Turning the university into a political actor

National task forces, commissions, and other ad hoc advisory bodies-both public and pr ivate-have been a prominent feature of the American political landscape since the turn of the century. However, studies of their impact on public policy are relatively recent and have focused primarily on presidential commissions. Privately sponsored bodies have received considerably less attention. This essay reports on a study we conducted with the support of The Commonwealth Fund to learn more about the impact of foundation-funded commissions on national health policy decisions. The study had two main objectives: (1) to assess the policy impact of one of Commonwealth’s own recent commissions (the Task Force on Academic Health Centers), and (2) to extrapolate from the specific experiences of the task force and a small comparison group of commissions some practical lessons about the composition, conduct, and impact of such bodies. Because the sponsorship and funding of commissions is but one way foundations seek to influence public policy, our study cannot settle broader arguments about the policy role of foundations. It can, however, provide useful information for foundations and other sponsors about the design and management of ad hoc advisory bodies. Study methods. We defined foundation-funded commission as (1) an ad hoc, task-oriented advisory body, (2) sponsored (that is, established) by a foundation or other private institution or organization, and (3) funded by one or more foundations to deliberate and formulate recommendations on an issue of public policy. We excluded from this definition all governmental commissions (for example, all ad hoc advisory bodies established by executive or legislative mandate or regulation), even

Reviewed by: Locus of Authority: The Evolution of Faculty Roles in the Governance of Higher Education by William G. Bowen and Eugene M. Tobin Karena Brace, Director of Program Operations William G. Bowen and Eugene M. Tobin. Locus of Authority: The Evolution of Faculty Roles in the Governance of Higher Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2015. 400 pp. Hardcover: $29.95. ISBN 978-0-691-16642-1. William G. Bowen and Eugene M. Tobin tackle the “we” versus “they” mindset in higher education as they make the case for changes to governance in Locus of Authority: The Evolution of Roles in the Governance of Higher Education. Bowen is the former president of Princeton University and President Emeritus of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Tobin, former president of Hamilton College, is the senior program officer for Higher Education and Scholarship in the Humanities at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. Both authors began their careers in academe as faculty members, Bowen in economics and Tobin in American history. As a result, they bring a well-rounded perspective on higher education and first-hand knowledge of the challenges faced by faculty and administrators. The book gains credence from their respective expertise, with four case studies providing historical accounts and supporting evidence for their conclusions. At the heart of their argument is whether an “inherited,” “hundred-year-old system of governance practices” can support the changing demands for higher education (p. 1; p. 64). Bowen and Tobin contend that higher education institutions, marked by increased specialization among faculty, professionalization of administration, and perpetual predispositions toward vertical organization, cannot respond appropriately or in a timely fashion to current issues. They suggest movement toward more horizontal organizational structures that drive collaborative practices. However, the authors are quick to caution that it is not collaborative decision-making or consensus they seek. Rather, it is meaningful participation from all campus constituents, true leadership with the courage to act, while assuming the best from all involved. Despite the book’s title, Bowen and Tobin readily acknowledge, “this study is really about leadership and how it is both constrained and exercised in the modern college or university” (p. x). Consequently, this book serves as a critical resource for understanding the historical influences on current issues in governance of higher education and how administrators might begin to address their role and the role of faculty in decision-making. Locus of Authority: The Evolution of Roles in the Governance of Higher Education is composed of five chapters with the Introduction serving as Chapter 1. In it, Bowen and Tobin set the stage for the chapters to come by painting a rather urgent need for change in governance structures. As degree attainment levels, particularly among minorities, fall short of expectations, degree completion time increases, and widespread issues of affordability plague higher education, Bowen and Tobin plead with readers to take heed. They question the governance structures currently in place at American institutions, critical of their slow pace, lack of concern for appropriate resource allocation, and occupation with preservation of the status quo. Bowen and Tobin call for an evolution in governance so that American institutions can uphold the social mobility promised by higher education, graduating students who can compete globally. Another critical component of the introduction is an explanation of the book’s structure. Setting this book apart is the use of four case studies that detail milestone events in governance and evolution of faculty roles from the beginnings of the institutions through current events still unfolding. Representing the groups studied are the City University of New York (CUNY), Macalester College, Princeton University, and University of [End Page 156] California. The selection of these institutions is intended to give readers a varied set of institutional cultures, leadership styles, and events that shaped the future of higher education. However, it is noteworthy to acknowledge the professional ties that Bowen holds with Princeton University. The cases are incorporated throughout the remaining four chapters with the full cases provided at the end of the book. Bowen and Tobin ask that readers “resist any temptation they may have to ‘skip to the end,’” encouraging readers to engage in exploration of the studies, citing their importance in framing...

Due to the politicisation of universities-within-the-state, the state’s governance of higher education in China differentiates itself from other countries. This study examines how the Chinese central government adjusts its governance over universities between 1978 and 2018. Based on an extensive analysis of policy documents and scholarly research, this study proposes an analytic framework, comprising the state’s governance logics, governance instruments, and institutional demonstrations. The three strategically selected governance instruments, i.e. laws, policies, and finance, are demonstrated through various aspects integral to China’s higher education—the dual-goverance structure, appointment of the principal leadership, access to higher education, university and discipline structures, curriculum and ideology, funding and grants, and tuition fees. Based on an in-depth investigation, the study argues that the underlying governance logics of the state are moving from direct controls to indirect supervision; however, despite the increasing university autonomy and academic freedom in some areas, the state has never abdicated the essential power and authority over higher education institutions. This paper contributes to the theoretical and practical understanding of China’s governance of higher education in recent decades.

30 TEACHING IN THE FIELD OF HIGHER EDUCATION: POLITICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION COURSES David D. Dill Assistant Professor of Education University of North Carolina— Chapel Hill There has been a rich tradition in the literature of higher education addressing academic politics. F. M. Cornford's (1949) memorable exhortation Microcosmographia Académica: Being a Guide for the Young Academic Politician, and C. P. Snow's (1951) The Masters provided early insight into the vagaries of influence at Oxbridge. During the 1960's and 70's a substantial American literature emerged addressing academic governance, or the structure and pro­ cess of decision making in institutions of higher education. Courses and wri­ tings examining the organizational politics of academic institutions are rea­ dily visible in programs of higher education. A more recent development has been courses termed "the politics of higher education" which apply a political model to higher education policy­ making at the national or state level, and explore the implications of this process for institutions of higher education. These courses generally in­ quire into a range of topics well summarized by four questions posed by Graham Allison (1971): "Who plays? What determines each player's stand? What determines each player's relative influence? How does the game combine players' stands, influence, and moves to yield governmental decisions and ac­ tions?" As indicated by the course materials collected for this article, a poli­ tical perspective such as Allison's yields the following types of topics: 1) the evolution of federal involvement in higher education; 2) the "players" and the "game" at the federal level; 3) the implications of the game for the current and evolving missions of institutions of higher education; and 4) current public policy issues relating to higher education (e .g . , affirma­ tive action, etc.). Several courses included special emphasis on state-level politics (i.e . , legislation, planning, and control), or included organiza­ tional governance as a part of the overall presentation of politics in higher education. Representative resources for these courses include Bailey (1975), Carnegie Council (1975), Gladieux and Wolanin (1976), and Millett (1974). There is substantial variation among these courses in the organization of these resources and topics, and on modes of teaching. Therefore, individual courses will be reviewed briefly below. Van de Graaff (Calgary) approaches the politics of higher education as a comparative study with emphasis on North American and Western European na­ tions. Topics include alternative policies toward the role (mission) of higher education in society, the role of government and politics in the his­ torical development of national university systems, and a comparison of these systems. A substantial component of the course addresses the "government of higher education" from the academic department to the national level, as well as the way in which the influence of groups has varied from level to level and evolved over time. Van de Graaff (1978) is the principal resource for this section. Caldwell (N. C. State) offers a seminar on "The Politics and Organiza­ tion of Higher Education" which includes a heavy early emphasis on writings in political science. These include an understanding of the Constitution of the United States as well as basic political concepts sufficient to define the American polity, the nature of political behavior in America, the organi­ zation of political force and pressure groups— cf. Key (1964), and basic ide­ ological forces in American society. Following this introduction, an over­ view of the university, land grant institutions, and the American academic system is provided. Particular emphasis is then placed on state government and higher education, the politics of coordination, planning, and control, and the Federal involvement in higher education. Several policy issues are then addressed: costs/benefits and who should pay, black colleges, and the 31 women's movement. Members of the seminar are regularly assigned to report on a relevant current news item from The Chronicle of Higher Education. Mitau (Minnesota) offers "the Policy, Politics and Governance of Higher Education." The course opens with a presentation of the alternations in pub­ lic and governmental perceptions of educational roles and missions as illus­ trated by comparisons across selected periods (e .g ■ , 1955, 1965, 1975, 1985), followed by an analysis of the means by which the...

Higher Education in Pakistan - Problems and Prospects in Post 18th Amendment

Epistemic governance and epistemic innovation policy formulate a critique against too-narrowly defined approaches to governance, where governance follows one-sidedly bureaucratic or technocratic considerations. Instead, epistemic governance (also quality management and quality enhancement) and epistemic innovation policy should be regarded as a plea for a more comprehensive understanding, where the explicit-making, comprehension and reflection of knowledge, knowledge production, and knowledge application are keys for a successful governing and governance. For the further progress of advanced knowledge society, advanced knowledge economy, and advanced knowledge democracy, universities and the higher education sectors are crucial for driving development. How should the governance of higher education, the quality enhancement of universities, and the careers of academic faculty (the academic profession) be organized? Epistemic governance introduces here a novel approach and understanding. Epistemic governance emphasizes that the underlying epistemic structure, the underlying epistemic base, or the underlying epistemic paradigms (knowledge paradigms) of those organizations, institutions, or systems (sectors), which should be governed, are being addressed. This defines a benchmark and set of criteria for internal and external governance in higher education that is interested in applying a good, effective, and sustainable governance. Quality assurance, quality enhancement, and quality management of higher education, from the perspective of epistemic governance, should also orient themselves to quality and quality dimensions that cross-refer to the underlying epistemic structure of higher education. In a traditional understanding, the academic career patterns of the academic core faculty at universities follow a tenure-track logic. Cross-employment (multi-employment), on the contrary, refers to academic faculty (the academic profession) with simultaneous employment contracts to more than one organization only within or both inside and outside of higher education. Epistemic governance, in combination with crossemployment, should add to the organizational flexibility and creativity of universities and other higher education institutions, supporting the integration of a pluralism and diversity of knowledge production (basic research in the context of knowledge application and innovation), the formation of nonlinear innovation networks, and providing a rationale for a new type of academic career model.

In modern society, higher education creates conditions for every member of society to study, improve, cooperate with society, be secular, provides opportunities to travel for the sake of science. “In the law of the Republic of Lithuania, the task of higher education is to develop education, a personality and society receptive to science and the latest technologies and cultural values, to create, accumulate and spread scientific knowledge and cultural values, to consolidate the distinctiveness of national culture, to promote scientific research and the creation of new knowledge and cultural values” (Avižienis, 2022, p.209). Biesta (2014), Jokubaitis (2016), Barnett (2021), a researcher of higher education in European countries, states that higher education, social responsibility and academic freedom, which promote competitiveness, growth of knowledge and human resources” (Kuchaidze, 2020). Indrašienė and others (2021) claim that higher education should be viewed from a broader perspective, understood as a basis for the development of personality and society. There are many expectations associated with higher education, the main of which is to provide knowledge, participate in scientific research and apply the available knowledge to the sustainable, advanced growth of society and the individual, responding to the needs of the times, forecasting and shaping them. According to Valuckienė (2009), changes in higher education and studies in the context of society have been discussed (Barnett, 1990, 1994, 2000, 2004), whose emphasis is on the value basis of higher education, based on the scientific activities of the academic community, constantly striving for liberal education of students, objective knowledge, commitment. Higher education institutions should encourage their students and scholars to become responsible and aware citizens. This means that higher education institutions should develop leadership, social responsibility and sustainable development initiatives. Therefore, academic freedom and social responsibility should be combined in order to achieve the benefit of higher education for society and the welfare of society. Academic freedom is the most important value of higher education because it ensures that researchers and academics can freely research, discuss and publish their findings without any prior restrictions. This is the fundamental thing that encourages new discoveries, ideas and scientific research, as well as ensuring that scientists are free to reveal facts, even if they are unpopular. Academic freedom and social responsibility in higher education were studied by (Adebayo, 2022; Barnett, 2021; Gläser and Buenstorf, 2022; Jakubik, 2023). However, these works rarely raise the question of how academic freedom and social responsibility relate to critical thinking in higher education. The aim of the article is to reveal the links between academic freedom and social responsibility with the development of critical thinking in higher education, based on the literature. To achieve the goal, the following problematic questions are raised: Why are academic freedom and social responsibility important for higher education? How does the development of critical thinking change the understanding of academic freedom? How does developing critical thinking increase social responsibility? Research methods. The method of theoretical analysis examines psychological, scientific didactic literature, the conditions, methods, etc. thinking education. in the process of university studies.

The European Patterns of 'Homo Academicus' and the Chances of its Evolution in Current Hungarian Higher Education

Itzhak Galnoor Academic Freedom under Political Duress: Israel POLITICAL DURESS WITHIN THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY IS A STRONG sense that there is a threat of external interference with core academic values and freedoms such as free inquiry, free speech, institutional autonomy, and personal safety. Of course, a “strong sense” is subjective and not easily measurable and a certain degree of duress is probably part and parcel of academic life. Political duress in academia, however, is somewhat more focused because it relates to intended attempts to curtail the freedoms mentioned above, or at least to restrain them. Consequently, when we say “political” we need to specify the world­ view and the interests involved. After a short introduction on the background of Israeli Higher Education Institutions (HEI), this article will focus on two current threats to academic freedom in Israel. First, political intimidation origi­ nating from extreme nationalistic and religious groups aimed at silenc­ ing “ nonloyal” voices inside as well as outside the universities; second, a process of “commodification” in the form of political-administrative pressures on HEI, and the enforcement of “management” and privatiza­ tion policies. Academic freedom is under duress in Israel because of the combination of these two different forces. They have been persistent for quite some tim e and now share a general attitude and goal; the “tam ing” of HEI. The result has been a m ajor crisis in Israeli higher education, both morally and financially. social research Voi 76 : No 2 : Summer 2009 541 BACKGROUND Education and learning, including higher education, were a top public priority among Jews in British Mandate Palestine and those in the diaspora concerned with Jewish settlement in Palestine before Israel was established in 1948. The Institute of Technology (Technion, 1924), the Hebrew University (1925 ), and the Weizmann Institute (1934) were established in the prestate period and achieved international reputa­ tion early in their existence. In the first years o f the state most spheres of life—health services, housing, and primary and secondary education—were highly politicized, and some of these services were run by organizations directly affiliated with political parties (Galnoor, 1985: 154-165). One area which was surprisingly saved from partisan politics was Higher Education (HE). This was surprising for three reasons. First, it would have been very tempting to try and harness HE to the pioneering collec­ tive endeavors of the new state by political interventions in the curricu­ lum and in other ways. Second, HEI, which required relatively heavy investments (tuition was very low, almost free), were financed by the state and donations from abroad. Third, although in the highly central­ ized state of that period the opposition to the policies of the dominant party was weak, some of the most vocal opposing views to government policies in the area of security and foreign affairs could be heard from a few rather influential professors at the Hebrew University. The most famous among them were Judah L. Magnes, Martin Buber, and later Yeshayahu Leibovitz. Thus one would have expected an attempt by the government to curtail this opposition and even set up a legal and organizational structure capable of doing so. It should be noted that the right-wing opposition parties in the Knesset would have not objected, since the dissenting academics were considered to be on the left as far as national issues were concerned. To be sure, all of the above occurred to some extent: there were pressures to be” relevant” to nation-building (for example, the high priority given to setting up a Faculty of Agriculture at the Hebrew University); attempts to delegitimize dissenting academ­ 542 social research ics; and some attempts to control HE administratively. In retrospect, however, we can see and appreciate that none of these measures were pushed relentlessly or actually succeeded. The best example of this fail­ ure of political intervention in the early years of the state is the Higher Education Law of 1958. In the deliberations in the Knesset on this bill there were suggestions to put HE under tight control of the Ministry of Education, or to set up a supervising council composed of represen­ tatives of the political parties (Volansky, 2005: 31-63). In the end, this law...

Why and how does the use of large language models (LLMs) transform epistemic agency and epistemic governance in higher education (HE), and why can this transformation usher organized immaturity as a new organizing principle for HE? Asking these questions now matters because (i) the profound impact of LLMs on epistemic agency and governance in HE has not been adequately scrutinized by theorists of organizations and HE to date and (ii) LLMs represent an epistemic technology that fundamentally alters who produces knowledge, how knowledge is produced (through research), disseminated (through education), and what kind of knowledge is produced. This lack of scrutiny leaves us ill-equipped to understand why and how LLMs transform (via the activities of Big EdTech first, and institutional responses second) epistemic agency and epistemic governance in HE. Two aims follow from this broader concern. First, we interrogate how ‘epistemic agency’ undergoes transformation as more HE institutions (and related parties) adopt and legitimatize LLMs in research and education in ways that rewrites the rules concerning epistemic governance in favour of Big EdTech. In this process, epistemic agents transform into epistemic consumers over time. Building on this, our second aim is to show why the aforementioned transformation can usher in organized immaturity as a new organizing principle for HE. This development undermines the Humboldtian ideal of HE as a progressive cultural project of integrating research and education within a broader normative foundation of academic freedom. This ideal also emphasizes the intellectual development of reason and ‘holistic knowledge’ to enable social deliberation essential to the development and maintenance of democracies. We discuss the theoretical ramifications of our analysis, suggest avenues for future research, and offer an agenda for immediate corrective action to enlarge our control over epistemic agency and governance in HE.

Purpose This study aims to investigate the influence of organisational values, guided by the IDART framework – Ilmu (knowledge), Disiplin (discipline), Amanah (trustworthiness), Rajin (diligence) and Tanggungjawab (responsibility) – on employee performance among academic and administrative staff at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM), Malaysia. Design/methodology/approach A total of 1,933 academic and administrative employees across multiple states and job grades participated in a survey. The research instrument demonstrated strong internal reliability (a = 0.827–0.963), confirming its applicability within the Malaysian higher education context. Data were analysed using chi-square and Kruskal–Wallis H tests to examine differences across staff categories and job grades. Findings The results revealed statistically significant variations in the expression of organisational values across staff categories and job grades. Academic staff were more engaged in knowledge-sharing and proactive responsibility, while administrative staff prioritised compliance and interpersonal harmony. Senior academics (VK7–VK5) and mid-level administrators (Grades 48–52) reported lower alignment in diligence, responsibility and discipline, possibly due to strategic responsibilities or role ambiguity. These patterns support transformational leadership and person–organisation fit theories, highlighting role-specific influences on value alignment. Research limitations/implications The study is limited to UiTM employees and may not fully represent other higher education institutions in Malaysia or beyond. Further research could expand the sample to include diverse institutional contexts and explore longitudinal effects of organisational values on performance. Practical implications Findings highlight the need for differentiated professional development programs that cater to the unique engagement gaps of senior and mid-tier personnel. Institutions can design value-based training and leadership initiatives that reinforce responsibility, discipline, and diligence across varying roles. Social implications By promoting values-based governance in higher education, the study underscores the societal importance of cultivating trustworthiness, discipline and responsibility within academic communities. Strengthening these values can enhance institutional credibility, social cohesion, and long-term contributions to national development. Originality/value This research provides one of the first empirical applications of the IDART framework within Malaysian higher education. Its culturally grounded approach offers novel insights into values-based governance and contributes to the discourse on how organisational values shape employee performance and institutional transformation.

Around Europe, higher education (HE) governance is currently subject to profound changes. Various socio-economic challenges, in particular the emergence of the knowledge society, demographic developments, sluggish economic growth, and increased competitive pressures, have stimulated an array of reforms to contemporary HE systems. In view of convergence-promoting processes such as the Bologna Process and the spread of New Public Management, domestic HE institutions are increasingly subject to competing visions of how university systems and institutions of HE should be governed.

The massive global growth of private sectors transforms higher education. It naturally sparks great interest and debate. But analysis lags far behind, as does cross-national documentation. Promoters glorify roles (e.g., access), while critics demonize roles (e.g., moneymaking). Policy makers tend to hold simple views of what private higher education does or what they want it to do, while participants tend to generalize from their own institution. Public discussion thus often revolves around narrow and misleading declarations. The gap is large between self-serving or ill-informed views and more complex reality. Private higher education is least understood where it has just recently become prominent—and that is in much of the world. A few decades ago, private higher education was absent or marginal in most countries. Today, it captures a major or fast-increasing portion of enrollments in Eastern and Central Europe, the Middle East and northern and sub-Saharan Africa, East and South Asia, and Latin America. Furthermore, new forms of private

There is empirical evidence on the factors influencing students' understanding of various subjects in higher educational institutions. However, there is a deficit in studies about the link between teacher knowledge and teaching methods on students' understanding of corporate governance course. Thus, this study investigates whether students' understanding of corporate governance in Ghanaian universities is related to teacher knowledge and teaching methods. This study adopts quantitative approach and cross‐sectional design to collect from 1,050 sampled students from three public universities in Ghana. We use descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation techniques to analyse the data. The results show that there is a significant positive correlation between teacher knowledge and students' understanding of corporate governance. Furthermore, teaching methods have significant positive correlation with students' understanding of corporate governance. This study has provided a conceptual framework that indicates how teacher knowledge and teaching methods may relate to students' understanding of corporate governance in higher education from the perspective of a developing country. Additionally, this study shows that to promote students' comprehension of corporate governance, there must an understanding of how teacher knowledge and teaching methods can overlap to address the challenges confronting governance education in developing countries.

In accordance with the recommendation concerning the status of higher‐education teaching personnel approved by the General Conference of UNESCO in November 1997, higher education institutions and their academic personnel have long been expected to exercise their intellectual capacity and their moral prestige to defend and actively disseminate universally‐accepted values; and enjoy full academic autonomy and freedom, conceived as a set of rights and duties, while being fully responsible and accountable to society. Academic freedom is a key parameter of sound governance of higher education systems in any country. To what extent can academic freedom be a function of effective management systems and does it have any implications for quality education in developing countries? The paper answers in the affirmative. Data from a sample of academic staff, university managers, students and policy‐makers were analysed using correlation and regression techniques and it was found that management significantly contributes to academic freedom in higher educational institutions. In this way, a better‐managed institution enhances academic freedom and this consequently offers answers to the quality of education. The results are compared with international findings and policy and management implications are presented. A conceptual framework is suggested that links management systems with academic freedom and the quality of education, using the systems theory approach.