Talk:Governance of Higher Education
Discussion
[edit]I do have plans for bettter introducing this article and providing information on countries other than the United States.--Kenneth M Burke 18:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merger in process--Kenneth M Burke 04:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- How's that? Probably talking to myself.--Kenneth M Burke 05:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Merger
[edit]This page was merged with another page that contained the following content:
University governace is the means by which universities are operated. According to Kezar and Eckel, university governance refers to the process of policy making and macro-level decision making within higher education. It is considered to be a multi-level concept including several different bodies and processes with different decision-making functions.
Kezar and Eckel have pointed out how the substance of governance has changed during the last decades with more emphasis being put on high stake issues and more incremental decisions being made in a less collegial mode – the reasons for this stem from the current higher education trends that have devalued the notion of participation and also from the external pressures of more straightforward accountability and demands for quicker decision-making (that sometimes is achieved through more bureaucratic management mechanisms).
Due to the influences of public sector reforms, several authors (Kezar and Eckel; Lapworth; Middlehurst) have pointed out that next to the concept of shared/participative governance, a new form of governance i.e. the notion of corporate governance (of universities) has occurred and has even become a more dominant concept. According to Lapworth, the rise of the notion of corporate governance and the decline of the shared or consensual governance can be seen to be a result of the decline in academic participation, growing tendency towards managerialism and the new environment where the universities are operating.
Dearlove has emphasised that, under the conditions of mass higher education, no university can successfully avoid the need for some sort of bureaucratic management and organisation, though this does not mean that the importance of informal discipline and profession based authority (internal governance of universities) can totally be ignored. Lapworth is advocating for a more flexible model of university governance to benefit both from the positive aspects of corporate approaches and collegial approaches.
End