Governance in Spanish Universities

Abstract

This article reviews the current model of governance within Spanish universities, focusing on the areas of state regulation, academic goals, and organizational management. A qualitative approach was adopted for this research, comprising the use of a survey and a focus group. The conclusions of this study provide some insights into the new governance models being applied in Spanish universities and the implications of these models for academics, managers, and policy makers.

Keywords

higher education governance institutional structures qualitative methods management

Introduction

The European system of higher education has experienced profound changes in recent years, and these changes have been the subject of some degree of critical evaluation and analysis (Paradeise, Reale, Bleiklie, & Ferlie, 2009). The emergence of the knowledge-based economy (Godin, 2003) has placed higher education at the heart of economic transformation, particularly in terms of the impact on society and how society responds to the needs of the market. Since higher education in Europe is publicly funded, it has proved easier than otherwise might have been the case for the new paradigm to become established (Lepori, Jongbloed, Salerno, & Slipersaete, 2007). The general acceptance of this paradigm has been accompanied by the introduction of new assessment procedures and models of accountability (Neave, 1998). The same trends can be found in the U.S. higher education, where institutions are increasingly subject to influence from outside forces, whether in terms of responding to markets or in their approaches to accountability (Toma, 2007). In addition, McGuinness (2005) argues that the state has a basic responsibility to ensure that there is a balance between institutional autonomy and public accountability.

These phenomena have led to the emergence of a variety of external stress factors, which have implications for the reform processes, as well as the promotion of changes in the internal structure of universities (Castro & Ion, 2011).

Universities are often accused of ignoring social reality, particularly the nature of social change, the context in which they are obliged to operate, and the actual needs of society (Amaral & Magelhães, 2002; European Commission, 2006). Others authors focus their attention on the role of universities in regional development (Solé & Coll, 1999). In this context, many countries implementing university reform have favored a model based on transferring power from academics to bodies comprised of managers and external stakeholders (Jongbloed, Enders, & Salerno, 2008). As a result, a fresh debate about the competence of these bodies has emerged, focusing on issues of their composition and size, what the appropriate balance between internal and external actors should be (Woodfield & Kennie, 2007), and upon the identity and background of the people who comprise the membership of these bodies (Whitchurch, 2006). These trends in governance have been thoroughly analyzed in the U.S. literature. For example, Tierney (2004) undertook a thorough study of the transformation of the role of the state and the changes in the internal structure of universities, along with the implications of the new paradigm for university autonomy

At the same time, universities have been engaged in implementing reforms designed to respond to the demands for more internal democracy and the best ways to incorporate this into the decision-making process. The so-called new managerialism has been applied within higher education in a less than thoroughgoing way, but there have been some significant successes. “New managerialism” is not only an approach to reforming the governance of universities, it also represents a new way of conceptualizing the role of universities. Research by Deem, Hillyard, and Reed (2007, p. 54) into the role of department heads, deans, and senior managers concluded that the practices of new managerialism “have both infiltrated the daily life of manager-academics and changed typical power relations.” However, the new managerialism has not escaped criticism. Randle and Brady (1997) and a later study by Deem and Brehony (2005) conclude that new managerialism pervades the way in which impersonal bodies act and is responsible for a change in the relationships of power and dominance. The “new managerialism” is not merely a technical reform in the way universities are managed. It brings with it a change in the way we think about universities, how their role in society is envisaged, and how they are governed. As the debate between traditional and professionalized models has unfolded, some practical issues have also emerged along the fault lines, for example, in deciding funding strategies for universities in the context of budget control.

A key issue in university management is the distribution of power and authority (Amaral & Magelhães, 2002). This is particularly pertinent when analyzing those factors that affect the implementation of changes and the redistribution of power between academic governance and managerial governance (Taylor, 2006).

Recent implementation of reforms has focused on offering greater power and authority to those professionals skilled in management and its challenges. As a consequence, increasing autonomy is reflected in a concentration of power in internal university structures (Meister-Scheytt, 2007). This compels universities to face new challenges and to look for an appropriate balance between decision making and organizational management structures (Clark, 1998; Taylor, 2006). This in turn has led to a dual structure becoming entrenched, characterized by the existence of two distinct hierarchies, academic and administrative. This separation of academic and administrative matters has brought about a clear distinction between those involved in the two different areas. This can lead to conflict between the different bodies responsible for decision making (Castro & Tomàs. 2010).

The Model of Governance Within Spanish Universities

University governing bodies in the Spanish higher education system can be classified on the basis of two variables: composition and range of influence. The structure of governing bodies is either collegiate, based on the idea of consensus decision making, or takes a more “ministerial” form, where one individual exercises delegated power and enjoys considerable degree of autonomy in how he or she uses that power, much as a minister in a government department would. I will refer to this as “uni-personal” (single or noncollegiate bodies). In “uni-personal” systems, the style of management is nonprofessional, and the representatives occupy these positions for a fixed period rather than on a permanent basis.

The second variable relates to the range of influence of the governing bodies, which may be general or peripheral (also referred to as territorial). This kind of structure is based on the Napoleonic model of university management, a model whereby the members of the different groups combine to exercise power so that, for example, teaching staff will form one such group, administrative staff another, and so on. It can be regarded as a sort of academic corporation model, in which teaching staff often have considerable organizational power, maintained through an institution-wide association. It is not only teaching staff who form such associations. Similar associations of students and administrative and service personnel exist. Given that teaching staff are organized according to academic ranking, the whole university system is divided into different levels. The administrative level includes personnel who provide support and assistance to academic activities as well the institutional activities of management. The academic level includes both teaching and research personnel (Castro & Tomàs, 2011). In broad terms, the management of Spanish universities may best be characterized overall as an elected, rotating model.

In summary, institutional governance is carried out by mandated academics who assume that role for a fixed period of time. New managers are elected for a period between 3 and 6 years, with a mandate to keep the policies and performance of the university under constant review and to adopt whatever changes may be appropriate to ensure that the university performs its functions. Taking the above framework as the background context, this article is organized in three parts. The first part focuses on analyzing the role of the state, external stakeholders, academic self-governance, and managerial governance in publicly funded universities in Spain. Using this framework, the second part analyzes the impact of these factors on the current model of governance in universities in Spain and how this model has been adapted to the current context. The third part analyzes the consequences of the implementation of these paradigms on the academics involved and analyzes their own perceptions of how the changes affect them.

Method

A qualitative approach was adopted (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005). In order to ensure the validity of this approach, different strategies were adopted. Two different methods were used: interviews and group discussion. Both the interview guidelines and the focus-group guidelines were validated by pilot testing and evaluation and consultation with senior colleagues.

The use of interviews meant that data could be collected directly from the key figures within the university. The interviews were conducted over a period of 14 months with the questions being determined by the nature of the research objectives and the theoretical framework identified in the introduction. The questions examined the functioning of the system of democratic representation and the dysfunctional aspects arising from the way in which governance systems are embedded in the broader structures of the university. The questions also focused on the low involvement of key social groups and the structures and processes that serve to maintain the internal autonomy of peripheral units (in particular schools and departments). Interviews were conducted at four public universities: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Universidad Pompeu Fabra, Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, and Universidad de Barcelona. A further strategy to ensure the validity of the data was the triangulation of the information provided by each group of informants, as each of the three types of informants was able to provide information on the same research question from a different perspective In addition, all three types of participants had previously participated in similar research (Castro & Thomas, 2011). Three different respondent perspectives were obtained and analyzed:

Academics performing management functions in departments or faculties (12 interviews). This category comprised 12 in-depth interviews with faculty deans and heads of departments, who were representatives of “uni-personal” bodies.

Leading analysts in higher education governance and management (seven interviews). This comprised seven interviews with senior academics with expertise in higher education management and others currently engaged in senior managerial roles such as chancellor or vice-chancellor.

Staff working in administrative and support services for academic managers (four interviews). This comprised four interviews with representatives of the administrative staff.

Internal validity was ensured by the selection of informants using the following criteria: length of experience in management positions, the type of institutional body (individual or collective), training, and academic standing. This ensured that our interviewees conformed to a wide variety of profiles.

The interviews lasted about 90 min and were conducted at each participant’s workplace. The selection of the respondent sample was based on the respondents’ representativeness, established using nonprobability criteria and the theoretical sampling of Flick (2004). In order to act as a control on the consistency of the responses, 6 of the participants were interviewed a second time, so in total 29 surveys were conducted.

The third strategy to ensure internal validity was the selection of informants using a criteria system incorporating such aspects as experience in management positions, type of institution (individual or collective), training, academic standing, and so on. This ensured that there was sufficient variety in our informants’ profiles.

Data from the interviews were analyzed and systematized using Aquad software (version 6). A preliminary report was drafted, identifying the key themes that emerged from the interviews, as well as any issues or themes that could be considered contentious. This report then formed the basis for the second phase of data collection, in which a group of nine academics took part in a focus group. These participants were selected for the focus group on the basis of their expertise in management in the context of higher education in Europe.

The data analysis was conducted on three levels. At the preliminary level the key units of meaning were identified. The second level of analysis involved the identification of single units of meaning through an axial coding system linking the dimensions of analysis with a set of complex significance topics. The third level of analysis extended the process of synthesis in order to extract the textual units.

Results

The Role of the State and External Stakeholders in the University Governance System

The role of the state in ensuring accountability and fulfilling its social and external obligations is highly valued by all the managers and senior academics interviewed who had expertise in the field of university management. They all accept that society has a responsibility to monitor the results and performance of managers, especially those in the public sector. In addition, they considered that any system of accountability must also guarantee transparency, control, and improvement, without thereby becoming overbureaucratic and that it should be based on the agreement of those involved.

The participants were open to proposals to modify the current model by incorporating external social agents. They felt that the current system was dysfunctional and that current approaches could lead to an approach that lacked flexibility, with the system not being open to new ideas, leading to problems becoming entrenched. They also felt that the opportunities and impetus for change were limited by the fact that the number of external social agents was small and their scope for input was quite restricted. For this reason they considered that only experienced academics, or those who had achieved academic distinction, should take on governance and strategic planning roles in central and departmental units. Such an approach could form part of a professionalization process for academics.

I think no one knows how to do everything, and only a few people are able to do lots of different things well . . . doing good research, being a good teacher, and being good at management too. Therefore, I think the effective functioning of a university depends on it having the right people in the right jobs, those jobs that are best suited to their skills and abilities. Everyone should be able to find his or her right place. But it does not mean that this must be the only role they have for the rest of their professional life, as it isn’t a good idea to pigeon-hole people at universities. I am thinking here of a teacher who might end up dedicating most of his or her professional life to administrative and managerial tasks within a faculty, or to undertaking some of those tasks. (Miguel, senior professor)

The role of external stakeholders and their effect on university governance is another of the factors we explored in this research. Opinions differed concerning the benefits that external stakeholders are able to bring to a university. Whereas academic staff consider that management is integrated with their professional role, the senior academics with expertise in the field of management would prefer to see greater professionalization of academic and administrative staff and more extensive use of external managers by the university.

The participants we interviewed had different perceptions concerning the new managerialism. Some of them were very critical, describing the new approach as displaying “a lack of coherence” and characterizing it as “a system of competition resembling mortal combat,” and going so far as to describe the approach as “a corrupt model.” One of the interviewed professionals pointed out that

Despite the fact that there are common elements, a university is not like a company or a business. The two are not the same and they can’t be compared. What works in one environment won’t necessarily work in the other. And the styles of management must be different, too. (Nuria, head of a University School)

On the other hand, some of the participants consider that collegiate bodies exercise too much control over individual managers. They went on to raise particular concerns about what they regarded as a lack of effectiveness in the decision-making process, as well as a systemic failure to monitor decisions and to ensure effective follow-up in the decision-making process.

If every department head has to go about securing consent for his or her decisions from the relevant council, then the process just becomes ridiculous. I think there must be a set of agreed procedures, but we have to let academic managers to do their jobs without undue restriction. We already have managers who were chosen in a democratic way, so this kind of excessive control by the collegiate bodies is just senseless. (Marina, senior professor)

Other aspects highlighted by this research concern the level of autonomy given to the members of the university community. There is certain degree of autonomy within the decentralized departments, enabling them to decide their own regulations, but in some cases they have to take cognizance of priorities imposed by the higher levels of university governance.

I think we have a lot of autonomy regarding academic and research tasks, but at the same time, control of the allocation of resources is controlled by the higher levels, the centralized administration. If, as a department director, I still cannot decide on how teachers should do their job, this shows that there are still limits to my managerial autonomy. (José María, head of department)

For this reason some of the experts favor implementing a managerial model that gives greater control and autonomy to departmental managers. However, there is a recognition that there needs to be limits to the extent of departmental autonomy.

In countries where universities function well, university teachers actively participate in determining the strategy of the university. The senate has a couple of meetings a year and establishes the general strategy, and the implementation of it is then a matter for the professional managers, because that is their specific responsibility and they are expected to be able to do their job, and if they don’t, they can be sacked. Of course, what this means in practice is that, everyone shares the responsibility for producing good results. But for managers this means something different from what it means to the academic staff. (Miquel, expert)

The Academic and Managerial Bodies in the University Governance Model

Teachers currently occupying managerial positions consider that the existing relationship between academic governance and managerial governance is the most appropriate system and is one that is perfectly suited to the context of universities in Spain. However, it is not without its critics, as some teachers feel that there are occasions when representative assemblies do not function well and made various suggestions for ways of improving the situation. But overall there is a large degree of positive consensus.

I think at the moment things are good as they are. Although there are some management tasks that could be in the hands of the professional managers, it is very important for teachers to retain some control over the management of some of the details. People whose background is solely in management are not able to fully appreciate what is involved in teaching, its priorities, and the function of a department, to cite just a few things. An expert can manage in his or her area of expertise, but cannot bring that knowledge to more specific and detailed areas, so there should be someone else whose role would be to take care of the everyday management. (María, head of department)

The administrative staff were the group who expressed the strongest dissatisfaction with the current model, and they favored significant changes. Most of them felt that universities, like any other large institution, should be run by professionals and that such professional managers should not necessarily come from within the academic field. They felt that teachers and academics are not adequately prepared for assuming a management role, particularly when they first assume management responsibilities. They also believed that the rotation of positions within academic management has a negative impact on policy development. They also felt that tremendous difficulty can arise when trying to implement some of the policies addressed to teaching staff and that this engenders opposition and the potential for the rejection of new policies.

If our objective is to advance toward a more professionalized and competitive university we need a more specialized approach. We need to keep those professionals who perform well, but those who under perform should be fired. Teachers frequently cite the fact that they may need to rotate jobs and that they lack the freedom to make decisions as excuses. In contrast, from the professionals’ point of view, the decision-making process is primarily determined by the previously established objectives of the department or faculty. When management can only be achieved by means of consensus, then the whole process becomes inefficient. (Santiago, Manager)

It should be noted, however, that in this debate between academic governance and managerial governance the bifurcation between the academic and the administrative within the university structure was very highly valued by both academics and managers. For both groups this division facilitated a clear differentiation between their roles and avoided any confusion or conflict that could potentially arise due to the differing priorities of the academic and the management staff. However, the academic staff pointed out that in the case of Spain, this system of devolved power is used even though it is well known that teachers only take up management roles on a temporary basis, thereby blurring the line between the two. This blurring of the boundaries has the potential to generate other problems, not least of which is the potential for a change in the role of academic management from one that ought to be unashamedly political and tactical in nature to one more concerned with day-to-day operations and administrative tasks.

I spend the whole day dealing with minor details, most of them related to bureaucratic matters. I have to do the more complicated work at home. Here you spend the whole day trying to resolve quite small-scale things. (Andrew, Dean)

The area that received the most critical comment from academics was that of collaboration between the academic and the administrative bodies. Although the opinions of managers and senior academics are very similar, administrative and service staff had very different perceptions. One of them said,

Currently, collaboration between the academic and the service staff is almost impossible. They have different objectives and different styles of working. From my perspective the real challenge is to establish a culture of collaboration in which we all share the same objectives and values. (Miquel J., expert)

The result is that within the system there occurs a degree of dysfunctionality, which administrative staff find particularly problematic. They rely on both management and academics in order to do their job, being located in a position of organizational dependence with regard to the managers and being in a position of functional dependence with regard to the academics. Administration and service staff think the distinctions in roles should be maintained, since a more unified structure would simply generate permanent confusion and lead to further problems.

I think the [dual] structure is absolutely vital. Even if the management of teaching and research has to be looked after by teachers, I don’t believe they could survive without a strong administrative structure. This doesn’t seem to me to be a problem—quite the contrary. (Verónica, school administrator)

However, the administrative staff find themselves pulled in two directions at once, due to a “double dependence,” dependence on the managers and their functional dependence on the academic staff. This double dependence can have a negative impact on their performance.

I should not say this, but I think I am not her or his boss. I probably fulfill the role of her or his boss, in a functional sense, but from the organizational point of view I am not his or her boss. (Ana, head of department)

The managers interviewed considered that there had not been any real attempt to ensure that the respective roles of the teaching and administrative staff cohered with each other in an effective way. In practice, the two professional structures operate in different fields while coexisting within the same institution. The cultures of these two professional hierarchies are quite different and the challenge is to achieve a level of mutual understanding sufficient to improve overall levels of efficiency and functioning.

I’ve always felt that some of the people amongst the administrative staff lacked a sense of vocation for this job. Rather than having that sense of vocation which the teachers posses, administrative staff are often motivated by quite different sets of considerations. However, there are things that could be done to improve understanding between the two groups. (Rosa, school manager)

Discussion and Conclusions

The decision-making process within Spanish universities is not subject to outside influences to any great degree. The presence of outside representatives or social groups in governance bodies is negligible. There is only one collegiate body for external representation, the Social Council, which is responsible for supervising some aspects of the university management, principally budget allocations. The most significant influence that higher educational institutions (HEIs) have to deal with is the state, as HEIs are totally dependent on them for their funding and staff levels. The civil servant/teacher is a figure typically characterized as being excessively inflexible, unable to adapt to change and with little accountability to external stakeholders.

In Spain the tradition of the Napoleonic style of universities is still strong, which is reflected in how the state conceives of universities. According to this way of thinking, the state feels it has the right to exercise considerable power over universities. It is clear, however, that the state’s view of the importance of two of the most important institutions, the Social Council and the University Council, is deeply flawed. The role of these two institutions, according to Montserrat (1998), is in furthering the general good and benefiting the economy, without the need for government involvement.

According to Mora Ruiz (2001) the Spanish system is characterized by its high levels of democracy. However, this relates more to how power is distributed among the various actors within a university rather than to the independent decision-making capacity of universities themselves. Currently, decentralizing initiatives have been initiated by which different bodies (Centers, Faculties, and Departments) can take on tasks that were formerly the prerogative of central bodies.

The university system in Spain belongs very clearly to the collegiate model of democracy. This has led to a concentration of institutional power in the hands of the academic community (e.g., Michavila & Embid, 2001). This form of management is associated with the term “professional bureaucracy,” as defined by Mintzberg (1984), although in the context of Spanish universities, this “professional bureaucracy” is enmeshed into a broader configuration of other groups. These groups are made up of teachers, students, and administrative and service staff. In addition, the academic community is itself composed of a hierarchy of different levels, since teachers are organized by rank and academic status. The results presented here identify both the role of teaching staff within the decision-making process and their level of participation in that process as possible causes of the decline in the sense of vocation within the public sector.

Our research shows that some of the changes in the power relations within higher education and the impact of these changes on the structures of governance and on academic managers are related to the nature of the decision-making process (Lazerson, 2010). There have been some indications that within Spanish universities, with regard to some aspects of the decision-making process, there has been an increase in specialization.

As for the organizational structure of universities, Pedró (2004) identifies a concentration of power around two distinct poles: faculties and departments (academia) on one hand, and administrative and service staff (management) on the other. This has led to the existing network of power structures becoming entrenched (Mintzberg, 1984).

Our findings are in line with the findings of Pérez and Peiró (1999), who assert that the interlocking structure of power unites departments (as a grouping of teachers in an area of knowledge) and schools or faculties (which are responsible for teaching), while at the same time allowing each part of this combination to maintain a degree of autonomy. Our findings are also in line with Castro and Tomàs (2010), who state that the twofold nature of the organizational focus at universities establishes a distinction between the academic and the managerial staff. Therefore, it would be more accurate to say that Spanish universities are characterized by a double matrix: one between schools and departments (structures), the other between the academic and the managerial (people). This double matrix, in turn, is subject to a departmental structure that controls the university’s general management, which functions as a third organizational axis connecting the peripheral and general management bodies.

This kind of organizational structure has both advantages and disadvantages. Among the advantages is that it is flexible and allows for the speedy allocation of resources and the shared use of personnel.

The trend toward the centralization of the decision-making process within institutions can create the need for a new “strategic decentralization.” According to Larsen, Maassen, and Stensaker (2009), under the current competitive circumstances this can only be possible if institutions become more adaptable and efficient, a fact also highlighted by Clark (2004).

The governance and management of public universities have features that differ from those of private universities. This is most marked in the area of delegating policy-making powers to a specific individual, where, unlike public universities, in private universities these positions are appointed and not elected.

Since the current system of university governance is characterized by its flexibility and its ability to adapt to changing circumstances, the results of our research lead us to propose a number of suggestions regarding each of the factors related to university governance.

Implications for the Study of Higher Education Governance

The relationship between universities and society would benefit from an improved recognition of the relevance of the universities to society. Greater accountability would oblige university managers to clarify their role and to give greater consideration to the likely impact of their decisions on society. Social assessment and accountability should serve as the catalysts in the relationship between the university, its stakeholders, and its managers.

At the same time, the governance system should be prepared to incorporate new strategies, such as those advanced by Deem and Brehony (2005). This “new managerialism” model proposes an external organization should be responsible for the validation of degree and postgraduate programs, as well as for the accreditation of the teaching staff. One effect of such reforms would be to reduce the level of power concentrated in the hands of academics.

The autonomy that universities posses could be lost if the institutional structures that universities employ become dysfunctional. Flexibility and the ability to adapt to new contexts is best achieved in a context of decentralization, with power moving toward the peripheral units: centers, departments, and institutes.

The current university structure is best explained in terms of three different types of differentiation: between the center and the departments, between academic and bureaucratic structures, and between general bodies and peripheral bodies. Maintaining these structural divisions is not feasible. It leads to the fragmentation of the decision-making process and reduces everyone’s ability to make effective decisions.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Grateful thanks are due to Ian Browne for reading the present paper and offering valuable advice.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Bios

Georgeta Ion has a degree in Psycology and Educational sciences, MD in management and evaluation in education by University of Bucharest and PhD in Educational Sciences by University of Barcelona. Her research topics are, among others, university organizational culture, the relationship between research and educational practices and competencies based assessment at university level.

Diego Castro is a Lecturer in the Science Education Faculty at Departament of Applied Pedagogy in UAB. He is an expert in social work and has a degree in social education, BA in pedagogy and Masters in human resource management and PhD in Science of Education. He is specialized in leadership and management environment in educational institutions, which is one of his main research interests besides management and University governing and process of innovation and improvement. He is also a counselor and trainer in different universities and centres in Spain and Latin America.

References

Amaral

Magelhães

(2002). The emergent role of external stakeholders. In Amaral

Jones

G. A.

Karseth

(Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance (pp.1-23). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers

Castro

Ion

(2011). Dilemas en el gobierno de las universidades españolas [Government dilemmas in the Spanish universities: autonomy, structure, participation and desconcentration]. Revista de Educación, 355, 161-186.

Castro

Tomàs

(2010). El desempeño de la dirección en la Universidad [Management performance at universities: the case of deans and department head]. Educación XX1, 2, 217-239.

Castro

Tomàs

(2011). Development of manager-academics at institutions of higher education in Catalonia. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(3), 290-307.

Clark

B. R.

(1998). Creating entrepreneurial universities. Organizational pathways of transformation. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Deem

Brehony

(2005). Management as ideology: The case of “new managerialism” in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31, 217-235.

Deem

Hillyard

Reed

(2007). Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.). (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

European Commission. (2006). Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: Education, research and innovation. Brussels, Belgium: Author.

10.

Flick

(2004). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa [Introduction to the qualitative research]. Madrid, Spain: Morata.

11.

Godin

(2003). The knowledge based economy: Conceptual framework or buzzword? Project on history and sociology of S&T statistic. Working Paper, 23, 85-92.

12.

Jongbloed

Enders

Salerno

(2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and a research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303-324.

13.

Larsen

I. M

Maassen

Stensaker

(2009). Four basic dilemmas in university governance reform. Higher Education Management and Policy, 21, 41-58.

14.

Lazerson

(2010). Higher education and the American dream: Success and its discontents. Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press

15.

Lepori

Jongbloed

Salerno

Slipersaeter

(2007). Changing patterns of funding of European higher education institutions. In Bonaccorsi

Daraio

(Eds.), Universities and strategic knowledge creation. Specialization and performance in Europe (pp. 304-354). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

16.

McGuinness

A. C.

(2005). The states and higher education. In Altbach

P. G.

Berdahl

R. O.

Gumport

P. J.

(Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 198-225). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

17.

Meister-Scheytt

(2007). Reinventing governance: The role of boards of governors in the New Austrian University. Tertiary Education and Management, 13, 247-261.

18.

Michavila

Embid

(2001). Hacia una nueva universidad [Toward a new university]. Madrid, Spain: Tecnos.

19.

Mintzberg

(1984). La estructuración de las Organizaciones [A typology of organizational structure]. Barcelona, Spain: Ariel.

20.

Mora Ruiz

J. G.

(2001). Governance and management in the new university. Tertiary Education and Management, 7, 95-110.

21.

Neave

(1998). The evaluative state re-considered. European Journal of Education, 33, 265-284.

22.

Paradeise

Reale

Bleiklie

Ferlie

(Eds.). (2009). University governance. Western European comparative perspective. New York, NY: Springer.

23.

Pérez

Peiró

J. M.

(1999). El Sistema de Gobierno de la Universidad Española [The governance system of the Spanish University]. Madrid, Spain: Secretaria General del Consejo de Universidades.

24.

Randle

Brady

(1997). Further education and the new managerialism. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 21, 229-239.

25.

Solé

Coll

(1999). The responses of higher education institutions to global challenge: Innovative universities and human resources development. Higher Education in Europe, 24, 67-79.

26.

Taylor

(2006). “Big is beautiful”: Organisational change in universities in the United Kingdom. New models of institutional management and the changing role of academic staff. Higher Education in Europe, 31, 251-273.

27.

Tierney

(2004). Competing conceptions of academic governance. Negotiating the perfect storm. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press

28.

Toma

(2007). Expanding peripheral activities, increasing accountability demands and reconsidering governance in US higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 26(1), 57-72.

29.

Whitchurch

(2006). Who do they think they are? The changing identities of professional administrators and managers in UK higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 28, 159-171.

30.

Woodfield

Kennie

(2007). Top team structures in UK higher education institutions: Composition, challenges, and changes. Tertiary Education and Management, 13, 331-348.