The university is under change: the “postmodern university” can be characterized by increasing diversity, disagreement and difference, - both between and within institutions. Values and institutions are “freed from the fixities, or givens of tradition” and instead become constructed and “frequently reconstructed” (Smith and Webster 1997). The identities of place, time, scholarly community and the student community are changing (Bridges and Mclaughlin 2007). In Europe, this process takes place in the situation of financial, sustainability and demographic crisis, which imposes high expectations on university as a societal institution (Empower European Universities. Manifesto 2010). As a part of the university empowerment strategy a variety of teaching enhancing policies emerge. The development of university teachers becomes a subject to planned and institutionalized professional developmet practices (Müller-Bölig 2005, p. 340). The acceptability of these programs on behalf of teaching academics becomes the subject to ongoing debate in Germany and is embedded into the history of the German university (Humboldt-principle on the entity of teaching and research on one hand, and the education  system affected by academic oligarchies, devaluation of teaching, - on the other)  (Schimank 2001, p. 148). There is a need for a broad perspective on the policies based on development studies to “disembed” their evaluation and design from the national context. The research question of the current study is: how the implementation of university policies and organizational practices aimed at teaching function affect professional functionings of teaching academics. The critical perspective on human development of the capability approach (Bonvin, Farvaque, 2006, p. 125) makes the basis of the analytical model proposed in the paper. The model includes four dimensions, such as: 1.    Vector of commodities: a. demographic characteristics, b. resources supporting teaching function at the faculty. 2.     Professional capabilities: individual capability sets of teaching academics  (freedoms to achieve) (well-being, participation and empowerment, equity and diversity, sustainability) (Boni and Perez-Foguet 2008)   3.      Professional functionings (actual achievements). 4.     Meta-functionings evaluated against the criterion of policy-relevance.

The above elements of development process are linked one to another by the conversion factors, such as a. competing values on teaching (Lazega, Muonier 2002), faculty characteristics (approach in teaching (Lueddeke 2003), market orientation, conservative vs. innovative (Owen-Smith J.,  Powell W. 2003); b. the strategies of adjustment to power relations within organization) (resulting from organizational rigidity (Croizer 1964).

Functionings are analyzed on the organization level as well as in the context of the professional community and the labour market. The organizational rigidity manifesting in power relations and underlying supportive norms may cause adaptation strategies transforming the whole set of professional functionings.

Boni, A, Perez-Foguet, A. (2008) Introducing Development Education in Technical Universities: Successful Experiences in Spain, European Journal of Engineering Education, 33, 343-354. Bonvin J.-M., Farvaque N. (2006) Promoting Capability for Work: The Role of Local Actors. In: Transforming Unjust Structures. The Capability Approach/Deneulin S. (ed.). Springer. Bridges, D., Juceviciene P, Jucevicius R, McLaughlin T.H. and Stankeviciute, J. eds. (2007) Higher Education and National Development: Universities and Societies in Transition, London, Routledge/Falmer. Crozier, M. (1964) The Bureaucratic Phenomenon (M. Crozier, Trans.). London: Tavistock Publications. Empower European Universities. (2010) Manifesto. Expert Group on European Universities. Brussels. Lazega E., Mounier L. (2002) Interdependent Entrepreneurs And The Social Discipline of Their Cooperation: a research programme for structural economic sociology in a society of organizations, In : Favereau O., Lazega E. (Ed.), Conventions and Structures in Economic Organization. Lueddeke, G. (2003) Professionalising Teaching Practice in Higher Education: a study of disciplinary variation and teaching –scholarship. In: Studies in Higher Education, vol. 28, nº 2. Müller-Böling, D. (2005) Personalentwicklung für den wissenschaftlichen Nachwuchs. Mehr als ein Schüler-Lehrer-Verhältnis. In: Welte, Heike/Auer, Manfred/Meister-Scheytt, Claudia (Hg.): Management von Universitäten : zwischen Tradition und (Post-)Moderne. München u.a.: Hampp, S. 339-349. Owen-Smith J., Powell W. (2003) The Expanding Role of University Patenting in the Life Sciences: Assessing the Importance of Experience and Connectivity. Research Policy 32(9): 1695-1711. Smith A., Webster F. (eds.) (1997) The Postmodern University? Contested Visions of Higher Education in Society. Higher Education. Volume 37, Number 4, June 1999 , pp. 405-407(3). Schimank, U. (2005) Die akademische Profession und die Universitäten: New Public Management und eine drohende Entprofessionalisierung, in: Klatezki, T. / Tacke, V. (Hrsg.): Organisation und Profession, Wiesbaden, VS Verlag, 143-164. Witzel, A. (1985) Das problemzentrierte Interview. In: Jüttemann, G. (Hrsg.): Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie. Grundfragen, Verfahrensweisen, Anwendungsfelder, Weinheim/Basel:Beltz , 227-256. Heidelberg: Asanger.