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_501642nas a2200193 4500008004100000245005200041210005100093260001600144300001200160490000700172520109900179653001101278653001501289653001801304100001601322700002101338700001901359856007001378 2011 eng d00aGender, power and managerialism in universities0 aGender power and managerialism in universities c03 Mar 2011 a179-1880 v333 a

This article explores the role of senior managers in consolidating and interpreting new managerialism in higher education in Australia, South Africa and Portugal, and perceptions of potential effects on gender. The impact of managerialism on decision-making in Australia was increased centralisation with the Vice Chancellor operating as a Chief Executive Officer; in South Africa tension existed between collegial and managerial models evident in power struggles between Vice Chancellors and faculties, plus overt risk and strong political considerations; while in Portugal decision making remained collegial with Rectors seeing themselves as primus inter pares (first among equals). The major finding was that while women as senior managers had an increased capacity to impact on decision-making in managerial universities, mainly related to ‘soft’ management skills, these were not valued in a competitive management culture strongly focused on research output. Thus managerialism presents a great challenge for women in senior management in higher education.

10aGender10aManagement10aManagerialism1 aWhite, Kate1 aCarvalho, Teresa1 aRiordan, Sarah uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1360080X.2011.559631