Teorie ładu akademickiego

• Authors: Piotr Urbanek

Title variants

EN

Academic Governance Theories

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

PL

Ważną cechą badań naukowych poświęconych problematyce ładu akademickiego jest ich wielowymiarowość. Żadna z tradycyjnych dyscyplin pojedynczo nie jest w stanie pokazać istoty zjawisk zachodzących w tak złożonej instytucji społecznej, jaką jest uniwersytet. Oznacza to, że takie badania powinny być prowadzone przy wykorzystaniu różnych interdyscyplinarnych perspektyw teoretycznych. Celem artykułu jest prezentacja teorii, które mogą być użyte do wyjaśnienia procesów składających się na ład akademicki. Użytą metodą badawczą jest krytyczna analiza piśmiennictwa. Przedstawione zostały najczęściej przywoływane w literaturze teorie: agencji, służebności, interesariuszy, zasobowa, neoinstytucjonalna, uwarunkowań kulturowych. Teorie te w wielu elementach nawiązują do twierdzeń formułowanych w ramach teorii ładu korporacyjnego opisujących mechanizmy władzy i kontroli w korporacjach. Zarazem teorie ładu akademickiego akcentują to, na czym polega specyfika instytucji akademickich oraz instytucjonalnych struktur odpowiedzialnych za zarządzanie tymi instytucjami. Zaprezentowana w artykule typologia charakteryzuje się podejściem pozytywnym, w którym nacisk jest położony na zrozumienie, wyjaśnianie i przewidywanie złożonych procesów zachodzących w akademickim środowisku instytucjonalnym. Zarazem może to być punkt wyjścia przy próbach normatywnego określenia warunków, które powinny spełniać efektywne struktury instytucjonalne odpowiedzialne za kierowanie i nadzór nad uniwersytetami.

EN

An important feature of research studies on academic governance is their multidimensionality. None of the traditional disciplines alone is capable of capturing the essence of processes taking place in complex social institutions such as universities. This means that research should be carried out using various interdisciplinary theoretical perspectives. The aim of this article is to present theories that can be used to explain academic governance processes. The research method used is a critical analysis of the literature. The most frequently quoted theories in the literature include agency theory, stewardship theory, stakeholder theory, resource-dependency theory, neo-institutional theory, and cultural theory. Many elements of these theories refer to statements formulated within corporate governance theories. At the same time, academic governance theories emphasise the key characteristics of the academic institutional environment. The typology presented in the article represents a positive approach, which focuses on understanding, explaining and anticipating complex processes taking place in the academic institutional environment. At the same time, the typology can be a starting point in attempts to determine the conditions that should be met by institutional structures responsible for managing and supervising universities.

Keywords

PL

ład akademicki; uniwersytet; akademickie środowisko instytucjonalne

EN

University; academic governance; academic institutional environment

• Publisher: Szkoła Główna Handlowa w Warszawie. Kolegium Analiz Ekonomicznych
• Journal: Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 300
• Issue: 4
• Pages: 5-30

Dates

published

2019-12-27

received

2019-07-28

accepted

2019-10-23

Contributors

author

Piotr Urbanek

References

• Adamska A., Mesjasz C., Urbanek P. [2016], Teorie ładu korporacyjnego. Władanie i kontrola w złożonym świecie, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.
• Andresani G., Ferlie E. [2006], Studying Governance within the British Public Sector and Without: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, Public Management Review, 8(3): 415–432.
• Anielska A. [2017], Edukacja dorosłych w ofercie szkół wyższych. Strategie uczelni w świetle teorii zależności od zasobów, Edukacja, 142(3): 94–108.
• Antonowicz D. [2005], Uniwersytet przyszłości: Wyzwania i modele polityki, Instytut Spraw Publicznych, Warszawa.
• Austin I., Jones G. A. [2016], Governance of Higher Education. Global Perspectives, Theories, and Practices. New York: Routledge.
• Becher T. [1981], Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures, Studies in Higher Education, 6: 109–122.
• Burnes B., Wend P., By R. T. [2014], The changing face of English universities: reinventing collegiality for the twenty-first century, Studies in Higher Education, 39(6): 905–926.
• Clark B. R. [1983], The Higher Education System. Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective, Berkeley, University of California Press.
• Clark B. R. [1984], The organizational conception, w: Clark B. R. (red.), Perspectives on higher education. Eight disciplinary and comparative views, Berkeley, University of California Press: 106–131.
• Clark B. R. [1998], Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformations, Oxford, Pergamon Press.
• Cohen M. D., March J. G., Olsen J. P. [1972], A garbage can model of organizational choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1): 1–25.
• Davies J., Douglas A., Douglas J. [2007], The effect of academic culture on the implementation of the EFQM Excellence Model in UK universities, Quality Assurance in Education, 15(4): 382–401.
• Davis J. H., Schrooman F. D., Donaldson L. [1997], Toward a Stewardship Theory of Management, Academy of Management Journal, 22(1): 20–47.
• de Boer H., Enders J., Schimank U. [2007], On the way towards New Public Management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany, [w:] Jansen D. (red.) New forms of governance in research organizations: Disciplinary approaches, interfaces and integration, Dordrecht, Springer: 137–154.
• Dill D. D. [1982], The Management of Academic Culture: Notes on the Management of Meaning and Social Integration, Higher Education, 11: 303–320.
• DiMaggio P. J., Powell W. W. [1983], The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147–160.
• Eisenhardt K. M. [1983], Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review, Academy of Management Review, 8(1): 74–95.
• Etzkowitz H. [1983], Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial Universities in American Academic Science, Minerva, 21(2–3): 198–233.
• Etzkowitz H., Leydesdorff L. [1995], The Triple Helix-University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development, EASST Review, 14(1): 14–19.
• Etzkowitz H. [2003], Innovation in Innovation: The Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, Social Science Information, 42: 293–337.
• Eurydice [2008], Higher Education Governance in Europe. Policies, Structures, Funding and Academic Staff, Brussels: Eurydice.
• Finney T. G., Finney R. Z. [2010], Are Students Their Universities’ Customers? An Exploratory Study, Education & Training, 52(4): 276–291.
• Fowles J., [2014], Funding and Focus: Resource Dependence in Public Higher Education, Research in Higher Education, 55(3): 272–287.
• Franco-Santos M., Nalick M., Rivera-Torres P., Gomez-Mejia L. [2017], Governance and Well-being in Academia: Negative Consequences of Applying an Agency Theory Logic in Higher Education, British Journal of Management, 28: 711–730.
• Freeman R. E. [1984], Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman, London.
• Frey B. S., Homberg F., Osterloh M. [2013], Organizational Control Systems and Pay-for-Performance in the Public Service, Organization Studies, 34(7): 949–972.
• Geertz C. [2005], Interpretacja kultur. Wybrane eseje, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Kraków.
• Gornitzka A., Stensaker B., Smeby J-C., de Boer H. [2004], Contract arrangements in the Nordic countries: Solving the efficiency/effectiveness dilemma?, Higher Education in Europe, 291: 87–101.
• Gumport P. J. [2000], Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change and Institutional Imperatives, Higher Education, 39: 67–91.
• Harris M. [2013], Understanding institutional diversity, Wiley Online Library.
• Hartley J., Butler M., Benington J. [2002], Local government modernization: UK and comparative analysis from an organizational perspective, Public Management Review, 4(3): 387–404.
• Hofstede G., Hofstede G. J., [2007], Kultury i organizacje, Warszawa, PWE.
• Hung H. [1998], A typology of the theories of the roles of governing boards, Corporate Governance Research Papers, 6(2): 101–111.
• Jongbloed B., Enders J., Salerno C. [2008], Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda, Higher Education, 56: 303–324.
• Kerr C., [1982], The Uses of the University, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
• Kivisto J. A. [2008], An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the government–university relationship, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(4): 339–350.
• Kohler J., Huber J. (red.) [2006], Higher education governance between democratic culture, academic aspirations and market forces, Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing.
• Kubler J., Sayers N. [2010], Higher Education Futures: Key Themes and Implications for Leadership and Management, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, The Association of Commonwelth Universities, Series 2: Publication 4.1.
• Kwiek M. [2010], Transformacje uniwersytetu. Zmiany instytucjonalne i ewolucje polityki edukacyjnej w Europie, Poznań, Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM.
• Kwiek M. [2016], Rosnąca konkurencja o zasoby: uniwersytety a inne instytucje sektora publicznego, Humaniora. Czasopismo Internetowe, 3 (15): 45–59.
• Lane J. E. [2007], The Spider Web of Oversight: An Analysis of External Oversight of Higher Education, The Journal of Higher Education, 786: 615–644.
• Länsiluoto A., Järvenpää M., Krumwiede K. [2013], Conflicting interests but filtered key targets: Stakeholder and resource-dependency analyses at a University of Applied Sciences, Management Accounting Research, 24: 228–245.
• Leja K. [2013], Zarządzanie uczelnią. Koncepcje i współczesne wyzwania, Warszawa, Oficyna Wolters Kluwer business.
• Liefner I. [2003], Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems, Higher Education, 46: 469–489.
• Marginson S., Considine M. [2000], The Enterprise University, Melbourne, Cambridge University Press.
• Mathiesa C., Slaughterb S. [2013], University trustees as channels between academe and industry: Toward an understanding of the executive science network, Research Policy, 42: 1286–1300.
• May T. [1997], Social research: Issues, methods and process, Buckingham, UK, Open Univer¬sity Press.
• McCulloch A. [2009], The student as co-producer: Learning from public administration about the student–university relationship, Studies in Higher Education, 34(2): 171–183.
• McLendon M. K. [2003], The Politics of Higher Education: Toward an Expanded Research Agenda, Educational Policy, 17(1): 165–191.
• Meyer J., Rowan B. [1977], Institutionalized Organizations:Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony, American Journal of Sociology, 83: 340–363.
• Morphew C. C., Huisman J. [2002], Using Institutional Theory to Reframe Research on Academic Drift, Higher Education in Europe, 27(4): 492–506.
• Muth M. M., Donaldson L. [1998], Stewardship Theory and Board Structure: A Contingency Approach, Corporate Governance, 61: 5–28.
• North D. C, [1991], Institutions, Journal of Economic Perspective, 5(1): 97–112.
• Olsen J. P. [2005], The institutional dynamics of the [European] University, Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Working Paper, 15.
• Pfeffer J., Salacik G. R. [2003], The external control of organizations: A resource dependency perspective, Harper & Law, New York.
• Rabovsky T., Rutherford A. [2016], The Politics of Higher Education: University President Ideology and External Networking, Public Administration Review, 76(5): 764–777.
• Rajan R. G., Zingales L. [1998], Power in a Theory of the Firm, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2): 387–432.
• Schwartz S. H. [1999], A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1): 23–47.
• Scott W. R. [1995], Institutions and organizations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Silver H. [2003], Does a University Have a Culture?, Studies in Higher Education, 28(2): 157–169.
• Shattock M. [2002], Re-balancing modern concepts of university governance, Higher Education Quarterly, 56(3): 235–244.
• Slaughter S., Leslie L. L. [1997], Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the entrepreneurial university, Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Sporn B. [1999], Managing university culture: an analysis of the relationship between institutional culture and management approaches, Higher Education, 32: 41–61.
• Szczepański J. [1993], Granice reform szkolnictwa wyższego, Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 2: 5–10.
• Thornton P., Ocasio W. [2008], Institutional logics, w: Greenwood R., Oliver C., Sahlin K., Suddaby R. (red.), The sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, London: Sage: 99–129.
• Tolbert P. S. [1985], Institutional environments and resource dependence: Sources of administrative structure in institutions of higher education, Administrative Science Quarterly, 30: 1–13.
• Toma J. D., Dubrow G., Hartley M. [2005]. The uses of institutional culture: Strengthening identification and building brand equity in higher education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 32(2), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Urbanek P. [2014], Problem agencji w warunkach zdecentralizowanego modelu zarządzania uczelnią publiczną, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 343: 550–558.
• Välimaa J. [1998], Culture and Identity in Higher Education Research, Higher Education, 36: 119–138.
• Williamson O. E. [1998], Ekonomiczne instytucje kapitalizmu, Warszawa, Wydawnictwo Na¬ukowe PWN.
• Wilkin J. [2016], Instytucjonalne i kulturowe podstawy gospodarowania. Humanistyczna perspek¬tywa ekonomii, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Scholar, Warszawa.

Identifiers

DOI

10.33119/GN/113062