Conference Agenda

Objective

To examine how university governance styles mediate the organisational effects of evaluation and performance on academic work in Chile and Argentina, and to assess the extent to which governance frameworks developed primarily in European contexts adequately capture these dynamics in Latin American higher education systems.

Conceptual framework

This study examines transformations in university governance and academic work in contexts of expanding evaluation, quality assurance and accountability, and the resulting tensions between collegiality and organisational hierarchy (Leišytė et al., 2025; Neave, 1998; Musselin, 2013). Drawing on European scholarship, governance is understood as a multi-level and multi-actor configuration through which states, markets and stakeholders steer universities using regulatory and evaluative instruments, while remaining strongly context-dependent (Leišytė, 2025).

Within this framework, the article distinguishes between hybrid governance as a structural condition and governance styles as predominant organisational decision-making orientations as perceived by academics. These styles range from vertical, top-down arrangements to more collegial forms (Brunner, 2011; Bruckmann & Carvalho, 2018) and reconfigure academic autonomy relationally through indirect, performance-oriented mechanisms rather than direct hierarchical control (Carvalho, 2017; Sarrico et al., 2022; Pekkola et al., 2014; Woelert & Stensaker, 2024).

To assess the reach of these conceptualisations beyond Europe, the analysis incorporates insights on internal governance and the academic profession from Latin American scholarship (Marquina, 2025). By comparing Chile and Argentina, the article examines how similar evaluative instruments generate distinct organisational outcomes in relation to those observed in European higher education systems, depending on national trajectories, patterns of state mediation and internal governance arrangements.

Methodology

This study employs a comparative quantitative design based on data from the Academic Profession in the Knowledge-Based Society (APIKS) survey, which was conducted in Chile and Argentina between 2018 and 2019. The analysis examines the association between the styles of university governance perceived by academics and the different dimensions of academic work.

University governance styles constitute the central variable (F3), which is based on perceptions of vertical, top-down styles and collegiality in decision-making. Three dimensions are analysed in relation to this variable: the configuration of academic evaluation (F2), the organisational use of performance criteria (F4), and institutional expectations regarding academic work (D5).

Associations were estimated using chi-square tests with country as the contrast variable, and Cramer's V was used as a measure of effect size. The results were interpreted in light of recent literature on university governance and academic work.

Results

Differences in academic evaluation are statistically significant but moderate. In both countries, peer evaluation remains central, confirming its stability regardless of governance style. In Chile, evaluation is more diversified and formalised, more frequently involving students and administrative staff, whereas in Argentina it remains anchored in academic and disciplinary bodies. This suggests that governance styles have a limited influence on who evaluates, without altering the dominant evaluative principle.

Differences emerge more clearly in the organisational use of performance criteria. In Chile, particularly under more vertical governance styles, performance is systematically used to allocate resources and inform hiring and promotion, functioning as a key instrument of institutional management. In Argentina, by contrast, the translation of performance into organisational decisions is markedly weaker, even in hierarchical settings.

The sharpest contrast concerns the construction of institutional expectations. In Chile, more vertical governance styles are associated with explicit expectations regarding external funding, compliance with funders’ guidelines, and a practically oriented research agenda. In Argentina, such expectations are less institutionalised and tend to be externalised towards the state-scientific system.

Overall, the results show a staggered pattern: governance styles are weakly related to evaluation itself, but more consistently linked to the organisational use of performance, particularly in shaping expectations. Differences between Chile and Argentina are thus explained less by evaluative mechanisms than by the capacity of governance styles to activate them as tools of institutional leadership. Finally, the findings indicate that governance frameworks developed in European contexts are only partially translated in Latin America, where similar evaluative arrangements produce distinct organisational effects.

Originality and value

The article shows that governance styles shape how evaluation translates into organisational outcomes, with stronger internalisation in Chile and greater state mediation in Argentina. It contributes to comparative governance debates by assessing the reach of European governance frameworks in Latin American higher education systems.

Innovative Doctoral Training (IDT) has become a strategic priority for universities aiming to strengthen research excellence, societal relevance, and doctoral employability¹. Yet the creation of IDT structures poses significant organizational challenges, particularly regarding intra-institutional cooperation. Focusing on the establishment of a Graduate School within a Cluster of Excellence, this paper analyzes the structural and operational barriers that emerge during the design and implementation phase of innovative doctoral programs.

How can an efficient and sustainable joint doctoral program in physics be practically implemented across three universities in different German cities and federal states?

Key challenges include fragmented governance structures, disciplinary silos, misaligned incentive systems, and limited administrative integration. During the program creation process, additional tensions arise from unclear responsibilities, overlapping decision-making competencies, competing strategic priorities, and uneven resource allocation. The absence of early stakeholder alignment—across faculties, research centers, central administration, and doctoral representatives—often results in parallel planning processes and reduced transparency.

To address these challenges, the paper highlights the importance of structured stakeholder engagement from the outset. Participatory governance formats, cross-functional steering committees, and clearly defined communication channels enhance institutional trust and shared ownership. The establishment of dedicated administrative bodies, such as a Graduate School Coordinator position and formalized coordination offices, is identified as a critical enabling condition. These roles facilitate operational alignment, mediate between academic and administrative actors, and ensure continuity across institutional interfaces.

Drawing on organizational and higher education governance frameworks, the study proposes an integrative cooperation model that combines stakeholder participation, distributed leadership, transparent decision-making, and adaptive administrative structures. The findings contribute to understanding how universities can strategically manage internal transformation processes to create sustainable, collaborative, and innovation-oriented doctoral ecosystems.

References:

1. https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/policy_library/principles_for_innovative_doctoral_training.pdf

The Norwegian higher education sector may have reached its peak in terms of student numbers. Currently there are approximately 300 000 students registered in higher education in Norway, and as future cohorts coming into the sector are likely to be smaller than the cohorts currently attending (due to demographic decline), it is not likely that the system will grow more (Hovdhaugen et al 2026). Hence, in times of increasing financial constraints and uncertainty, institutions must be more strategic in shaping and adjusting their academic offerings and educational portfolios. At the same time is there a demand from the government that institutional educational offerings should not only respond to student demand but also to the demands of the labour market, responding to future competence needs (Meld.St.14 (2022-2023).

This paper builds on qualitative data from five Norwegian universities, covering document analysis and 16 interviews involving a total of 36 participants across eight faculties within these five institutions. Faculties were selected based on their recruitment situation: either because they were experiencing declining application numbers across a majority of their study programmes, or because they simultaneously face declining application numbers in some programmes and growth in others. The data were analysed using thematic coding to identify cross-institutional patterns. Preliminary analyses indicate that differences between institutions are limited; rather, institutions which may seem quite distinct encounter remarkably similar problems when attempting to strategically size and restructure their academic offerings.

Our study utilises institutional theory, including Scott’s three pillars of institutions (2005), as a theoretical framework to understand the universities' responses to governmental pressures and expectations. The findings illustrate that strategic decisions concerning the sizing of institutional course offerings and the institution’s educational portfolio are a complicated matter, impacted by a range of factors. Some of these factors are predictable and within institutional control. However, there are also factors which the institution may exert less direct control over, and these factors can thus be seen as external and unpredictable to the situation the institution is in. Although deploying a largely regulatory response to the external pressures, focusing on target setting, financial indicators and potential cost-cutting initiatives, there are clear evidence of both the normative and the socio-economic pillars embedded in the responses of the universities. The qualitative data material highlights a range of challenges and dilemmas that the institutions must navigate when balancing sustainability, academic integrity, and societal and political expectations, as well as the norms and values underlying their choses.

Overall, the paper contributes to the literature on higher education governance by illuminating how financial constraints reshape institutional decision-making around programme portfolios. The findings have implications for national policymakers and institutional leaders seeking to balance efficiency demands with the need to maintain high-quality educational programmes and the capacity to offer a broad spectrum of study programmes at the institution, serving the needs of the regional and national labour market. More broadly, the study offers insights relevant to higher education system across Europe facing similar economic pressures.