Higher education reforms and unintended consequences: a research agenda

Studies in Higher Education

Volumn 39, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 1439-1450

  Krücken, Georg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KASSEL   (Germany)

Author keywords

Germany; institutional change; reform processes; research agenda; unintended consequences

Indexed keywords

EID: 84914670318     PISSN: 03075079     EISSN: 1470174X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2014.949539     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. de Boer, H. F., J. Enders, and U. Schimank. 2007. “On the Way towards New Public Management?” In The Governance of University Systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany, edited by D. Jansen, 37–52. Dordrecht: Springer.
2. Brunsson, N., and K. Sahlin-Andersson. 2000. “Constructing Organizations: The Example of Public Sector Reform.” Organization Studies 21 (4): 721–46. doi: 10.1177/0170840600214003
3. Clark, B. R. 1986. The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-national Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4. Geuna, A., and A. Muscio. 2009. “The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: A Critical Review of the Literature.” Minerva 47 (1): 93–114. doi: 10.1007/s11024-009-9118-2
5. Heinze, T., P. Shapira, J. D. Rogers, and J. M. Senker. 2009. “Organizational and Institutional Influences on Creativity in Scientific Research.” Research Policy 38 (4): 610–23. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.014
6. Heinze, T., P. Shapira, J. M. Senker, and S. Kuhlmann. 2007. “Identifying Creative Research Accomplishments: Methodology and Results for Nanotechnology and Human Genetics.” Scientometrics 70 (1): 125–52. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-0108-6
7. Higher Education. 2013. “Transformation Universities in Europe. Special Issue.” Higher Education 65 (1): 1–151.
8. Hollingsworth, J. R., and E. J. Hollingsworth. 2000. “Major Discoveries and Biomedical Research Organizations: Perspectives on Interdisciplinarity, Nurturing Leadership and Integrated Structures and Cultures.” In Practicing Interdisciplinarity, edited by P. Weingart and N. Stehr, 215–44. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
9. Hollingsworth, J. R., and E. J. Hollingsworth. 2011. Major Discoveries, Creativity, and the Dynamics of Science. Wien: edition echoraum.
10. Hüther, O. 2010. Von der Kollegialität zur Hierarchie? Eine Analyse des New Managerialism in den Landeshochschulgesetzen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
11. Hüther, O., and G. Krücken. 2013. “Hierarchy and Power. A Conceptual Analysis with Particular Reference to New Public Management Reforms in German Universities.” European Journal of Higher Education 3 (4): 307–23. doi: 10.1080/21568235.2013.850920
12. Kehm, B. M., and U. Lanzendorf. 2006. “Germany – 16 Länder approaches to reform.” In Reforming University Governance. Changing Conditions for Research in Four European Countries, edited by B. M. Kehm and U. Lanzendorf, 135–86. Bonn: Lemmens Verlag.
13. Krücken, G. 2003. “Learning the ‘New, New Thing’: On the Role of Path Dependency in University Structures.” Higher Education 46 (3): 315–39. doi: 10.1023/A:1025344413682
14. Krücken, G., A. Blümel, and K. Kloke. 2013. “The Managerial Turn in Higher Education? On the Interplay of Organizational and Occupational Change in German Academia.” Minerva 51 (4): 417–42. doi: 10.1007/s11024-013-9240-z
15. Krücken, G., and F. Meier. 2006. “Turning the University into an Organizational Actor.” In Globalization and Organization, edited by G. S. Drori, J. Meyer, and H. Hwang, 241–57. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16. Krücken, G., F. Meier, and A. Müller. 2007. “Information, Cooperation, and the Blurring of Boundaries – Technology Transfer in German and American Discourses.” Higher Education 53 (6): 675–96. doi: 10.1007/s10734-004-7650-4
17. Martin, B., and R. Whitley. 2010. “The UK Research Assessment Exercise: A Case of Regulatory Capture.” In Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relations in the Sciences and Their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, edited by R. Whitley, J. Gläser, and L. Engvall, 51–80. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18. Merton, R. K. 1936. “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action.” American Sociological Review l (6): 894–904. doi: 10.2307/2084615
19. Meyer, J. W., and B. Rowan. 1977. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 340–63. doi: 10.1086/226550
20. Mowery, D. C., and B. N. Sampat. 2004. “The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and University–Industry Technology Transfer: A Model for Other OECD Governments?” The Journal of Technology Transfer 30 (1): 115–27. doi: 10.1007/s10961-004-4361-z
21. Münch, R. 2007. Die akademische Elite – Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag.
22. Paradeise, C., E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, and E. Ferlie, eds. 2009. University Governance. Western European Comparative Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
23. Perkmann, M., V. Tartari, M. McKelvey, E. Autio, A. Broström, P. D'Este, R. Fini, 2013. “Academic Engagement and Commercialisation: A Review of the Literature on University–Industry Relations.” Research Policy 42 (2): 423–42. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.007
24. Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis – New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. New York: Oxford University Press.
25. Radder, H., ed. 2010. The Commodification of Academic Research: Science and the Modern University. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
26. Schimank, U. 2005. “New Public Management’ and the Academic Profession: Reflections on the German Situation.” Minerva 43 (4): 361–76. doi: 10.1007/s11024-005-2472-9
27. Teichler, U., and E. Höhle, eds. 2013. The Work Situation of the Academic Profession in Europe: Findings of a Survey in Twelve Countries. Dordrecht: Springer.