Conference Agenda

In many European countries, university governance models have undergone modernization, the hallmarks of which manifest in new (modernized) university boards. These governing bodies hold power, both formal and informal, to influence institutional policy and are frequently seen as institutions encapsulating the changing role of universities. In Poland, the HE law of 2018 (Law 2.0) also introduced ‘university boards’ with a mandatory presence of external members (Urbanek 2025). By doing so, it provides only a general legal framework and only basic guidelines regarding their structure and jurisdiction, leaving individual higher education institutions with some leeway to adopt them (Antonowicz et al 2022, Donina et al 2024).

Therefore, the aim of this study is to examine how public universities in Poland have (a) adopted and (b) arranged the concept of ‘university boards’ in their institutional governance structure. Yet, the research question is how the academic communities responded to the government coercive pressure to establish new governing bodies and outline their powers. Conceptually, this study draws from institutional theory that sheds light on how ideas and organizational concepts are being translated and adapted into specific institutional settings (Czarniawska & Sevón, 2005).

This empirical study is based on a thorough analysis of internal governance arrangements codified in university statutes of all public universities in Poland (n=124). We examined how the academic communities envisioned the role of university boards in their institutional governance structure, how these bodies were designed and what (if any) additional powers were assigned to them. The results of this study demonstrate some interesting disparities between individual institutions in Poland. It suggests that the concept of university boards has been subject to diverging institutional translations and adaptations despite similar sectoral circumstances and policy narratives accompanying the HE reform process.

The premise of the study is driven by pure curiosity though it is also designed to inform leaders and administrators of how university boards can be used to foster and professionalize institutional governance. The study is meant to provide insights for decision-makers by showcasing the prevalent practices in designing the structure and powers of university boards.

This study highlights that effective reform design cannot solely rely on agreed legal frameworks, but should also consider institutional policy translators and their interpretations. Regardless of its coherence or supposed collective support for a particular policy concept, framework reforms are further shaped by actors who translate, adapt, and implement them within specific institutional contexts. Recognizing these diverging translations is essential in successful implementations thereof.

The debate surrounding binary versus unitary systems in European higher education remains central to discussions about institutional diversity, equity, and sector positioning (Teichler, 2008; van Vught, 2008). Despite decades of policy experimentation, questions persist about whether formal system architecture actually shapes institutional behavior as intended. This paper addresses the research question: To what extent does formal system architecture (binary vs. unitary) shape institutional behavior and prestige hierarchies in the Dutch, Norwegian, and Austrian higher education systems, and what mechanisms explain the gap between policy design and institutional reality?

Drawing on Stensaker's (2015) extensive research on organizational change and institutional identity in higher education, we examine how formal system architecture shapes institutional behavior, prestige hierarchies, and sector relationships. Stensaker and Benner's (2013) work on "reputational competition" and their analysis of quality assurance mechanisms provide crucial analytical frameworks for understanding why formally unified systems often develop de facto stratification, while binary systems may exhibit surprising patterns of mission drift and academic convergence.

Theoretical Framework

This study applies Stensaker's (2007, 2014) theoretical lens on organizational identity and institutional translation to understand how higher education institutions interpret and respond to differentiation policies. We examine the interplay between formal system structures and informal reputational hierarchies, exploring how institutions engage in sense-making processes that may reinforce or subvert policy intentions (Stensaker & Norgård, 2001). The framework allows us to analyze both isomorphic pressures toward convergence and the potential for genuine institutional diversity within different system architectures.

Methodology

This study employs a mixed-methods comparative approach combining systematic literature analysis with qualitative expert interviews across all three countries (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017)

Main Findings

Our analysis reveals several paradoxes that challenge conventional assumptions about system design. The Dutch binary system, despite its formal separation, shows evidence of "academic drift" as HBO institutions pursue research ambitions and international positioning traditionally associated with universities (Kyvik, 2004; Lepori et al., 2007). Interview data from Dutch ministry officials and HBO leaders confirm tensions between policy intentions for sector differentiation and institutional aspirations for academic legitimacy. Simultaneously, Dutch universities face increasing policy pressure toward valorization and regional engagement—traditionally core HBO missions—suggesting bidirectional convergence rather than unilateral academic drift (Harwood, 2010).

Norway's unitary system, conversely, maintains clear informal hierarchies between former university colleges and established universities, suggesting that eliminating structural boundaries does not automatically produce institutional equality (Kyvik, 2009; Stensaker et al., 2012).

Austria's Fachhochschulen sector occupies an intriguing middle ground—formally separate yet increasingly integrated into broader academic landscapes through European qualifications frameworks and research funding mechanisms (Neave, 2006; Witte et al., 2008). Austrian experts highlighted the sector's unique positioning between vocational orientation and academic ambition, creating distinctive legitimacy patterns.

Our comparative approach illuminates how context shapes the relationship between system structure and institutional behavior. The Netherlands' vocational education tradition provides HBO institutions with strong industry connections and regional embeddedness (Griffioen & de Jong, 2015), resources less available to Norwegian state university colleges despite formal parity with universities. Austria's apprenticeship culture influences how Fachhochschulen are perceived relative to traditional universities (Graf, 2013).

Conclusions and Implications

Our comparative analysis reveals a systematic pattern: binary systems generate convergence pressures despite formal separation, while unitary systems reproduce stratification despite formal parity. This paradox suggests that the gap between policy design and institutional reality is not a temporary implementation problem to be solved through better policy instruments, but rather a structural feature of how higher education systems operate. Formal reforms interact with deeply embedded cultural norms, historical trajectories, and reputational mechanisms that operate according to their own logic.

For policymakers, these findings carry an uncomfortable implication: structural reforms alone cannot solve differentiation challenges. Redesigning system architecture without addressing underlying reputational dynamics and cultural legitimacy frameworks produces expensive reorganizations with limited substantive impact. Effective policy requires acknowledging that prestige hierarchies cannot be engineered away, and that institutional diversity emerges from genuine mission alignment rather than formal categorization.

Reopening Pandora's box on system differentiation reveals complex interdependencies that defy simple policy solutions. Policymakers must recognize that formal system reforms interact with deeply embedded cultural norms, historical trajectories, and reputational mechanisms. For applied sciences institutions, these findings suggest that strategic positioning requires navigating both formal policy frameworks and informal status dynamics, leveraging distinctive strengths rather than mimicking traditional university models.

Under the theme “Strengthening trust between higher education and society,” this contribution examines a structural tension within the German higher education system: the coexistence of formal regulatory equality and differentiated practical positioning in the field of research. Private higher education institutions (HEIs) are integrated into national accreditation frameworks and subject to the same research-related expectations as public institutions. Yet public discourse, funding practices, and recurring perceptions among academic staff often position them as peripheral or second-tier actors. Structurally, private HEIs frequently operate under teaching-intensive conditions, as they are largely financed through tuition fees and therefore allocate substantial institutional resources to educational provision.

This paradox—being regulated as equals while treated as outsiders—raises a central governance question: how do inconsistent institutional signals affect organisational legitimacy, institutional autonomy, and system-level trust?

In Germany, institutional accreditation standards defined by the German Council of Science and Humanities (Wissenschaftsrat) do not differentiate between public and private institutions regarding research expectations. Private HEIs seeking or maintaining accreditation must demonstrate sustainable research strategies, qualified academic staff, measurable outputs, and long-term structural viability comparable to public institutions. Likewise, higher education legislation in most federal states does not distinguish between public and private providers concerning academic responsibilities. The primary legal differentiation concerns institutional type (universities versus universities of applied sciences), not ownership.

Despite this formal equality, differences emerge in research funding participation and reputational recognition. Some public funding schemes restrict eligibility to public institutions or implicitly prioritise them, while private providers may face higher justification requirements. At the same time, a persistent narrative portrays professors at private institutions as primarily teaching-oriented and therefore less capable of conducting competitive research. This perception contrasts with appointment requirements and academic biographies: professors at private HEIs typically enter their positions with established research credentials comparable to those of their public-sector peers.

Recent empirical evidence further complicates this narrative. A comprehensive 2025 study by the Institute for Research on Higher Education (HoF) provides systematic data on research performance and research staff at private HEIs in Germany, demonstrating measurable research activity and considerable institutional diversity. Rather than indicating an absence of research, the findings point to differentiated research profiles operating under comparatively constrained structural conditions.

The resulting constellation reveals a governance misalignment between accreditation regimes and funding structures. Regulatory bodies require research performance as a condition of institutional legitimacy, while access to structural research resources remains uneven. This tension extends beyond financial aspects and affects symbolic recognition and trust formation within the higher education field.

In international comparison, the German case appears distinctive. In other systems, most notably in the United States, private universities often enjoy high research prestige. The German scepticism toward private research institutions therefore reflects historically embedded governance traditions rather than functional necessity.

To empirically explore how research activity is organised under these conditions, the contribution presents results from qualitative and quantitative analyses conducted at a private distance-learning university. The study examines institutional research reports (2021–2025), researchers’ curricula vitae, and applications submitted to an internal research incentive system that rewards achievements in publications, doctoral supervision, academic networking, and third-party funding acquisition. The analysis provides insight into how research engagement is structured, documented, and incentivised within a teaching-intensive institutional environment. Based on these findings, the contribution develops initial indications for a model of research profiling at private HEIs that differs from dominant templates derived from public-sector research universities.

By linking governance analysis with the results of recent research (e.g. the above mentioned study by HoF) and institutional-level empirical insights, this contribution argues that trust in diversified higher education systems depends not only on formal regulatory equality but on the perceived coherence between expectations, resources, and recognition. The German case illustrates how misaligned governance signals can unintentionally produce legitimacy gaps. Importantly, such gaps do not remain confined to institutional or policy arenas: uneven public recognition of formally equivalent institutions may also shape how prospective students interpret quality, credibility, and risk when choosing between higher education providers. A question that will be interesting to discuss with the audience is therefore: if higher education systems increasingly diversify institutionally, can governance frameworks maintain trust while treating different institutional models differently — and if so, how visible may these differences be?