Can academic autonomy survive in the knowledge society? a perspective from britain

Higher Education Research and Development

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 87-99

  Henkel, Mary ^a  

^a BRUNEL UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920485412     PISSN: 07294360     EISSN: 14698366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07294360601166836     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ashby, E., 1966. Universities, British, Indian, African, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2. Askling, B., Henkel, M., and Kehm, B., 2001. Concepts of knowledge and their organisation in universities. European Journal of Education, 36(3): 341–350.
3. Association of Commonwealth Universities. 2001. Engagement as a core value for the university: A consultation document, London: ACU.
4. Barnett, R., 1988. “ Limits to academic freedom: Imposed-upon or self-imposed? ”. In Academic freedom and responsibility, Edited by: Tight, M., 88–103. Milton Keynes: SRHE/Open University Press.
5. Becher, T., and Kogan, M., 1992. Process and structure in higher education, (2nd ed.), London: Routledge.
6. Bell, D., 1973. The coming of post-industrial society, London: Heinemann.
7. Berdahl, R., 1999. “ Universities and governments in the 21st century: The US experience ”. In Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view, Edited by: Braun, D., and Merrien, F.-X., 59–77. London: Jessica Kingsley.
8. Castells, M., 1996. The information age: economy, society and culture, Vol. 1: The power of identity, Oxford: Blackwell.
9. Clark, B. R., 1998. Creating entrepreneurial universities, Oxford: Elsevier Science.
10. Crane, D., 1982. “ Cultural differentiation, cultural integration and social control ”. In Social control: Views from the social sciences, Edited by: Gibbs, J., Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
11. Delanty, G., 2001. Challenging knowledge: The university in the knowledge society, Buckingham: SRHE/Open University Press.
12. Fulton, O., 2002. “ Higher education governance in the UK ”. In Governing higher education, Edited by: Amoral, A., Jones, G., and Karseth, B., 187–211. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., and Trow, M., 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, London: Sage.
14. Gumport, P., 2000. Academic restructuring: Organisational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39: 67–91.
15. Gumport, P., 2005. “ The organisation of knowledge: Imperatives for continuity and change ”. In Governing knowledge: A study of continuity and change in higher education, Edited by: Bleiklie, I., and Henkel, M., 113–132. Dordrecht: Springer.
16. Henkel, M., 2000. Academic identities and policy change, London: Jessica Kingsley.
17. Henkel, M., 2002. Academic responses to the UK foresight programme. Higher Education Management, 12(1): 67–84.
18. Henkel, M., 2005a. Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education, 49(1–2): 155–176.
19. Henkel, M., 2005b. “ Academic identity and autonomy revisited ”. In Governing knowledge: A study of continuity and change in higher education, Edited by: Bleiklie, I., and Henkel, M., 145–168. Dordrecht: Springer.
20. Henkel, M., Hanney, S., Kogan, M., Vaux, J., and von Walden Laing, D., 2000. Academic responses to the UK foresight programme, Uxbridge: Brunel University, Centre for the Evaluation of Public Policy and Practice.
21. Hoggett, P., 1991. A new management in the public sector?. Policy and Politics, 19(4): 243–256.
22. Irvine, J., and Martin, B., 1984. Foresight in science: Picking the winners, London: Pinter.
23. Kogan, M., 1996. “ Relationships between higher education and the state: Overview of the issues ”. In Changing relationships between higher education and the state, Edited by: Henkel, M., and Little, B., London: Jessica Kingsley.
24. Kogan, M., and Hanney, S., 2000. Reforming higher education, London: Jessica Kingsley.
25. Krasner, S., 1997. Pervasive not perverse: semi-sovereigns as global norms. Cornell International Law Journal, 30: 651–680.
26. Lyotard, J.-F., 1984. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, Manchester: University of Manchester Press.
27. Martin, B. R., 1995. Foresight in science and technology. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 7: 139–168.
28. Martin, B. R., 1996. Technology foresight: Capturing the benefits from science-related technologies. Research Evaluation, 6(2): 158–168.
29. Martin, B. R., and Nightingale, P., 2000. The political economy of science, technology and innovation, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
30. Merton, R. K., 1973. The sociology of science, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
31. Neave, G., 1988. “ On being economical with university autonomy, being an account of the retrospective joys of a written constitution ”. In Academic freedom and responsibility, Edited by: Tight, M., 31–48. Milton Keynes: SRHE/Open University Press.
32. Nowotny, H., Scott, P., and Gibbons, M., 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty, Cambridge: Polity Press.
33. O’Connor, J., 1973. The fiscal crisis of the state, New York: St Martins Press.
34. OECD. 1971. Science, growth and society: A new perspective, Paris: OECD. Report of the Secretary-General’s ad hoc Group on New Concepts of Science Policy, chaired by Harvey Brooks.
35. Polanyi, M., 1962. The republic of science: Its political and economic theory. Minerva, 1(1): 54–85.
36. Pollitt, C., 1993. Managerialism and the public services: The Anglo-American experience, (2nd ed.), Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
37. Readings, B., 1996. The university in ruins, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Tapper, E., and Salter, B., 1995. The changing idea of university autonomy. Studies in Higher Education, 20(1): 59–71.
39. Trow, M., Dilemmas of higher education in the 1980s and 1990s. Conference of Learned Societies. Montreal. mimeo