Managerialism Rhetorics in Portuguese Higher Education

Managerialism Rhetorics in Portuguese HigherEducation

Rui Santiago • Teresa Carvalho

Published online: 18 November 2012

� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Abstract In Portugal, as elsewhere, the rhetoric of managerialism in higher

education is becoming firmly entrenched in the governmental policymakers’ dis-

course and has been widely disseminated across the institutional landscape.

Managerialism is an important ideological support of New Public Management

policies and can be classified as a narrative of strategic change. In this paper, we

analyse how far the managerialism narrative has been injected into the discursive

repertory of Portuguese academics in their role as the co-ordinators of the higher

education institutions’ teaching and academic middle levels. Based on an analysis of

interview responses, it seems that most academics support traditional academic

values such as autonomy and collegiality, and reject university or polytechnic

governance based on corporate philosophy.

Keywords Excellence � Managerialism � New Public Management �Higher Education � Portugal

Introduction

Managerialism is one of the most popular ideologies in advanced capitalist

societies. This means there is a set of ideas, preconceptions and values that situate

management and managers as the main pillars on which the economic, political and

social order is structured (Enteman 1993). Enclosed in this dominant ideology are

the values of rationality, merit and excellence. Excellence is one of the most popular

concepts. A search of Google Scholar (accessed 21/05/2012) reveals 303,000,000

results with references so diverse as: ‘From novice to expert: Excellence and power

in clinical nursing practice’ or ‘The road to excellence: the acquisition of expert

R. Santiago � T. Carvalho (&)

University of Aveiro and CIPES, Campus Universitario de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal

e-mail: [email protected]

123

Minerva (2012) 50:511–532

DOI 10.1007/s11024-012-9211-9

performance in arts and sciences, sports and games’. It seems that excellence is

ubiquitous as it can be applied to any sector. Excellence has become one of those

concepts that translates a misrecognition (Bourdieu 2000) because the person has no

conscious idea that what is assumed to be normal is, in fact, the result of the context

in which it is structured.

Managerialism ideology is also present in the public sector because of influence

of New Public Management. This notion, conceptualised in 1991 by Christopher

Hood, has been translated into a wave of public reforms, implemented in developed

countries since the 1980s, that proclaims the adoption of private management

policies and practices by the public sector (Hood 1991). Managerialism in this

framework is assumed to be a meta-narrative that includes the neoliberal influence

in the transformation of the public sector (Lyotard 1984). More precisely,

managerialism expresses attempts to transform public institutions from a bureau-

professional model of organisation to an enterprise model able to facilitate the

introduction of market mechanisms in the public sector. These tendencies are

evident in all public areas as health, housing and higher education.

During the last three decades, the idea that higher education’s dominant

traditional organisational culture fails to allow higher education institutions to adapt

to the new external environment has been ‘taken-for-guarantee’ in the political

rhetoric. To induce higher education institutions to change their modus operandi, a

new rationality, or ‘technology of governmentality’ (Foucault 1991), has been

introduced into higher education system steering. According to this new model,

higher education institutions’ autonomisation should be closely related to an

enterprise model based on competitive / market logic. Actually, competition and

enterprise are key notions articulated in understanding most of the governments’

constructivist actions that are driving the transformation of the ‘non-economic’ and

‘non-social’ higher education institutions’ traditional conduct. Competition among

autonomous higher education institutions is viewed as a crucial device in the

institutionalisation of market modes of regulation, the diversification of financing

resources and the emergence of new forms of institutional culture. The aim is to

ensure that higher education institutions become more entrepreneurial, adaptable

and commercially responsible (Meek, Goedegebuure, Santiago & Carvalho 2010).

In fact, higher education institutions are expected to adopt new entrepreneurial-

driven structures and management styles (Barnett 2004; Deem, Hillyard & Reed

2007) which are supposed to promote an enterprise model that is aimed at increasing

the social and economic relevance of higher education. According to Considine

(2001), higher education institutions are ‘being ‘‘enterprised’’ by a powerful logic of

managed performance, executive centralisation and a new code of corporate

governance’ (Considine 2001: 145).

In this context, New Public Management (NPM) assumptions and technol-

ogies emerge in the higher education field as an instrument to translate these

‘ideal types’ to the higher education institutions’ organisational ideas, structures

and actions (Deem et al. 2007). The concentration of power at the top, the

creation of line management structures, the increasing demand for evaluation and

accountability and the attempts to manage and control the academics and the

academic work (Musselin 2008; Bleiklie & Michelson 2008; Becher & Trowler

512 R. Santiago, T. Carvalho

123

2001) can be considered to be the main outcomes of this translation. In a certain

sense, this reflects the ‘triumph’ of organisation logic over the academic

knowledge culture in the structuring of higher education institutions (Carvalho &

Santiago 2010c).

In analysing NPM development in the Anglo-Saxon context, Ferlie, Ashburner,

Fitzgerald and Pettigrew (1996) present four different stages or moments: 1)

efficiency drive; 2) downsizing and decentralisation; 3) in search of excellence

and 4) public service orientation. According to the authors, the third model (in

search of excellence) is structured mainly around the notions of organisational

culture, values, innovation and change, and the way it relates to organisational

control. To Readings (1997), excellence is a techno-bureaucratic concept, free of

ideological references, whereas for Ferlie et al. (1996) it is perceived as being an

important discursive and practical element to legitimate the institutionalisation of

a new managerial ‘collective belief structure’ (Barnett 2004: 55). In this sense,

excellence can also be conceptualised as a component of the ideological apparatus

on the way the higher education organisational formal structures and decision-

making systems ought to be redefined and reshaped in order to construct the

enterprise model and culture in the new higher education market-driven

institutional environment.

The reconfiguration of the traditional governance and management order is an

important component of this constructivism and is focussed mainly on the

neutralisation of the traditional collegial order. The aim is to create a more

integrated organisational structure and decision-making process (Carvalho &

Santiago 2010c), or to create a ‘complete organization’ (Enders, De Boer & Leisyte

2008), toward a deep concentration of power at the top and the destruction of the

loosely coupled existent order (Weick 1976). This is perceived politically as being

one of the main pillars sustaining the new rationale in reshaping higher education on

an entrepreneurial and market coordination basis.

This study was drawn from the notion of managerialism as a meta-narrative

that intends to reflect upon how far this narrative has been accepted in Portuguese

higher education institutions by academics. Actually, little is known about this

topic, particularly at the academic staff and ‘academic manager’ levels.

Nevertheless, previous studies (Santiago & Carvalho 2004; Santiago, Carvalho,

Amaral & Meek 2006; Amaral, Magalhaes & Santiago 2003; Carvalho & Santiago

2010a), conducted with governmental and higher education institutions central

and middle governance and management academics, conclude that hybridisation

processes exist. We intend to go further by extending our analysis to other

academics positioned in the organisational middle and ‘peripheral’ academic and

pedagogical co-ordination positions in higher education institutions (such as the

presidents of the academic and pedagogical councils and teaching programmes

directors). In one sense, these actors are also the ‘front-line troops’ (Fulton 2003:

162) in the attempts to implement a new structural and entrepreneurial order in

higher education institutions. Therefore, they appear to be one of the best

witnesses of the on-going political and institutional process of reconstructing the

Portuguese higher education system and institutions around a corporate and

performative culture.

Portuguese Higher Education 513

123

Managerialism Narratives in Portuguese Higher Education

In Portugal, the collegial traditions of the higher education institutions have their

roots in the social and political dynamics created after the 1974 democratic

revolution. From an institutional perspective, these dynamics emerged as a reaction

against the former dictatorship regime, which seriously curtailed the democratic

organisation of the Portuguese universities. Following the democratic revolution,

university rectors were no longer appointed by government but were elected from

within, while collegiality became the norm for the governance and management of

institutions (Decree-Law 781/76). Later, the University Act (Law 108/88) and the

Polytechnic Autonomy Act (Law 5/90)1 reinforced the representative and partic-

ipative democracy of these two types of higher education institutions. Academic

staff, students and non-academic staff participated in collegial bodies at the central

level (University Assembly, Senate and Pedagogic Board) as well as at the level of

faculties, schools and departments (Santiago et al. 2006). The legitimacy of all these

collegial bodies was supported by the principle of election at all institutional levels.

Framed by this institutional context, until the beginning of the new century the

higher education institutions (14 public universities, 16 public polytechnics, 9

private universities and 72 private single polytechnic schools) enjoyed a high level

of freedom (much more in the case of public higher education institutions) for

establishing their statutes, together with teaching, research, administrative and

financial autonomy. During this period, the academic knowledge logic embedded in

the Humboldtian ‘model’, and the welfare state principles, remained the basic

framework that supported the expansion of higher education. The number of

students in the system increased considerably. However, this increase in student

enrolments - the transition from an elite to a mass system (Scott 1995) - and the shift

from a mode of state control to a mode of state supervision (Neave & Van Vught

1994), as translated in the new regulatory context framed by the University and

Polytechnic Autonomy Acts, started to play a role in the emergence of

managerialism narratives in the political discourse on higher education (Santiago

& Carvalho 2004). More and more, evaluation, quality and efficiency became

important topics in these discourses, as did other topics related to the transference of

knowledge to the entrepreneurial world and to the improvement of curricular and

students skills / profiles, making them more ‘compliant’ with the needs of the labour

market. The beginning of the 21st century brought important adjustments in the

higher education policies and political narratives aimed at reorienting Portuguese

higher education to a more market and neo-liberal atmosphere, notwithstanding it

occurring within a framework structured by stronger public rules and, paradoxically,

by an increasing state role in controlling the system. Since then, the higher

education organisational field has been under growing pressure to move from its

traditional ‘habitus’ (Bourdieu 1989; 2006) to a new one based on the ambiance of

the enterprise culture model and the competitive logic. The meaning of this shift has

1 A network of polytechnic institutions was created at the beginning of the 1980s to provide new shorter

and vocationally-driven HE cycles aiming at producing a better-qualified workforce for the middle-level

occupations.


123

been increasingly obvious during recent years. It has been especially visible in

several ways, for instance, in the exertion of political pressure to institutionalise a

‘holistic culture’ of evaluation, quality assurance (the creation of a new agency for

the quality assurance and accreditation), budgetary management and targeting. The

shift can also be seen in the financial restrictions applied to institutions’ budgets

(more evident since 2005) and, simultaneously, the increasing tendency for research

funds to be allocated according to inter-institutional competition (in order to stratify

the higher education system). There have also been changes in research policies and

knowledge creation aimed at connecting knowledge production to the economy and

to entrepreneurial issues. Adding to this, at present the number of places available

for students and non-traditional students (mature-aged students) offered in the

public sector exceeds the number of candidates2 (Santiago et al. 2006). This

situation has also forced institutions to compete for students and, in this sense, has

created a favourable environment for adopting managerialism narratives.

The Higher Education Act (Law, 62/2007) enacted in 2007 proposed decisive

requirements for reconfiguring the traditional power architecture of Portuguese

higher education, both at the system and organisational levels. In fact, this Act

imposed a new configuration on higher education governance and management

structures and a new institutional ‘architecture’ of power substantially different

from those previously rooted in the collegial tradition. Among these changes,

several are provoking a more in-depth debate within higher education institutions.

First, institutions have been given the possibility to opt for either a public institute

regime, or to become a public foundation (regulated by private law). In fact, one of

the Portuguese specificities, especially when compared with the United Kingdom, is

the traditionally public nature of its higher education institutions. Second, there has

been the creation of a general council with extended political and strategic power.

The academic members elected by their colleagues remain the majority in this new

governance board although there is a strong representation of external stakeholders.

The Law requires that the president of the board be chosen from among these

external stakeholders. The general council has replaced the two previous main

collegial university and polytechnic governing bodies mentioned above: the general

assembly and the senate (or the polytechnic council in the polytechnic case).

Members of this new body now elect the rector or the polytechnic president and

have the power to define and revise the university’s internal law (organisational and

academic structures) and to supervise the implementation of institutional policies

and strategic plans. Third, an executive dimension has been added to the role of the

university rector and polytechnic president positions. Fourth, there has been the

creation of a management council with extended powers over all administrative and

financing matters. Further, there has been the reconfiguration of ‘academic

management’, which is moving from dispersion to line management structures.

Under this structure, deans and heads can be appointed for a fixed-term, rather than

being elected to those posts. However, this depends on the model defined in each

2 We have to add the number of student places offered by the private sector, but this sector is less socially

legitimated and the students have also to pay higher tuition fees.


123

institution. In any case, there has been an important concentration of power in all

those who have management duties.

What now seems very clear in the Portuguese government’s policies is the

emphasis placed on the transformation of the higher education traditional

institutional environment, in both coercive and inductive ways, in order to

institutionalise an enterprise or business-like model as a new framework for higher

education institutions’ activities. In this sense, higher education policies have

endorsed a set of organising principles that can be synthesised according to three

main overlapped dimensions: autonomisation / self-governance, internal and

external competition and critical scrutiny of professional power.

The first dimension (autonomisation / self-governance) is connected with the

assumption that higher education institutions, as any other organisation in the

business sector, are self-interested, meaning they can be socially and economically

constructed as more integrated and ontological organisations to act in a public

‘market or quasi-market environment’ as the best judges of their own interests

(Olssen & Peters 2005). This assumption is closer to the idea that higher education

institutions can be transformed in a self-governed enterprise model within which the

promotion of a ‘corporate culture’ is viewed as a crucial tool to reshape their

organisational order.

The second dimension (internal and external competition) translates into the

introduction of competition logic between the ‘self-governed’ (or autonomous)

higher education institutions. This competition logic is interpreted as a device to

enhance market-driven horizontal interactions between institutions and with other

external ‘stakeholders’ - which are expected to provide diversity in higher education

institutions’ sources of financial support in light of budget restrictions and / or

public financing cuts. The interests that emerge from these market-driven horizontal

interactions are viewed as the translation of rational organisational behaviours,

giving rise to a more harmonious operation of the higher education system, one that

is coincident with the interests of society as a whole (Santiago & Carvalho 2004).

Finally, the third dimension (professional power critical scrutiny) is linked to the

current market rhetoric on the inefficiency of the bureau / collegial-professional

regime as a dominant higher education regulation mode. Following this view, the

search for more efficiency cannot be disturbed by the internal conflicts between

autonomous academics and nor by the slowness of their collegial decisions, which

are fragmented and disturbed by corporate interests.

As a managerial narrative supporting the intrusion of the market into the higher

education field (Meek 2002, 2003; Reed 2002; Deem et al. 2007), NPM has been

contributing to the emergence of the enterprise model and culture as a dominant

mode of functioning vis-a-vis the community of scholars. This mode, endorsed by

an increasingly hegemonic discursive regime, or as a dominant narrative of strategic

change (Reed 2002), translates into a challenge to the traditional academic culture

and practices and the traditional symbolic order in higher education institutions.

This implies the replacement of the previous hegemonic domain of trusted

professionals (Deem et al. 2007), typical of those from state bureau-professional

regimes (Clarke & Newman 1997), by the right to manage being given to those in

charge of academic management positions, particularly at the senior level.


123

Within the current attempts to institutionalise the higher education institutions’

enterprise model, managerialism narratives include the use of private management

concepts such as productivity, efficiency, effectiveness, profitability, competition,

control and quality. At this point, managerialism narratives are part of a discursive

apparatus intending to serve the market and entrepreneurial ideologies (Barnett

2004) as a new mode of higher education regulation. The managerialism concept

translates into a set of expectations deployed around the social reconstruction of the

institutional and academic life. Within managerialism narratives, excellence notions

have increasingly become an unavoidable topic since the popularisation of Peters

and Waterman’s (1984) book turned them into a sort of higher education ‘password’

to modernity. Higher education institutions are expected to be more rational,

market-oriented and efficient and to aspire to excellence. In a managerial sense, this

means that academics and institutions are supposed to ‘‘(…) surpass oneself and

others, to reach ahead of the actual present, to rise perpetually higher for something

which lies outside the realm of the immediate’’ (Costea, Crump & Amiridis 2007:

248).

A conceptual and practical issue that remains crucial in the analysis of the

managerialism narratives is to assess how far this notion has been ‘colonizing’ the

organisational dimension of higher education institutions, or to what extent it is

already assumed as normal or is misrecognised (Bourdieu 2000) by academic actors.

Even if there are no doubts that the managerialism narratives are coming from the

external to the internal world of the academy (Barnett 2004), how deep it has

penetrated in the higher education institutions’ organisational structures remains a

largely unexplored research field. Being more specific, there is a need to address

further how far the organisational managerialism narratives have been accepted and

endorsed by academics and how these come to construct their involvement and

participation in higher education institution governance and management.

In the Portuguese case, previous studies on related topics (Amaral et al. 2003;

Santiago & Carvalho 2004, 2008; Santiago et al. 2006; Carvalho & Santiago 2010a)

allow for the conclusion to be drawn that managerialism was mainly imposed on

higher education by the state. This occurred whilst the state was attempting to

structure a market and a managerial ‘institutional ecology’ under which Portuguese

higher education institutions ought to operate. How far this construction has gone

and, concomitantly, how far it has been accepted by academics largely remains in

the shadow. This is even if those studies, conducted with political (ministries),

entrepreneurial (key players in the entrepreneurial tissue) and academic actors

(rectors, deans and heads) conclude with the existence of political, institutional and

organisational hybridisation processes (Amaral et al. 2003).

Research Approaches

The present study has as its main concern analysis of the extent to which the

managerialism narratives are now present in Portuguese academics’ discourses. To

focus the analysis, the sample was based on academics with coordinating roles in

the pedagogical and academic bodies, and teaching programmes. In the Portuguese


123

higher education institutions, all the academics in charge of these positions are still

involved in their current teaching and research activities. They are not ‘professional

academic managers’ but academics. The qualitative methodology was the research

strategy adopted for this study. The decision to opt for this methodology was taken

in order to proceed to an in depth interpretative analysis (Glaser 1978; Milles &

Huberman 1984) that would allow for the development of more of the conceptu-

alisation of the actors’ adoption of managerialism narratives on higher education

institutions. The semi-structured interview was the empirical tool used to elicit the

actors’ opinions, based on a guideline structured around a set of issues related to

their involvement and influence in the higher education institutions’ governance and

decision-making processes. As an empirical option, no explicit questions about

managerialism were included in the guideline. The intention was to analyse if

managerialism was assumed as meta-narrative. Academics were asked their opinion

about recent changes in higher education or how they would define the best

governance and management model at their higher education institution. The

interviews were held in four public higher education institutions: two universities

(X; Y), with X being a ‘traditional’ university and Y a new one (post-1973); and two

polytechnics (Z; W), both created during the early 1980s. These interviews were

developed from September 2009 to December 2009 and conducted in the

academics’ workplace. They lasted an average of 45 minutes and were tape-

recorded. The academic units were selected in these four higher education

institutions taking into account the academic areas shown in Table 1.

The average age of the university academics interviewed was 52 years and 42

years for polytechnic academics. Women represented about 38% of the sample,

among them 60% were teaching programmes directors and only 15% were

presidents of the academic and pedagogical boards. In a certain sense, the structure

of this sample can be seen as a reflection of gender inequalities in the academic

career, as demonstrated in other national studies (Amancio 2005; Carvalho &

Santiago 2010b) and in international studies (Toren 2001; Winchester, Lorenzo,

Browning & Chesterman 2006). The majority of the presidents of the academic and

Table 1 The academic areas of the teaching programme directors and of the presidents of the academic

and pedagogical councils

Academic areas Institutions

Universities (old and new) Polytechnics Total

Academic and

pedagogical

boards

Teaching

programmes

directors

Academic and

pedagogical

boards

Teaching

programmes

directors

Humanities, arts

and social sciences

4 3 2 3 12

Engineering and

technologies

1 2 2 2 7

Sciences and health 1 2 1 1 5

Total 6 7 5 6 24


123

pedagogical boards (77.5%) were at the pinnacle of their academic career

(universities, 80%; polytechnics, 75%), but this was not the case for the teaching

programme directors who were in the low or middle ranks (universities, 75%,

polytechnics, 90%). The interviewees’ responses were subjected to content analysis

(closed process) according to a grid based on what have been defined as

managerialism narratives.

Portuguese Academics and Managerialism Narratives

Towards an Enterprise Model? A General View of Academics

Following our conceptual background, the Portuguese political projects to push

higher education institutions towards an enterprise model and culture and to

competitive logic (Amaral et al 2003; Santiago et al. 2006; Carvalho & Santiago

2010a) encompass the idea that organisational objectives should be reached by a

‘single institutional voice’. In this way, the managerial and entrepreneurial

homogeneity - between academics, as well as between them and the central

governance and executive bodies – have to be ensured, and ‘dissidence’ has to be

minimised. Strong leadership roles associated with a greater concentration of power

in top-level positions are part of the new managerialism narratives in Portuguese

higher education institutions that contradict the traditional collegial fragmented

power.

The responses of some of our interviewees (even if they were in the minority)

insisted on the idea that higher education institutions need ‘organisational strategy’

to gain competitive advantages in the higher education field. In a certain sense, these

academics seem to have started to accept the idea that the higher education

institution culture can be managed from the top with the aim of reconstructing a

collective identity based more on a managerial and organisational logic than in an

academic professional logic. In this way, they leave the idea that higher education

institutions’ culture is the result of several ‘local’ identities that are fragmented or

dispersed around the basic organisational units (such as faculties, schools and

departments) and the academics. As one teaching programme director argues:

‘‘(In the university) people mainly follow their personal agenda. But this is notthe case for the university of (…) that has its own strategy. Or even somerecent universities. Our rector is attempting to make these types of decisionsmore centralized. ‘(…) Our organization is changing (…) the universitymodel. (…) We have started to have some institutional solidarity. (…).Probably things can be more transparent with the new regime (the new HigherEducation Act). It is the same as in justice and health where all thebureaucratic procedures have been substituted with more flexible proceduressimilar to those in the private sector. (…) the collegial decision makingprocess does not lead anywhere. (…) the rector’s team will improvecentralization. Maybe it is not a practical way, but it should be like that’’(Teaching Programme Director 12).


123

Conversely, many academics pointed out in their responses that there is a split

between the organisation (as a tool to transform management objectives into

performance targets), and the professionals. This separation is perceived mainly as

an internal pressure, to the aim of which is to ‘neutralize’ academic values and

practices. The respondents’ opinions on this topic can be classified according to the

following grid:

i) a critical position to the way managerial impositions interfere with academic

activities

‘‘(…) The university strategy is more managerial and is more oriented tofinancial issues. The pedagogic and training issues, which should be the aim ofthe university, are not taken into account in the same way. (…) themanagement issues have been limiting our action’’ (Teaching ProgrammeDirector 2).

ii) a ‘pragmatic resignation’ accepting that management restrictions are needed

because it is a way to induce competition for financial support, increase

academic flexibility, efficiency and quality and also allowing changes in the

academics collegial behaviours;

‘‘(because of the financial restrictions) there will be an increasinglycompetitive attitude towards projects (…) this can lead to academic workflexibility and to difficulties in developing research structures. In this sense,public higher education is at risk’’ (President of Academic Board 16).

iii) a discursive ‘resistance’ vis-a-vis the submission of academic values to

managerial logic;

‘‘(…) we are the hostage of decisions (management) that are not academic.The academic decisions are framed by management (budgets) and I don’t likeit’’ (Teaching Programme Director, 23).

This last set of discourses is dominant in the academics’ responses and they

demonstrate that the academics interviewed are conscious of the political

attempts to favour power concentration and a performative culture in higher

education institutions, meaning support of the introduction of an enterprise

culture. However, at the organisational level they are not absorbing those

attempts into their beliefs and behaviour. This can be interpreted according to

two main overlapping arguments. First, there is the need to keep the professional

symbolic and cultural capital (Bourdieu 1989; 2006) ‘legacy’ as the main

background to the academic work, in light of the managerial values and practices

perceived as a threat to its integrity. Second, the perception of this background is

an important tool for supporting the traditional boundaries of academic

professionalism.

According to this analysis of the interviews with the teaching programme

directors and the academic and pedagogical collegial bodies’ co-ordinators, it can be

said that the attempts to introduce an enterprise culture embedded in managerialismnarratives seem to be less extensive than has been observed in some of the literature

on this topic (Miller 1995; 1998; Sotirakou 2004).


123

Corporate Governance and Power

One of the main focal points of higher education institutions’ managerial narratives

is the attempts to promote the (re)conceptualisation of power around governance

and management structures for academics. Do academics’ discourses acknowledge

the presence of pressures to reconfigure power structures towards a more enterprise

model and culture? In assuming these pressures, how will academics position

themselves in face of the new enterprise model translated into a possible

concentration of central governance and management structures? Is there any

incorporation of managerialism narratives?

A set of arguments emerges from the academics’ responses that can be classified

according to three scenarios on the institutional power distribution: 1) the top-down

rational scenario; 2) the bottom-up managed ‘subjectivity’ scenario; 3) the bottom-

up collegiality scenario.

The first scenario is connected to the actors’ discourses of the need to centralize

power in the higher education institutions’ executives (university rectors and

polytechnic presidents). These discourses seem to be expressed mainly according to

a ‘pragmatic’ vision of institutional efficiency improvement, which emerges as a

major dimension of the actors’ opinions based on a ‘hard’ notion of the higher

education institution performative culture. Some academics give preference to these

top-down rational processes by assuming them to be the best ‘model’ for assuring

efficiency in the higher education institution governance and management

structures, from a business-like perspective. As one academic argued:

‘‘Academics are tired of the collegial model. (…) the only way to improve themanagement model is to swap the collegial model for a centralized one’’(Teaching Programme Director, 14).

For some of these academics, the central executive bodies should be committed to

management legitimacy and authority (de Weert 2001), as well as having the

freedom to make decisions on their own. Executive bodies are perceived as being

the main higher education institution ‘agency’ and thus they should have the

‘jurisdictional’ power to intervene in the decision-making processes in an effective

way, making them more efficient and rational. In few responses, this assumption

emerged along with the need to rationalise or even limit collegial power. To these

professionals, collegial power must be controlled, because it is corporate and self-

interested, being the main obstacle to the achievement of efficiency and quality in

the higher education institution governance and management:

‘‘This is the moment for big changes and we need them. They are inevitable.There was something in collegiality that was linked to corporatism (…). Wemust be more efficient (…) universities have a tradition of slowness (…). Therector’s decisions were a complex ‘business’ because many academics wereconsulted before their definition and implementation (…). Now it must bedifferent (…). It is not possible to implement changes in any other way (…).However, they must respect people’’ (President of Academic Board, 23).


123

Nevertheless, for other academics, the top-down model is an unavoidable

circumstance. Starting from their experience in the teaching programme or

academic and pedagogical council’s co-ordination, these respondents feel that their

field of action is increasingly confined to a sort of ‘operational academic

management’, which is based on administrative tasks. The power space they have

within these co-ordination activities is perceived as becoming circumscribed to a

‘periphery’ without resonance at the other institutional levels:

‘‘(…) I hope that the teaching programme directors go beyond curriculummanagement and also become involved in some activities related toresearch policies and co-operation with society. I wish to be called to givemy opinion and to be accountable for it. But this is not the case at themoment. (…) In almost all universities, the teaching programme director isbecoming a kind of administrative officer’’ (Teaching ProgrammeDirector, 2).

Within the bottom-up scenario, the analysis was not deployed around the

respondents’ discourses on how central governance mobilises them to higher

education institution life according to academic and professional logic, but instead

inside the managerial one. More specifically, this scenario is about how academics

are managed in order to intensify their own contribution, leading higher education

institutions towards a performative and innovative culture to meet the ends of

‘organisational excellence’. Transformational leadership, self-managed teams and

networks (Reed 2002) are used to promote the vitality, creativity and profitability

metaphors. These metaphors are presented as important subjective characteristics

for facing higher education market competition, according to which entrepre-

neurship and innovation have become the dominant rhetorical and operational

modes.

In this sense, it is relevant to undertake analysis to see if attempts have emerged

for academics to involve and to manage their subjectivities within the logic of

management by objectives, agreed targets and a performative culture based on

evaluation and quality assurance. According to respondents from some higher

education institutions, it seems that it is possible to detect attempts to manage

academic work through subjectivity in order to promote productivity, profitability,

efficiency and effectiveness (Costea et al. 2007). These attempts are translated into

the use of management tools such as internal competition, informality, shared

information, networks and internal entrepreneurship.

‘‘If our meetings with the members of the rector’s team (vice-rectors) areinformal, things run well. We can manage without a bureaucratic apparatus.Often this is a matter of legitimating the rector’s decisions (…). Often,depending on the topic, the rector resolved the issues, but it is never presentedas such (…). We have the feeling that we discuss and decide on these issues,but that is not true (…). We only legitimise decisions that have already beenmade by the rector and his team (vice-rectors)’’ (President of AcademicBoard, 7).


123

To summarise, the bottom-up managerial scenario has not been clear and

explicitly endorsed by the academics involved in this research and the higher

education institutions’ central governance and management. Based on the respon-

dents’ discourses, it can be said that until now, the new managerial narratives based

on a new culture and political economy of subjectivity (Costea et al. 2007) have not

colonised the discursive practices and the action field of the group of higher

education institutions teaching and academic co-ordinators interviewed, in spite of

recognising the presence of attempts to impose an enterprise model.

Finally, relating to the third scenario – bottom-up collegiality – the analysis of the

academics’ responses shows that there is a dominant unfavourable reaction against the

limitation of collegial power at the middle institutional level (basic academic

organisational units and academic and pedagogic councils). This disapproval also

comes into view when the responses are structured around managerial power

centralisation, which is perceived as a threat to the intermediary bodies’ autonomy

(academic and pedagogic boards) or even to professional discretionary power.

‘‘(…) Here (in the faculty) there is a collegial mode in the teachingprogramme director function. As this institutional position was previouslyconceived and regulated by the rectorate, it was not oriented to the collegialmode. However, we maintain the collegial philosophy’’ (Teaching ProgrammeDirector, 16).

‘‘There is the risk, and we are attempting to avoid it, that power is becomingexcessively concentrated. The president and the vice-president can have toomuch power concentrated in them. This is an enormous risk. Decisions can betaken without consultation or the participation of the other academics orschools. There are some situations in which that power is extremelyconcentrated’’ (President of Academic Board, 14).

This range of discourses suggests that the majority of those interviewed want to

retain control of most of the collective bargaining processes. They also want to have

the power to define organisational unity norms and the way decisions are

implemented. Some academics seem to be conscious that managerial priorities can

lead to the depreciation of academic roles and professional cultures. According to

these views, the academic and pedagogical autonomy space of intermediary bodies

and basic academic organisational units needs to be preserved better from the

managerial logic of higher education institution central executive power.

‘‘The academic council has an important function in the management of conflicts(…) based on persuasion, orientation and negotiation in order to achievecoherence. (…) As a president of the academic council (in the faculty) my task is toachieve consensus. With the rectorate, things are different. There are differentlanguages and different ways of solving problems based on different epistemo-logical, civic and knowledge backgrounds. We work in an institution with strongacademic and cultural capital and institutions became efficient if they weredemocratic. I think that managerial changes became a matter of ‘enlightenedleadership’ and also knowledge became more commercial. The academic role isforgotten’’ (President of Academic Board, 13).


123

In this context, it is possible to argue that these opinions also assume a more

bottom-up-like decision-making process, but distinctive from the previous ones

because they are enlightened by the managerial logic supported by managed

subjectivities. On the contrary, the collegial perceptions seem to translate into a

phenomenon close to what was characterised by Cohen and March (1986) as

‘organized anarchy’, by Baldridge (1971) as ‘micro-politic’ behaviour or even by

Friedberg and Musselin (1992, 1993) as a ‘strategic action’ aimed at preserving or

enlarging the professional autonomy space within the higher education institution

organisational field. In spite of this collegial advocacy, it is important to note that all

the academics’ views included in this scenario assume that the existing higher

education institution collegial model should be rationalised and adjusted to the new

social, political and economic contexts that are affecting Portuguese higher

education institutions. These include financing restrictions, changes in the labour

market, economic globalisation and the relationship between research and the

entrepreneurial world.

Decentralisation vs. Centralisation

Decentralisation emerges as an important background for the promotion of

managerial narratives, but paradoxically, it is also important for the decision-

making process within the Weberian tradition of hierarchical control (Meek 2003).

Actually, the use of rational techniques claimed for centralised structures that

make use of coercive pressures in order to ensure that those techniques are being

implemented along the different higher education institution organisational levels

(Meek 2003). On the one hand, the new managerial narratives insist on the need

to introduce ruptures in the bureaucratic regime of control, regulation and

vigilance of organisational units and professionals in order to give them more

freedom to decide – even if conditioned by the managerial demands for increased

productivity. On the other hand, centralisation of political and strategic power

arises in the institutional arrangements, as well as coercive control, which is

deployed over the construction and formalisation of management objectives,

accountability and the quality assurance systems. Some hierarchical dimensions of

the bureaucratic regime became articulated with the ‘panopticon’ control

(Foucault 1975) of the managerial regime that is framed in the NPM assumptions

on work organisation. This articulation can configure a type of institutional

violence (Wernick 2003) based both on formal and hierarchical control and on the

manoeuvring of professionals’ subjectivities (the self-discipline and self-regula-

tion) towards the acceptance of the higher education institutions’ enterprise model

and the competitive logic.

Some respondents reflected on this paradox linked to the coexistence of

centralisation and decentralisation within higher education institution governance

and management regimes, which Reed (2002) and Fulton (2003) characterise with

the ‘centralization of decentralisation’ metaphor. This means that two projects seem

to be in place with attempts to implement changes in the direction of a new


123

performative culture notion: the centralisation of leadership and of institutional

power and the decentralisation of the operations (operational devolution) linked to

local resources management (including the management of academics). Some of the

academics’ responses illustrate this paradox.

‘‘At this moment, there is a dominant logic – globalisation. This logic istransferred inside the university. The University does not hear us (…). Thereare some issues that are presented to academics by the rectorate. Academicscan be asked to participate in the big decisions (…) but this is an illusion.Some decisions are strategically oriented. When we are asked to participate itis only to legitimate the rectorate’s decisions’’ (President of Academic Board,23).

According to Reed (2002), this phenomenon represents a typical feature of

entrepreneurial or post-modern universities, which are increasing the extent of

management control over academics and restraining their professional authority and

autonomy at both the collective (as an occupational group) and the individual levels.

Finally, for many academics, even if they endorsed the new operational

management decentralised roles and duties in academic and teaching areas, they still

claim their attachment to their basic academic units, being conscious that local

collegial power represents an important source of support to ensure their

participation in decision-making.

‘‘At this moment, two governance models are being discussed within thepolytechnics. One of these models is based on the centralisation of power inthe polytechnic president and the administrative staff at the central level. Theother model is based on decentralisation giving more power to the schools. Iprefer the second model (…) because schools are very different’’ (President ofAcademic Board, 5).

In line with previous studies in other national contexts (Middlehurst & Elton

1992; Dearlove 2002), academics’ commitment to their basic academic units (and

disciplines) seems to be stronger than their commitment to the institution. However,

the ‘operational devolution’ is experienced in a contradictory way. The fragmen-

tation between a multitude of pressures and expectations comes from higher

education institution executive managerial impositions, as well as from peers’

academic concerns (at the basic academic unit level and academic and pedagogic

boards level) and, for some (teaching programme directors) also from students. In

spite of these negative experiences and the internal pressures to become more

manager-like, these actors still feel as though they are academics after all (Carvalho

& Santiago 2010c).

Human Resources Strategic Management

The strategic management of ‘human resources’ arises as one of the more important

managerial technologies aimed at impelling institutions towards becoming more

business-like. This technology entails the use of practical devices to manage


123

professionals strategically and to induce changes in their academic culture and

values by trying to harmonise them with the enterprise model and culture and the

competitive logic.

In fact, attempts to introduce an enterprise model through the dissemination of

managerial narratives can be assumed to be a ‘technology of governmentality’

(Foucault 1991). In assuming these narratives as the norm, academics are also

changing their ethos and professional practices.

In this sense, a set of governance cultural resources can be deployed as an attempt

to engage with the total contents of modern subjectivity (Costea et al. 2007),

supported mainly by self-regulation and self-discipline (Reed 2002). The occupa-

tional ideologies and identities are expected to be captured by the new institutional

discourses and, accordingly, it is also expected that actors will become involved in

the managerial revolution (Reed 2002).

This managerial scenario is not so clearly and explicitly present in the Portuguese

higher education institutions’ cultural approach to governance. Very few academics’

responses referred to a kind of collective self-discipline that is needed to lead in the

new institutional contexts, but they seem to be deployed more within an academic

logic than in a managerial one.

‘‘This accountability is a strange thing for us (…), but the issues on money arethere (no money) and we must be accountable by evaluating the quality ofwhat we are doing!’’ (Teaching Programme Director, 25).

‘‘(…) In the collegial bodies, academics try to avoid conflict (…) Decisionsbecame ambiguous and nobody assumed a clear position. Some situationsshould have been stopped before. Sometimes it is hard to say no in thecollegial bodies (…) a sort of greater level of self-discipline is needed’’(President of Academic Board, 6).

However, all the respondents stressed that the new forms of control and regulation

over academic work, aimed at improving teaching and research productivity, have

been emerging as a key element in career advancement. Furthermore, it is

recognised that the purpose of this new apparatus is to incorporate competition and

individualism into the pattern of academic work, instead of participation in

collective bodies.

‘‘We live in a context where career advancement has become increasinglydifficult. The advancement in this career depends more and more onpublications and this turns academics into individualists. They have individualstrategies to occupy the scarce positions at the top’’ (President of AcademicBoard, 3).

Finally, a new technology of academic work control is reframing the relationship

between the professionals and the institution in Portuguese higher education

institutions: individual contracts. These contracts establish the basis for professional

compliance, monitoring and accountability supported in a line management system

and in output measures (Olssen & Peters 2005). This tendency for changes in

academics’ traditional attachment to institutions, being focused on the individual


123

dependency on research and teaching productivity, presents higher education

institutions with the possibility of introducing numeric flexibility into their human

resources management (Santiago & Carvalho 2008). Some academics refer to this

numeric flexibility as a management tool to control their ‘voice’:

‘‘This school has 64% of its academics without a tenured position and they areoutside this track. They have individual contracts. I understand that thesecolleagues have some difficulty in presenting opinions on academic decisions.They need to survive’’ (President of Pedagogical Board, 11).

In light of these new forms of regulation and control over academics, it can be

said that in the Portuguese higher education system, professional work will start to

be undervalued, increasingly dependent on political and local definitions of

productivity and competence in teaching and research activities. This is evolving

into the academic work matrix and academics will start to be managed by the state

and by ‘academic executives’, who have increasingly been acquiring more power

over the reconfiguring of professional cultures. This power is represented by the

introduction of new forms in the social division of academic work within

institutions. Actors’ discourses in this study seem to assume that academic

autonomy in the definition of its own pathways is severely limited and academics’

submission to the institutional objectives increases (de Weert 2001). Nevertheless,

the academics interviewed seem to maintain a critical and distant position far from

the possibility of assuming managerialist narratives as a normal discourse in their

higher education institutions.

Final Remarks

It can be said that through legislation, the Portuguese state is involved in a

constructivist way in the creation of a sort of higher education market-like

institutional environment mainly driving to promote the performance and excellence

culture. This is occurring through the creation of new organisational forms and

operational conditions in the system – consumer sovereignty, choice promotion,

competition logic, quality assessment and assurance that are an integral part of

managerial narratives. This supposes that higher education institutions must be

(re)conceptualised and (re)configured in an enterprise model and competitive logic

manner, as ‘self-interested’ and ‘self-regulated’ entities. The aim is to get higher

education institutions more committed to this new environment in order to improve

the efficiency and effectiveness game in their exchanges with internal and external

‘stakeholders’. Increasingly, higher education institutions are being politically

perceived as knowledge, teaching and managerial rational optimisers, as well as the

best judges of their own interests (Olssen & Peters 2005).

The replacement of the assembly and the senate with a single general board

(General Council) at both universities and polytechnics is emerging as a relevant

illustration of the impact of managerialism on the Portuguese higher education

institutions’ power architecture. Representatives of academic and administrative

staff, and students previously elected university rectors and polytechnic presidents,


123

but now they are elected by the General Council. This new board still has

representatives from among academic staff (who are the majority of the members),

students and administrative staff (who have a slight low percentage) but it also has

external stakeholders who must represent 30% of members (the president is co-

opted from among the elements of this group). The aim is to unify the higher

education institutions’ fragmented organisational arrangements, and to shape a kind

of ontological identity to be able to face the challenges of the higher education

‘market’ as a collective ‘mechanism’ of efficiency (Carvalho and Santiago 2010a, b,

c). The intermediate levels of higher education institutions were allowed to define

their own management model, but they were being ‘encouraged’ by law to adopt a

line management ‘philosophy’ in two areas. First, the concept of a single ‘director’

who is assisted by an ‘executive board’ has been imposed on the faculty, school

and / or department (replacing the previous collegial board). Second, institutions can

opt to have rectors appointed by the directors of the board, rather than being elected

by their peers, students and administrative staff. Surprisingly, under pressure from

the departments etc. and academics, a large number of universities and polytechnics

have resisted and have retained the election process and collegiality (units’ boards)

as the source of the directors’ power legitimacy.

This resistance did not obstruct the managerial dynamics from developing on the

higher education institutions’ organisational landscape. In fact, the practical

attempts to institutionalise the managerial narratives have been based mainly on

three major strategies. The first is linked to the neutralisation of collegiality,

perceived as a source of power dispersion, of corporatist interest and of slowness in

institutional decision-making. The second is aimed at deconstructing the traditional

space occupied by academics’ professional (Olssen & Peters 2005) values and

norms by limiting their autonomy in teaching and research (such as institutional-

ising control technologies as the quality assurance mechanisms) and by forcing

them to submit to the institutional policies, strategies and objectives. The third is

connected to the attempts to redesign (coercively and inductively) the traditional

conceptions of professionalism (Olssen & Peters 2005; Reed 2002; Fulton 2003) by

adapting them, or making them conform to the new higher education institutions’

enterprise model and culture-like forms and market challenges (competition,

compliance with managerial objectives and with line management structures and

outputs controls).

In this context, managerialism narratives are interpreted as a conceptual and

beliefs system to ‘conduct the conducts’ (Foucault 1991) of public institutions and

professionals to achieve the state’s political strategies on the reconfiguring of higher

education institutions’ organisational field. Managerialism also emerges as a

cultural tool to ‘manage’ the academics’ subjectivity. It is a strategic tool for

corporate governance aimed at inducing academics to intensify their commitment

and contribution (as human resources) to improve higher education institution

productivity.

In this sense, NPM emerges as an alternative managerial model – a state-directed

system of rationalisation (Wernick 2003) - vis-a-vis the traditional cultural and

professional one connected to Humboldtian and welfare organisation principles.


123

The analysis of the empirical data derived for this study shows that manage-rialism narratives are identified in the organisational field, but they have not been

accepted by the majority of the academics interviewed acting at either the

organisational middle level (presidents of the academic and pedagogical boards) or

the low co-ordinating level (directors of teaching programmes). One can say that

these academics acknowledge the strong political attempts to move higher education

institutions from the traditional ways of functioning towards the concentration of

power according to the central governance and performance culture model but this

has not been completely transferred to the organisational field.

In fact, the main results derived from our analysis demonstrate that the majority

of the academics interviewed are very critical of the top-down and bottom-up

managerial models of higher education institutions’ governance and management.

They prefer the bottom-up collegial model as the main locus of the decision-making

processes. This emerges also as an important insight into understanding why

academics’ commitment to their basic units is still an important ‘organiser’ of their

organisational and professional subjective background, when faced with complex

and contradictory decentralisation vs. centralisation games. Finally, the majority of

academics seem to be very sceptical vis-a-vis the managerialism narratives as a new

‘code’ or a new ‘grammar’ enlightening their professional subjectivities. Even if

they all recognise the presence of management narratives, they look at them in two

different ways: as an opposed discursive logic or as a pragmatic and unavoidable

tool. In neither case, however, have their subjectivities been colonised and they are

still operating within an academic logic. Actually, the majority do not feel

themselves to be part of the higher education institutions’ managerialisation and

marketisation. They can be the ‘intended recipients’ (Fulton 2003, p. 173) of this

‘game’ yet the majority are still committed to the collegial culture and forms of the

institutional decision process. However, almost all feel that they are losing the

power to influence the institutional decision-making process.

Nevertheless, these academics acknowledge that the collegial model must be

reformed in a more rational way, such as by having fewer members on fewer

collegial bodies. This would provide flexibility and promptness in the academic,

pedagogical and management decisions. Some academics also claim they now have

more participation in higher education institution strategic decisions, but more in

accordance with academic and collegial logic, than with managerial logic. However,

no differences were observed between academics belonging to the old university

and the new one in our sample, nor were there differences between academics from

universities and polytechnics. In the case of the old university, its organisational

structure is based on faculties with a strong autonomous tradition, whereas the two

polytechnics’ organisational structure is built around schools that are recent but also

have strong experiences of autonomy. In fact, polytechnics’ structure is based on the

association of autonomous schools. This can help in understanding the commitment

from the majority of these professionals to a system based on collegial power.

However, in the new university, historically based on departmental structures,

where more power is concentrated at the top administration level (rectorate), the

majority of the academics that were involved in this study reported that they were


123

still linked to the academic logic and the collegial mode of higher education

institution functioning.

Academics interviewed in these higher education institutions do not assume

managerialism narratives as normal in their discourses. In fact, it seems that

managerialism is still a well recognised and contextual notion (Bourdieu 2000) for

this sample of academics in middle management positions in higher education in

Portugal.

Acknowledgments This study was supported by a grant from FCT (Fundacao para a Ciencia e

Tecnologia-Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology): PTDC/CPE-PEC/104759/2008.

References

Amancio, Lıgia. 2005. Reflections on science as a gendered endeavour: Changes and continuities. SocialScience Information 44: 65–83.

Amaral, Alberto, Antonio Magalhaes, and Rui Santiago. 2003. The rise of academic managerialism in

Portugal. In The higher education managerial revolution?, eds. Alberto Amaral, Lynn Meek, and

Ingvild M. Larsen, 101–123. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Baldridge, J.Victor. 1971. Power and conflict in the university. New York: Wiley.

Barnett, Ronald. 2004. Beyond all reason: Living with ideology in the university. Buckingham: SRHE and

Open University Press.

Becker, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories. London: The Society for

Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Bleiklie, Ivar, and Svein Michelsen. 2008. The university as enterprise and academic co-detremination.

In From governance to identity. A festschrift for Mary Henkel, eds. Alberto Amaral, Ivar Bleiklie,

and Christine Musselin, 57–80. London: Springer.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1989. Langage et Pouvoir Simbolique. Paris: Ed. du Seuil.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2000. Pascalian meditations. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2006. As estruturas sociais da economia. Porto: Campo das Letras.

Carvalho, Teresa, and Rui Santiago. 2010a. New public management and ‘middle-management’: How do

deans influence institutional policies? In The changing dynamics of higher education middlemanagement, eds. L. Meek, L. Goedegebuure, R. Santiago, and T. Carvalho. Berlin: Springer.

Carvalho, Teresa, and Rui Santiago. 2010b. New challenges for women seeking an academic career: The hiring

process in Portuguese HEIs. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 32(3): 239–249.

Carvalho, Teresa, and Rui Santiago. 2010c. Still academics after all. Higher Education Policy 23:

397–411.

Clarke, John, and Janet Newman. 1997. The managerial state. London: Sage.

Cohen, Michael, and James March. 1986. Leadership and ambiguity—The American college president.New York: Carnegie/McGraw-Hill.

Considine, Mark. 2001. The tragedy of common-rooms? Political science and the new university

governance. Australian Journal of Political Science 36(1): 145–158.

Costea, Bogdan, Norman Crump, and Kostas Amiridis. 2007. Managerialism and « infinite human

resourcefulness »: a commentary on the « therapeutic habitus », « derecogniton of finitude » and the

modern sense of self. Journal for Cultural Research 1: 245–264.

de Weert, Egbert. 2001. Pressures and prospects facing the academic profession in the Netherlands.

Higher Education 41: 77–101.

Dearlove, John. 2002. A continuing role for academics: The governance of UK universities in the post-

Dearing era. Higher Education Quarterly 56: 257–275.

Deem, Rosemary, Sam Hillyard, and Mike Reed. 2007. Knowledge, higher education, and the newmanagerialism, the changing management of UK universities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Enders, Jurgen, Harry de Boer, and Liudvika Leisyte. 2008. On striking the right notes: Shifts in

governance and organisational transformations of universities. In From governance to identity. Afestschrift for Mary Henkel, eds. Alberto Amaral, Ivar Bleiklie, and Christine Musselin, 113–130.

London: Springer.


123

Enteman, Willard. 1993. Managerialism. London: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Ferlie, Ewan, Lynn Ashburner, Louise Fitzgerald, and Andrew Pettigrew. 1996. The new publicmanagement in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Foucault, Michel. 1975. Vigiar e Punir. Petropolis: Vozes.

Foucault, Michel. 1991. Governmentality. In The Foucault effect, studies in governmentality, eds.

Graham Burchel, Collin Gordon, and Peter Miller, 87–104. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Friedberg, Erhard, and Christine Musselin. 1992. En quete d’universites: etude comparee des universitesen France et en RFA. Paris: L’Harmattan.

Friedberg, Erhard, and Christine Musselin. 1993. L’Etat face aux universities en France et en Allemagne.

Paris: Antthropos.

Fulton, Oliver. 2003. Managerialism in UK universities: Unstable hybridity and the complications of

implementation. In The higher education managerial revolution?, eds. Alberto Amaral, Lynn Meek,

and Ingvild M. Larsen, 155–178. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Glaser, Barney. 1978. Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill

Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Hood, Christopher. 1991. A public management for all seasons? Public Administration 69(Spring): 3–19.

Jean-Francois, Lyotard. 1984. The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge, vol. 10. Minnesota:

University of Minnesota Press.

Meek, Lynn. 2002. On the road to mediocrity? Governance and management of Australian higher

education in the market place. In Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutionalgovernance, eds. Alberto Amaral, Glen A. Jones, and Berit Karseth, 235–260. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Meek, Lynn. 2003. Governance and management of Australian higher education; Enemies within and

without. In The higher education managerial revolution?, eds. Alberto Amaral, Lynn Meek, and

Ingvild M. Larsen, 149–171. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Meek, Lynn, Leo Goedegebuure, Rui Santiago, and Teresa Carvalho. 2010. Introduction. In The changingdynamics of higher education middle management, eds. Meek, Lynn, Goedegebuure, Leo, Santiago,

Rui and Carvalho, Teresa, 1st ed., 1–14. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York: Series Higher

Education Dynamics, Springer. ISBN: 978-90-481-9162-8.

Middlehurst, Robin, and Lewis Elton. 1992. Leadership and management in higher education. Studies inHigher Education 17: 251–265.

Miller, Henry. 1995. The management of changes in universities. Buckingham: SHRE/Open University

Press.

Miller, Henry. 1998. Managing academics in Canada and the United Kingdom. International Studies inSociology of Education 8: 3–24.

Milles, Matthew, and A. Michael Huberman. 1984. Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of newmethods. Bevery Hills, CA: Sage.

Musselin, Christine. 2008. Towards a sociology of academic work. In From governance to identity. Afestschrift for Mary Henkel, eds. Alberto Amaral, Ivar Bleiklie, and Christine Musselin, 47–56.

London: Springer.

Neave, Guy, and Frans van Vught. 1994. Changing relationship between government and highereducation in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Olssen, Mark, and Michael A. Peters. 2005. Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge

economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Educational Policy 20:

313–345.

Peters, J. Thomas, and Robert H. Waterman. 1984. In search of excellence. New York: Warner Book

Edition.

Readings, Bill. 1997. The university in ruins. Cambridge/MA: Harvard University Press.

Reed, Michael. 2002. New managerialism, professional power and organisational governance in UK

universities: A review and assessment. In Governing higher education: National perspectives oninstitutional governance, eds. Alberto Amaral, Glen A. Jones, and Berit Karseth, 163–186.

Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Santiago, Rui, and Teresa Carvalho. 2004. Effects of managerialism on the perceptions of higher

education in Portugal. Higher Education Policy 17: 427–444.

Santiago, Rui, and Teresa Carvalho. 2008. Academics in a new work environment: The impact of new

public management on work conditions. Higher Education Quarterly 62: 204–223.

Santiago, Rui, Teresa Carvalho, Alberto Amaral, and Lynn Meek. 2006. Changing patterns in the middle

management of higher education institutions: The case of Portugal. Higher Education 52: 215–250.


123

Scott, Peter. 1995. The meaning of mass higher education. Buckingham: The Society for Research into

Higher Education and Open University Press.

Sotirakou, Tatiana. 2004. Coping with conflict within the entrepreneurial university: Threat or challenge

for heads of departments in the UK higher education context. International Review of AdministrativeScience 70: 345–372.

Toren, Nina. 2001. Women in academe: The Israel case. International Journal of Sociology and SocialPolicy 21: 50–56.

Weick, Karl. 1976. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 21: 1–19.

Wernick, Andrew. 2003. Academic horizons. Theory, Culture & Society 20: 41–147.

Winchester, Hilary, Shard Lorenzo, Lyn Browning, and Colleen Chesterman. 2006. Academic women’s

promotions in Australian universities. Employee Relations 28: 505–522.

Author Biographies

Rui Santiago is associate professor in the department of social political and territorial sciences at the

University of Aveiro, and he is senior researcher at CIPES.

Teresa Carvalho is auxiliary professor in the department of social political and territorial sciences at the

University of Aveiro, and she is senior researcher at CIPES.


123

Date post:	04-Dec-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	teresa
View:	213 times
Download:	1 times

Managerialism Rhetorics in Portuguese Higher Education

Documents