ALBERTO AMARAL, OLNER FULTON AND

INGVILD M. LARSEN

A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION?

1. INTRODUCTION

In the early days of higher education, the university was in general "a guild
organisation of masters or students or of masters and students combined, having a
high degree of juridical autonomy, the right to elect its own officers, statutory
making powers, and a communal seal" (Cobban 1975: 32). This formed the origin of
their characteristic governance system based on collegial decision making. l
The idea that academics are particularly gifted to manage their own affairs has
been accepted over the centuries, either in the name of academic freedom or in
recognition of the difficulties that lay people would experience in managing an
institution characterised by a very strong emphasis on professionalisation along the
lines of distinct 'disciplinary specialisms' (Clark 1983a). The idea of the
Humboldtian university clearly rests on the need to protect individual academic
freedom, an idea that was echoed by Karl Jaspers, as cited by Kenneth Wilson
(1989: 38):
The university is a community of scholars and students engaged in the task of seeking
truth. It derives its autonomy from the idea of academic freedom, a privilege granted to
it by state and society which entails the obligation to teach truth in defiance of all
internal and external attempts to curtail it.

These "views on academic freedom and the right of academic self-government"

(Fulton 2002: 206) were strongly supported by the UK's Robbins Committee:
We are convinced also that such freedom is a necessary condition of the highest
efficiency ... and that encroachments upon their liberty, in the supposed interests of
greater efficiency, would in fact diminish their efficiency and stultify their development
(Robbins Report 1963: 228).

Moodie and Eustace (1974: 233), less than thirty years ago, defended academics'
predominance in university management on the basis of their very specific
professional qualifications:
The supreme authority, providing that it is exercised in ways responsive to others, must
therefore continue to rest with the academics, for no one else seems sufficiently
qualified to regulate the public affairs of scholars.

This view was later endorsed by Clark (1983a), among others, in a classical
Mertonian formulation suggesting that "universities firmly based on the
development of disciplinary special isms could only be effectively governed by
experts in those disciplines" (Fulton 2002: 207).

275
A. Amaral et al. (eds.), The Higher Education Managerial Revolution?, 275-296.
© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers.
276 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLIVER FULTON AND TNGVILD M. LARSEN

Since the 1980s this model has been under increasing attack. Maassen recalls in
his chapter presented in this volume that as early as 1983 Clark pointed to the
separation of academic and administrative cultures and roles. Duke (1992: 12) states
that:
There are two assumptions behind all this: that universities are inefficient; and that their
efficiency will be improved by a series of external interventions, implemented largely
top-down, and drawn in the main from the management practices and reward systems of
other kinds of organisations.

The result has been that, instead of the traditional rhetoric in support of academic
self-government, notions of managerialism, efficiency and even more alien concepts
such as total quality management or value for money, have come to replace the
former and long-lasting academic values of scientific excellence and academic
freedom, although as Maassen reports the reform has not (at least yet) resulted in
permanent and stable arrangements.
Van Vught (1989: 54) calls our attention to the fact that attempts to control
universities may destroy the institution's quality:
The fundamental characteristics of higher education institutions suggest that these
institutions can only be controlled from outside, when the organisational variety is
greatly reduced and when the professional autonomy is greatly restrained. However,
when such an external control is imposed, it should be realised that the professional
tasks these institutions perform may be severely damaged.

However, as argued by Meek in the introductory essay to this volume and

Amaral, Magalhaes and Santiago in their chapter, it is important to distinguish
between, on the one hand, 'managerialism' as an ideology for strategic change of
public services and, on the other, the quite commonly accepted need to provide
institutions with more flexible and effective administration, on the understanding
that any new management tools and processes remain instruments at the service of
the institution and its academic leadership. This distinction is not always
straightforward or easily maintained. An example is given by Clark, who felt
compelled to clarify his position following misinterpretations of his book on the
creation of entrepreneurial universities (Clark 1998). He states very clearly (Clark
2000: 118):
Entrepreneurial character in universities does not stifle the collegial spirit; it does not
make universities handmaidens of industry; and it does not commercialize universities
and turn them into all-purpose shopping malls. On all three counts it moves in the
opposite direction ...
This [entrepreneurial] narrative is much needed as a counter-narrative, one that
challenges both the simplistic understanding ofthe university as a business, about which
we hear so much these days, and the simplistic depiction of universities as passive and
helpless instrumentalities whose fate is detennined by irresistible external demands.

This probably explains why a range of instruments and processes which can be
seen as characteristic of managerialism may be supported by some academics, as no
one in their senses will raise their voice against the idea that higher education
institutions should be efficiently run. Some academics see the functioning of
collegial bodies as cumbersome, time consuming and inefficient (Smith 2000). And
 A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION? 277

if they are engaged in 'academic capitalism' (in the sense that their individual
activities, especially as researchers, outweigh their concerns for the corporate life of
their university) then they may well favour the concentration of power at the central
institutional level, on the basis that this will release them from many hours of
tiresome debates, mostly dealing with problems in other departments or disciplines
and as such of little interest - always provided that the increased concentration of
power at the central level does not mean increased interference with the daily life of
their own self-contained academic world.
It is also true that, in some countries, the more conservative academics would
like to see movement away from what they consider 'democratic excesses'
following the May 1968 student rebellions, in order to reinforce a more meritocratic
vision of the academy. De Boer observes that in the Netherlands the WUB-Act of
1970 with its emphasis on internal and external democratisation attracted criticism
from the beginning while Amaral, Magalhiies and Santiago observe in their chapter
that in Portugal there is a general view that students are over represented in
governing bodies and that university management is too corporatist.
Leite's chapter reports the contribution of institutional evaluation procedures to
the 'capitalist redesign' of universities, and presents a case study of a Brazilian
university where strategic evaluation was used as a tool for organisational re-
configuration. Pechar states in his essay that in some cases the initiative for
management reforms "came from a group of academics (even if it was a small group
and many other academics opposed the initiative), not from the government ... ".
Slaughter and Leslie (1997: 230) list some conditions which favour the
concentration of power at the central level:
in a stressful financial environment there is greater willingness by organizational
stakeholders to vest in central management the power to deal with external agents. The
demand is for increased central coordination of efforts and reporting mechanisms - in
short. greater centralization of efforts to manage the environment on behalf of the larger
organization, because, as Pfeffer and Salancik put it, 'solutions ... require the
concentration of power' (1978: 284).
In the competitive environment, staff perceive that the university is at risk and that
resources are inadequate to maintain existing functions ... Institutional preservation
requires that central administration be granted authority to deal with the external
environment ... as operating units generate more and more of their own resources ...
staff may perceive that in the new financial environment the central administration must
have greater freedom to act, anyhow.

Internal criticism does not only come from academic staff. Smith (2000: 39)
comments that "shared governance ... is perhaps the single most criticized aspect of
higher education by non-academic institutional insiders. Such insiders include
members of boards of trustees and overseers, senior administrators, and a host of ex-
academic consultants". Smith (2000: 49) adds: "internal dissidents and critics are
commonly the source of the most negative portraits of an institution's management
principles and practices".
On the other hand, governments with a neo-liberal ideology, having selected new
public management as their tool for replacing the slow, inefficient decision-making
processes of academic collegiality by the "fast, adventurous, carefree, gung-ho,
278 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLIVER FULTON AND INaVILD M. LARSEN

open-plan, computerised, individualism of choice, autonomous enterprises and

sudden opportunity" (Ball 1998: 124) could hardly condone a system of institutional
governance that did not allow for top-down decision making, and where institutional
responsibility and accountability were diluted in a maze of collegial decision-
making bodies which obscure the clear definition of individual responsibilities for
the fate of the institution. This has led some governments to introduce or promote
reforms that have concentrated power at the central level, reinforcing decision-
making power in the hands of the individual leader of the institution (rector, vice-
chancellor or president) and fostering the greater participation of outside
'stakeholder' constituencies in governing bodies. Leite refers in her chapter to the
reforms of the 1990s in Latin America where under the pressure of the political
agendas of international agencies such as the IMF and World Bank the different
countries were forced to adopt similar managerial practices.
This has resulted in changes in university governance structures, with a decline
in collegial governance and the streamlining and professionalisation of institutional
management. "The traditional university pattern of a Senate which lumbered to
decisions on new courses, and frequently saw fit not to approve innovative
suggestions" (Eggins 1989: 128) is no longer compatible with new pressures for
more effective and efficient, corporate-like management modes. Chris Duke (1992:
2) refers to the frenzied search for short-term results which has pervaded our
societies over the last few decades under the name of the information society:
A subtler cultural conflict also exists: between the long time horizons of the university
ethos and the 'culture of the microsecond' which compels stock exchanges to install
circuit breakers against information technology-induced disaster.

But despite some cases of enthusiasm or even infatuation with some of the
measures aimed to increase management efficiency, there can be little doubt that in
general academics are highly suspicious of new developments which they see as
threatening their academic freedom. In those countries where increased autonomy
has been granted to universities, the locus of power for the daily running of the
institutions has been moved from the fuzzy location of (often inattentive) ministerial
offices to a far more threatening proximity in the offices of the rector and central
administration. And as institutions have been given greater autonomy, ostensibly a
repatriation of authority to a sphere much closer to the academics themselves, many
of the latter believe that they are now confronted with increasing attacks on their
academic freedom and with closer control of their work - thus underlining Meek's
point in the introductory essay that institutional autonomy is quite distinct from
academic freedom. As rectors, vice-chancellors and presidents proudly proclaim the
increased autonomy of their institutions, many academics complain that their own
academic autonomy, or more precisely their academic freedom, is being curtailed
(Magalhaes and Amaral 2000). This has led to the kind of resistance movements that
we analyse in section 4.
 A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION? 279

2. ISOMORPHISM OR DIVERSITY?

At the level of higher education systems, it appears that broadly similar political
reform packages are taking place all over the world. Criticisms of traditional
academic norms and values, the reinforcement of the economic role of higher
education, the emergence of managerialism, an increasing role for external
stakeholders, diversification of funding sources and the rolling-back of public
funding constitute a common picture that cannot be explained solely by "the
functional, national-cultural or rational-instrumental theories that have dominated
the study of education systems or the curriculum hitherto" (Dale 2000: 431).
To explain the emergence of institutional and organisational similarities in
social/political systems across the world, 'world institutionalists,2 (e.g. Meyer et al.
1997; Finnemore 1996) have developed the argument that the institutions of the
nation-state, including the state itself, are moulded at a supranational level by the
dominant values and processes of Western ideology, rather than being autonomous
and specific national creations. R!Z\vik (1996) has traced how some such ideas travel
fast and far, and within a short period of time come to be seen internationally as the
best approach. As an example, Fuller and Rubinson (1992) explain the worldwide
spread of the 'idea of the education system' on the basis of the same argument, that
is, that globalisation takes effect in education through the operations of a
universalistic culture and transnational actors. Others, like Dale (2000: 436), favour
an alternative explanation based on a more economic approach to globalisation
which they see as "a set of political-economic arrangements for the organisation of
the global economy, driven by the need to retain the capitalist system rather than
[by] any set of values".
However, other authors contend that there are strong local and national
characteristics that play against uniformity. For instance Halpin and Troyna (1995:
304) state that "countries seem to be doing similar things, but on closer examination
they are not as similar as it first appeared". Czarniawska and Sevon (1996: 9)
described how the distance between the model-organisation and the one which
follows the model opens up a space for translations and diverse interpretation.
Consequently, meanings ascribed to and copied from the models are edited in
accordance with situational circumstances and limitations. And some authors believe
that 'globalisation' is not incompatible with some forms of diversity:
The logic of globalisation tolerates, indeed requires, the promotion of cultural (and
possibly political) difference and diversity. Globalisation will build on diversity and
needs to work through patterns that seem paradoxical - both global and decentred -
forms of social organisation which convey powerful symbolic images of choice,
freedom and diversity (Jones 1998: 149).

This second volume of the Douro series aims to provide some answers to
questions about the emergence of managerialism in higher education. Is a
managerial revolution really taking place, fatally usurping the governance structures
of higher education institutions or, on the contrary, is managerialism mainly or only
a rhetorical political device to encourage adaptations to new circumstances? Is
managerialism such a powerful and convincing ideology that most higher education
systems and their institutions are changing in a convergent direction that will lead to
280 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLIVER FULTON AND INGVILD M. LARSEN

isomorphic outcomes, or are the responses of systems and their institutions still
largely influenced by strong local and national characteristics that prevent
uniformity? Is managerialism just another management fad, or will it produce a
drastic and irreversible transformation of traditional forms of collegial academic
decision making and even of the academic profession?
From the different contributions in this new volume of the Douro series we can
obtain a picture of substantial diversity, ranging from situations in which most of the
key characteristics of managerialism are absent to situations where the managerial
paradigm seems to have been largely adopted.
In his chapter, designed to provide empirically based comparisons across three
systems, De Boer argues that his case studies justify a critical attitude towards the
'managerial claim' of offering a single paradigm for the management of public
organisations. This view can certainly be supported by reviewing the conclusions of
the various national case studies in this volume. For example, in the instance of
Portugal, Amaral, Magalhaes and Santiago, claim that:
the emergence of managerialism is not yet established in Portuguese higher education
... This is confirmed by the absence of legislation imposing a 'market' or 'market-like'
behaviour on public universities, despite the presence of an important private higher
education sector and some opinions and comments propagated by the more neo-liberal
press .... if managerialism exists, it is present at a rhetorical level.

This may be the result of both the 1974 revolutionary movement to democracy
and a weak industrial fabric. A very weak presence of managerialism is also
observed by De Boer in the case of France:
respondents did not perceive a fundamental change in the role of academics in decision
making. Only a few ... suggested that there has been a shift towards a managerial
approach. Many perceived collegiality as the main feature (in particular at the lower
levels).

France, with its tradition of intrinsic Republican values dating from the days of
the French Revolution, as argued by De Boer, is probably the only country where a
respondent would express his preference for elected leadership in the following
terms:
It goes without saying. We didn't go through the whole French Revolution and cut off
the heads of our kings only to end up today with a system where the former President
chooses the next one. Heavens no, this is absolutely unthinkable!

In Norway, despite some of De Boer's respondents perceiving "a shift towards

managerialism" and believing that "the role of academics in decision making has
diminished", many replied that "there remains a strong culture of democracy and
collegiality"; "colleague-based decision making [is] evident at each level: central,
faculty and department"; and "democracy is valued for its own sake". Larsen in her
chapter endorses this general picture by referring to "democratic decision-making
processes", the promotion of "consensus within the community", and sensitivity to
"traditional values according to the collegial model" as well as to "consultation and
persuasion rather than use of incentives" and concludes that "this study has
demonstrated that the traditional model in many respects is still applicable". She
adds, however, that there are also some tendencies that point towards the opposite.
 A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION? 281

Norwegian higher education could be at a turning point. During 2003 a

comprehensive reform for higher education will be implemented which could
reinforce a shift towards managerialism: the introduction of a new performance-
based funding system, more external members in the central governing body, the
possibility to appoint rather than elect academic leaders, and the abolition of the
university council, all point in that direction.
Pechar presents a much more decisive movement towards managerialism in
Austria, externally imposed by a government led by a coalition of conservatives and
right wing populists, applying 'speed kills' techniques to public policy
implementation. Pechar states that "for better or worse, the new act [UO 2002]
brings Austria far ahead in the 'managerial revolution' on the European continent";
but it still remains to be seen how thoroughly the reforms will be implemented in
practice, due to "the mistrust which was aroused during the reform debates" and
which was reinforced among junior faculty as a consequence of new legislation on
academic employment.
For Salminen, the Finnish national case is an example of the relatively successful
implementation of managerial reform. Accountability based on performance
indicators, "funding based on results", the replacement of collegial by individual
leadership, "governance of universities based on results/performance
management steering ... marketisation, commercialisation and the like" are many of
the ingredients of a more managerial approach to university governance. In contrast
to this general picture, however, Salminen still emphasises that "universities are, in
the first place, professional organisations, including the ethical behaviour of the
organisations", even though "as organisations, universities have to change from old
to new management practices and processes".
De Boer presents the Dutch case as another example of significant penetration of
managerialism in university governance: "The overwhelming majority of the
respondents of the University of Twente answered that there had been [a] shift
towards managerialism". The abolition of collegial decision-making bodies,
ministerial appointment of the raad van toezicht (supervisory board), abolition of the
powerful vakgroepen (departments), power concentration and a "new hierarchical
management system based on appointment [rather than on election]" are some of the
salient elements of this system's movement towards managerialism.
The UK is probably the Western European country where managerialism has
emerged in its most virulent form. Fulton, describing the outcomes of a research
project based at Lancaster University, reports that in general respondents
consistently considered not only that accountability pressures, bureaucracy and
management had increased, but that management had changed "in a way consistent
with ideas about efficiency, performance monitoring, target setting, private sector
models of running organisations and a decline in trust and discretion". Almost all
decisions are now ostensibly finance-driven.
However, in each of those countries where managerialist practices appear to
have taken hold there are also accounts of counter-movements that have opposed a
straightforward veni, vidi, vinci takeover of higher education. This will be analysed
in more detail in section 4 when we turn to elements of 'resistance'.
282 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLIVER FULTON AND INGYILD M. LARSEN

Outside Western Europe, South Africa offers a good example of exceptionalism,

in the sense that its particular historical background and the recent dramatic political
changes have very strongly influenced the reactions and perceptions of institutions
and academic communities to external political steering. Certain universities (at the
time nicknamed 'bush colleges') established by the apartheid regime for people
classified 'Coloured', and frequently seen as one of many forms of humiliation
imposed by white domination, had become the seedbeds of the struggle against the
apartheid government and were subjected to continual strife and disruption that
destroyed most of the elements of academic authority. At the same time, a number
of traditionally white institutions, specifically those of Afrikaans culture and
language, had gained a profound racial connotation during the second half of the last
century, presenting the image of very conservative institutions which have inherited
from the former apartheid regime a number of distortions which are difficult to
eliminate. Cloete and Kulati report in their chapter that one of the first post-
apartheid struggles consisted in challenging "the authority of what were considered
to be illegitimate and unrepresentative governance structures".
South African changes have thus developed under the combined influence of
calls for democratisation and redress, the Mandela government's political model of
cooperative governance and, at the same time, the implementation of a macro-
economic policy framework - 'Growth, Employment and Redistribution' - that
followed closely the dictates of the Washington consensus, thus placing strong
emphasis on "efficiency, accountability and good governance". According to Cloete
and Kulati that is why "some of the reforms of thc national government have,
intentionally and unintentionally, promoted managerialism rather than greater
democratisation" .
Australia is one of the non-European countries in which managerial ism seems to
have gained a relatively profound grip. In his chapter on the Australian situation,
Meek describes the strengthening and expansion of the office of vice-chancellor, the
appointment (rather than election) of deans, a reduction in size of institutional
governing bodies combined with a new predominance of external representatives on
university councils, streamlined and more efficient decision-making processes,
increased accountability, the marketisation and commodification of knowledge, the
"de-professionalisation of academics", a loss of professional autonomy, and a "shift
from social knowledge to market knowledge" with a "prioritised and finely targeted
research funding regime". However, he also refers to resistance movements (see
section 4), the displacement of academic loyalties and the "entrenchment of
antagonism between managers and managed", together with some 'mostly
ceremonial' remnants of academic self-governance.
Denise Leite reports that in Latin America one can observe the emergence of
policies of 'good' administration aimed at increased efficiency and effectiveness.
These polices are the result of the pressure of evaluation exercises and are supported
by concepts such as 'market-oriented goals' (Buchbinder 1993), 'performativity'
(Cowen 1996) and 'selective excellence' (Barrow 1996), assumed by universities
within the context of evaluation processes.
Finally, the United States constitutes a case in itself. Coming from a long
tradition of strong central administration and control by 'boards of trustees' and
 A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION? 283

without a strong tradition of the university as fundamentally a self-governing

community of academics and students, American institutions never gave their
academic senates such a wide-ranging role as their European and Australian
counterparts. Slaughter and Rhoades present in their chapter a picture of a "shift
from a public good knowledge regime, associated with Mertonian values and the
Vannevar Bush model of science, to an academic capitalist regime, associated with
basic science for use and basic technology, concepts which their framers argue allow
academic and commercial values to coexist, even if uneasily". They suggest that
whatever the claims of coexistence, the reality is that this movement is making
"faculty more like all other workers".
Our general conclusion must be that, whatever progress the onward march of
managerialism may be making within specific systems, and granting that there are
important similarities between some of these, taken as a whole these different case
studies present a picture of continuing diversity at the national level. It cannot (at
least yet) be convincingly argued that there is a multinational convergence towards
new methods and processes of management, paved by the brutal expansion of the
new managerialist ideology. We should also recognise that there is considerable
variation within national systems. This is evident, for example, in Pechar's
description of the opposite behaviour of universities and Fachhochschulen in
Austria. And while Fulton reports that, in contrast, his research did not reveal
systematic differences between established universities and former polytechnics,
neither did it show any clear evidence of isomorphism or convergence on a single
model. This is broadly consistent with Henkel's (2000: 237) identification of distinct
value patterns according to institutional type: "Overall, the more traditional the
university, the less likely were individuals to identify themselves as managers, even
if they saw those at the centre of the university in these terms". And Cloete and
Kulati state that:
within one country, within a national policy framework, a wide range of governance
arrangements have developed, and to suggest that there is an inevitable 'historic march
to managerial ism' is to obscure, and miss, some very interesting responses emerging
amongst different groups of institutions. The different governance and leadership styles
may contain many elements of what is being described as manageriaiism, but ...
institutions with a more collegial history seem to be developing a range of 'democratic'
practices.

Thus the broad picture is one of diversity of behaviours and responses, both at
system level and at institutional level within systems. In the following section,
however, we nevertheless attempt to generalise about some characteristics that seem
to present a more convergent pattern in some of the national case studies presented
in this book.

3. ACADEMICS VS ADMINISTRATORS

It seems to be the case that, in general, there is widespread resentment among

academics of recent changes in governance. Smith (2000: 83-91) refers to increased
tension between faculty and administration, to negative, sometimes uncooperative,
faculty behaviour, and to conflict between administrators and faculty. Slaughter and
284 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLNER FULTON AND INGVILD M. LARSEN

Leslie (1997: 230) are of the opinion that "tensions between academic staff and
central administrators are likely to grow". Henkel (2000: 239) reports complaints
that "there is quite an antagonistic feeling developing in the department between
Them (the managers) and Us (the workers)". Cloete and Kulati writing in this
volume consider that "there has not only been a widening gap between workers and
management, but also between management and academics" and Meek refers to
"deepening conflict and bitterness between the managers and the managed".
This resentment is no doubt in large part the consequence of the reduced distance
between the 'managers' and the 'managed', with the inevitable sensation that an
increasingly intrusive 'Big Brother' is peering over one's academic shoulder. This
feeling of discontent is further aggravated by micro-management mechanisms that
are increasingly used by institutions in order to respond to outside pressures which
promote the new values and demands of "economy, efficiency, utility, public
accountability, enterprise and various definitions of quality" (Henkel 2000: 47).
The resentment of academics finds obvious targets not only in central
administrations but also in the fast-breeding species of academic administrators.
Reed (2002: 167) considers that this may result from "more intrusive and pervasive
performance management, [placing] a consistent emphasis on the detailed
monitoring and evaluation of 'quality' standards in service delivery [as] outcomes
emerge as the overriding priority". As has often been observed of bureaucracies,
central administrations tend to cling to power, and even when they nominally
decentralise responsibilities to operating units, they may still try to retain ultimate
control. Notably, central administrations sometimes decentralise 'responsibility'
while keeping the associated resources at central level (Slaughter and Leslie 1997:
230), and operating units complain that "they have not quite let go of the budgetary
reins in the way they will need to do to give us proper devolved authority" (Henkel
2000: 241). Fulton considers that the clearest example is when the freedom to recruit
new personnel is not devolved, as is commonly the case. But there are other obvious
sources of resentment such as price setting of central services or the imposition of
large financial overheads on research grants. In the new entrepreneurial culture,
money earned through contracts is seen as the property of those who have raised it,
and the idea of paying an overhead, especially if this appears to include an element
of support for those who are less capable, arouses strong feelings against an 'unfair'
strategy which would be more appropriate to traditional 'welfare-based' university
cultures.
One of the consequences of the new public management policies appears to have
been a strong attack on the professions, and specifically on the academic profession
which has undoubtedly lost prestige and social standing - albeit this has occurred in
the wake of massification and changes in the nature and value of knowledge, and not
only of new management processes. In any event, Scott (1989: 9-10) states that "the
academy no longer enjoys great prestige on which higher education can build a
successful claim to political autonomy", while Halsey (1992) refers to:
The gradual proletarianization of the academic professions - an erosion of their relative
class and status advantages as the system of higher education is propelled towards a
wider admission of those who survive beyond compulsory schooling.
 A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION? 285

However, in the view of some authors, it was only after the emergence of new
managerialism that there occurred "a much more direct ideological and political
attack on institutional and professional autonomy" (Reed 2002: 172). Slaughter and
Leslie (1997: 5) considered that "participation in the market began to undercut the
tacit contract between professors and society". In the present volume, Slaughter and
Rhoades restate that argument:
Simultaneously and ironically ... patent policies also made faculty more like all other
workers, in that the institution, intent on generating revenue streams, over the period
considered, came to claim virtually all intellectual property from all members of the
university community, making faculty, staff and students less like university
professionals and more like corporate professionals whose discoveries are considered
work-for-hire, the property of the corporation, not the professional.

In their chapters, both Meek and Fulton refer to the perceived de-
professionalisation of academics, or the proletarianisation of the academic
profession (Halsey 1992) and routinisation ofthe labour process (Winter 1995). And
Leicht and Fennell (2001), as cited by Reed (2002: 179), offer an analysis of an
emerging situation in which "elite managers are becoming the 'new professionals',
while professionals are being captured by organisational stakeholders that consume
and pay for professional services".
Academics and managers express mutual feelings of resentment. On the
academics' side, faculty members tend to "resent that significant sums of money are
being spent to support activities that they do for free" (Smith 2000: 90), while many
criticise 'their' managers implicitly by insisting that "you must have people who
empathise with the values of people in universities and who know how hard it is to
do research" (Henkel 2000: 239), or as reported by Meek complain of "an increasing
sense of alienation by rank-and-file academic staff regarding the ways in which their
institutions are governed and managed". Cloete and Kulati in their chapter "reveal a
concern, in some cases outrage, that the council is expanding its jurisdiction over
financial matters to the appointment, or dismissal, of the vice-chancellor without
adequately involving the senate, not to mention other stakeholders".
To make things worse, "this new managerial class rapidly evolved its own
interests and agenda, which were and are often unrelated to those of faculty and
students" (Smith 2000: 83). Meek notes that academics have quickly grasped the
new stark reality: "the 'collegial' university governed by the academic guild assisted
by low-profile administrators has been succeeded by the 'managerial' university
dominated by an increasingly expert cadre of senior managers", with whom
"traditional norms and values of the academic profession carry little weight".
Managers, for their part, see themselves as essential professional contributors to
the successful functioning of the contemporary university. They complain that
academics are frequently uncooperative, refusing to accept that current demands for
increased efficiency, effectiveness and greater accountability, coupled with the
much greater complexity of the manager's job, are no longer compatible with the
amateur approach to management characteristic of "a senior professor of patriarchal
structure ... with the role assumed by people who were good at that sort of thing and
also had established academic reputations" (interviewee quoted in Henkel 2000:
236).
286 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLNER FULTON AND INOVILD M. LARSEN

Meek argues in this volume that "the 'de-professionalisation' of academics has

been coupled with a claim to professional status by administrative staff'. This point
is well illustrated in a recent article by Lauwerys (2002: 93-97), a successful
professional manager with experience in several English higher education
institutions, who offers a personal reflection "on the characteristics of a profession
. .. and the extent to which higher education administration is developing towards
having true professional standing". Lauwerys comments that thirty years ago
administrators were "very much expected to operate in a subservient supportive role
to the academic community, very much in a traditional Civil Servant mould". He
presents a list of current grievances: lack of institutional support for administrative
staff development, being "undervalued by their institution in general and their
academic colleagues in particular" and seeing "senior posts going to those appointed
from other sectors or to senior academics who switch careers".
A Norwegian study suggests that administrative staff are simultaneously
enhancing their professionalism and experiencing feelings of uncertainty about their
role. Administrators sense that their function and role are undervalued within the
academic community while they know that the university cannot run smoothly
without their managerial expertise. In the Norwegian context, administrative
personnel see themselves as inconspicuous, exercising anonymous functional power.
University administrators find themselves subject to a number of conflicting
pressures associated with professional pride, the struggle for recognition,
humbleness and loyalty to the organisation (Gornitzka and Larsen forthcoming). The
administrative tension investigated in the Norwegian study was more a conflict
between levels than direct dispute between academics and administrators. Tensions
are noticeably lower at the departmental level than higher up within the
administrative hierarchy. University departments are in general transparent, and
there is considerable interaction and cooperation between administrative staff and
head of department (Gornitzka, Kyvik and Larsen 1998).

4. RESISTANCE
The national case studies show that the implementation of new forms of academic
governance has on occasions resulted in considerable resistance from the academic
community. Such resistance has taken different forms. Henkel (2000) refers to
collective resistance in the form of deliberate distortion of policy requirements (e.g.
into compliant paper-chasing) or even of 'wilful misunderstanding', while Kogan
(1999) speaks of the opportunities created by 'constructive ambiguity'. Maassen
(2002: 26) describes how "by combining neo-institutional and resource dependence
theories, Oliver [1991: 152] identifies five organisational strategies for dealing with
environmental pressures: acquiescing, compromising, avoiding, defying, and
manipulating". Trowler (1998) offers a rather similar list of coping strategies with
which academics have responded to external pressures to become more effective,
efficient, relevant and accountable.
De Boer cites Pressman and Wildavsky (1974) to remind us that "reforms do not
by definition lead to the intended results", a problem that has long been recognised
 A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION? 287

in research on higher education (Cerych and Sabatier 1986). To support his claim
that "many authors [have come] to the conclusion that, generally speaking,
government-initiated reforms in higher education systems must fail", Van Vught
(1989: 58) quotes Becher and Kogan (1980: 121):
[In the case of higher education systemsI we are not dealing with a hierarchical system,
where change can be decreed from above, but rather with a negotiative one, in which
individuals, basic units and institutions each regard themselves as having the right to
decide what is best for them. It follows that any innovative proposal has to be finally
sanctioned by those who are in a position to put it into effect.

De Boer maintains in this volume that externally enforced reforms "tend to

increase resistance to change even further, especially when they go against the
wishes of those undergoing the reform".
A number of the chapters in this book report on resistance from academic staff.
Pechar reports a pattern of systematic opposition to governmental reforms in the
case of Austria, where the Humboldtian model has produced a caste of powerful
'academic mandarins': "A majority of the academic oligarchy opposed the higher
education reforms ... " and "the critique from the academic side was passionate".
Meek reports that: "The new forms of management have not gone uncontested,
nor have they become entirely institutionalised" and adds: "government perceives
that it has not been so successful in bringing about changes to university
management practices, particularly with respect to productivity gains. Evidence of
this is reflected in the fact that the reform of institutional governance and
management has been prominent on the government's agenda for nearly two
decades".
Fulton observes that in the UK "there was also resistance to attempts to impose
directive management which excluded academic staff', and that "there were some
sharp contrasts between the often quite optimistic and positive stories of
achievement and change told by manager-academics, especially at senior levels, and
the accounts given by ordinary academics, support staff and students union
officers". He adds: "nor have academics and manager-academics easily absorbed
new managerialism ~ for each one who had, we found three who felt
uncomfortable" .
In South Africa, Cloete and Kulati consider that "the collegial model was
thoroughly discredited during the initial phases of the demands for greater
democratisation", and despite government reforms that "have, intentionally and
unintentionally, promoted managerialism rather than greater democratisation ... new
forms of consultation and participation are emerging under conditions of demands
for greater efficiency and accountability". Larsen reports that "departmental heads in
Norwegian universities are defenders of democratic processes for decision making
[which are] sensitive to traditional values according to the collegial model" and in
which the central leadership tools "are still consultation and persuasion rather than
the use of incentives".
In the USA there are reports of examples of strong resistance from the academic
community. Smith (2000: 91), for instance, states that "negative, sometimes
uncooperative, faculty behaviour is the heavy cost that many institutions of higher
288 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLNER FULTON AND INOVILD M. LARSEN

education pay as a result ofthe new administrative class's attempt at domination" or,
even worse, that the result "is a faculty that simply retreats ... When the faculty
withdraws the institution loses not only its sight, its hearing, its touch, its smell, its
taste, but also most of its common sense".
It is interesting that both in Australia, and particularly in the UK, where
managerialism has assumed some of its most virulent forms, the implementation in
higher education of reforms associated with new managerialism has been rather
more ambiguous, contested and contradictory than the advocates or theorists
anticipated. In general, managerialism seems to have been far more successful in
other parts of the public sector such as national health services than when applied to
higher education. In his chapter Fulton offers an explanation in the British context
by stressing that "Unlike the British National Health Service, where early reforms
introduced massive organisational changes, in universities new managerial ism has
developed within existing organisational forms". Reed (2002: 175) makes a similar
point:
The implementation of new managerialist discourse and strategy within UK universities
... has been significantly different from, say, the NHS (Ferlie et al., 1996), local
government (Kean and Scase 1998) and social services (Jones 1999).

While in other social systems the new top 'managers' were generally recruited
from outside the system - for instance, within the British NHS early reforms
introduced a new cadre of general managers from outside the health service (Reed
and Anthony 1993)3 - this was not the case for British higher education institutions
in which, for instance, over 90% of the vice-chancellors were appointed after careers
in academia, and of those appointed since 1981 nearly a third had been Oxbridge4
undergraduates (Smith et al. 1999). This was confirmed by Kogan (1999: 269):
In virtually all higher education institutions there are mixtures of collegial, academic-
based decision making, and bureaucraticlhierarchical working. Those operating the
bureaucratic lines can be, however, either academics or professional administrators.

Using the results of his research project Fulton, based on the evidence of the
observation of potentially competing discourses "both at the level of official policy
discourse and in the narratives of manager-academics themselves", considers "that
this indicates, not a successful hybridisation, but a contested and still unpredictable
discursive struggle between competing views of university-based knowledge
workers".
Manager-academics are at the front line in the struggle, or at least the tension, of
working with incompatible sets of values: on the one hand, those traditional
academic values that are linked to collegial decision making, to the "disinterested
search for truth, and the certification of knowledge on the criteria of logic, evidence
and demonstrability" (Kogan 1999: 269) and, on the other hand, the new and
distinctive set of values linked to a managerial role, such as public accountability,
economic efficiency, customer satisfaction and even "advancing the university
beyond the good of individual academics or their departments" (Kogan 1999: 269).
Different authors (see for instance Henkel 1998, 2000; Kogan 1999; Smith et al.
1999; Leicht and Fennell 2001; Reed 2002; and Fulton in this volume) have
analysed this problem as experienced by the managers themselves. For example,
 A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION? 289

Reed (2002: 175, 180) speaks of a group of 'reluctant managers' who "continued to
exhibit strong personal commitment to traditional academic values", and who "seem
rather unwilling to fulfil the historical destiny that the ideology and practice of new
managerialism has scripted for them". Henkel (2000: 249) describes how the
"ambiguities of their organisational environment, the emergent nature of their roles,
and the lack of systematic preparation for them laid a heavy onus on individuals to
negotiate their way into them", and reports that some managers:
made a distinction between being a manager and being managerial, an epithet against
which. it was implied, it would self-evidently be necessary to defend oneself, even if its
meanings were various. For our respondents these meanings included authoritarian,
coerci ve, lacking respect for academics, and obsessed with efficiency, productivity and
costs (p. 237).

Fulton reports in this volume that from the self-descriptions of the present
identities of manager-academics it is evident that:
many of the elements which Henkel (2000), Altbach (1996) and others note about
academic identities (especially the continued commitment to both teaching and research
... ) were strongly evident. Nor, generally, did these identities disappear once an
interviewee had embarked on major management roles ...

This tension between what are fundamentally 'incompatible imperatives' (Reed

2002) has important consequences at the level of institutional management. While
Meek (2002: 249) considers that "[the tension] is widespread and contributes
significantly to staff alienation which, in turn, may undermine commitment to the
very corporate planning processes that the managerial approach is intended to
accomplish", Maassen in this volume refers to "institutional managers ... caught
between the horizontal academic decision-making practices and the hierarchical
administrative traditions". Henkel (2000: 54) refers to the emergence of ambiguity
"between management for control and management for innovation, centralisation
and decentralisation; bureaucratic and post-bureaucratic management, managerial
and academic values; reduced and enhanced autonomy", and Reed (2002: 175)
states that:
the dominant theme in the implementation of new managerialist discourse and strategy
within UK universities, as of the UK public sector as a whole, is one of 'hybridisation'
- of institutional structures, organisational forms, occupational cultures and control
technologies.

He sums up by suggesting that:

Again, unlike other sectors, the control strategies and mechanisms deployed by HE
manager-academics to try to secure required levels of individual and organisational
performance, seem, in relati ve terms at least, rather muted and less crudely coercive
than elsewhere within the public sector system as a whole.

5. CHANGING LOYALTIES

In an address during the celebrations of the 900th anniversary of the University of

Bologna, Giovanni Agnelli (1988: 11) declared that:
290 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLIVER FULTON AND lNGVILD M. LARSEN

from their very beginning universities were free institutions, even in societies ruled by
despots; they were disinterested, for their task was not imposed on them from outside,
but chosen by themselves, and that task was the pursuit of knowledge. And from the
first they were international in spirit. Even in the most intolerant and difficult times they
held that knowledge should be free and universal.

In truth, this statement is an evident exaggeration, a generous contribution from

industry to a university celebration. During its long and troubled history, academic
freedom was many times abused, through the interventions of the Catholic Church
(several researchers paid their tribute to academic freedom by being burned at the
stake) or by the controls which different Protestant denominations imposed on the
first American colleges.
The situation changed for the better with the advent of the modern university.
According to Nybom (forthcoming) the tremendous problem that Humboldt
succeeded in solving was:
How is it possible to construct and then secure the necessary autonomous institutional
order - or framework - to modern science and the pursuit of qualified knowledge and,
at the same time, prevent it from being corrupted or even destroyed by other mighty and
legitimate forces in society such as politics, economy, and religion?

Neave and Van Vught (1994: 271) similarly argue that what is characteristic of
the 'state control' model is "the state's underwriting of non-interference by external
interests in the individual freedom to teach and to learn, [by guaranteeing] a
monopoly of access to curricular pathways leading to public service or [through] the
[university's] administrative subordination to a powerful central ministry".
Through the power which it conferred on professionals, this concept of the
university served as the foundation for institutions which developed their own
unique organisational form. Universities were described by Mintzberg (1979) as
professional bureaucracies, where the real power lies at the level of classrooms and
research laboratories. According to Allen (1988: 26):
universities are a unique form of organisation because of their multiplicity of missions
and the absence of a single absolute authority. They are a genus apart, a non-
organisation or an organised anarchy, characterised by ambiguity, but not therefore
'illegitimate, immoral or ineffective'.

The primacy of knowledge, regarded as free and universal, and the emphasis on
individual academic freedom, conditioned the primary loyalties of academics.
According to Clark (1983a) the loyalty of academics was first and above all to their
own discipline, then to their department, sometimes to the faculty (or school) and
even less frequently to the university itself.
This situation is apparently changing. Meek states in his chapter that "In the past,
academic loyalty was first and foremost to the discipline and to disciplinary norms
concerning the definition and production of knowledge ... That loyalty has come
under challenge from powerful groups both within and without the academy
demanding loyalty first and foremost to the institution - that is, to the corporation
that pays the bills".
Slaughter and Rhoades argue that the traditional idea of free and universal
knowledge has been replaced by the idea that "rather than being shared, intellectual
property is owned", while "the proliferation of conflict of interest language and rules
 A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION? 291

[in intellectual property policies] is another indication of the death of

disinterestedness". Leite reports on "capitalist ownership being extended to services
and knowledge which were previously considered in the public domain".
As universities are forced to look for alternative sources of funding, they become
increasingly aware of the potential market value of innovation and new knowledge.
In the USA, Slaughter and Rhoades demonstrate the 'obligatory disclosure'
legislation which has been passed in a number of states allowing universities "to
direct faculty to patent rather than publish", thus converting the traditional
Mertonian values of American university research - communalism, the free flow of
knowledge, disinterestedness and organised scepticism - into a thing of the past.
Moreover, Slaughter and Rhoades report that following the recent passage of the
Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the development of university copyright
policies which cover software and courseware (thus clearly aimed at controlling e-
learning materials), the other primary asset of the academic's ingenuity - what is
taught - will also increasingly be converted into commodifiable property.
All this is transforming the academic from a professional, both protected from
the marketplace and morally committed to professional practice (Freidson 2001: 34),
into a more and more 'normal' employee of an enterprise which happens to be a
university. In this sense, and whatever the precise forms of governance and
management, the claim that the academic profession is becoming proletarianised
may indeed be justified. As academics cross the boundary of the marketplace,
whether as creators of marketable knowledge or as providers of teaching services to
their student clients, their qualities of altruism and probity are slowly eroded, and
the way is open to the accusation that corporatism has superseded the traditional
loyalties and modes of working of academic life. Or, in the words of Michael Reed
(2002: 177-178):
No longer seen as the disinterested guardians of esoteric disciplinary knowledge
guaranteeing expert status as recognised 'professionals' but as 'knowledge producers or
workers' routinely engaged in generating and communicating socially relevant and
economically useful skills or techniques, academics seem adrift on a 'sea of utilitarian
pragmatism' .

As universities increase their penetration of the marketplace, academics will

increasingly be seen as 'intellectual workers', forced to direct their loyalty, not to
their academic peers in their department or discipline, but to the institutions that pay
their salaries and demand the lion's share of the economic value they produce.

6. CONCLUSION

On the basis of the different authors' contributions to this second volume of the
Douro series, we have concluded that managerialism as an ideology has not imposed
a single, convergent model of behaviour on higher education systems and their
institutions. Maassen notes that "there has not been a one-time-only introduction of
new management structures". Governments have espoused managerialism, whether
as ideology or as practice, to different degrees or not at all, and institutions have
responded in very different ways, largely influenced by their historical, economic
292 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLIVER FULTON AND INGVILD M. LARSEN

and social backgrounds. Cloete and Kulati offer sound advice to researchers with
their warning, a propos developments in South Africa that "what a label of
managerialism will obscure is the interesting new forms of consultation and
participation that are emerging under conditions of demands for greater efficiency
and accountability". Likewise, Meek in the introduction draws our attention to the
fact that in this volume "a unified theoretical template has not been imposed on the
country contributors. In our judgment, the cases are too diverse and the state of
theoretical development in the field too meagre to warrant such a measure". And
Maassen in his theoretical considerations emphasises that "it is not assumed that all
new governance models with respect to higher education are market models, nor that
all management developments in higher education institutions concern variations on
NPM or new 'managerialism'''.
However, despite the evident diversity, it also seems that there are some
generally detectable patterns. These include: growing financial strictures, which
have developed an increasing awareness among academics of financial limits and of
the need for more efficient financial management; the growth in power of central
administrations; and a growing awareness among academics of a loss of social
standing, of proletarianised working conditions, and even of their loss of the moral
trappings of professionalism: "to many academics on campus, eventually, the chase
for the dollar would no longer be questionable behaviour" (Slaughter and Leslie
1997: 233). And Maassen in his chapter discusses "the changes in institutional
management structures in higher education ... from the perspective of shifts in
system-level governance arrangements".
The chapters also reveal that the attempted imposition of new managerial culture
and values has been met almost everywhere by counter-movements of resistance,
and that these have so far averted the complete victory of the new ideology, even in
those countries where its emergence was more virulent. Fulton considers that this
has been made easier by the fact that, even in those countries where managerialism
was imposed as part of a new ideology of public service as a whole, higher
education has been somewhat protected from its full force because the existing
organisational forms have not been wholly uprooted and replaced. But this is not to
downplay the problems, notably that an inevitable by-product of academic resistance
has been an increasing tension between academics and managers.
What remains to be seen is whether the new ideology will turn out to herald a
permanent change, or will it fade into organisational history as a new but transitory
management fad. Reed (2002: 175) demonstrates how seriously he takes
managerialist ideology in voicing his scepticism that it will be short-lived:
But the longer-tenn impact and significance of these, more incremental, subtle and
supposedly continuity-facilitating reforms should not be underestimated. The inherent
contradictions, tensions and stresses remain; in many respects they seem to be
intensifying. As usual, much depends on where you stand within a public sector system
in a pennanent state of flux and uncertainty where today's 'change masters' are
tomorrow's 'change-casualties or victims'.

However, it is not only the potential 'victims' who have their reservations about
the benefits of new managerial practices. In particular, a number of well-known
analysts have questioned whether an absolute commitment to economic efficiency is
 A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION? 293

an appropriate value to impose on universities. According to Clark (1983b), as

Amaral and Magalhiies (2003) observe, a more desirable
model of university organisation consists in loose coupling between schools,
departments, laboratories and professorial chairs. This model of organisation induces
some disorder and allows for some inefficiency in the use of resources. On the other
hand, it makes it possible for individuals and research teams to liberate their inventive
capacity and to produce innovative ideas thus contributing to an effectiveness that is
impossible within institutions with a formal and hierarchical chain of command.

Likewise, the Brazilian scholar Luis Cunha (1999) considers that "organisations
are effective only when they are able to maximise their own abilities. Universities
are effective when they are able to promote the initiatives and amplify the options of
different and conflicting groups belonging to them". Others, such as Michael
Shattock (2002), the former Registrar of the University of Warwick, have argued
convincingly that in the UK, when improprieties and breakdowns occurred, they
were not centred on the academic community but on governing bodies and the
executive. Shattock also declares that there is little hard evidence that 'new
managerialism' has been successful in delivering academic success, and he
recommends a shift in the balance of modern concepts of university governance so
that governing bodies should not be kept too remote from the internal academic
discourse.
Recent scandals, such as those resulting from the bankruptcies of ENRON,
WorldCom and other companies listed on the New York stock exchange or the
criminal behaviour of auditing companies such as Arthur Andersen, have
demonstrated the lack of efficient and reliable financial control in some of the most
significant global corporations - and have cast justifiable doubt on the much-
proclaimed 'evident supremacy' of management practices in the private sector.
Meek reports in his chapter that recent research on corporate governance in
Australia has demonstrated that "the corporate sector has many if not more
governance and management problems than the university sector". Shattock (2002:
240) summarises his balanced arguments by concluding that:
Jarratt and others may have been right to see the academic community as a force for
slowing down decision-making and being indecisive, but it cannot stand accused of the
kind of abuses that have attracted the attention of the National Audit Office.

We agree with Neave (1995: 9) when he states that "Looking into the future is a
risky activity, as prophets and seers have found to their cost throughout the ages".
The future of managerialism in higher education is beyond the divinatory powers of
the most sibylline oracle. What we need is far more research on these questions,
research which, we may hope, will help to shed light on the benefits and costs of a
range of alternative possibilities for the governance and management of such a
complex social organisation as the university.

NOTES
This guild-like organisation was never implemented in the American university where the initial
colleges were "meant to be the orthodox instrument of the community and its faith" (Hofstadter
1996: 81).
294 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLIVER FULTON AND INGVILD M. LARSEN

This designation is explained by Dale (2000: 429): "The work has been developed over twenty years
through a wide range of publications put out by a group of scholars who may be referred to as 'world
institutionalists' since their work develops on a world scale some tenets of what has become known
as sociological institutionalism [Powell and DiMaggio 1991, Finnemore 1996, Hall and Taylor
1996]".
In Portugal, too, a recent reform of the hospitals integrated in the National Health Service has
resulted in the appointment of all the presidents of the executive boards from outside the medical
profession. These people were selected for their reputation as private sector managers, and generally
had no previous knowledge of health administration.
The point is that Oxford and Cambridge are generally regarded as the most collegiate (and under-
managed) of UK universities. Smith et al. (1999) emphasise that "When postgraduate and
academic/teaching experience is taken into account Oxbridge influence increases still further".

REFERENCES
Agnelli, G. "industry'S Expectations ofthe University." CRE-action 83 (1988): 11-17.
Allen, M. The Goals of Universities. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1988.
Altbach, P. (ed.). The international Academic Profession: Portraits of Fourteen Countries. Princeton:
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1996.
Amaral, A and A. Magalhaes. "The Triple Crisis of the University and its Reinvention." Higher
Education Policy 2003 (forthcoming).
Ball, C. and H. Eggins (eds). Higher Education into the i990s: New Dimensions. Buckingham: Society
for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 1989.
Ball, S.l. "Big Policies/Small World: An Introduction to International Perspectives in Education Policy."
Comparative Education 34.2 (1998): 119-130.
Barrow, C. "The Strategy of Selective Excellence: Redesigning Higher Education for Global Competition
in a Post-modern Society." Higher Education 41 (1996): 447-469.
Becher, T. and M. Kogan. Process and Structure in Higher Education. London: Hcincmann, 1980.
Buchbinder, H. "The Market Oriented University and the Changing Role of Knowledge." Higher
Education 26 (1993): 331-347.
Cerych, L. and P. Sabatier. Great Expectations and Mixed Performance: The Implementation of' Higher
Education Reforms in Europe. Trentham: Trentham Books, 1986.
Clark, B.R. "Governing the Higher Education System." In Shattock, M. (ed.). The Structure and
Governance of' Higher Education. Guilford: Society for Research into Higher Education, 1983a, 19-
42.
Clark, B.R. The Higher Education System. Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983b.
Clark, B.R. Creating Entrepreneurial Universities. London: Pergamon Press, 1998.
Clark, B.R. "The Entrepreneurial University: New Foundations for Collegiality, Autonomy and
Achievement." Beyond the Entrepreneurial University? Global Challenges and Institutional
Responses (CD-ROM). IMHE General Conference 11-13 September. Paris: OECD, 2000,118-127.
Cobban, A.B. The Medieval Universities: Their Development and Organization. London: Methuen, 1975.
Cowen, R. "Performativity, Post-modernity and the University." Comparative Education 32.2 (1996):
245-258.
Cunha, L.A. "0 publico e 0 privado na educa\iao superior brasileira: uma fronteira em movimento." In
Trindade, H. (ed.). Uma Universidade em rulnas - Na Republica dos Projessores. Petr6polis: Editora
Vozes, 1999,39-56.
Czarniawska, B. and G. Sevon (eds). Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996.
Dale, R. "Globalization and Education: Demonstrating a 'Common World Educational Culture' or
Locating a 'Globally Structured Educational Agenda'?" Educational Theory 50.4 (2000): 427-448.
Duke, C. The Learning University. Towards a New Paradigm? Buckingham: Open University Press,
1992.
Eggins, H. "Conclusions." In Ball, C. and H. Eggins (eds). Higher Education into the 19905: New
Dimensions. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,
1989,124--132.
 A MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION? 295

Ferlie, E., L. Ashburner, L. Fitzgerald and A Pettigrew. The New Public Management in Action. London:
Sage, 1996.
Finnemore, M. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996.
Freidson, E. Professionalism: The Third Logic. Cambridge: The Pollity Press, 2001.
Fuller, B. and R. Rubinson (eds). The Political Construction of Educational Expansion: The State, School
Expansion and Economic Change. New York: Praeger, 1992.
Fulton, O. "Higher Education Governance in the UK: Change and Continuity." In Amaral, A, G.A Jones
and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional
Governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002,187-211.
Gornitzka, A.., S. Kyvik and I.M. Larsen. ''The Bureaucratisation of Universities." Minerva 36.1 (1998):
21-47.
Gornitzka, A. and I.M. Larsen. "Towards Professionalisation? Restructuring of the Administrative Work
Force in Universities." Higher Education forthcoming.
Hall, P. and R. Taylor. "Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms." Political Studies 44.4
(1996): 936-957.
Halpin, D. and B. Troyna. "The Politics of Policy Borrowing." Comparative Education 31 (1995): 303-
310.
Halsey, AH. Decline of the Donnish Dominion: The British Academic Professions in the Twentieth
Century. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992.
Henkel, M. "Higher Education." In Laffin, M. (ed.). Beyond Bureaucracy: The Professionals in the
Contemporary Public Sector. Ashgate: Aldershot, 1998, 183-200.
Henkel, M. Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley,
2000.
Hofstadter, R. Academic Freedom in the Age of the College. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers,
1996.
Jones, C. "Social Work: Regulation and Managerialism." In Exworthy, M. and S. Halford (eds).
Professionals and the New Managerialism in the Public Sector. Buckingham: Open University Press,
1999,37-49.
Jones, P.W. "Globalisation and Internationalism: Democratic Prospects for World Education."
Comparative Education 34.2 (1998): 143-155.
Kean, L. and R. Scase. Local Government Management: The Rhetoric and Reality of Change.
Buckingham: Open University Press, 1998.
Kogan, M. "Academic and Administrative Interface." In Henkel, M. and B. Little (eds). Changing
Relationships Between Higher Education and the State. London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1999,
263-279.
Lauwerys, 1. "The Future of the Profession of University Administration and Management." Perspective
6.4 (2002): 93-97.
Leicht, K. and M. Fennell. Professional Work: A Sociological Approach. London: Blackwell, 2001.
Maassen, P. "Organisational Strategies and Governance Structures in Dutch Universities." In Amaral, A,
G.A Jones and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on
Institutional Governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002, 23-41.
Magalhaes, A and A Amaral. "Portuguese Higher Education and the Imaginary Friend: The
Stakeholders Role in Institutional Governance." European Journal of Education 35.4 (2000): 439-
448.
Meyer, J., J. Boli, G. Thomas and F. Ramirez. "World Society and the Nation-State." American Journal
of Sociology 103.1 (1997): 144-181.
Mintzberg, H. The Structuring of Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1979.
Moodie, G. and R. Eustace. Power and Authority in British Universities. London: Allen and Unwin,
1974.
Neave, G. "On Visions, Short and Long." Higher Education Policy 8.4 (1995): 9-10.
Neave, G. and F.A van Vught. "Conclusion." In Neave, G. and F.A. van Vught (eds). Government and
Higher Education Relationships Across Three Continents - The Winds of Change. London:
Pergamon, 1994,269-271.
Nybom, T. "The Humboldt Legacy. Reflections on the Past, Present and Future of European Higher
Education." In DeCorte, Eric (ed.). Excellence in Higher Education. London: Portland Press,
forthcoming.
296 ALBERTO AMARAL, OLIVER FULTON AND INGVILD M. LARSEN

Oliver, C. "Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes," Academy of Management Review 16 (1991):

145-179.
Pfeffer. J. and G.R. Salancik. External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective.
New York: Harper and Row. 1978.
Powell, W. and P. DiMaggio (eds). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Pressman, J.L. and A. Wildavsky. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed
in Oakland; Or, Why It's Amazing That Federal Programs Work At All. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1974.
Reed, M. "New Managerialism, Professional Power and Organisational Governance in UK Universities:
A Review and Assessment." In Amaral, A., G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher
Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2002,163-185.
Reed, M. and P. Anthony. "Between an Ideological Rock and an Organisational Hard Place: NHS
Management in the 1980's and 1990's." In Clarke, T. and C. Pitelis (eds). The Political Economy of
Privatisation. London: Routledge, 1993, 185-204.
(Robbins Report) Higher Education: Report of the Committee Appointed by the Prime Minister Under the
Chairmanship of Lord Robbins 1961-63. Cmnd. 2154. London: HMSO, 1963.
R0vik, K.A. "Deinstitutionalization and the Logic of Fashion." [n Czarniawska, B. and G. Sevon (eds).
Translating Organisational Change. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1996, 139- I 72.
Scott, P. "The Power of Ideas." In Ball, C. and H. Eggins (eds). Higher Education into the 1990s: New
Dimensions. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,
1989,7-16.
Shattock, M. "Re-balancing Modern Concepts of University Governance." Higher Education Quarterly
56.3 (2002): 235-244.
Slaughter, S. and L. Leslie. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University.
Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1997.
Smith, C.S. Market Values in American Higher Education - The Pitfalls and Promises. Lanham,
Maryland: Rowan and Littlefield, 2000.
Smith, D., P. Scott, J. Bocock and C. Bargh. "Vice-Chancellors and Executive Leadership in UK
Universities. New Roles and Relationship?" In Henkel, M. and B. Little (eds). Changing
Relationships Between Higher Education and the State. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1999,
280-306.
Trowler, Paul R. Academics Responding to Change: New Higher Education Frameworks and Academic
Cultures. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press,
1998.
Van Vught, F.A. "Innovations and Reforms in Higher Education." In Van Vught, F.A. (ed.). Government
Strategies and innovation in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1989,47-72.
Wilson, K. "The Pattern, Range and Purpose of Higher Education: A Moral Perspective." In Ball, C. and
H. Eggins (eds). Higher Education into the 1990s: New Dimensions. Buckingham: Society for
Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 1989,38-50.
Winter, R. "The University of Life pic: the 'Industrialization' of Higher Education." In Smyth, J. (ed.).
Academic Work: The Changing Lobour Process in Higher Education. Buckingham: Open University
Press, 1995, 129-143.