer‟ or „tuition fees‟. All of these ideas have gradually become the fabric of modern higher education or important benchmarks for those governments that aspire to be seen as „modern‟. In addition, many of these notions have been taken largely for granted due to fact that they are supported by research-based expertise. Regardless of the loose interpretation of meanings behind these political and organizational concepts, they become absolutely central for policy makers who act under pressure to implement them. Jakobi (2007) demonstrates that the concept of „knowledge society‟ could represent significantly different content in various political environments. Thus, national strategies, policy statements and reform agendas in a number of countries emphasize „knowledge society‟ as a key concept but mean completely different things by it, because “countries across the world tend to see such a society as a symbol of the changes that they expect in future years and adopt policies that serve its needs” (Jakobi 2007, p. 39). The expectations to implement certain policy concepts and institutional models are so strong, that even countries that have neither sufficient political capacity nor resources attempt to imitate them. Pressure, however, is not equally strong for each country and higher education institution since the norm of appropriateness applies differently to different countries and institutions depending on their position in hierarchy. Whether globally or nationally, universities that enjoy highly ranked positions in rankings exercise considerably more power when trying to resist pressure, or at least to negotiate the content and dynamics of changes than those less well-established ones.

Reaction to pressures differs among countries and institutions

In the long term universities can hardly stop governments, particularly in a post-industrial society, in which higher education performs an instrumental role by facilitating a new type of economy with skilled labor force and research based, applicable knowledge. For governments universities serve primarily as political or economic instruments that help achieve the much greater economic and political national agenda. This puts HEIs into a kind of TINA (There Is No Alternative) situation in which little attention to the university as an institution of distinct history and academic tradition is paid.

Limited power of universities to resist

This „shaping from above‟ is based on certain models and strong transnational agents that have the coercive power to promote „seen as an appropriate‟ political agendas and university models. In the long run, such a situation leads to growing institutional isomorphism between various systems of higher education and also between universities. Countries tend to orient themselves on common policy goals, develop similar political agendas and increase pressure on largely autonomous higher education institutions to inscribe into these trends. In fact universities enjoy little room for maneuver. National governments usually have the political power and financial resources to steer



9

Dominik Antonowicz

higher education into the desired direction As a result we can observe not only isomorphism at national policy level but also in regards to institutional arrangements. In the latter case the „entrepreneurial university‟ has become a dominant model that many countries try to implement.

5.

Toward Diversity

Organizational changes in higher education are never a straight topdown process and universities as organizations cannot simply be shaped without limitations by means of external factors. Universities do not operate in political, economic and social vacuum. Taking a more sober view there is no single group of reformers or political organizations that have the authority or power to take full control of reforming processes and produced outcomes. Complex power relations within universities

And because universities are complex and multidimensional organizations the power relations between various institutional actors or various strata within universities need to be considered while analyzing reforms of university.

A multi-level system of governance

While studying reforms in higher education Tony Becher and Maurice Kogan (1980) distinguished four major levels of analysis in higher education: (a) the system level; (b) the institutional level; (c) the level of university units (departments, faculties) and (d) the level of academic profession. What is exceptional for higher education is that changes happening at one level do not necessary affect other levels of higher education (Vukasovic et al. 2012). In addition, the most prominent characteristic of modern European universities is the fact that they operate in a multi-level system of governance, consisting of a transnational policy area and a specific national policy context. “In an infinitely complex world, the higher education system has difficulties in pulling itself together that belie simple descriptions and answers. Tasks proliferate, beliefs multiply, and the many forms of authority pull in different directions. Yet in each case, some order emerges in various parts: disciplines link members from far and wide, universities symbolically tie together their many specialists, bureaucratic structures, local and national, provide uniform codes and regulations. And the bureaucratic, political and oligarchic forms of national authority contribute to the integration of the whole” (Clark 1983, p. 136)

Growing diversity despite converging forces

10

Peter Maassen and Åse Gortnizka (2012) claim that in recent decades a growing diversity between universities across Europe can be observed despite the fact that they have been exposed to similar transi-




tional forces and global trends. Indeed, reforming governance relationship between the state and higher education institutions has been a constant item on the political agenda of most European countries in the last three decades A striking characteristic of these reforming attempts is that they are based on strong convictions and surprisingly weak evidence (Olsen and Maassen 2007: 13–16). Contrary to the rather deterministic view of the world society theorists, there is an alternative view that sees changes in universities as a more complex and multi-layered process. It is assumed that the novelties travel through various layers of governance involving a wide range of actors. Universities with their complex autonomy, cumbersome decision-making processes, long institutional histories and strong professional identity become a relatively tough challenge for policy makers. Having such a complex organization to steer, it also seems to be a challenge to address external expectations and growing economic demands expressed by external stakeholders such as business. In other words, there is a wide range of interfering actors, pressure groups, forces across levels of governance, policy actors, but not a single actor that can steer reforming processes and control their outcomes. As a consequence, it is naive to expect a straight top-down process of implementation in which universities remain the passive side, and so is to expect the academic community to accept and implement all the novelties in silence.

A rather naïve expectation

On the contrary, it is precisely the fact that the university operates in a heavily institutionalized environment that makes it a difficult organization to manage. In higher education literature Cohen and March's Leadership and Ambiguity (1974) present one of the most prominent analyses of governance as a symbolic process because of the HEIs complex goals, a big number of internal stakeholders, cumbersome decision-making processes and patchy participation. In addition, Peter Blau (1973) shifts attention to the existing contradictions between authority based on position and authority based on expertise, which lead to inevitable conflicts and tensions within the university. And indeed the university is a deliberative organization that at least tries to reach consensus, which is a long and cumbersome process with plenty of uncertainty.

The university as a deliberative organization

It is undoubtedly true that investigating drivers for change at higher education institutions requires acknowledging that most of the questions concerning the universities‟ core activities are addressed at supranational level. But to have the full picture and a reasonably good understanding of the dynamics of organizational change at universities one has to take into account the path-dependent character of university structures, practices and identity concepts. Many scholars such as Maassen and Olsen (2011) argue that understating changes in higher education requires taking an institutional perspective in which the university is seen as “a relatively enduring collection of rules and or-



11

Dominik Antonowicz

ganized practices, embedded in structures of meaning and resources that are relatively resilient to the idiosyncratic preferences and expectations of individuals and changing external circumstances” (Olsen and Maassen 2007, p. 27). Universities as organised anarchies

This perspective has far reaching implications for understating the internal dynamics of higher education institutions. Universities respond differently to similar challenges because of internal complexity. They are complex and multidimensional organizations in which changes take place independently at various layers. And this, in fact, seems to stimulate growing diversities among universities. Taking all the above into account, it should not be a surprise that Cohen and March (1974) developed a massively influential model of universities as organized anarchies. This internal complexity is often lost in the convergence theory which, by applying the birds‟ view, aims to capture higher education worldwide and is satisfied with a simplified picture of national systems of higher education.

The path-dependent character of university

Universities are not only complex organizations that operate in a heavily institutionalized environment but also have an outstanding past that has a (strong) influence on future events (Arthur 1994, Mahoney 2000, Boas 2007). This approach is advocated by path dependency theorists such as William Sewell (1996, pp 262–263) who argues that “what has happened at an earlier point in time will affect the possible outcomes of a sequence of events occurring at a later point.” Bart Nooteboom (1997:57) also shares a similar point of view on the matter, stating that “directions for future development are foreclosed or inhibited by directions taken in past development.” The latter statement is particularly important for universities in Europe, most of which enjoy long and outstanding academic traditions. This standing point assumes that such well embedded institutions cannot be only passive receivers of transnational trends or governmental policy. On the contrary, it makes strong claims that universities are driven by their past, national academic culture and specific local institutional environment. The path dependency theorists believe that rules and practices are important values in themselves and “in contrast to an instrumental perspective, an institutional [such as path dependency, D. A.] perspective also assumes that well-entrenched institutions reflect the historical experience of a community, that they take time to root and that they are difficult to change rapidly and radically, except under special circumstances such as widely agreed-upon performance crises” (Olsen and Maassen 2007:27). In other words, this approach views universities as steered by a well rooted in academic tradition institutional constellation, while major changes cannot always be explained by short-time processes and events. Substantive analyses of path dependent sequences offer explanations for particular outcomes (often “deviant outcomes,” “exceptionalism”) and the trajectory of changes that have been predicted by

12




theory or conventional wisdom but for various reasons did not occur (Mahoney 2000: 508). Instead, transnational concepts or ideas such as the mass model of higher education or the entrepreneurial university are filtered or translated through local values, norms, or institutional settings and adapted into national institutional contexts (Bradley et al. 2000, Hirst and Thomson 1996). Because national contexts are historically different, this phenomenon has led to growing diversity among higher education systems across the world. In other words, the translation of ideas and institutions has such a strong impact that outcomes in different countries vary significantly. In such heavily institutionalized environment, prevailing political myths can face tough opposition as universities are also historical, time depended institutions that are strongly embedded in their own national and organizational cultures (Krücken, Kosmutzky, Torka 2007). There is little doubt that universities are parts of national systems of higher education which are clearly demarcated among countries and have been heavily shaped by national forces. Therefore, in order to understand the way in which universities modify their strategies, structures, policies and practices one has to bear in mind their historical legacy and mutual relations with the government. Overall, universities are organizations that seem quite similar across the world, at least from the outset. But the closer we examine them the more differences, local peculiarities and distinct features we can identify despite their being exposed to similar trends.

6.

Same ideas, different outcomes

Conclusions

The present analysis shows that changes in higher education are complex processes that involve several political actors. The dominant role can be attributed to the various transnational organizations that use their professional authority and special place in the knowledge production system in order to put pressure on individual nation states to implement policy concepts or institutional models that are defined by such organisations as most appropriate. But these „policy concepts‟ and „institutional models‟ are spread among various (often very different) national systems of higher education which have developed distinct academic cultures and local institutional environments. Inevitably, changes in higher education raise serious tensions between political actors that advocate changes that would build stronger links with the so called „the world society‟ (Meyera et al 1987) and those who would rather see higher education policy and universities being driven by national academic culture and institutional constellation. More important, this clash between the logic of convergence and the logic of divergence reflects a political



13

Dominik Antonowicz

wrestling between the cohesive power of transnational organizations which attempts to steer public policies and the universities that remain embedded into their local institutional environment as well as academic culture, thus demonstrating strong reluctance to adapt to any form of harmonization. And as Krücken (2003) rightly noted “universities do not remain passive, they are best understood as entities which are embedded in larger institutional environment and due to historically developed practices and identity concepts mostly symbolically adapt new challenges, which are exogenous to them” (Krücken 2003:332). In the short term, universities largely manage to sustain growing pressure to implement rapid political and institutional changes but must wrestle with governments over the agenda of higher education policy. They cannot resist external, often transnationally fueled political and economic pressure, although they can try to adjust/adapt these models to the institutional and cultural context they are imbedded. Moreover, in order to remain in line with external expectations, universities develop a broader societal agenda and translate political concepts and institutional models through their existing practices and identity concepts. Hence, the clash between these two contradictory actors leads to structural homogeneity but diversity of content. The perfect example of such a case is presented by Guri-Rosenblit, Sebkova and Teichler (2007) in their analysis of the diffusion of the Bologna Process in Europe. They found that indeed the Bologna Process made a significant contribution to the harmonization of the degree structures in European tertiary education, but a uniform structural framework often hides a very different content of studies. Quite significantly, higher education in Europe – at both political and institutional levels – has become structurally similar; the link though between structural characteristics and the content remains loosely coupled and is not obvious (Teichler 2007; Kehm and Teichler 2006).

References

14

[1]

Arthur, W. (1994): Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

[2]

Boas, T. (2007): Conceptualizing Continuity and Change: The CompositeStandard Model of Path Dependence. In: Journal of Theoretical Politics, 19(1), 33–54.

[3]

Blau P. (1973): The organization of academic work. New York.

[4]

Bleiklie, I. (2007): Systematic Integration and Macro Steering. In: Higher Education Policy, 20, 391–412.

[5]

Cohen, M.D.; March J. (1974): Leadership and Ambiguity: The American College President. Boston.




[6]

Chapman, B.; Greenaway D. (2006): Learning to Live with Loans? International Policy Transfer and the Funding of Higher Education. In: The World Economy, 29( 8), 1057–1075.

[7]

DiMaggio, J.; Walter W; Powell W.; (eds.) (1991): The New Institutionalism in Organization Analysis. Chicago.

[8]

Ebuchi, K. (1997): Study of the internationalization of universities. Tokyo.

[9]

Enders, J.; Fulton, O. (eds.) (2002): Higher Education in a Globalizing World: International Trends and Mutual Observations. Dordrecht.

[10] Gornitzka, Å.; Maassen, P. (2011): University Governance Reforms, Global Scripts and the "Nordic Model". Accounting for Policy Change? In: Schmid, J. et al (eds.), Welten der Bildung? Vergleichende Analysen von Bildungspolitik und Bildungssystemen. Baden Baden, 149–177. [11] Gornitzka, Å.; Maassen, P. (2012): University reform and the Nordic model, In: Kwiek M.; Maassen P. (eds.): National Higher Education Reforms in a European Context: Comparative Reflections on Poland and Norway. Frankfurt, 111–127. [12] Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2005): Higher education in transition: Horizontal and vertical patterns of diversity. In: Nata R. (eds.): New Directions in Higher Education. New York, 23–45. [13] Heinze, T.; Knill, C. (2008): Analysing the differential impact of the Bologna Process: Theoretical considerations on national conditions for international policy convergence. In: Higher Education, 56(4), 493–510. [14] Hazelkorn E. (2011): Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: the battle for world-class excellence. New York. [15] Hirst, P.; Thomson. G. (1996): Globalization in Question. Cambridge. [16] Jakobi, A. (2007): The Knowledge Society and Global Dynamics in Education Politics. In: European Educational Research Journal, 6(1), 39–51. [17] Kehm, B.; Teichler, U. (2006): Which Direction for Bachelor and Master Programmes? A Stocktaking of the Bologna Process. In: Tertiary Education and Management, 12 (4), 269–282. [18] Kogan, M.; Bauer M.; Bleiklie I.; Henkel M. (eds). (2006): Transforming Higher Education. A Comparative Study. Dordrecht. [19] Kwiek, M. (2006): The University and the State. A Study into Global Transformations. Frankfurt. [20] Krücken, G. (2003): Mission Impossible? Institution al Barriers to the Diffusion of the 'Third Academic Mission' at German Universities. In: International Journal of Technology Management, 25, 18–33. [21] Krücken, G. (2003): Learning the New, New Thing: On the role of path dependency in university structures. In: Higher Education, 46(3), 315–39. [22] Krücken, G.; Kosmutzky, A.; Torka, M. (eds.) (2007): Towards a Multiversity? Universities between Global Trends and National Traditions, Bielefeld. [23] March, J.; Olsen J. P.; (2004): The Logic of Appropriateness. Arena Working Paper, Oslo. [24] Marginson, S.; van der Wende M. (2007): To Rank or to Be Ranked. The Impact of Global Rankings in Higher Education. In: Journal of Studies in International Education, 11 (2/3), 306–329. [25] Meyer, J.; Rowan, G. (1977): Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony. In: American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.



15

Dominik Antonowicz

[26] Maassen, P.; Van Vught F. (ed.). (1996): Inside Academia. New Challenges for the Academic Profession. Enschede. [27] Maassen, P., Olsen J. P.; (ed.). (2007): University Dynamics and European Integration. Dordrecht. [28] March, J. G.; Olsen J. P. (1989): Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York. [29] Morrow, R.A.; Torres C. A. (2000): The State, Globalization and Educational Policy. In: Burbules N.C.; Torres C.A. (ed.), Globalization and Education: Critical perspectives. London, 27–56. [30] Neave, G. (2001): The European Dimension in Higher Education: an Excursion into the Modern Use of Historical Analogues. In: Huisman J.; Maassen P.; Neave G.; (ed.), Higher Education and the Nation State. Oxford, 13–73. [31] Nooteboom, B. (1997). Path Dependence of Knowledge: Implications for the Theory of the Firm. In: Magnusson, L.; Ottosson, J.; (eds). Evolutionary Economics and Path Dependence. Cheltenham, UK, 57–78. [32] OECD. (1985): Education and Modern Society. Paris. [33] OECD.(1989): Education and the Economy in a Changing Society. Paris. [34] Palfreyman, D.; Tapper T. (2009): Structuring Mass Higher Education. The Role of Elite Institutions. London. [35] Scott, P. (1998): Massification, Internationalization and Globalization. In: Peter Scott (ed.) The Globalization of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK, 108–130. [36] Sewell, W. H. (1996): Three Temporalities: Toward an Eventful Sociology. In: Macdonald J. T.; (ed.),The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. Michigan, 245–280. [37] Teichler, U. (2004): The Changing Debate on Internationalisation of Higher Education. In: Higher Education, 48(1), 5–26. [38] Teichler, U.; Jahr, V. (2001): Mobility during the course of study and after graduation. In: European Journal of Education, 36(4), 443–458. [39] Teichler, U. (2009): Internationalisation of Higher Education: European Experiences. In: Asian Pacific Education Review, 10, 93–106. [40] Teichler, U. (1999): Internationalisation as a challenge for higher education in Europe. In: Tertiary Education and Management. 5(1), 5–23. [41] Teichler, U. (2007): Higher Education Systems: Conceptual Frameworks, Comparative Perspectives, Empirical Findings. Rotterdam. [42] Thomas, G.; Meyer J.; Boli J.; Ramirez F. (1997): World Society and the NationState. In: American Journal of Sociology, 103 (1), 144–81. [43] Vaira, M. (2004): Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework of analysis. In: Higher Education. 48, 483–510. [44] Williams, G.; (ed.). (2003): The Enterprising University. Buckingham. [45] van der Wende, M. (2001): Internationalization Policies: About New Trends and Contrasting Paradigms. In: Higher Education Policy. 14( 3), 249–259. [46] Vukasovic, M. et al (eds.) (2012): Effects of Higher Education Reforms: Change Dynamics. Rotterdam.

16




Biography: Dominik Antonowicz, assistant professor in the Institute of Sociology, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, holds a PhD in sociology and was a Chevening Scholar (Birmingham University), a scholar of the Foundation for Polish Science (CHEPS, University of Twente), a full-time strategic adviser to the Minister of Science and Higher Education in Poland (2009-2010) and currently participates in KEJN (the Committee for the Evaluation of Research Units) in Poland. His research interests include globalization, public policy and higher education, European educational policy, international organizations, the modern institution of the university, transformations of the academic profession. Contact: [email protected]



17

Dominik Antonowicz

18

