Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
When the organization meets the institution…
Dr. Rómulo Pinheiro
University of Oslo (HEDDA/HEIK), Agderforskning & RIS Center
Conte
nts
1.University abstractions: systems
& models 2.Conceptions: Organization, Institution, Instrument
& Strategic Actor3.Major Dillemas4.Implications for
societal roles5.Final considerations
Abst
ract
ions
Help us to share meanings and to generalise on the basis of common attributes.
The U
niv
ers
ity
as
a c
lose
d s
yste
m
“The Oxbridge idyll, however, was not about distancing but about intimacy…
It was about friendships, tradition, associations and loyalties…
The English idea of a university was that it was cloistered and self-contained, its own milieu.” (Rothblatt 1997: 379)
The g
radual
move
tow
ard
s an o
pen-s
yste
m
Democratization & massification
Stakeholder Society (Neave 2002)
The second “academic revolution” (Etzkowitz 2001)
“Universities become entrepreneurial for a variety of different reasons…
An institution may not be entrepreneurial overall but may have distinctive entrepreneurial enterprises within it.” (Shattock 2009: 204)
Sty
lised M
odels
or
Arc
hety
pes
The globally-oriented,
research-intensive
universityThe locally-embedded
regional universityThe entrepreneurial
university (glo-cal)(Pinheiro, Benneworth & Jones 2012)
Research-Intensive Regional Entrepreneurial
Modelled after
(period of insurgence)
Humboldt/Oxbridge
(late 1800s)
Specialised training
institutions
Land-Grant colleges
(mid/late 1800s)
M.I.T.
(1970s/80s)
Structural features
(scope)
Disciplinary demarcation
(breadth) &
specialisation (depth)
Professional and
vocational training
(selected fields)
Inter-disciplinary
collaboration
(science & technology)
Primary activities
(internal linkages)
Teaching-research nexus
(core vs. periphery
decoupled)
Teaching-centered
(no clear demarcation
between core-periphery)
Teaching-research-
service nexus
(core-periphery coupled)
Primary activities
(nature)
Strong academic core,
weak periphery
Unbalanced academic
core,
strong periphery
Strong academic core,
strong periphery
(key fields)
Internal orientation Collegial
(bottom-up)
Professional
(top-down)
Executive
(top-down & bottom-up)
Dominant ethos Discipline-oriented Society-oriented Partnership-oriented
Normative preferences
(academics)
Scientific-
autonomy/excellence
(fundamental research)
Relevance and service
(training & instruction)
User-oriented
basic research
(Pasteur’s Quadrant)
Locus operandi
(scope activities)
Internationally connected,
nationally embedded
(universalistic)
Nationally connected,
locally-embedded
(regionally embedded)
Globally engaged,
locally responsive
(glo-cal)
The U
niv
ers
ity: OrganizationInstitutionInstrumentStrategic Actor
The U
niv
ers
ity
as
Org
aniz
ati
on Multiversity
Complex technologies
Loose-coupling
Bottom-heavy
Professional bureaucracy
Organized anarchy
Multiplicity of sub-cultures
The U
niv
ers
ity
as
Inst
ituti
on
…a collection of standardized rules and operational procedures embodied in structures of meaning & resources
(Olsen 2007)
Taken for granted, routine behavior: “logic of appropriateness”
(March & Olsen 2006)
Institutions are validated by outsiders (e.g. state), but are protected by insiders or social participants
The r
esi
lience
of
the in
stit
uti
on
“…having been exposed to the ruptures of largely discontinued societal processes, universities exist with layer upon layer of quite divergent legacies, yet somehow they have also succeeded in preserving a strong element of continuity amidst all the change ...
(Wittrock 1993: 304-5; see also Musselin 2007; Krücken 2003; Frank & Gabler 2006; Pinheiro 2012; Pinheiro et al. 2012)
The u
niv
ers
ity
as
an Inst
rum
ent
A means to an end; a tool to reach certain objectives
The ‘logic of outcomes’ (March & Olsen 2006)
Rise of valorization and the stakeholder society
Instrument to whom?
Transf
orm
ing t
he
Univ
ers
ity
into
a
Str
ate
gic
Act
or
A more complete organization (‘actorhood’)
Rationalization, centralization, integration, identity, funding..
The rise of strategic planning, strategic science- & accountability- regimes
Interweaved Dillemas
Unity of Action vs. Individual Freedom
(autonomy)
Unity of Purpose vs.
Multiple Identities &
Accounts(goals &
functions)
Being Seduced vs. Abandoned?
(resource dependencies)
Self-Renewal vs.
Continuity(path-
dependencies; identity)
Adapted from Olsen (2007)
Implic
ati
ons
for
univ
ers
itie
s’
soci
eta
l role
s
Goals & functions: integral part of strategic & operational plans
Integration: Tighter coupling; core & periphery; ‘open-up’ core
Heartland: Support from academics (local intrapreneurs)
Institutional logic: from ‘moral duty’ to ‘strategic opportunity’
Resource-dependecies: Reduce reliance on the public purse
Differentiation: Aids the search for a unique institutional profile
That’
s it
then?
Diverging conceptions of societal roles
Winners vs. loosers
Buffering of the academic core, e.g. via decoupling
Measuring & rewarding
Integrity & identity; prevent cooptation
Legacies: ‘ivory-tower’ label
Final
consi
dera
tions
As universities gradually change & adopt new shapes & forms, so will their attitudes towards society and their role in it
As guardians of the institution (sacred values & identity), most academics (Europe) will continue to resist instrumentalization, rationalization & centralization
University leaders will need to find new ways of balancing responsiveness (renewal) with respect for diversity & autonomy (stability)
