Session Information
22 SES 02 D, University Governance: Rankings & Profiles
Paper Session
Contribution
Until the 20th century, higher education in Europe was governed by two main actors – the state and the academic community. The recent decades have seen the rise of what Hans Weiler calls a “new game” in higher education (Weiler, 2000, p. 333). While the old game was a “straightforward and rather boring affair” (Weiler 2000, p. 333) involving only two players, there is now a third player in the game called “the market”.
The new player proved most assertive in Central and Eastern Europe, where a market-oriented conception of higher education was promoted in the post-communist transition by institutions such as the World Bank, OECD, and the Soros Foundation (Weiler, 2000). In the wake of the political transformation, market-based principles were incorporated into legislation across the region to expand higher education provision and access. In Poland in particular, reforms of the early 1990s followed the market-based model of higher education (Clark, 1986). The state set the sector loose, adopting a neo-liberal “policy of no policy”. Neo-institutional scholars predicted that higher education (HE) in Poland would continue to converge towards a market-based model of HE governance, especially as they joined the Bologna Process. These predictions, however, have not come true.
Left to themselves by the state in the post-communist transition, universities reverted back to the “Humboldtian” tradition of they had known before World War II, emphasizing higher education as a public good, and the university as a guardian of the European humanist tradition. In an era of enormous massification, the academic establishment in Poland remained strongly attached to the notions of academic self-rule in a disinterested quest for new knowledge, without specific purpose to social or economic development (Szostek, 2004; Maliszewski, 2007).
The aim of this paper is to investigate the factors accounting for the persistence of the “Humboldtian” model of the university in a country that had otherwise been a model of policy convergence towards the market model (Dobbins, 2011).
Method
Expected Outcomes
References
Clark, B. R. (1986). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Dobbins, M. (2011). Higher Education Policies in Central and Eastern Europe: Convergence Towards a Common Model?. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Maliszewski, T. (2007). Zmiany instutucjonalne w szkolnictwie wyższym w kontekście wyzwań współczesności (Institutional changes in higher education in the context of the challenges of modernity). Nauka I Szkolnictwo Wyższe, 1(29), 57–73. Szostek, A. (2004). Morality, culture, and modernity: challenges to the university. Higher Education in Europe, 29(4), 467–474. Weiler, H. N. (2000). States, markets and university funding: New paradigms for the reform of higher education in Europe. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 30(3), 333–339. Wise, A. K. (2010). Postcolonial anxiety in Polish nationalist rhetoric. The Polish Review, 55(3), 285–304.
Update Modus of this Database
The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER.
Search the ECER Programme
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.