David F. J. Campbell

EUROPEAN NATION-STATE UNDER PRESSURE: NATIONAL FRAGMENTATION OR THE EVOLUTION OF SUPRASTATE STRUCTURES?

The contemporary European nation-state is coming under a twofold pressure pattern. On the one hand, nationalistic and regional movements push for a reduction of responsibilities at the nation-state level. In Eastern Europe several societies fragmented at the beginning of the 1990s. Contrarily, in the context of the European Community, the development of suprastate or supranational structures can also be observed. The crucial question, of course, is, which of those processes is more pervasive in the long run: national fragmentation, the viability of the nation-state, or the evolution of supranational structures? In trying to analyze those trends I presented a conceptual framework, called three levels of stale structures. If we want to assume that, in the case of the European Community, the evolutionary drive for supranational integration is stronger than the potential of fragmenta-

Art and Artistic Research in Quadruple and Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems

The traditional understanding of arts emphasizes the aesthetic dimension of arts. Art and arts can also be understood (and re-invented) as a manifestation of knowledge, knowledge production and knowledge creation. Furthermore, knowledge production and knowledge creation extend to knowledge application and knowledge use. The here presented approach to arts introduces knowledge as an additional dimension for defining and understanding arts. This additional dimension does not replace, but extends the aesthetic dimension of arts, by this making the arts clearly multi-dimensional. Through knowledge creation, knowledge production, knowledge application, and knowledge use, research in the arts and arts-based innovation are being interconnected with research in the sciences and sciences-based innovation. Arts and artistic research add to the interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary spectrum of research organizations and of research networks, and can assist the sciences in building interdisciplinary arrangements. Arts and artistic research are now being regarded as drivers for forming and pluralizing interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary configurations and networks with research in the sciences and the application and use of knowledge and innovation in context of society, democracy, but also the economy.

Austria: From Compromise to Authoritarianism*

The Republic of Austria created in 1918 consisted of ‘that which was left over’ when the Austro-Hungarian Habsburg monarchy collapsed and fragmented after being on the losing side at the end of the First World War. It was reduced to the German-speaking areas of the former empire, and did not even cover those completely. The formation of Austria turned out to be difficult and ambiguous. On 30 October, 1918, the Republik Deutsch-Osterreich (German-Austrian Republic) was formed, and its creation was formally announced on 12 November 1918. On the same day the Socialist state chancellor Karl Renner declared the intention of Austria to unite and fuse with Germany. Thus from the beginning the newly created Austrian state had a very weak concept of national identity – the name German-Austria was forbidden by the Peace Treaty of St. Germain en Laye (1919), as were all attempts at unification with Germany. So the issue of national identity chronically influenced the development of the Austrian political system.

The Ecosystem as Helix: An Exploratory Theory-Building Study of Regional Co-Opetitive Entrepreneurial Ecosystems as Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation Models

Regions are increasingly being viewed as eco-systemic agglomerations of organizational and institutional entities or stakeholders with socio-technical, socio-economic, and socio-political conflicting as well as converging (co-opetitive) goals, priorities, expectations, and behaviors that they pursue via entrepreneurial development, exploration, exploitation, and deployment actions, reactions and interactions. In this context, our paper aims to explore and profile the nature and dynamics of the Quadruple/Quintuple Helix Innovation System Model or Framework (government, university, industry, civil society, environment) as an enabler and enactor of regional co-opetitive entrepreneurial ecosystems which we conceptualize as fractal, multi-level, multi-modal, multi-nodal, and multi-lateral configurations of dynamic tangible and intangible assets within the resource-based view and the new theory of the growth of the firm. Co-opetitive fractal innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystems are defined and discussed, and examples of regional innovation policies and programs are presented. Furthermore, the concept of multi-level innovation systems is analyzed, taking into account the existence of knowledge clusters and innovation networks, while alternative aggregations of multi-level innovation systems are proposed based on their spatial (geographical) and non-spatial (research-based) functional properties.

Introduction: Research Questions and Design of the Analysis of Governance and “Epistemic Governance” of and in Higher Education

In the following, we present a comprehensive analysis of governance of and in higher education that is based largely on a literature review, thus representing publicly accessible knowledge. We address and cover key publications on these topics, which were released in recent years. This also defines our first research question. Our second research question, however, is in analytical terms already more specific. We apply the concept of “epistemic governance” to higher education and elaborate in more detail what epistemic governance may mean for the governance of and in higher education (currently and in the future). Epistemic governance refers to the epistemic structure and “knowledge paradigms” that underlie higher education. We compare epistemic governance with the reviewed literature on higher education governance. After a definition of two key terms (governance and higher education) in Chap. 2, our analysis engages broadly in a reviewing and discussion of different concepts of governance of and in higher education (Chap. 3), and compares this with epistemic governance wherever necessary and appropriate. Epistemic governance as such we discuss and present in Sect. 3.2.2. In Conclusion, we then focus on possible implications of epistemic governance for the academic profession (academic faculty) and their academic careers.

Conceptual Definition of Two Key Terms: Governance and Higher Education

In etymological terms, the origin of the word “governance” comes from the ancient Greek verb kybernein (κυβeρνeĩν, infinitive) or kybernao (κυβeρνάω, first person) that meant steering, guiding, or maneuvering a ship or a land-based vehicle, and was used the first time metaphorically by Plato for depicting the governing of men or people (people would be here the modern application). This etymological component of “steering” also is being reflected in the prefix of “cyber” (for example, in words such as “cybernetics”). In the modern English language, “governance” is related to “government” and to “govern”. Cybernetics deals with feedback and regulatory systems. If this close link between government and governance be continued conceptually, then a definition of governance may be: governance describes how a government governs. One may also say, alternatively: governance addresses how government governs based on feedback.

Governance: Governance of and in Higher Education

Conventionally, in a standard understanding, governance is being associated with governments. However, governance also could be used more generally with regard to strategies and decision-making of political and non-political organizations and institutions. Under the general title of “good governance” the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) defines governance as: “the process of decision-making and the process by which decisions are implemented (or not implemented)”.

Conclusion: Possible Implications of Governance and “Epistemic Governance” for the Academic Profession (Academic Faculty) and Their Academic Careers

Alessandro Cavalli and Ulrich Teichler introduce the following definition for “academic profession”: “The academic profession is the ‘productive workforce’ of higher education institutions and research institutes, the key organizations in society serving the generation, preservation and dissemination of systematic knowledge. There is a general consensus that the academic profession is highly important in a society often characterized as a ‘knowledge society’. They raise the question, whether the academic profession has changed in recent years? Change could refer to and be benchmarked with the following indicators and characteristics: (1) “identities of the academic profession”; (2) the spectrum of “employment and remuneration conditions”; (3) “varied resources” and differences in academic performance; (4) the impact of different “managerial and evaluative practices” on the academic profession; (5) either increasing differences or more of a convergence (decreasing differences) between the various higher education systems.

Einleitung: Warum wir dieses Buch geschrieben haben — Sein Aufbau im Überblick

Wir erlebten in den vergangenen Jahren teils intensive, offentliche, innenpolitische und wissenschaftliche Diskussionen uber die Beschaffenheit sowie das Ausmas von Demokratie in Osterreich, und damit uber wesentliche Fragen der Demokratiequalitat. Besonders der Aufstieg der FPO, der politische Umbruch mit der Nationalratswahl vom Oktober 1999 und der Wechsel von der 13 Jahre lang amtierenden Grosen Koalition von SPO und OVP zu einer OVP/FPO-Regierung im Februar 2000 gaben Anlass zu Debatten uber den Zustand und die Entwicklungsperspektiven der osterreichischen Demokratie (siehe dazu das Literaturverzeichnis am Ende der Einleitung). Die Wahlerfolge und die Regierungsbeteiligung der FPO wurden vielfach als (mogliche) Gefahrdung demokratischer Qualitatsstandards angesehen. Einige sahen aber auch im Ende der Grosen Koalition eine Chance, demokratische Reformen zu entwickeln und umzusetzen, die bisher blockiert waren. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird die Frage relevant, was eigentlich die gegenwartige Qualitat der osterreichischen Demokratie ausmacht und wie diese als eine lebendige Demokratie verstanden werden kann.

„Do-it-yourself-Audit“ von Demokratie und Demokratiequalität in Österreich

Der hier vorgestellte „Do-it-yourself-Audit“ enthalt zunachst grundsatzliche Uberlegungen zur Entwicklung von Kriterien zur Uberprufung von Demokratie und Demokratiequalitat. Danach stellen wir einen praktischen Entwurf fur solch einen allgemeinen Kriterienkatalog zur Diskussion. Dieser wird abschliesend noch durch die von den Autorinnen formulierten Kriterien zu ihren Kapitelbeitragen erganzt.