Public policy design and university reform: Insights into academic change

Higher Education Dynamics

Volumn 41, Issue , 2014, Pages 21-37

  Dill, David D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Academic Profession; Academic Program; Academic Quality; Academic Staff; Research Assessment Exercise

Indexed keywords

EID: 85103938408     PISSN: 15710378     EISSN: 22151923     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-7028-7_2     Document Type: Chapter

References (43)

1. Adams, J. D., & Clemmons, J. R. (2009). The growing allocative inefficiency of the U.S. higher education sector. In R. B. Freeman & D. L. Goroff (Eds.), Science and engineering careers in the United States: An analysis of markets and employment (pp. 349–382). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Aghion, P. (2006). A primer on innovation and growth. Bruegel Policy Brief, 6, 1–8.
3. Barzelay, M. (2001). The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4. Beerkens, M., & Dill, D. D. (2010). The CHE university ranking in Germany. In D. D. Dill & M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments (pp. 65–86). Dordrecht: Springer.
5. Black, G. C., & Stephan, P. E. (2010). The economics of university sciences and the role of foreign gradate students and postdoctoral scholars. In C. T. Clotfelter (Ed.), American universities in a global market (pp. 129–161). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6. Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2002). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S. higher education. New Brunswick: Transaction Press.
7. Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective . Berkeley: University of California Press.
8. Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). Links and impacts: The influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science, 48(1), 1–23.
9. Crespi, G., & A. Geuna (2004). The productivity of science. Brighton: SPRU Report prepared for the Office of Science and Technology (OST), Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), UK. http://akgul.bilkent.edu.tr/inovasyon/crespiost2.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
10. Dill, D. D. (2009). Convergence and diversity: The role and influence of university rankings. In B. M. Kehm & B. Stensaker (Eds.), University rankings, diversity, and the new landscape of higher education (pp. 99–118). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
11. Dill, D. D. (2010). The United States. In D. D. Dill & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective (pp. 387–437). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
12. Dill, D. D., & Beerkens, M. (2010). Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments. Dordrecht: Springer.
13. Dill, D. D., & Soo, M. (2005). Academic quality, league tables, and public policy: A cross-national analysis of university ranking systems. Higher Education, 49(4), 495–533.
14. Dill, D. D., & van Vught, F. A. (2010). National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
15. Dill, D. D., Mitra, S. K., Jensen, H. S., Lehtinen, E., Mäkelä, T., Parpala, A., Pohjola, H., Ritter, M. A., & Saari, S. (2006). PhD training and the knowledge society: An evaluation of doctoral education in Finland. Helsinki: The Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC).
16. El-Khawas, E. (2010). The Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) in the USA. In D. D. Dill & M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht: Springer.
17. Foltz, J. D., Barham, B. L., Chavas, J., & Kim, K. (2005). Efficiency and technological change at US research universities (Agricultural and Applied Economics Staff Paper Series, No. 486). University of Wisconsin.
18. Geiger, R. L. (2010). State policies for science and technology: The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In D. D. Dill & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in international perspective (pp. 438–479). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
19. Greif, A., & Laitin, D. D. (2004). A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 633–652.
20. Hazelkorn, E. (2011). Rankings and the reshaping of higher education: The battle for world-class excellence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
21. Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701.
22. Henkel, M., & Kogan, M. (2010). National innovation and the academic research enterprise: The UK case. In D. D. Dill & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in international perspective (pp. 337–386). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
23. Hicks, D. (2008). Evolving regimes of multi-university research evaluation (Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Public Policy Working Papers #27). http://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/23496/wp27.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
24. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.
25. Hood, C. (2004). Conclusion: Making sense of controls over government. In C. Hood, O. James, B. G. Peters, & C. Scott (Eds.), Controlling modern government: Variety, commonality, and change (pp. 185–205). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
26. Hoxby, C. M. (1997). How the changing market structure of U.S. higher education explains college tuition (National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper No. W6323). http://www.nber.org/papers/w6323.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
27. Jongbloed, B. (2010). The Netherlands. In D. D. Dill & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in global perspective (pp. 286–336). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
28. Kean, S. (2006). Scientists spend nearly half their time on administrative tasks, survey finds. Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/article/ScientistsSpend-Nearly-Half/23697/. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
29. Kim, E. H., Morse, A., & Zingales, L. (2009). Are elite universities losing their competitive edge? Journal of Financial Economics, 93, 353–381.
30. Lester, R. K. (2007). Universities, innovation, and the competitiveness of local economies: An overview. In R. K. Lester & M. Sotarauta (Eds.), Innovation, universities, and the competitiveness of regions (pp. 9–30). Helsinki: TEKES.
31. Massy, W. F. (2010). Academic quality audit as applied in Hong Kong. In D. D. Dill & M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public policy for academic quality: Analyses of innovative policy instruments (pp. 203– 225). Dordrecht: Springer.
32. Musselin, C., & Paradeise, C. (2009). France: From incremental transitions to institutional change. In C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie, & E. Ferlie (Eds.), University governance: Western European comparative perspectives (pp. 21–49). Dordrecht: Springer.
33. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2007). Higher education and regions: Globally competitive, locally engaged. Paris: OECD.
34. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzeni, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Vol. 2. A third decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
35. Scherer, F. M., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
36. Scott, G., Ball, I., & Dale, T. (1997). New Zealand’s public sector management reform: Implications for the United States. Journal of Public Policy Analysis and Management, 16(3), 357–381.
37. Sorbonne Joint Declaration. (1998). Joint declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system by the four Ministers in charge for France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom. Paris, the Sorbonne, May 25. http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Sorbonne_declaration.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
38. Teixeira, P., Jongbloed, B., Dill, D., & Amaral, A. (2004). Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? Dordrecht: Kluwer.
39. Van Bouwel, L., & Veugelers, R. (2009). The determinants of student mobility in Europe: The quality dimension. Department of Managerial Economics, Strategy & Innovation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven: https://lirias.kuleuven.be/bitstream/123456789/256921/3/MSI_0912. Accessed 20 Aug 2012.
40. Van Vught, F. A. (2008). Mission diversity and reputation in higher education. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 151–174.
41. Watson, J. D. (1968). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA. New York: Simon and Schuster.
42. Weimer, D. L., & Vining, A. R. (1996). Economics. In D. F. Kettl & H. B. Milward (Eds.), The state of public management (pp. 92–117). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
43. Zumeta, W. (2010). The public interest and state policies affecting academic research in California. In D. D. Dill & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), National innovation and the academic research enterprise: Public policy in international perspective (pp. 480–526). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.