Abstract

The political science doctoral thesis project is focussing on comparing university policies with the background of different welfare state types: Austria as a conservative-corporatist, Finland as a social democratic and Scotland as a liberal welfare state. As universities are pre-constitutional entities, it seems to be legitimate to search for fit from welfare state policy-making with the practices of university steering. Here, I will present paradigm evidence of top-down-oriented New Public Management (NPM) and bottom-up-formed Network Governance (NG) at a macro-level, i.e. governance by the state. The paradigms connect with the theme of institutional autonomy, which differentiates into an academic, a financial, an organisational and a staffing aspect. As a result, I propose the following hypothesis for the cases of Austria, Finland and Scotland: NPM is present, but not dominant in higher education (HE) policies. More likely, NPM and NG appear simultaneously within the university policies of Austria, Finland and Scotland. How do these paradigms transfer within the institutions? In this article, a concept for this transfer of action in horizontal autonomy to actors in vertical autonomy through communication and through management committees’ interplay elaborates and, additionally, hypotheses formulate. The extent of the space for alternative paradigms to join the paradigm transfer game, for example, for Epistemic Governance (EG), might be larger, the higher the regulative density of university policies is. The borders of every paradigm in university policy, however, constitute with (a) strong welfare state traditions for governance and (b) strong university traditions for steering. Conservative-corporatist welfare state tradition as in Austria shows an inclination for university policy governance to be control-oriented, whereas social democratic welfare state tradition as in Finland relies on trust in university policy formulation (and implementation). It has to remain open how the liberal welfare state of Scotland would classify.

Highlights

  • This article is part of Topical Collection "Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity in Higher Education, Democracy and Economy"

  • A theoretical framework in differentiating between horizontal autonomy (i.e.: What is the range of manoeuvre of universities within their legal framework?) and vertical autonomy (i.e.: Which room of manoeuvre is remaining for management to steer the political system of a university?) is presented

  • The last point seems to be of increasing importance for the fiscal role of the European Union (EU) in the current situation coping with the COVID-19-pandemic (Stransky-Can, forthcoming)

Read more

Summary

Results

Each act is subject to one frame analysis, with the meta-data presenting above (Table 1). The thematic comparison of the paradigms of NPM and NG as their understanding in university policies presents first. The paradigms of NPM and NG prove relevant (for SCO 2005, with only seven cases, which seem to be low for further analysis). To conclude ( as in Stransky-Can, submitted), the relationship between NPM and NG is one of simultaneous occurrence in all three countries’ university policies The understanding of these paradigms mirrors for AT and FI in financial autonomy with a tendency towards NPM and in staffing/academic autonomy, respectively, with a tendency towards NG. Both findings support the hypotheses that supportive paradigms in HE policy (for example, NG) are not necessarily less valued than competitive paradigms (for example, NPM), which alters the possibilities for EG to appear in HE steering (governance). The findings will show in a combination as to formulate hypotheses

Information Transmission from Macro‐ to Meso‐levels
Interplay of the University Management Committees
Hypotheses
Discussion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call