The lambert code: Can we define best practice?

Higher Education Quarterly

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 229-242

  Shattock, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247654787     PISSN: 09515224     EISSN: 14682273     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2004.00271.x     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Aldous, H. and Kaye, R. for DTI (2003) TransTec PLC: Investigation under Sectiion 432 (2) of the Companies Act 1985. The Stationery Office: London.
2. Bennett, B. (2002) ‘The New Style Boards of Governors - Are they Working? Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 3 July.
3. Buckland, R. (2001) ‘UK IPO Board Structures and Post-Issue Performance’Department of Accountancy, Finance Working Paper, University of Aberdeen.
4. (Cadbury Report) Committee on Corporate Governance (1992) The Financial Aspects of Corporate Governance. Gee Publishing, London.
5. Chait, R. P., Holland, T. P. and Taylor, B. E. (1996) Improving the Performance of Governing Boards. Phoenix, AZ Onyx Press.
6. Committee of University Chairmen (CUC) (1995, 1998 and 2000), Guide for Members of Governing Bodies of Universities and Colleges in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. CUC.
7. Committee of University Chairmen (CUC) Review of University Governance 1997-2000. CUC.
8. (Dearing Committee) The National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) Higher Education in the learning society: Main Report. The Stationery Office: London.
9. Duryea, E. (2000) The Academic Corporation: A History of College and University Governing Boards. Falmer Press: New York.
10. Edwards, M. (2003) Review of New Zealand Tertiary Education Governance. Ministry of Education, NZ.
11. (Hampel Report) Committee on Corporate Governance (1998) Final Report. Gee Publishing: London.
12. Higgs, D. (2003) Review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. HMSO: London.
13. HM Treasury, DTI, DfES (2004) Science & innovation investment framework 2004-2014 Appendix C. ‘The Government’s response to the Lambert Review’ The Stationery Office July.
14. (Jarratt Report) Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principles (CVCP) (1985) Report of the Steering Group on University Efficiency. London: CVCP.
15. Knight, M. (2002) ‘Governance in Higher Education Corporations: A Consideration of the Constitution Created by the 1992 Act. Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 3 July.
16. Lambert, R. (2003) Lambert Review of Business - University Collaboration Final Report. H.M. Treasury: London.
17. McFall, J. (2002) ‘Scope and purpose of the Treasury Select Committee Inquiry’, paper delivered at the Conference on Enron and Audited Independence: The implications for the UK, 26 April. London.
18. QAA (1998) Special Review of Thames Valley University. Quality Assurance Agency, Gloucester.
19. Rowe, P. (Ed) (1997) The University of Lancaster. Review of Institutional Lessons to be Learned 1994 to 1996. University of Lancaster, May.
20. Shattock, M. L. (1988) ‘Financial management in universities: the lessons from University College, Cardiff. Financial Accountability and Management, 4(2).
21. Shattock, M. L. (1998) ‘Dearing on Governance: The Wrong Prescription. Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 52 No. 1 January.
22. Shattock, M. L. (2002) ‘Re-balancing Modern Concepts of University Governance. Higher Education Quarterly, Vol. 56 No. 3 July.
23. Tucker, S. (2004) ‘Patchy performance on Higgs standards. Financial Times, 26 July.