Skip to main content
Log in

Identifying indicators of university autonomy according to stakeholders’ interests

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper is an attempt to reconcile two different perspectives and come up with a more comprehensive conceptualization of university autonomy by adopting a stakeholder approach in identifying indicators of university autonomy. One perspective views university autonomy as a protection of academic freedom and the other as a performance enhancer. In order to secure public support for university autonomy, a strategy to satisfy both perspectives is required. A stakeholder approach helps identifying stakeholder interests which leads to an analysis of what is expected in return for university autonomy. University autonomy indicators developed out of these interests would facilitate a measure to evaluate and secure academic freedom and institutional autonomy in a way that secures better support for university autonomy from higher education stakeholders. This paper examines existing literature to identify higher education stakeholders and their interests and comes up with an example of autonomy indicators that reflect these interests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AAUP American Association of University Professors (1915). Declaration of principles on academic freedom and academic tenure, available at http://www.aaup-ui.org/Documents/Principles/Gen_Dec_Princ.pdf, Accessed 13 May 2018.

  • Aghion, P., Dewatripont, M., & Stein, J. C. (2008). Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics (Wiley-Blackwell), 39(3), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2008.00031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., Dewatripont, C., Hoxby, M., Mas-Colell, A., & Sapir, A. (2009). The governance and performance of research universities: Evidence from Europe and the U.S. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alves, H., Mainardes, E. W., & Raposo, M. (2010). A relationship approach to higher education institution stakeholder management. Tertiary Education and Management, 16, 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2010.497314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ash, M. G. (2006). Bachelor of what, master of whom? The Humboldt myth and historical transformations of higher education in German-speaking Europe and the US. European Journal of Education, 41(2), 245–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2006.00258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauries, S. R. (2014). Individual academic freedom: An ordinary concern of the first amendment. Mississippi Law Journal, 83, 677–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beiter, K. D., Karran, T., & Appiagyei-Atua, K. (2016). 'Measuring' the erosion of academic freedom as an international human right: A report on the legal protection of academic freedom in Europe. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 49, 597–691.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bilgrami, A. (2010). Truth, balance, and freedom. In J. Franck & J. Bricmont (Eds.), Chomsky notebook (pp. 334 to 347). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer, H. de Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & File, J. (2010). Progress in higher education reform across Europe. Governance reform. Volume 1: Executive summary and main report. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.

  • Bogue, E.G., & Aper, J. (2000). Exploring the heritage of American Higher Education: The evolution of philosophy and policy. Phoenix: The Oryx Press.

  • Butler, J. (2009). Critique, dissent, disciplinarity. Critical Inquiry, 35, 773–795. https://doi.org/10.1086/599590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, P. (2015). Academic freedom for the next 100 years : Social value of academic freedom defended. Indiana Law Journal, 91, 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byun, K. (2008). New public management in Korean higher education: Is it reality or another fad? Asia Pacific Education Review, 9(2), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03026499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy? Higher Education, 62, 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9401-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, T. (2012). Global ideas and modern public sector reforms: A theoretical elaboration and empirical discussion of a neoinstitutional theory. American Review of Public Administration, 42(6), 635–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012452113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R. (2009). Defending academic freedom and free inquiry. Social Research, 76(3), 811–844 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40972159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. (2015). Academic freedom: A lawyer's perspective. Higher Education, 70(6), 987–1002. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9884-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DBIS Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2011). Students at the Heart of the System.

  • DBIS Department for Business Innovation & Skills (2016). Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, Social mobility and student choice. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-success-as-a-knowledge-economy-whitepaper. Accessed 27 Nov 2018

  • Doğan, D. (2016). Academic freedom from the perspectives of academics and students: A qualitative study. Education & Science, 41(184), 311–−331. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.6135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC European Commission (2011). Supporting growth and jobs - an agenda for the modernization of Europe’s higher education systems. Communication from the commission to the parliament, the council, The European economic and social committee and the Committee of the Regions. http://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/library/policy/modernisation_en.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2018

  • Elton, L. (2008). Collegiality and complexity: Humboldt’s relevance to British universities today. Higher Education Quarterly, 62(3), 224–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enders, J., Boer, H. d., & Weyer, E. (2013). Regulatory autonomy and performance: The reform of higher education re-visited. Higher Education, 65(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9578-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Estermann, T., Nokkala, T., & Steinel, M. (2011). University autonomy in Europe II the scorecard. The European University Association.

  • EUA European University Association (2001) Message from Salamanca shaping the European Higher Education Area, accessed at http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Salamanca_declaration_en.1066755820788.pdf

  • Felt, U., & Glanz, M. (2003). University autonomy in Europe: Changing paradigms in higher education policy. University of Vienna.

  • Fish, S. (2014). Versions of academic freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gajda, A. (2015). Academic freedom for the next 100 years: Academic duty and academic freedom. Indiana Law Journal, 91, 17–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M. (1998). Higher education relevance in the 21st century. Education, the. World Bank.

  • Gillon, B. & Henderson, I. (2012). What is academic freedom? University world news, 28 October, issue 245.

  • Hammersley, M. (2016). Can academic freedom be justified? Reflections on the arguments of Robert Post and Stanley Fish. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(2), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hearn, J. C., Warshaw, J. B., & Ciarimboli, E. B. (2016). Privatization and accountability trends and policies in U.S. public higher education. Education & Science, 41(184), 1–−26. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2016.62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, A., & Tienari, J. (2013). Transplanting tenure and the (re)construction of academic freedoms. Studies in Higher Education, 38(2), 157–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.569707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogan, P. C. (2015). The personal ethics of academic freedom: Problems of knowledge and democratic competence. AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom, 6, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jankowski, N., & Provezis, S. (2014). Neoliberal ideologies, governmentality and the academy: An examination of accountability through assessment and transparency. Educational Philosophy & Theory, 46(5), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2012.721736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jongbloed, B., Boer, H. D. Enders, J., & File, J. (2010). Progress in higher education reform across Europe. Funding reform. Volume 1: Executive summary and main report. Enschede: Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.

  • Kettunen, J. (2015). Stakeholder relationships in higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 21(1), 56–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2014.997277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivistö, J. (2008). An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the government-university relationship. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 30(4), 339–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800802383018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knott, J. H., & Payne, A. A. (2004). The impact of state governance structures on management and performance of public organizations: A study of higher education institutions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(1), 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.10176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leisyte, L., Westerheijden, D. F., Epping, E., Faber, M., & Weert, E. D. (2013) Stakeholders and quality assurance in higher education, Paper for 26th Annual CHER Conference Lausanne (CH).

  • LeRoy, M. H. (2016). How Courts View Academic Freedom. Journal of College and University Law, 42(1), 1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46, 469–489. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027381906977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macfarlane, B. (2012). Re-framing student academic freedom: A capability perspective. Higher Education, 63(6), 719–732. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011-9473-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S., & Considine, M. (2000). The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

  • McMahon, W. M. (2009). The private and social benefits of higher education: Higher learning, greater good. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, B. (2014). Free to manage? A neo-liberal defence of academic freedom in British higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 36(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.861055.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R., Agle, B., & Wood, D. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886 Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MoE Ministry of Education (2015). The master plan for the Program for Industrial needs-Matched Education (PRIME) (in Korean).

  • Neville, B. A., Bell, S. J., & Whitwell, G. J. (2011). Stakeholder salience revisited: Refining, redefining, and refueling an underdeveloped conceptual tool. Journal of Business Ethics, 102(3), 357–378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0818-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nokkala, T. (2012). Institutional autonomy and the attractiveness of the European higher education area - facts or tokenistic discourse? In A. Curaj, P. Scott, L. Vlasceanu, & L. Wilson (Eds.), European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms (pp. 59–81). Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, R. (2012). Democracy, expertise and academic freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Post, R. (2013). Why bother with academic freedom? FIU Law Review, 9, 9–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, M. (2016). Versions of academic freedom. Journal of Legal Education, 65, 672–703.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, R. (2005). Interpretations of criteria-based assessment and grading in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000264262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, J. (2006). Staff are silenced by fear of reprisals. Times Higher Education Supplement, 4 August. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/staff-are-silenced-by-fear-of-reprisals/204631.article, Accessed 13 May 2018.

  • Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sporn, B. (2002). Convergence or divergence in international higher education policy: Lessons from Europe. Vienna University.

  • Stein, D. G. (Ed.). (2004). Buying in or selling out? The commercialization of the American research university. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

  • Tierney, W. G., & Lanford, M. (2014). The question of academic freedom: Universal right or relative term. Frontiers of Education in China, 9(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.3868/s110-003-014-0002-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (1997). Recommendation concerning the status of higher-education teaching personnel. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13144&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, Accessed 13 May 2018.

  • Watson, C. (2011). Accountability, transparency, redundancy: Academic identities in an era of “excellence”. British Educational Research Journal, 37(6), 955–971. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.508514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a 2-Year Research Grant of Pusan National University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seungchan Choi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Choi, S. Identifying indicators of university autonomy according to stakeholders’ interests. Tert Educ Manag 25, 17–29 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-018-09011-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-018-09011-y

Keywords

Navigation