Multi-level governance in higher education research

It is a common understanding that the historical steering function of the nation state has been challenged by other coordination modes. Scholarly debate has highlighted the blurring boundaries of the sovereign state along three dimensions relating to society, sub-national units and international arenas. Such shifts in the tasks of the state have been primarily explained by the retreat of the welfare state, by the increasing relevance of supranational entities such as the European Union (EU) and by globalization forces engendering growing inter-dependencies out of the control of sovereign states (Hooghe and Marks, 2003; Piattoni, 2010; Scharpf, 1997). Additionally, in order to legitimize policies in democratic settings, states have increasingly involved a growing number of disparate stakeholders in policy processes. This can also be seen in higher education: reforms have granted institutional autonomy to universities, signalling changes in the division of competencies and distribution of responsibilities between governments and higher education institutions; public-private partnerships have been enhanced to increase societal relevance and socio-economic development at both national and regional levels. And the increasing role of Europe — in particular, the construction of the European Research Area and the European Higher Education Area — has added an additional governance level to higher education

The irresistible rise of managerial control? The case of workload allocation models in British universities

This chapter investigates the role and practice of Workload Allocation Models (WAM), as managerial devices used at system and institutional level to coordinate academic work. Our data is drawn from a survey in five British institutions with 581 respondents overall. WAM appear to be widely known, understood and used, however, in the perception of academic staff, they do not reflect accurately the allocation of time to academic activities. In this sense, our analysis points to the limits of WAM to manage academic work at institutional level. Specifically, it highlights the differences in how WAM are used according to employment contracts – combined teaching and research, teaching-only, research-only and to terms of employment – open-ended and fixed-term contracts. Our findings point to the significant persistence of academic normative frameworks, in which research is considered a key activity for career prospects regardless of job descriptions. Overall, our chapter illustrates how the tensions between academic and managerial logics play out in the practice of WAM, and discusses the implications thereof at systemic, institutional and academic levels

In and Out of the ERA: System and Institutional Resilience in the UK and Switzerland: A Policy Briefing

The aim of this policy paper is twofold, on the one hand the characteristics of the higher education sectors in the UK and in Switzerland are outlined, focusing on their potential for resilience vis-à-vis increasingly difficult relations with the EU. On the other hand, potential avenues for cooperation in higher education and research are identified, in order to strengthen the UK and Swiss positions at European and global level

Strategic management of academic human resources: A comparative analysis of flagship universities in Norway, Finland, Switzerland, and Austria

This chapter investigates whether and how institutional autonomy enhances strategic management of academic human resources. National regulatory frameworks, available resources, university policies, and practices at the working floor are compared in four European flagship universities. Disciplinary affiliation is taken into consideration through the selection of history and chemistry. The cases reflect different trajectories where substantial changes have been implemented in governance systems when it comes to centralization of decision making, to standardization of procedures, to re-configuration of actors and their room to maneuver. While professorial self-governance in personnel matters remains significant, new boundary conditions constrain substantially choice options in accordance with national, institutional, and disciplinary features. Uncertainty, identity, and flexibility emerge as major dimensions in human resources management, pointing to tensions but also to opportunities for strategic change

How to trace and hear from doctoral alumni

Currently, in the UK we have knowledge about doctoral holders’ employability and destinations (“doctoral leavers”) from official HESA data. This source assures to know where PhDs bred in the UK work, provided they remain in the UK or go to work in the EU. There is still a dearth of knowledge about those who end to work outside the EU/UK. Among these latter target, arguably the Chinese nationals are the lion share. The statistical relevance of this target of doctoral leavers, and the still poor knowledge of doctoral employability, both concur to the necessity to shed more light in this phenomenon. We are working on building an original dataset from public repositories (Ethos British Library + ORCID) to understand career trajectories of people who got a PhD in the UK some 10 years ago. The final step of this project is sampling some of these leavers. We shall send them a pilot questionnaire to understand, retrospectively, the importance of having attained a PhD in the UK and the respective skills and abilities they developed during doctoral years and afterwards

Shadow organising: emerging stakeholder collaboration in higher education to enhance quality

Much research is currently addressing how to establish, maintain and govern stakeholder collaboration in higher education. In this article, the concept of shadow organising, i.e. stakeholder imitation of formal educational provision, is introduced to illustrate bottom-up, proactive ways to connect multiple autonomous organisations and stakeholder groups within and outside universities (such as professional bodies, employers and student unions). The article exemplifies the concept of shadow organising by analysing emerging stakeholder collaboration in legal education. The case illustrates the collaborative but informal efforts of a range of supporting actors. The results show that the actors are connected to each other through concrete and practical actions, instead of agreements, regulations or partnerships, which have stabilised into a widespread latticework of interlinked activities: training law students, hiring law graduates, supervising learning processes and instituting quality control. Simultaneously, however, actors maintain their distinctive roles, identities and mandates without initiating official collaboration or a common discussion of objectives and rationales