Abstracts
Abstract
This paper investigates the way decisions are taken in Tunisian public higher education establishments. We focus our review on the ubiquitous but not well understood concept of “university governance” Despite the presence of a large body of literature about governance in higher education, the lack of empirical research led us to think that it would be important to “perationalize” the concept of "university governance" in an empirical survey. To do this, we tried to identify the factors which may increase or decrease, in a significant way, the odds that the decision-making process relates to a precise domain (pedagogic, scientific, institutional management or academic personnel), and that this process follows the characteristics of four decision-making models in current use: collegial, political, bureaucratic or anarchical model.
Résumé
Le présent article examine la manière dont les décisions peuvent être prises dans les établissements d’enseignement supérieur publics tunisiens. Nous mettons l’accent sur le concept omniprésent mais souvent mal compris et même méconnu de « gouvernance universitaire ». En effet, trop de publications ont été consacrées à la discussion théorique de la notion de « gouvernance universitaire ». Pour notre part, nous pensons que cette dernière ne vaut qu’à travers son opérationnalisation dans une analyse empirique. En particulier, notre investigation empirique a pour objectif de révéler les facteurs qui augmentent ou qui diminuent d’une manière significative la probabilité que le processus décisionnel relatif à un domaine précis (pédagogique, scientifique, management institutionnel et personnel‐enseignant) soit « plutôt collégial », « plutôt politique », « plutôt bureaucratique » ou encore « plutôt anarchique ».
Appendices
Bibliography
- Baldridge, J. (1971) Power and Conflict in the University. New York: Wiley.
- Berdahl, R. (1990) “Academic Freedom, Autonomy and Accountability in British Universities.” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 15, pp. 169-180.
- Bishop, Y. M., Fienberg, S. E., and Holland, P. W. (1975) Discrete Multivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
- Bleiklie, I. and Kogan, M. (2007) “Organization and Governance of Universities.” Higher Education Policy, vol. 20, pp. 477-493.
- Celeux, G., and Nakache, J.P. (1994) Analyse Discriminante sur variables qualitatives. Paris: Polytechnica.
- Cohen, M. D., March J. G., and Olsen J. P. (1972) “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly, vol. 17, pp. 1-25.
- DeMaris, A. (1992) “Logit Modeling: Practical Applications.” Sage University Papers series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07-086, Newbury Park, CA.
- Dill, D. and Helm, K. (1988) “Faculty Participation in Strategic Policy Making.” Higher Education Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 4, pp. 319-355.
- Ellström, P. (1983) “Four Faces of Educational Organizations,” Higher Education, vol. 12, pp. 231-241.
- Goodman, P. (1962) The Community of Scholars. New York: Random House.
- Kezar, A., and Eckel, D.E (2004) “Meeting Today's Governance Challenges: A Synthesis of the Literature and Examination of a Future Agenda for Scholarship,” The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 4, pp. 371-399.
- Kimberly, A. N. (2002) The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Lazega, E. (2001) The Collegial Phenomenon: The Social Mechanisms of Cooperation Among Peers in a Corporate Law Partnership. Oxford: University Press.
- Lebart, L., Morineau, A., and Piron, M. (1995). Statistique exploratoire multidimensionnelle. Paris: Dunod.
- Lucier, P. (2007) Gouvernance et Direction de l'Université. Culture et Société. Paper read at the Conseil général de la Fédération Québécoise des Professeurs et Professeurs d'Université (FQPPU), Montreal, Canada.
- Marginson, S. (2006) “Globalisation, the “dea of a university”and its ethical regimes,” Higher Education Management and Policy, vol. 19, pp. 31-46.
- McCarth, S.A. (2005) Testing Baldridge's political model: a case study of the Asian American Studies, program at the University of Maryland College Park . Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland.
- Merrien, F-X. (1998) “De la gouvernance et des Etats-providence contemporains, ”Revue Internationale des Sciences Sociales, vol. 155, pp. 61-71.
- Millett, J. (1962) The Academic Community. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Musselin, C. (2001) La longue marche des universités françaises. Paris: PUF.
- SPAD Guide. (2001) Spad Base Aide à l'interprétation. Paris: CISIA.
- Nakache, J.P., and Confais, J. (2003). Statistique Explicative Appliquée: analyse discriminante, modèle logistique, segmentation par arbre. Paris: Technip.
- Paradeise, C., Reale, E., Bleiklie, I., and Ferlie, E. (2009) “University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives Series,” Higher Education Dynamics, vol. 25, pp. 324.
- Pelletier, G. (2003) De l'anarchie organisée au modèle de la poubelle: du côté obscur de la planification et de la decision. Available at: http://guypelletier.ca/documents/articles/anarchie_poubelle.pdf
- Pusser, B. (2003) “Beyond Baldridge: Extending the Political Model of Higher Education Organization and Governance,” Educational Policy, vol. 17, pp. 121-140.
- Sedjari, A. (2004). Administration, gouvernance et décision publique. L'Harmattan.
- Taylor, W.H. (1983) “The Nature of Policy-Making in Universities,” The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, vol. 1, pp. 17-31.
- Trakman, L. (2008) “Modelling University Governance,” Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 62, pp. 63-83.
- Wacheux, F. (1996) Méthodes qualitatives et recherche en gestion. Paris: Economica.
- Waters, M. (1989) “Collegiality, Bureaucratization, and Professionalization: A Weberian Analysis,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 94, pp. 945-72.
- Zghal, R. (2002) “Quelles méthodologies pour l'évaluation des systèmes de formation: le cas de l'enseignement supérieur,” Sciences de gestion, 7.