Abstract
The chapter uses an empirical study of the introduction of performance-based funding in German medical departments to argue that academics might not lose their autonomy within the institutional structure of their departments. This finding is contrary to theoretical claims that recent university reforms have taken autonomy from academics and given it to university administrators. Document analyses and 22 key informant interviews were conducted and showed that senior members of the departments examined were often even able to increase their autonomy in comparison to more recently tenured academics, who indeed seem to be more affected by reforms. At the same time, university administrators have gained some autonomy and authority within German medical departments. The findings suggest that the distribution of autonomy through new public management inspired governance reforms at universities is not a zero-sum game, and certain win-win situations are possible – especially when factors such as reputation and seniority are taken into account.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Measuring the quality of publications like this is extremely controversial since the journal impact factor does not reflect the impact of a single article. For an introduction into the subject see Decker et al. (2004).
- 2.
Medicine seems to be the forerunner in this case because of its perceived generally poor international performance, as explained at the beginning of the next section.
- 3.
Whereas deans and vice-deans in Germany are elected from within the group of professors at a department for a limited time to fulfill this administrative office, Forschungsreferent/innen manage departments’ research activities without being researchers themselves. Albeit this position is lower in the management’s hierarchy than deans and vice-deans, there are typically no term limits.
- 4.
In the German science system, the DFG is the dominant agency to distribute third-party funding for science. This is done through highly a competitive and highly reputable system, which relies heavily on peer review. The DFG and the WR evaluate and advise scientific institutions, give opinions on science policy, and mediate between science and politics.
References
Baker, D., & Lenhardt, G. (2008). The institutional crisis of the German research university. Higher Education Policy, 21, 49–64.
Bogner, A., & Menz, W. (2005 [2002]). Expertenwissen und Forschungspraxis: die modernisierungstheoretische und die methodische Debatte um die Experten. Zur Einfuehrung in ein unuebersichtliches Problemfeld. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung (pp. 7–30). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Bogner, A., Littig, B., & Menz, W. (Eds.). (2005 [2002]). Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Bourdieu, P. (1984). Homo academicus. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Braun, D. (1997). Die politische Steuerung der Wissenschaft: Ein Beitrag zum “kooperativen Staat”. Frankfurt, Main/New York: Campus.
Braun, D., & Merrien, F.-X. (Eds.). (1999). Towards a new model of governance for universities? A comparative view. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
De Boer, H., Enders, J., & Schimank, U. (2007). On the way towards new public management? The governance of university systems in England, the Netherlands, Austria, and Germany. In D. Jansen (Ed.), New forms of governance in research organizations (pp. 137–152). Dordrecht: Springer.
Decker, O., Beutel, M., & Braehler, E. (2004). Deep impact—evaluation in the sciences. Sozial- und Praeventivmedizin, 49, 10–14.
DFG. (1999). Denkschrift klinische Forschung. Bonn.
Feller, I. (2009). Performance measurement and the governance of American academic science. Minerva, 47, 323–344.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.
Huether, O. (2010). Von der Kollegialitaet zur Hierarchie? Eine Analyse des New Managerialism in den Landeshochschulgesetzen. Dissertation Universitaet Hamburg.
Kehm, B., & Lanzendorf, U. (Eds.). (2006). Reforming university governance. Changing conditions for research in four European countries. Bonn: Lemmens.
Kruecken, G., Meier, F., & Mueller, A. (2007). Information, cooperation, and the blurring of boundaries—technology transfer in German and American discourses. Higher Education, 53(6), 675–696.
March, J. G. (1981). Footnotes to organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(4), 563–577.
Martin, B., & Whitley, R. (2010). The UK research assessment exercise. In R. Whitley, J. Glaeser, & L. Engwall (Eds.), Reconfiguring knowledge production (pp. 51–80). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2003). Experteninterview. In R. Bohnsack, W. Marotzki, & M. Meuser (Eds.), Hauptbegriffe Qualitativer Sozialforschung. Ein Woerterbuch (pp. 57–59). Opladen: Leske und Budrich.
Meuser, M., & Nagel, U. (2005 [1991]). ExpertInneninterviews—vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht. Ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Das Experteninterview. Theorie, Methode, Anwendung (pp. 71–93). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.
Muench, R. (2007). Die akademische Elite: Zur sozialen Konstruktion wissenschaftlicher Exzellenz. Frankfurt, Main: Suhrkamp.
Muench, R. (2009). Globale Eliten, lokale Autoritäten: Bildung und Wissenschaft unter dem Regime von PISA. Frankfurt, Main: McKinsey & Co, Suhrkamp.
Muench, R. (2011). Akademischer Kapitalismus: Über die politische Ökonomie der Hochschulreform. Frankfurt, Main: Suhrkamp.
Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Power, M. (1997). The audit society. Rituals of verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schimank, U. (2005). ‘New public management’ and the academic profession: Reflections on the German situation. Minerva, 43(4), 361–376.
Schuetze, F. (1977). Die Technik des narrativen Interviews in Interaktionsfeldstudien—dargestellt an einem Projekt zur Erforschung von kommunalen Machtstrukturen. Manuscript.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Whitley, R. (2007). Changing governance of public sciences: The consequences of establishing research evaluation systems for knowledge production in different countries and scientific fields. In R. Whitley & J. Glaeser (Eds.), The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems (pp. 3–27). Dordrecht: Springer.
WR. (1999). Empfehlungen zur Struktur der Hochschulmedizin. Bonn.
Acknowledgments
The project GOMED is financed by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under the research initiative “New Governance of Science.” I gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of my colleagues Dr René Krempkow and Joerg Neufeld from the Institute for Research Information and Quality Assurance (iFQ), as well as the feedback of the science policy research group at the Social Science Research Center Berlin and Uta Landrock (also iFQ). I am also indebted to Jeff Purchla for his advice and support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Schulz, P. (2014). The Conflict Between “New” and “Old” Governance Following the Introduction of Performance-Based Funding in German Medical Departments. In: Musselin, C., Teixeira, P. (eds) Reforming Higher Education. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 41. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7028-7_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7028-7_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7027-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7028-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)