This paper addresses the homogeneous/heterogeneous dilemma regarding formal arrangements of university central governance structures. Most topical studies argue that these structures are becoming homogeneous across countries and prove it by adopting purposive sampling techniques. Yet, other scholars stress heterogeneity within countries. This paper aims to clarify this dilemma through a multi-level analysis that simultaneously considers three levels of embeddedness (i.e., supranational, national and institutional), by employing a policy translation perspective, which can accommodate both homogeneity and heterogeneity. The national sample comprises three countries (the Netherlands, Portugal and Italy). The institutional sample is comprehensive and encompasses all public universities within each country. The study discloses heterogeneity in how countries responded to supranational policy pressures as well as heterogeneous responses at the institutional level even when unitary laws are applied. Relying on these findings, we stress the importance of adopting comprehensive (rather than purposive) sampling to infer about international and/or national homogeneity because studies that generalise results based on one/few case studies per country could be biased by the sample selection criteria. In addition, the research implications of our analysis on steering-at-a-distance and on the relation between the grade of cogency of the national laws and homogeneous/heterogeneous reform outcomes are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

荷兰、葡萄牙和意大利的高等教育机构治理改革：解决同质/异质困境的政策转换视角

本文解决了关于大学中央治理结构正式安排的同质/异质困境。大多数专题研究认为，这些结构在各国之间变得同质化，并通过采用有目的的抽样技术来证明这一点。然而，其他学者强调国家内部的异质性。本文旨在通过同时考虑三个层次（即超国家、国家和制度）的嵌入性的多层次分析来澄清这一困境，采用政策转换的视角，可以兼顾同质性和异质性。全国样本包括三个国家（荷兰、葡萄牙和意大利）。机构样本是全面的，包括每个国家的所有公立大学。该研究揭示了各国如何应对超国家政策压力的异质性，以及即使在适用单一法律的情况下，机构层面的反应也各不相同。依靠这些发现，我们强调采用全面（而不是有目的的）抽样来推断国际和/或国家同质性的重要性，因为基于每个国家一个/几个案例研究来概括结果的研究可能会受到样本选择标准的影响。此外，还讨论了我们对远距离转向以及国家法律的说服力等级与同质/异质改革结果之间关系的分析的研究意义。依靠这些发现，我们强调采用全面（而不是有目的的）抽样来推断国际和/或国家同质性的重要性，因为基于每个国家一个/几个案例研究来概括结果的研究可能会受到样本选择标准的影响。此外，还讨论了我们对远距离转向以及国家法律的说服力等级与同质/异质改革结果之间关系的分析的研究意义。依靠这些发现，我们强调采用全面（而不是有目的的）抽样来推断国际和/或国家同质性的重要性，因为基于每个国家一个/几个案例研究来概括结果的研究可能会受到样本选择标准的影响。此外，还讨论了我们对远距离转向以及国家法律的说服力等级与同质/异质改革结果之间关系的分析的研究意义。