04802nas a2200277 4500008004100000022002200041245014100063210006900204250004400273260003000317300001400347520386800361653001104229653001204240653001804252653001504270653003404285653003204319653001504351653002604366653001304392100001304405700001904418700002104437856006604458 2019 eng d a978-3-030-15757-900aAn International Comparative Perspective on Higher Education Institutions’ Governance and Management – Portugal, Finland, and Brazil0 aInternational Comparative Perspective on Higher Education Instit aA. Moreira, P. Jen-Jacques, N. Bagnall  bPalgrave Macmillan, Cham. a109–1333 a

Reforms in higher education (HE) in the last decades have been influenced by global and international trends associated with two parallel processes: questioning of the nation-state and the gradual decomposition of the welfare state (Carvalho and Santiago in Professionalism, Managerialism and Reform in Higher Education and the Health Services: The European Welfare State and the Rise of the Knowledge Society. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015; Kwiek in Higher Education in Europe 26:27–38, 2001). These processes intersect with the influence of neo-liberal ideas, strongly diffused by international organizations (Amaral and Neave in International Organizations and Higher Education Policy: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally. Routledge, London, pp. 82–98, 2009; Ball in Policy Futures in Education 14:1046–1059, 2016). According to Stephan Ball (Policy Futures in Education 14:1046–1059, 2016), neo-liberal influences in HE can be summarized by three interrelated and interdependent technologies: market, management, and performance. These technologies were translated in the emergence of new management and governance models within higher education institutions (HEIs) in such a way that institutional governance became an international issue (Reed and Meek in Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. xv–xxxi, 2002). It has been acknowledged that changes in governance and management structures in HE all over the world include transformations in the Humboldtian principles of organization along with changes in the collegial model of decision-making and a redefinition of power relations, where external stakeholders and new professionals assume a relevant role within academia (Capano in Public Administration 89:1622–1642, 2011; Reed and Meek in Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. xv–xxxi, 2002; Welch in Higher Education in Southeast Asia: Blurring Borders, Changing Balance. Taylor & Francis, 2011), with implications on academics’ work (Blackmore et al. in Re-positioning University Governance and Academic Work. Sense Publishers, 2010; Carvalho and Santiago in Higher Education Policy 23:397–411, 2010; Marginson in Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 22:23–35, 2000). Nevertheless, few comparative international perspectives have been developed, especially when considering the need to include countries with distinct historical processes of nation-state creation, different welfare state models and diverse levels of economic development, and social and cultural characteristics. There is, indeed, a study gap on New Public Management (NPM) constructs and their application “with little understanding of several important cultural dimensions” (Stromquist in Compare 30:261–264, 2000). This chapter compares the perceived changes in HEI management and its impact on academics in three countries: Brazil, Finland, and Portugal. Data analysis relies on a qualitative approach, empirically based on 70 interviews conducted in the 3 countries to top and middle academic managers, following the same interviewing guidelines. Despite significant differences in systems’ organization and funding, cultures’ governance and management, and professionals’ and students’ profiles, there are more similar views on changes in governance and management and its impact on academics than expected. In these countries, academics expressed similar views on the increased influence of a management culture within their institutions and a loss of professional autonomy.

10aBrazil10aFinland10aGlobalization10aGovernance10aHigher Education Institutions10aInternational organizations10aManagement10anew public management10aPortugal1 aDiogo, S1 aBarbosa, Milka1 aCarvalho, Teresa uhttps://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-15758-6_501873nas a2200229 4500008004100000022002200041245004700063210004700110250005300157260003200210300001200242520113400254653003301388653002601421653003201447653002401479653002501503100001301528700002101541700001501562856006601577 2015 eng d a978-1-349-57709-500aInstitutionalism and Organisational Change0 aInstitutionalism and Organisational Change aJ. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. Dill, M. Souto-Otero  aLondonbPalgrave Macmillan  a114-1313 a

Institutional theory usually refers to a broad group of perspectives that interpret the relationship between institutions and human behaviour, assuming that not only human actions (i.e. behaviour, perceptions, power, policy preferences, decision-making processes) shape institutions, but these are also influenced by them. More specifically, institutionalism focuses on the need of organizations to adapt to their institutional environment, such as norms, rules and understandings about what is an acceptable or normal behaviour and that cannot be changed easily and/or instantaneously (March and Olsen, 1984; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). It argues that organizations take rules and norms for granted because they seem obvious or natural. Failure to act in accordance with norms and expectations may lead to conflict and illegitimacy. Changes occurring at the institutional field of higher education (HE) are said to increasingly constrain higher education institutions (HEIs). Given this, it is increasingly relevant to analyse the development of institutionalist theories and the way they have been adapted to the HE field.

10aEuropean High Education Area10aHigh Education Policy10aHistorical Institutionalism10aInstitutional Actor10aInstitutional Theory1 aDiogo, S1 aCarvalho, Teresa1 aAmaral, A. uhttps://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-45617-5_701359nas a2200109 4500008004100000245011700041210006900158300001000227520094900237100001301186856005001199 2014 eng d00aImplementing the Bologna process in Portugal and in Finland: National and institutional realities in perspective0 aImplementing the Bologna process in Portugal and in Finland Nati a35-543 a

Based on a comparative study on recent reforms in Finnish and Portuguese higher education (HE) systems, this article examines the modalities of the political organisation of the Bologna process within these countries. After recognising the role of national backgrounds within the setting of the broad changes that have affected higher education institutions (HEIs) during the last decade, this article analyses the contexts, the processes and the instruments of policy implementation in both settings. It aims to understand how each country’s historical and cultural specificities determined national and institutional responses. At the same time, the study sheds some light on the operationalisation of the binary organisation of both HE systems after implementing the Bologna declaration. The course of action in both countries is interpreted according to actors’ perceptions of the significance attributed to the Bologna reform.

1 aDiogo, S uhttps://www.cipes.pt/node/2689?language=pt-pt