What’s happening to our universities?

References

• AGB (1996) Renewing the Academic Presidency: Stronger Leadership for Tougher Times, Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, Washington DC.
   Google Scholar
• Alderman, G. (2009) ‘Higher education in the United Kingdom since 1945’, Times Higher Education, 30 July, available from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/books/higher-education-in-the-united-kingdom-since-1945/407560.paper?storycode=407560 [accessed January 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Baum, J. and Wally, S. (2003) ‘Strategic decision speed and firm performance’, Strategic Management Journal, 24, pp.1107–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bevan, G. and Hood, C. (2006) ‘What’s measured is what matters: targets and gaming in the English public health care system’, Public Administration, 84, pp.517–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boddy, C. (2006) ‘The dark side of management decisions: organisational psychopaths’, Management Decision, 44, pp.1461–75.
   Google Scholar
• Bozeman, B. (2015) Bureaucratization in Academic Research Policy: Perspectives from Red Tape Theory, available from http://cord.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/0Final_Bozeman_LuganoKeynotePaper2015-2.pdf [accessed January 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Burns, T. and Stalker, M. (1961) The Management of Innovation, Tavistock Publications, London.
   Google Scholar
• Burrows, R. (2012) ‘‘Living with the h-index?’, Metric assemblages in the contemporary academy’, Sociological Review, 60, pp.355–72.
   Google Scholar
• By, R., Diefenbach, T. and Klarner, P. (2008) ‘Getting organizational change right in public services: the case of European higher education’, Journal of Change Management, 8, pp.21–35.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, K. and Tschirhart, M. (1992) ‘Postindustrial environments and organizational effectiveness in colleges and universities’, Journal of Higher Education, 63, pp.87–108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cameron, W. (1963) Informal Sociology: A Casual Introduction to Sociological Thinking, Random House, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Campos, P. (2015) ‘The real reason college costs so much’, New York Times, 5 April, p.SR4.
   Google Scholar
• Caruana, A., Morris, M. and Vella, A. (1998) ‘The effect of centralization and formalization on entrepreneurship in export firms’, Journal of Small Business Management, 36, pp.16–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coulson, A. (2009) ‘Targets and terror: government by performance indicators’, Local Government Studies, 35, pp.271–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damanpour, F. (1991) ‘Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators’, Academy of Management Journal, 34, pp.555–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1982) Corporate Culture, Addison-Wesley, Reading MA.
   Google Scholar
• Dearlove, J. (1997) ‘The academic labour process: from collegiality and professionalism to managerialism and proletarianisation?’, Higher Education Review, 30, pp.56–75.
   Google Scholar
• Dewar, R. and Werbel, J. (1979) ‘Universalistic and contingency predictions of employee satisfaction and conflict’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, pp.426–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diefenbach, T. (2005) ‘Competing strategic perspectives and sense-making of senior managers in academia’, International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management, 5, 6, pp.126–44.
   Google Scholar
• Diefenbach, T. (2009) ‘New public management in public sector organizations: the dark sides of managerialistic “enlightenment”’, Public Administration, 87, pp.892–909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diefenbach, T. (2013) ‘Incompetent or immoral leadership? Why many managers and change leaders get it wrong’ in By, R. and Burnes, B. (eds) Organizational Change, Leadership and Ethics: Leading Organizations Towards Sustainability, Routledge, London, pp.149–70.
   Google Scholar
• Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S. and Tinkler, J. (2005) ‘New public management is dead – long live digital-era governance’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, pp.467–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geuna, A. and Martin, B. (2003) ‘University research evaluation and funding: an international comparison’, Minerva, 41, pp.277–304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons, W. (2007) The Legend of the Boiling Frog is Just a Legend, available from http://srel.uga.edu/outreach/ecoviews/ecoview071223.htm [accessed October 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Gill, R. (2009) ‘Secrecy, silence, toxic shame and the hidden injuries of the neo-liberal university’ in Gill, R. and Ryan-Flood, R. (eds) Secrecy and Silence in the Research Process: Feminist Reflections, Routledge, London, pp.228–44.
   Google Scholar
• Ginsberg, B. (2011a) The Fall of the Faculty: The Rise of the All-Administrative University and Why It Matters, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Ginsberg, B. (2011b) ‘Administrators ate my tuition’, Washington Monthly, September, available from http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/septemberoctober_2011/features/administrators_ate_my_tuition031641.php?page=all [accessed January 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Haack, S. (2013) Out of Step: Academic Ethics in a Preposterous Environment, available from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2135732 [accessed October 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Hartford, J. (2012) ‘We don’t need no grade inflation’, Spiked, 4 April, available from http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/paper/12313#.ViZQo9KrTs0 [accessed October 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Hoggett, P. (1996) ‘New modes of control in the public service’, Public Administration, 74, pp.9–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C. (2006) ‘Gaming in Targetworld: the targets approach to managing British public services’, Public Administration Review, 66, pp.515–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarratt Report (1985) Report of the Steering Group in University Efficiency, Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, London.
   Google Scholar
• Johnes, G. (2004) ‘Standards and grade inflation’ in Johnes, G. and Johnes, J. (eds) International Handbook of the Economics of Education, Elgar, Cheltenham, pp.462–83.
   Google Scholar
• Khandwalla, P. (1977) The Design of Organizations, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Kimberly, J. and Evanisko, M. (1981) ‘Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations’, Academy of Management Journal, 24, pp.689–713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, H. and Choi, B. (2003) ‘Knowledge management enablers, processes, and organizational performance: an integrative view and empirical examination’, Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, pp.179–220.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, B. (2011) ‘The Research Excellence Framework and the impact agenda: are we creating a Frankenstein monster?’, Research Evaluation, 20, pp.247–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin, B. and Whitley, R. (2010) ‘The UK Research Assessment Exercise: a case of regulatory capture?’ in Whitley, R., Gläser, J. and Engwall, L. (eds) Reconfiguring Knowledge Production: Changing Authority Relationships in the Sciences and their Consequences for Intellectual Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.51–80.
   Google Scholar
• Matthews, D. (2014) ‘Thomas Docherty to face insubordination charge in tribunal’, Times Higher Education, 24 July, available from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/thomas-docherty-to-face-insubordination-charge-in-tribunal/2014711.paper [accessed October 2015].
   Google Scholar
• McLean, I., Haubrich, D. and Gutiérrez-Romero, R. (2007) ‘The perils and pitfalls of performance measurement: the CPA regime for local authorities in England’, Public Money & Management, 27, pp.111–18.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nahm, A., Vonderembse, M. and Koufteros, X. (2003) ‘The impact of organizational structure on time-based manufacturing and plant performance’, Journal of Operations Management, 21, pp.281–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nedeva, M. and Boden, R. (2006) ‘Changing science: the advent of neo-liberalism’, Prometheus, 24, pp.269–81.
   Google Scholar
• Pertusa-Ortega, E., Zaragoza-Sáez, P. and Claver-Cortés, E. (2010) ‘Can formalization, complexity, and centralization influence knowledge performance?’, Journal of Business Research, 63, pp.310–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rafols, I., Leydesdorff, L., O’Hare, A., Nightingale, P. and Stirling, A. (2012) ‘How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: a comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management’, Research Policy, 43, pp.1262–82.
   Google Scholar
• Rip, A. (2011) ‘The future of research universities’, Prometheus, 29, 4, pp.443–53.
   Google Scholar
• Salter, A. and Martin, B. (2001) ‘The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review’, Research Policy, 30, pp.509–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samuel, G. and Derrick, G. (2015) ‘Societal impact evaluation: exploring evaluator perceptions of the characterization of impact under the REF2014’, Research Evaluation, 24, 3, pp.229–41.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. and Cropanzano, R. (2000) ‘The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, pp.294–304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, S., Ness, K., Rockwell, S., Shaver, K. and Britkiewicz, R. (2014) 2012 Faculty Workload Survey: Research Report, available from http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_087667.pdf [accessed January 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Sedgwick, W. (1882) ‘On the variation of reflex excitability in the frog induced by changes of temperature’, Studies from the Biological Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, pp.385–410, available from http://www.archive.org/stream/studiesfrombiol00martgoog#page/n401/mode/2up [accessed October 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Stark, P. and Freishtat, R. (2014) ‘An evaluation of course evaluations’, ScienceOpen, available from https://www.scienceopen.com/document/vid/42e6aae5–‐246b–‐4900–‐8015-dc99b467b6e4?0 [accessed January 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Technopolis. (2015) REF Accountability Review: Costs, Benefits and Burden, available from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2015/REF,Accountability,Review,Costs,benefits,and,burden/2015_refreviewcosts.pdf [accessed February 2016].
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, J. (2012) ‘Bully or boss?’, Journal of Case Studies, 30, pp.44–50.
   Google Scholar
• Tichy, N. and Ulrich, D. (1984) ‘The leadership challenge: a call for the transformational leader’, Sloan Management Review, 26, pp.59–68.
   Google Scholar
• UK Border Agency (2009) Points Based System: Tier 4 Questions and Answers – Sponsors, Home Office, London.
   Google Scholar
• Van Valen, L. (1973) ‘A new evolutionary law’, Evolutionary Theory, 1, pp.1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Wolf, A. and Jenkins, A. (2015) ‘Income and expenditure in the UK university system in the 21st century: a golden age?’, paper presented at the Society for Research into Higher Education Annual Research Conference, Newport, 9–11 December.
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, J. (1958) Management and Technology, Volume 3 of Problems of Progress in Industry, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, HMSO, London.
   Google Scholar
• Zheng, W., Yang, B. and McLean, G. (2010) ‘Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: mediating role of knowledge management’, Journal of Business Research, 63, pp.763–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar