The overarching question raised by this paper regards the extent to which interaction between different actor groups inside and outside the university push towards transformation of institutional identities, and what shape and content these transforming identities exhibit. In addressing this question, we distinguish analytically between four ideal types of organizational models of internal decision making corresponding to the following organizational models of university governance where the university is a: 1) public agency, 2) collective group of academics, 3) coalition of interest groups and 4) enterprise of stakeholders. Second, we suggest that perceptions of university leaders and decision makers gravitate towards different mixes in different politico-administrative regimes and administrative traditions. We distinguish between five different regime types; Public interest, Rechtstaat, social-democratic and Napoleonic. These regimes provide different habitats for university leaders as well as routes for change in perceptions. Third, we distinguish between different types of universities, between traditional research universities on the one hand and newer universities and specialized technical universities on the other. This allows closer investigation of perceptions, regimes and different types of universities as they are formed and re-formed in the “practical” world of university leaders.
The paper uses a unique data set from a comparative case study of 26 universities in eight different European countries characterized by a variety of policy regimes, administrative traditions and university traditions. We seek to address the question of variation in perceptions of university governance in terms of the four models outlined above along four dimensions: across politico-administrative regimes, reform policies, across institutions, across decision making functions and indirectly over time. As opposed to the usual comparative national studies, we compare university institutions as well as different types of university institutions. This gives us an opportunity to compare both across institutions and institutional types, across regimes and indirectly over time.
