<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S Diogo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Milka Barbosa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Teresa Carvalho</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">An International Comparative Perspective on Higher Education Institutions’ Governance and Management – Portugal, Finland, and Brazil</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Intercultural Studies in Higher Education</style></secondary-title><tertiary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Intercultural Studies in Education</style></tertiary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brazil</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Finland</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Globalization</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Governance</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Higher Education Institutions</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">International organizations</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">new public management</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Portugal</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2019</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-15758-6_5</style></url></web-urls></urls><edition><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A. Moreira, P. Jen-Jacques, N. Bagnall </style></edition><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.</style></publisher><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">109–133</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Reforms in higher education (HE) in the last decades have been influenced by global and international trends associated with two parallel processes: questioning of the nation-state and the gradual decomposition of the welfare state (Carvalho and Santiago in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Professionalism, Managerialism and Reform in Higher Education and the Health Services: The European Welfare State and the Rise of the Knowledge Society.&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;Palgrave Macmillan, 2015; Kwiek in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Higher Education in Europe&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;26:27–38, 2001). These processes intersect with the influence of neo-liberal ideas, strongly diffused by international organizations (Amaral and Neave in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;International Organizations and Higher Education Policy: Thinking Globally, Acting Locally.&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;Routledge, London, pp. 82–98, 2009; Ball in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Policy Futures in Education&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;14:1046–1059, 2016). According to Stephan Ball (&lt;em&gt;Policy Futures in Education&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;14:1046–1059, 2016), neo-liberal influences in HE can be summarized by three interrelated and interdependent technologies: market, management, and performance. These technologies were translated in the emergence of new management and governance models within higher education institutions (HEIs) in such a way that institutional governance became an international issue (Reed and Meek in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance&lt;/em&gt;. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. xv–xxxi, 2002). It has been acknowledged that changes in governance and management structures in HE all over the world include transformations in the Humboldtian principles of organization along with changes in the collegial model of decision-making and a redefinition of power relations, where external stakeholders and new professionals assume a relevant role within academia (Capano in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Public Administration&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;89:1622–1642, 2011; Reed and Meek in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance&lt;/em&gt;. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. xv–xxxi, 2002; Welch in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Higher Education in Southeast Asia: Blurring Borders, Changing Balance&lt;/em&gt;. Taylor &amp;amp; Francis, 2011), with implications on academics’ work (Blackmore et al. in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Re-positioning University Governance and Academic Work&lt;/em&gt;. Sense Publishers, 2010; Carvalho and Santiago in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Higher Education Policy&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;23:397–411, 2010; Marginson in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;22:23–35, 2000). Nevertheless, few comparative international perspectives have been developed, especially when considering the need to include countries with distinct historical processes of nation-state creation, different welfare state models and diverse levels of economic development, and social and cultural characteristics. There is, indeed, a study gap on New Public Management (NPM) constructs and their application “with little understanding of several important cultural dimensions” (Stromquist in&amp;nbsp;&lt;em&gt;Compare&lt;/em&gt;&amp;nbsp;30:261–264, 2000). This chapter compares the perceived changes in HEI management and its impact on academics in three countries: Brazil, Finland, and Portugal. Data analysis relies on a qualitative approach, empirically based on 70 interviews conducted in the 3 countries to top and middle academic managers, following the same interviewing guidelines. Despite significant differences in systems’ organization and funding, cultures’ governance and management, and professionals’ and students’ profiles, there are more similar views on changes in governance and management and its impact on academics than expected. In these countries, academics expressed similar views on the increased influence of a management culture within their institutions and a loss of professional autonomy.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>5</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S Diogo</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Teresa Carvalho</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">A. Amaral</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institutionalism and Organisational Change</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The Palgrave International Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">European High Education Area</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">High Education Policy</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Historical Institutionalism</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institutional Actor</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Institutional Theory</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2015</style></year></dates><urls><web-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-45617-5_7</style></url></web-urls></urls><edition><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. Dill, M. Souto-Otero </style></edition><publisher><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Palgrave Macmillan </style></publisher><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">London</style></pub-location><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">114-131</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Institutional theory usually refers to a broad group of perspectives that interpret the relationship between institutions and human behaviour, assuming that not only human actions (i.e. behaviour, perceptions, power, policy preferences, decision-making processes) shape institutions, but these are also influenced by them. More specifically, institutionalism focuses on the need of organizations to adapt to their institutional environment, such as norms, rules and understandings about what is an acceptable or normal behaviour and that cannot be changed easily and/or instantaneously (March and Olsen, 1984; Meyer and Rowan, 1977). It argues that organizations take rules and norms for granted because they seem obvious or natural. Failure to act in accordance with norms and expectations may lead to conflict and illegitimacy. Changes occurring at the institutional field of higher education (HE) are said to increasingly constrain higher education institutions (HEIs). Given this, it is increasingly relevant to analyse the development of institutionalist theories and the way they have been adapted to the HE field.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">S Diogo</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Implementing the Bologna process in Portugal and in Finland: National and institutional realities in perspective</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of the European Higher Education Area</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year></dates><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">35-54</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;Based on a comparative study on recent reforms in Finnish and Portuguese higher education (HE) systems, this article examines the modalities of the political organisation of the Bologna process within these countries. After recognising the role of national backgrounds within the setting of the broad changes that have affected higher education institutions (HEIs) during the last decade, this article analyses the contexts, the processes and the instruments of policy implementation in both settings. It aims to understand how each country’s historical and cultural specificities determined national and institutional responses. At the same time, the study sheds some light on the operationalisation of the binary organisation of both HE systems after implementing the Bologna declaration. The course of action in both countries is interpreted according to actors’ perceptions of the significance attributed to the Bologna reform.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record></records></xml>