Copy of Glonacal Agency Heuristic & Global Higher Education Matrix

Aim

• push for development policies that support pro-poor and democratically-defined sustainable development strategies.

• support the empowerment of Southern people to chart their own path towards development and ending poverty.

• seek a lasting and sustainable solution to the debt crisis, appropriate development financing, and a stable international financial system conducive to development.

“In the case of the IMF, the Fund imposes two types of policy conditions to its lending in poor countries – quantitative conditions and structural conditions. Quantitative conditions impose a set of macroeconomic targets on poor country governments determining, for example, the level of fiscal deficit a government is allowed to go into or the level of domestic credit allowed. Structural conditions, on the other hand, push for institutional and legislative policy reforms within countries. They include, for example, trade reform, price liberalisation and privatisation.”

Ex: An academic program manages revenues from its own student enrollments and research activities.

• Revenue up - more staff, new courses and bigger research space for the program.

• Revenue down - restructure curriculum and staff allocation, yield facilities to cover the costs.

References

Adams, E. M. (1997). Rationality in the Academy Why Responsibility Center Budgeting Is a Wrong Step Down the Wrong Road. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 29(5), 58-61.

California, U. o. (2012). UC Annual Financial Report. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://map.ais.ucla.edu/go/1002097

Dubeck, L. W. (1997). Beware higher ed’s newest budget twist. Thought and Action, 13(1), 81-91.

Enders, J. (2004). Higher education, internationalisation, and the nation-state: Recent developments and challenges to governance theory. Higher education, 47(3), 361-382.

Hou, Y.-C., Morse, R., Ince, M., Chen, H.-J., Chiang, C.-L., & Chan, Y. (2013). Is the Asian quality assurance system for higher education going glonacal? Assessing the impact of three types of program accreditation on Taiwanese universities. Studies in Higher Education, 1-23. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.818638

Jones, G. A., & Oleksiyenko, A. (2011). The internationalization of Canadian university research: A global higher education matrix analysis of multi-level governance. Higher education, 61(1), 41-57.

Kovach, H., & Lansman, Y. (2006). World Bank and IMF conditionality: a development injustice. A report of the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad).

Lang, D. W. (1999a). A primer on responsibility centre budgeting and responsibility centre management. CSSHE Professional File, 17, 1 - 24.

Lang, D. W. (1999b). Responsibility centre budgeting and responsibility centre management in theory and practice. Higher Education Management, 11(3), 81-112.

Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher education, 52(1), 1-39.

Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher education, 43(3), 281-309.

Oleksiyenko, A. (2013). Organizational Legitimacy of International Research Collaborations: Crossing Boundaries in the Middle East. Minerva, 1-21.

Oregon, T. U. o. (2013). Oregon Budget Model. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://budgetmodel.uoregon.edu/content/introduction-responsibility-centered-management

Strauss, J. C., & Curry, J. R. (2002). Responsibility Center Management: Lessons from 25 Years of Decentralized Management: ERIC.

Vaira, M. (2004). Globalization and higher education organizational change: A framework for analysis. Higher education, 48(4), 483-510.

Vidovich, L., O’Donoghue, T., & Tight, M. (2012). Transforming university curriculum policies in a global knowledge era: mapping a “global case study” research agenda. Educational Studies, 38(3), 283-295.

Wilms, W. W., Teruya, C., & Walpole, M. (1997). Fiscal reform at UCLA: The clash of accountability and academic freedom. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 29(5), 40-49.

Allomorphism

Institutional Agency

• Politically and socially highly legitimated agency, e.g. UNESCO, World Bank

• Define the appropriate and legitimate form for higher education in the global age

• Act as elaboration and dissemination agencies on a global scale by constructing a world polity that national higher education policies and institutions have to face when they operate

• A concept derived from linguistics

• In organizational term, it is a middle range theory to reconcile the two opposed streams of thoughts:

- Convergence thesis (new institutionalist approach)

- Divergence thesis (strategic and translation approach)

• Vaira’s (2004)’s definition: “Declension of a same pattern”

Human Agency

Questions

Focuses on the sensemaking and interpretation process whereby the organizational actors “receive, select, make sense of, interpret, combine, re-construct, use, in a word, translate them in the face of their organizational cultural and knowledge context of action and purposes”

European Network of

Debt and Development

1. Can universities reconcile global and local demands? How can they do it?

2. What is more important: human or institutional agency? 

3. What does it really mean in the practical work and governance of universities?

4. How do the Responsibility Center Management and Responsibility Center Budgeting and other budgeting arrangements in universities change the nature of governance and accountability at the understructure level?

Background

• A network of 48 non- governmental organizations from 19 European countries working on issues related to debt, development finance and poverty reduction.
• Offers a platform for exploring issues, collecting intelligence and ideas, and undertaking collective advocacy.
• The main institutions targeted by the Eurodad network are European governments, the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

how does the heuristic work?

think of it as

a universal packing list...

“The report reveals that impoverished countries still face an unacceptably high and rising number of conditions in order to gain access to World Bank and IMF development finance. On average poor countries face as many as 67 conditions per World Bank loan.”

http://eurodad.org

1. Can universities reconcile global and local demands? How can they do it?

• use heuristic / matrix approach to identify and understand agency activities and stakeholder demands at multiple planes and levels
• integrated analysis of the inter-relationship between e.g. stakeholder demands, economical pressure, global processes, local forces etc.

Decentralization &

Autonomy at Understructure

reconcile global and local demands by:

• prioritizing stakeholder
• create boundary objects to engage agency
• be entrepreneurial to diversify resources

Marginson and Rhoades:

2. What is more important: human or institutional agency?

What are MISSING

from the discussion?

• Both have the power to influence national HE.

- Institutions influence and cast policies at regional and global levels.

- Human agency = translators.

• multi-leveled analysis

"over-generalized conceptions!"

National economic institutional agency

National political institutional agency

National HE professional institutional agency

National economic human agency

National political human agency

National HE professional human agency

National

Institutional Agency

• global forces and processes
• institutional and human agency

• human and institutional agency
• glo-na-cal planes
• state - professional - market

Human Agency

• At research-intensive settings, Human agency is more important.

- Eyes at "ground level".

- Institutional agency reacts late.

• focus on organization and collective actions (agency)

• reciprocity - multiple directions of agency influences and activities

magnitude of agency influences and activities

• stronger ? weaker?
• direct? indirect?

• disconnections and conflicts between between multiple levels of governance
• research happens at the Understructure
• guided by opportunistic strategy of individual researchers
• resistant to top-down strategy, refuse to compromise research autonomy
• decentralization is the strategy

strength

3. What does it really mean in the practical work and governance of universities?

• international organizations, e.g. World Bank
• local HE institutions, e.g. HKU
• national units, e.g. UK Department for Education

The Understructure needs the "multi-level stakeholder" strategy.

• Maintaining network of stakeholders at different levels
• Boundary management
• A common goal and a clear organizational structure

• National system occupied the center of discussion
• Local responses to and variation of global processes can use more in-depth analysis
• Globalization is not a new concept, BUT literature of globalization in HE was quite thin

National institutional agency

For University governance,

• Glonacal - Just more sources of influence?
• How can a university reconcile such pressures and sound performance at the understructure?

Global economic institutional agency

Global political institutional agency

Global HE Professional institutional agency

Global institutional agency

Global economic institutional agency

Global political institutional agency

Gobal HE Professional institutional agency

Local institutional agency

Global economic institutional agency

Global political institutional agency

Gobal HE Professional institutional agency

• organization or individual
• has power to take actions

4. How do the Responsibility Center Management, the Responsibility Center Budgeting and other budgeting arrangements in universities change the nature of governance and accountability at the understructure level?

Global HE professional institutional agency

National HE professional institutional agency

Local HE professional institutional agency

Global HE professional human agency

National HE professional human agency

Local HE professional human agency

&

HE professional

institutional agency

HE professional

human agency

• collective or individual human actions
• social groups such as student societies
• actions of individual researcher

conditions

layers

• Burton Clark's Triangle
• an important heuristic for comparative studies
• analyze state, market and professional control over HE in different countries

• agency influences and activities are layered on-top of history and current conditions

Global Higher

Education Matrix

Responsibility Center Management (RCM)

Superstructure

Internationalization of

Canadian University Research

spheres

Federal Level

• focus on national agenda
• not supportive for international research activities

• scope of agency activities and influences

Analyzing agency

influence and activity

Glo-na-cal analysis

Multi-level governance

+

Marginson & Rhoades (2002)

Burton Clark (1983)

Structure

Institutional Level

• 1991 Edward Whalen @ Indiana University

• Rooted in decentralization in 70s.
• Reaction to state funding cut.

• although, institution recognized the importance of internationalizing research
• due to lack of federal and provincial funding
• when faced with “demand overload,”
• placed a low priority on internationalization of research

Big Surprise!

Result: High level of international research

Faculty Level

Understructure

• Despite lack of centralized supports
• HIGH level of international research activities at both Faculties of Education and Medicine.

.

• A university section takes both responsibilities and autonomy in managing itself.

Advancement from

Marginson & Rhaodes

• a result of unorganized grass-root effort
• globalization put pressure on individual researcher to engage in more international projects
• individual researchers pursuit funding outside national, provincial, institutional frameworks to finance their international projects

• An integrated and holistic analysis
• Glonacal: research emphasis on multiple planes of international, national, local
• Multi-level: Federal, provincial, institutional, faculty
• Reciprocity: dynamic interactions of multi-level policy perspective and initiatives

Where are they applied?

• Indiana University
• University of Southern California
• University of Michigan
• University of Pennsylvania
• University of Colorado
• Kent State University
• University of Oregon
• University of Toronto
• etc...

• Variations at private schools.

a.k.a., Responsibility Center Budget, Value-Centered Management, Incentives-Based Planning and Budgeting....

Critics

Effects

Impact on Academics

• Only visible outomes count
• Applied vs Basic research
• Research activities bound by fiscal years

• The Understructure gains greater autonomy.
• Able to focus on "what should be focused" over agendas from above.

Impact on students

• Only "popular" courses are offered
• Prestigious scholars focusing on research, lower-paid teaching staff
• Popular programs may charge more

• Performance directly reflected.
• Responsibility and better understanding of operations and finance.
• Active engagement with markets.

• Better allocation of limited resources.

Impact on Organization

• Works for disciplines with strong positions.

- Can "weaker" ones survive?

ex: Is Divinity less important than Engineering?

• Researchers are not managers or accountants.
• Still require professional managers ----

- Where's academic management?

- Does that cost?

- Just a small-scale Structure?

• Stronger administrative control?

Does it really work?

• Criticized by many, including university leaders.

• Public universities out of budget shortages.
• Arizona & Washington newly joined.

- Often a financial approach from the Structure level

- Case of UCLA: opted out from RCM, implemented a new model - joint effort by Admin. and Academics.