Georg Krücken

Towards a multiversity? : universities between global trends and national traditions

Science and politics all over the world are generating new ideas and models for the functions and structures of the higher education sector and its institutions. These are increasingly exposed to pressures of change. The contributions compiled in this volume identify the most influential models and investigate the context of their origin, their dissemination mechanisms and chances to establish themselves, as well as the resulting consequences for the universities.

European universities as complete organizations? Understanding identity, hierarchy and rationality in public organizations

Abstract This article investigates the form of European universities to determine the extent to which they resemble the characteristics of complete organizations and whether the forms are associated with modernization policy pressure, national institutional frames and organizational characteristics. An original data set of twenty-six universities from eight countries was used. Specialist universities have a stronger identity, whereas the level of hierarchy and rationality is clearly associated with the intensity of modernization policies. At the same time, evidence suggests limitations for universities to become complete, as mechanisms allowing the development of some dimensions seemingly constrain the capability to develop others.

RISK VERSUS RISK: Decision-making Dilemmas of Drug Regulation in the United States and Germany

The regulation of medicines is fraught with inherent dilemmas of decision-making, or `risk versus risk’ tradeoffs. Arguing that efforts to clean up the environment or improve public health often generate `countervailing risks’ , John Graham and Jonathan Wiener stress that all regulatory choicesÐ including inactionÐ can have adverse consequences (Graham and Wiener, 1995). `Risk versus risk’ is an accurate description of the predicament faced by regulatory decision-makers when reviewing new drug applications. Approving a medicinal drug too quickly can lead to countervailing risks in the form of severe side effects. Withholding or approving it too slowly can be problematic as well, most obviously when dealing with a potentially life-saving therapy. The history of pharmaceutical drugs is full of examples for both sides of this `risk versus risk’ coin. On the side of overly rapid marketing following insuf® cient testing, cases such as tainted sulfanilamide, Thalidomide, Fen ̄ uramine used in conjunction with Phentermine (phen-fen), and Rezulin have all generated extensive media attention and prompted increased regulatory oversight. Use of the solvent diethylene glycol in the antibiotic sulfanilamide caused over 100 deaths in 1937 and led to the passage of the 1938 US Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Jackson, 1970). In the twentieth century’ s most prominent drug disaster, widespread use of the sedative Thalidomide among pregnant women in Germany, England, and elsewhere was linked to the birth of nearly 10,000 deformed babies (Lenz, 1962; McFadyen, 1976). Three years ago, the diet pill phen-fen was linked to heart valve disease, forcing the manufacturer to withdraw it from the US market (Bachorik, 1997). More recently, in March 2000, the Food

Sameness and Difference

Abstract In their mission statements, universities are trying to differentiate themselves from other universities that are perceived as their competitors as well as highlight organizational specificities and brand unique images. However, at the same time, mission statements rely heavily on institutional specificities. On the basis of a combined discourse analysis, sequential analysis, and content analysis of mission statements of German universities, this article provides empirical evidence to the conclusion that mission statements allow universities to position themselves in particular niches and competitive groups, in which group similarities are highlighted vis-à-vis other groups’ differences.

Higher education reforms and unintended consequences: a research agenda

Higher education in Europe has undergone remarkable transformations over the last two decades. Germany is a very interesting case in point here. While the country was labeled as a laggard in the process, over the last decade the pace of higher education reforms in Germany has grown considerably. This paper will focus on the by now visible effects of these remarkable transformations, which have led to numerous consequences that go beyond the explicit intentions of policy-makers. Unintended consequences resulting from rapid institutional change will be discussed with regard to research, third-mission activities, and structural reforms concerning governance and organization. It can be assumed that, due to a variety of such unintended consequences, also in other European countries the next decade will be shaped by efforts aiming at reforming the reforms, re-regulating the significant changes brought about during the last two decades. The paper closes with a brief discussion of the necessary linkages to three related interdisciplinary research areas, from which both higher education research and policy-making will benefit, and a summary of the main points of the paper.

Hierarchy and power: a conceptual analysis with particular reference to new public management reforms in German universities

For more than 20 years, new public management (NPM) has been the guiding governance model of university reforms in Europe. One central aspect of this governance model is to strengthen the hierarchy within the universities. Recent research shows that the formal decision-making authority of university leaders and deans has increased in almost every European country. While these changes at the formal level are well documented in the literature, researchers have given little attention to the institutional protection mechanisms of hierarchy in organizations. The most important institutional protection mechanisms of hierarchy in organizations are power and the related potential for negative and positive sanctions. By discussing the German university system, we ask whether university leaders and/or deans have the power to use hierarchy within their universities. Three types of power are considered: organizational power, personnel power and power over resources. The article shows that in Germany, neither university leaders nor deans have sufficient power over the academics in order to exercise hierarchical governance. The absence of power at the university leadership level and at the departmental level seems an important barrier to the implementation of the NPM model in Germany. Our perspective on hierarchy and power allows for further comparative research.

Professionalisierungsprozesse im Hochschulmanagement in Deutschland

Professionalisierung scheint zu einem zentralen Topos im Kontext der Hochschulreformen avanciert zu sein. Schon bei oberflachlicher Lekture der etablierten Presse und Stellungnahmen in der Hochschulpolitik in Deutschland stost der interessierte Leser auf den allgegenwartigen Ruf nach Professionalisierung:„Professionalisierung des Fakultatsmanage ments“(H. Leichsenring 2007);„Professionelles Fundraising“(A. Poth 2009: 14);„Professionalisierung als Leitungsaufgabe“(HRK 2004);„Profis ins Hochschulmanagement“(S. Nickel/F. Ziegele 2006).

Organizational Fields and Competitive Groups in Higher Education: Some Lessons from the Bachelor/Master Reform in Germany

The implementation of the Bachelor and Master reform in German universities happens at a surprisingly rapid pace. Apparently, a higher education system which by most observers is characterized as being reluctant to change can quickly embrace the Bologna process, which aims at a common European higher education area until 2010. In this article the main driving-forces underlying the rapid reform process are identified with the help of some conceptual tools from the new institutionalism in organizational analysis and based on qualitative empirical research. According to my analysis, the process can only be explained by the strong interactions within an “organizational field”. Among the organizations involved, the state as a coercive actor seems to be the single most important driving-force. In addition, one can witness a stronger role for accountability and leadership in universities and the emergence of new regulatory actors like accreditation agencies. As the Bachelor and Master reform is rather implemented in a “top down” way, “bottom up” competitive processes among universities play a weaker role than expected. The “competitive groups”, in which universities position themselves with regard to students are mostly regional. This opens up further questions with regard to the effects of the Europeanization of higher education.

Linkages to the civil society as ‘leisure time activities’? Experiences at a German university

The paper focuses on the role academic organizations and their members play within their socio-economic and socio-political contexts. It presents findings of the case study of a German university. Based on qualitative interviews, written documents and bibliometric analyses, we can see that, first, most of the universitys links to the economy, political actors, and broader civil society emerge in a bottom-up and decentralized way, and they thrive on individual motivation and commitment. Therefore, there are clear limits to the formal institutionalization of such activities at the organizational level. Second, while ties to industry pay off at least indirectly through research funding, links to regional policy-making and broader civil society remain largely unrewarded in academia. For the future, we expect a growing tension between the organizational goal to embrace additional goals and the individual goals, especially of younger researchers who increasingly tend to focus on those activities that are rewarded in academia. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Nested Organizational Fields: Isomorphism and Differentiation among European Universities

Abstract European universities have changed dramatically over the last two to three decades. The two dominant frameworks to analyze these changes are “New Public Management” and the construction of “complete organizations.” Both of these approaches highlight isomorphic processes leading to increased homogenization within European universities. However, empirical evidence suggests that European universities are differentiating from each other at the same time as they are becoming more isomorphic. To explain the simultaneity of homogenization and differentiation among European universities, we use the concept of nested organizational fields. We distinguish between a global field, a European field, and several national, state, and regional fields. Homogenization and differentiation are then the result of similar or different field embeddedness of European universities. The advantage of this approach lies in explaining homogenization and differentiation of universities within individual countries on the one hand, as well as cross-national homogenization and differentiation of subgroups of universities on the other hand.