Recent Changes in the Governance of Higher Education Institutions in Norway

7/27/2019 Recent Changes in the Governance of Higher Education Institutions in Norway

1/12

PERGAMON Higher Education Policy 11 (1998) 217-228

-HIGHER-EDUCATION-POLICY-

Recent changes in the governance of highereducation institutions in Norway

Aasmund Dimmen,* Svein KyvikBuskerud Coll ege, Facult y of Educati on i n Business Admi nist rat ion, 3500 Hi i ncfoss, Norw ay

Abstract

Great changes have recently taken place in the governance of universities and other highereducation institutions in Norway. From 1996, all institutions are regulated by a common act,more emphasis is put on stronger academic and administrative leadership of institutions, anda clearer division of responsibility between academic and administrative leaders has beenintroduced. 0 1998 International Association of Universities. Published by Elsevier ScienceLtd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

During the last decade, several initiatives have been undertaken to strengthen aca-demic and administrative leadership in Norwegian higher education. These effortsmaterialised in a new act for higher education institutions which came into effect in1996. In addition to regulating the relationship between central authorities and theinstitutions, the Act on Universities and Colleges gives a common framework forthe organisation and governance of universities, university-level colleges, and non-university-level state colleges. Until 1989, most universities and university-level col-leges were regulated by separate acts, while the state colleges were guided by cabinetor ministerial regulations. Within the college sector, only teacher training was regu-lated by law. In 1989 parliament passed an act covering the four universities and thesix university-level colleges. By and large this act gave more autonomy to the uni-versities by delegating decision-making authority on a number of issues to the indi-vidual institutions. This process of making universities and colleges more responsible

*Corresponding author

0952-8733/98 $19.00 0 1998 International Association of Universities. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.All rights reservedPII: SO952-8733(98)0000&7


2/12

218 A. Dimmen, S. KyiklHigher Education Policy I1 (1998j 217-228

for the results of their activities has been extended in the 1996 Act. In this context,the two most important changes in relation to former steering principles are moreemphasis on str onger academ ic and adm in istr ati ve eader shi p of institutions (referredto as managerialism), and a cl ear er di vi si on of r esponsibi l i ty betw een academ i c andadministrative eaders (referred to as divided leadership).

Managerialism in this context means that the board and rector of an institutionhave more power and authority, as well as stronger academic leadership roles forelected deans and chairs. In addition, the administrative director has been given astronger formal role in management of an institution, and now has regulative authorityover its administration at all levels.

The objective of a clearer governing system, with definite boundaries betweenadministrative and academic activities and the principle of divided leadership, impliesthat institutions now have two leaders, an academic and an administrative one.Academic leaders have less administrative responsibility than they had before, and astronger political role within the governing system. This change is no coincidence,but is similar to recent regulations of the governing of municipalities and counties.The Act on Universities and Colleges with regard to the structure of the governingand management system is formulated completely similar to the municipal laws. Inprinciple, the political governing system is quite separate from the administrativesystem. While changes in governing structures and management procedures wererelatively modest for the universities, the principle of divided leadership representsa totally new way of organising the governance of the majority of the colleges.

The change in institutional governance structure is a result of two concurrentprocesses which are partly interwoven:(1) A demand for better quality, greater relevance and improved effectiveness of

higher education institutions.(2) The introduction of a national modernisation programme in civil service.At the end of the 1980s Norwegian central authorities expressed considerable dis-satisfaction with the functioning of the higher education system. Many politiciansseemed to regard universities and colleges as slowly adapting institutions which lackthe ability to adjust to new social needs. Such attitudes were widespread, not only inNorway, but in most European countries (OECD, 1987; Gellert, 1993). The generaldiscontent led to the establishment of a Royal Commission in 1987 to assess thegoals, organisation and priorities of higher education towards the years 2000-2010.Influenced by concurrent international trends, the Commission proposed a widerange of measures to improve academic and administrative leadership functions atuniversities and colleges. These proposals have, to a large degree, been followed upin the Act on Universities and Colleges of 1996, and in the reorganisation of the collegesector in 1994, when a total of 98 non-university-level colleges were amalgamated into26 state colleges (Kyvik and Skodvin, 1996). This reform, which aimed at creatinglarger academic and administrative units was a precondition for the introduction ofa common law for universities and colleges.The increased emphasis on a managerial governing system within higher educationis also closely tied to the implementation of the Governments 1987 programme for


3/12

A. Di mmen, S. Kyui k/Hi gher Educati on Pol i cy 11 (1998) 217-228 219

renewal of the civil service, based on new public management ideas. Universities andcolleges are, in principle, regarded as ordinary state institutions subject to the sameplanning, budgeting and auditing systems as all public agencies within the civil service.In this connection the rapidly increasing student numbers in the 1990s as the drivingforce behind growth in the higher education sector, has provided a powerful argumentfor a managerial approach in handling the expansion of the system (Bleiklie, 1994).

The new public management ideology includes increased emphasis on an agencysability to produce the expected results with a minimum of resources, decentralisationof authority from the government to individual institutions, less emphasis on rulesand standard procedures in the steering of subordinate agencies, and more weighton objectives, application of performance indicators and evaluation of results, andincreasing emphasis on values like quality and relevance of work (Bleiklie, 1996). Allstate institutions, including universities and colleges, were instructed to introduceresult-oriented planning from 1990 (Larsen and Gornitzka, 1995). This measureincluded greater emphasis on objectives and results as governing criteria at all organ-isational levels of an institution. Universities and colleges as well as their individualfaculties and departments, were asked to outline the plans for their activities on thebasis of objectives set by higher authorities and to make annual reports of the resultsachieved to these authorities. The purpose behind this planning and reporting systemis, according to the government, to ensure as far as possible that universities andcolleges educate enough students, that education and research are of good quality,and that the costs of education and research are kept as low as possible without a lossof quality (Aamodt, Kyvik and Skoie, 1991). The condition for the implementationof these governmental objectives was that the governance and management system atindividual higher education institutions be strengthened.

In this respect, Norwegian higher education policy is more or less in line withsimilar trends in most other European countries (Neave and van Vught, 1991; Goe-degebuure et al., 1994) although the development of new governance and man-agement models has taken different forms in the various countries.

2. The Act on Universities and Colleges

The new Act on Universities and Colleges became effective on 1st January 1996, whilegovernance regulations for the new colleges were put into effect temporarily from 1stAugust 1994 in accordance with the Acts regulations. The Act states that eachinstitution is to be governed by a Board and an advisory University or College Counciltogether with an administrative Director. The basis for the steering regulation is thatall institutions should have a responsible and effective governing body which can bedelegated authority from the Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs(see Fig. 1 below).2.1. The BoardAn institutions Board shall have 9, 11, or 13 members. The Board consists of theRector, the Pro-rector, two to five members elected from among the academic staff,


4/12

220 A. Dimmen, S. KyuiklHigher Education Policy 11 (1998) 217-228

one or two members elected from among the technical and administrative staff, twoor three members elected from among the students, and two to four external members.The University or College Council determines the size of the Board and its specificcomposition. The Board shall have a majority consisting only of members of theacademic staff or of members of the academic staff and students. A major part of theconditions for effectiveness in relation to the size of the Board was introduced in theUniversity Act of 1989, where the large collegiate organs were replaced by a smallerBoard.

Members of the Board who hold posts at the institution are elected for three years.Separate elections are held for academic staff and for technical and administrativestaff. Student members are elected for one year. External Board members areappointed by the Ministry upon nomination by the institutions Council and by theCounty Council of the county in which the institution is located.

In relation to previous Acts, the duties of the Board have been specifically stipulated(paragraph 4):l The Board is an institutions highest governing body. It is responsible for main-

taining a high standard of academic activity and for seeing that the institution isrun effectively and in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations and rules andthe limits and targets laid down by the authorities.

l The Board shall draw up a strategy for the institutions educational, research andother academic activities, and lay plans for its scientific development in accordancewith the goals established by the authorities for the sector and the institution.

l The Board is responsible for seeing that the financial resources and property of theinstitution are used in accordance with the relevant provisions issued by the Ministry,and with the regulations regarding allocations of funds or other binding decisions.

l The Board is responsible for seeing that the internal organisation of activities isappropriate, cost-effective, and in accordance with the rules and limits laid downby the authorities.

l According to more detailed guidelines issued by the Ministry, the Board shall presentan annual financial statement and report on the results of its activities, and shallpropose a budget for the coming year.

2.2. Gover ni ng bodi es offacul ti es and depar tm ent sThe Act states that academic activities at the institutions are to be organised infaculties. The institutions themselves may establish departments as a third formalgoverning level under the faculties.

At each faculty and department, there shall be faculty and departmental boardswhich are delegated authority from the institutions Board. The Act does not delegatepower and authority to these bodies directly. Decisions which are made by bodiesother than those of an institutions Board are taken with authority delegated by theBoard and on its behalf and responsibility. Concerning the relationship between auniversity or college Board and a faculty and department board, the delegation modelwhich the Act builds upon entails that the Board can reverse a delegation resolution,


5/12

A. Di mmen, S. Ky uik l Hi gher Educuti on Poli cy II (1998) 217-228 22L

make decisions itself in regard to specific matters which originally were underdelegation, instruct a subordinate board on how to decide upon particular matters,and reverse a resolution to the same extent as it could if it had made the resolutionitself. The delegation of authority takes place in several ways, either by explicit formalresolutions, informal authority contained in other resolutions, or as a consequence ofreorganisation and the distribution of tasks to bodies or persons.

The Board determines the size and composition of the faculty and departmentboard, which shall have a majority of academic staff, and can include externalmembers.2.3. The CouncilAccording to the Act, the University or College Council advises the Board on matterswhich relate to the principle directions of an institutions activities. The Council shallhave at least 15 members including both staff and students. The Council can dealwith and comment on matters concerning:0 long term planning of activitiesl guidelines and principles for the use of resourcesl long-term and annual budgets and other matters of financial importance to an

institutionl development and coordination of courses of studyl major changes in the organisation of an institutions activities.2.4. Academic leadershipAccording to the Act, elected academic leaders are rectors, deans and departmentheads. The Rector is the chairman of the Board. On behalf of the Board, the Rectorhas supreme responsibility for and manages and supervises the institutions activities.Similarly, the dean is the chairman of the faculty board, and the department head ischairman of the departmental board. These people have similar duties at their respec-tive levels as the Rector has for the whole institution. Furthermore, the Rector isthe institutions lawful representative and its spokesperson in relation to politicalauthorities and the public. Other people may act as external spokespersons or rep-resentatives, but only if they are granted the authority to do so by the Rector.The elected leaders are not superior to administrative leaders at their level, andthey do not have responsibility for preparing issues for their boards, nor is it their jobto implement resolutions which have been taken. The Act does not give academicleaders direct decision-making competence or contain descriptions of the work to bepreformed in addition to that which is connected to formal board leadership functions.The governing bodies are hierarchically ranked, but elected academic leaders are notlegally superior or subordinate to each other.2.5. The administration of institutionsIn the same way as governing bodies are organised hierarchically in relation to eachother, the administration of an institution is headed by an administrative Director


6/12

222 A. Di mmen, S. Ky vi kl Hi gher Educati on Pol icy I1 (1998) 217-228

appointed by the Board. The Director has the authority to instruct and direct alladministrative personnel. The authoritative competence of the Director in relation tothe whole administration is a consequence of the fact that the Act considers theinstitution as one administrative unit and not a group of faculties, each with its ownadministration.

The principles of the Act require that the administrative directors of faculties anddepartments are directly responsible to the Director. Governing bodies or academicleaders do not have authority to instruct or direct the activities of the administrativepersonnel or administrative leaders at their level.

The Director has two-fold responsibilities: he/she is personally responsible inrelation to external authorities (the Ministry/auditors, etc.), and is subject to the sameacts, rules and regulations as a normal civil servant concerning personnel matters, thebudget and economic administration. At the same time, the Director is responsiblefor preparing proposals for governing bodies meetings, and for ensuring that theyare implemented in accordance with existing resolutions. Concerning faculties anddepartments, their respective administrative leaders are responsible for preparingdocuments for their boards and implementing resolutions upon delegation from theDirector.

The Act specifically stipulates that the Director is responsible for the total economyand assets, and for ensuring that the overall management of these is in accordancewith the Ministrys general provisions concerning financial management and theconditions on which allocations are made. This economic responsibility cannot beoverruled by governing bodies, and this means that the Director has the right andduty to make statements on every current recommendation undertaken by the gov-erning bodies. The Director may bring the matter to the attention of the Ministry fora decision if he/she is in doubt whether the Boards decision is in accordance with therules or conditions for allocations, etc. (see Fig. 1).

3. Changes in institutional governance

3.1. Changes in the governance of universitiesThere are five central conditions in the 1996 Act on Universities and Colleges whichrepresent important changes in relation to the 1989 University Act.(1) The work and responsibilities of the institutions Board have been expanded

and made more visible through increased emphasis on academic leadership andacademic policy steering functions. The Board now has the responsibility to seeto it that academic activities retain the highest standards. In addition, the Boardplans the strategy for the institutions academic activities and makes plans foracademic development.(2) The new Act regulates the various steering bodies hierarchically under the Boardaccording to a general administrative model of delegation. The Act stipulates that


7/12

A. Dirnmen, S. Kyl;ik/Higher Educarion Policy 11 (1998) 217-228 223

Adm Director

Board Council

I_iy(

Fig. 1. The governance and administrative system according to the Act on Universities and Colleges.

(3)

(4)

the Board must take responsibility for all decisions reached by other bodies towhich authority has been delegated.The institutions Board now has from two to four external members. It is thegovernments intention that the external members should add competence to theinstitutions and constructively contribute to the Boards work by increasing itsprofessional, organisational and leadership competence. It is not necessary thatthe external members should represent particular ministries or political auth-orities.The administrative Directors position as head of the entire administration of the


8/12

224 A. Dimmm, S. Kyrik/Higher Education Policy I1 (1998) 217-228

institution has been strengthened in relation to the 1989 Act. Administrativeleaders at faculty and departmental levels are subordinate to the Director.

(5) The previous regulation that elected academic leaders should be responsible forpreparing documents for the governing bodies has now been discontinued. Inaddition, the academic leaders are no longer responsible for implementing res-olutions. Responsibility for this has now been placed with the administration.Elected academic leaders are no longer administrative leaders, and they have noright to give the administration instructions in administrative matters. The electedleaders are, according to the provisions of the Act, representatives from theinternal political decision-making system distinct from the administrative hier-archy.

3.2. Changes in the gocernance qf collegesThe new Act on Universities and Colleges has led to much greater changes for thecolleges than for university governance. Between 1976 and 1994 ~ when the collegeswere amalgamated - the approximately 100 colleges were governed by 17 regionalboards. The main purpose in setting up regional boards was to decentralise decision-making authority and to ensure that planning, and the establishment and developmentof short-term higher education in a region were considered as a whole. The boardscommented upon individual colleges proposals to the Ministry concerning budgets,the location and objectives for the different institutions, as well as the setting ofpriorities between various study programmes. The Ministry, however, had finaldecision-making authority in these matters. The boards had, until 1992, formalresponsibility for employing personnel at the various institutions and allocatingresources for adult education in the region.

The regional boards, however, had limited power, and the college sector in eachregion remained nearly as fragmented as they were before the creation of these bodiesin 1976. Most colleges found it more efficient to try to influence their situation bydirect contact with the Ministry than by addressing the regional boards. Many collegesalso had rather negative attitudes towards these boards. The Boards were oftenregarded as bureaucratic and superfluous organisations standing between the indi-vidual institutions and the Ministry. Many of the colleges and their affiliated pro-fessional organisations did not want to merge with other educational institutions inthe region as they feared this would limit their autonomy (Aamodt, Kyvik and Skoie,1991).

Before the mergers, academic leadership and the management of the colleges wereorganised in various ways. At some colleges the practice was similar to universityregulations with elected academic leaders and a permanent Director. Most of thecolleges, however, were headed by a Rector who was appointed by the Ministry uponthe recommendation of the regional board. The Rector thus was both the academicand administrative leader of the institution. The Rector was head of the economicsection, the personnel supervisor, the leader of academic affairs and the administrativehead at the same time. On the whole, the Rector was responsible to the Ministry, andalso for representing the institution externally. At the end of the 1980s some colleges


9/12

A. Di mmen, S. Ky vi kj Hi gher Educati on Poli cy 1 (1998) 217-228 225

appointed a Rector for a six-year period. However, most Rectors were permanentlyemployed. The intention behind the introduction of elections for a term of years wasto bring new blood into the management and to increase the institutions ability toreorganise its activities.All colleges now have separate academic and administrative leadership at the centraland faculty levels. At the basic unit level, however, two different organisationalmodels have appeared. The new college system builds upon two culturally differentinstitutions: some of the previous colleges had a traditional academic basis with anemphasis on research, while the professional colleges put more emphasis on teachingand practice. Most colleges and faculties which have an academic teaching andresearch profile have established a third formal governing level with departmentsfollowing the university model, while most colleges offering professional educationhave kept the traditional governing structure at the basic level and organised theiractivities around educational programmes headed by elected course directors. This isan informal organisational solution in relation to the Act. Course directors have nolegal function, but they are elected by the staff affiliated to specific educationalprogrammes. As opposed to department heads, they exert unified leadership more orless in the same way as they did at the previous colleges. However, in some faculties,the principle of divided leadership has been implemented at an educational level witha permanent administrator for teaching activities and an elected course director.

4. The effects of changes in the governing systemThe Act on Universities and Colleges came into effect for the universities in 1996, andit is therefore too early to draw any strong conclusions on the possible effects ofthe relatively modest changes in the governing system of these institutions. Thereorganisation of the college sector in 1994 in accordance with the principles in the1996 Act represented, on the other hand, a fundamental shift in the governing systemof these institutions. Three years after the implementation of the reform it is thuspossible to give some preliminary impressions based upon a large number of interviewswith academic and administrative leaders in this sector.

4.1. Limited degree ofdecentralisation ofauthorityA first impression is that the policy which intended to decentralise authority from theMinistry to the individual institutions has only been implemented to a rather limitedextent, and that this policy has been followed by the introduction of new rules andregulations. The development of new study programmes has, as before, to be approvedby the Ministry, and new detailed regulations have been introduced within the fields ofeconomy, personnel, and student management. Apart from more leeway in budgetarymatters, the common opinion among institutional leaders is that governmental ste-ering and control of universities and colleges is stronger than before.


10/12

226 A. Dimmen, S. KytiklHigher Education Policy I I (1998) 217-228

4.2. Stronger administrative leadership of institutionsA second impression is that the policy which intended to strengthen the leadership ofthe institutions has been more successful with regard to the administrative than theacademic authority. This is also to be expected because administrative and academicleaders build their power and authority upon different norms and values ~ legalversus collegiate systems. Even though rectors, deans, and department heads have,according to the Act, been given wide responsibilities in academic affairs, the role ofthe academic leader in professional bureaucracies is, in general, difficult. Attempts atchanging institutional life and policy without broad collegial support are most oftendeemed to fail. The administration of universities and colleges has, however, beenconsiderably strengthened. The reform emphasised that the institutions are ordinaryadministrative bodies which needed to be strengthened for the necessary admin-istrative delegation of work and responsibility from the Ministry. The new Act givesthe administrative directors of universities and colleges more responsibility in relationto superior external authorities and to internal governing bodies.4.3. Ambiguous divided leadershipA third impression is that the introduction of a legally based division of responsibilitybetween academic and administrative leaders has bot yet been satisfactorilyimplemented at all levels in the college sector. For both administrative and academicleaders, the distinction between administration and academic management appearsto be difficult, but less so at an institutional level than at a faculty level, and mostdifficult at a department level. Academic leaders at a faculty and department levelthink that they do too much work which is not formally part of their function. Theyuse a lot of time taking care of economic matters, with administrative tasks and inpreparing documents for board meetings. On the other hand, these leaders argue thatthe management of resources and the preparation of documents are important foracademic leadership. Without a basis in administrative procedures and measures, itis difficult to be the head of a faculty or a department. This means that some academicleaders have interpreted the regulation on the supervision of activities as a way toregard administrative managers as subordinate to themselves.4.4. Varied organisation of operative leadershipThe amalgamation of the previous colleges with different objectives, activity profilesand cultures has led to the formation of institutions and faculties with differentinternal organisation at the basic unit level. Faculties within new institutions and witha basis in previous colleges with research traditions have established departments asthe lowest organisational level, while faculties with a basis in professional educations,generally have educational programmes as the lowest level, with an informal organ-isational level with course directors.A fourth impression is that these course directors are in an organisational vacuum.They are elected as the heads of educational programmes, but they have no legal


11/12

A. Dimmen, S. KyniklHigher Education Policy 11 (1998) 217-228 221

function in relation to the Act. They are primarily concerned with academic manage-ment, but they do not have backing in any formal governing body or administrativeapparatus at a programme level. Many experience this as problematic. In practicecourse directors carry out running administrative work and prepare documents forthe administration. Senior administrators and course directors find the organisationof this confusing and not very satisfactory, among other reasons, because decision-making authority and responsibility is pulverised, and both students and faculty areunsure where they should seek help to solve actual problems. On the other hand,course directors do not find the distinction between administration and academicwork very useful at an educational level. They think that it is necessary to handlemany matters which are formally part of the work of administrators in order to beable to be responsible for running course programmes. The function of course direc-tors thus challenges one of the objectives of the reform: the sharp distinction betweenadministrative and academic leadership roles.4.5. L im i ted effectsA fifth impression is that the introduction of result-oriented planning in the highereducation sector so far has had limited effects. The institutions seem to haveimplemented this reform in a modified version. Although most academic staff takepart in this activity, result-oriented planning does not seem to have changed theacademic culture in any important ways (Larsen and Gornitzka, 1995).4.6. Super flu ous coun cil sAt the universities, the Council had its background in the large academic collegiumwhich until 1989 was the highest governing body. The collegium was replaced by asmaller board and reorganised as a Council. Before the new Act in 1996, the collegeshad small governing bodies, and they did not have traditions for the newly establishedCouncil. The impression is clear that the colleges are having difficulties in getting theCouncil to function according to the intentions of the Act. It is perceived as asuperfluous agency. The colleges have boards at at least two levels, and usuallyinformal weekly meetings between the Rector and the deans, where all importantmatters are discussed.4.7. Posi ti ve exper i ences w i th exter nal boar d member sMany of the colleges, especially professional colleges, have had external members intheir governing bodies for a long time. These external members have often beenassociated with the fields towards which the education is directed. The colleges havenot been as sceptical as the universities towards external representation in their highestgoverning bodies. It is our impression that the colleges view external membership intheir boards as a valuable contribution. They remark that this gives the boardsprofessional and organisational competence, and increases an institutions contactsand networks toward the labour market where its graduates will work. External


12/12

228 A. Dimmen, S. KyvikjHigher Education Policy I I (1998) 217-228

members can also influence the course of board meetings as they add additionalperspectives to discussions over and above those which are introduced by internalmembers.

5. ConclusionGiven the short time-period since the Act on Universities and Colleges was put intoeffect, it is too early to draw any final conclusion on how successful it will be as abasis for changing universities and colleges in the desired direction. The governancesystem of these institutions has been strengthened, and the administrative capacityhas been increased, but there are few signs of a stronger academic leadership at theuniversities. In the college sector the picture is somewhat different, because the aca-demic staff now elect their academic leaders - as opposed to the old system where aRector was appointed by the Ministry. On the other hand, staff members at thestate colleges complain about increasing bureaucracy and less influence in academicmatters. They maintain that the central college administration has gotten too muchpower, and that too many decisions are taken at the central level to the detriment ofthe autonomy of educational programmes.

ReferencesAamodt, P. O., Kyvik, S. & Skoie, H. (1991). Norway: towards a more indirect model of governance? In

G. Neave and F. A. van Vught (Ed.), Prometheus Bound. The Changing Relationship Between Gorern-ment and Higher Education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Bleiklie, I. (1994). The New Public Management and the Pursuit ofKnowledge. Bergen: Norwegian ResearchCentre in Organization and Management.

Bleiklie, I. (1996). The Politics of University Governance. Scandinavian E.~periences 1960-1980. Bergen:Norwegian Research Centre in Organization and Management.

Gellert, C. (Ed.) (1993). Higher Education in Europe. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Goedegebuure, L. et al. (1994). Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective. Oxford:

Pergamon Press.Kyvik, S. & Skodvin, 0. J. (1996). From Functional Speciahsation to Regional Integration. The Reor-

ganisation of Non-University Higher Education in Norway. In U. Dahlldf & S. Selander (Ed.),Expanding Colleges and New Universities. Selected Case Studies .from Non-metropolitan Areas inAustralia, Scotland and Scandinavia. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala Studies inEducation 66.

Larsen, I. M. & Gornitrka A. (1995). New Management Systems in Norwegian Universities: the interfacebetween reform and institutional understanding. European Journal ofEducation, 30. 347-361.

Neave, G. & van Vught, F. A. (Ed.) (1991). Prometheus Bound. The Changing Relationship BetweenGovernment and Higher Education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

OECD. (1987). Universities Under Scrutiny. Paris: OECD.

Documents

Recent Changes in the Governance of Higher Education Institutions in Norway