<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S Diogo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Teresa Carvalho</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Zélia Breda</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nomination vs. election: do they influence women’s access to institutional decision-making bodies?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Management and Governance</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Decision-making bodies</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Election</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Gender balance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Managerialism</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">New Public Management (NPM)</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Nomination</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">universities</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2020</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">31/10/2020</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10997-020-09538-6</style></url></web-urls></urls><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">25</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">879–898</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Portuguese higher education institutions (HEIs) are excellent case-studies of women representation in academia, considering their significant presence and rapid growth in HEIs. Nevertheless, and despite efforts to minimise gender gaps, women are still underrepresented in top management and leading positions, contributing to increment the phenomenon of vertical segregation. Based on the reality of the Portuguese academia, and focusing on an in-depth case study of a Portuguese university, this paper analyses if and how the way decision-making bodies are constituted, influence the gender balance of their members. Recently, within the New Public Management (NPM) context, HEIs have been subjected to external pressures to create a new organisational environment aiming at substituting the collegial model of governance with a managerial one. In this context, there has been a trend to replace the election by the nomination as the dominant process to occupy decision-making positions. The opening hypothesis of this study is that the way decision-making bodies are constituted, impacts on their gender balance. More specifically, it is argued that the nomination process tends to be more advantageous to women than the election. However, although it is possible to conclude that the gender balance decreases with the increasing importance of the decision-making body, it is not accurate to say that there is a direct relationship between the way actors are chosen to these bodies and their gender balance. In other words, the way actors are chosen can not be seen as the only factor influencing the gender constitution of decision-making bodies. The study provides a relevant contribution to the literature on mechanisms and strategies to improve gender equality in institutional decision-making processes and bodies.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S Diogo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Milka Barbosa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Teresa Carvalho</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">An International Comparative Perspective on Higher Education Institutions’ Governance and Management – Portugal, Finland, and Brazil</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Intercultural Studies in Higher Education</style></secondary-title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Intercultural Studies in Education</style></tertiary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brazil</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Finland</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Globalization</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Higher Education Institutions</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">International organizations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">new public management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Portugal</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-15758-6_5</style></url></web-urls></urls><edition><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A. Moreira, P. Jen-Jacques, N. Bagnall </style></edition><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">109–133</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;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&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Professionalism, Managerialism and Reform in Higher Education and the Health Services: The European Welfare State and the Rise of the Knowledge Society.&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;Palgrave Macmillan, 2015; Kwiek in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Higher Education in Europe&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;26:27–38, 2001). These processes intersect with the influence of neo-liberal ideas, strongly diffused by international organizations (Amaral and Neave in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;International Organizations and Higher Education Policy: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally.&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;Routledge, London, pp. 82–98, 2009; Ball in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Policy Futures in Education&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;14:1046–1059, 2016). According to Stephan Ball (&lt;em&gt;Policy Futures in Education&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;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&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance&lt;/em&gt;. 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&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Public Administration&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;89:1622–1642, 2011; Reed and Meek in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance&lt;/em&gt;. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. xv–xxxi, 2002; Welch in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Higher Education in Southeast Asia: Blurring Borders, Changing Balance&lt;/em&gt;. Taylor &amp;amp; Francis, 2011), with implications on academics’ work (Blackmore et al. in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Re-positioning University Governance and Academic Work&lt;/em&gt;. Sense Publishers, 2010; Carvalho and Santiago in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Higher Education Policy&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;23:397–411, 2010; Marginson in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;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&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Compare&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;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.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sofia Bruckmann</style></author></authors><secondary-authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">E. Reale</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">E. Primeri</style></author></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Shifting boundaries in universities’ governance models: The case of external stakeholders</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The transformation of university institutional and organizational boundaries</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">bureaucracy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">higher education</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">institutions</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">new public management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">reform</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year></dates><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sense Publishers</style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rotterdam</style></pub-location><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Higher Education reform trends hit Portugal in 2007, with law 62/2007 (RJIES) defining a new&lt;br /&gt;
institutional framework and imposing major changes to higher education institutions (HEIs). These&lt;br /&gt;
were given the chance to choose between two institutional models and required to restructure their&lt;br /&gt;
governance model. One of the visible outcomes of this reform is a blurring of boundaries between&lt;br /&gt;
HEIs and society. Academics now have to share a space that was traditional theirs with people&lt;br /&gt;
coming from outside academia.&lt;br /&gt;
The present study results from an analysis of the changes occurred in six Portuguese&lt;br /&gt;
universities after implementation of the RJIES, considering the context of broad public&lt;br /&gt;
administration reform embedded in a managerialist framework. Changes to the governance model&lt;br /&gt;
were analyzed focusing on the presence of external stakeholders in top governing bodies. The&lt;br /&gt;
perceptions of both academics and external stakeholders were analyzed in order to assess to what&lt;br /&gt;
extent the presence of external stakeholders is perceived as a necessary and effective change.&lt;br /&gt;
Furthermore, this study also intends to shed some light to the following question: how do&lt;br /&gt;
academics and external stakeholders perceive the presence of external stakeholders, at HEIs’ top&lt;br /&gt;
governing bodies?&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record></records></xml>