- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
Neo-liberal reforms have flowed through the public sector since the 1980s, with new public management (NPM) practices resulting in a global cultural and managerial transformation of the sector (Ferlie & Steane, 2002). There has been a dramatic change from a public administration focus to a more competitive, corporate culture that emphasizes results (Parker & Guthrie, 1993; Skalen, 2004). Academic research has focused in particular on changes in health and higher education, identifying not only the politically mandated changes themselves, but organizational responses to a results-oriented approach (Agrizzi, 2008; Broadbent, 2007; Broadbent, Jacobs & Laughlin, 2001; Broadbent, Laughlin & Read, 1991; Fredman & Doughney, 2012; Skalen, 2004; Taylor, 1999; Vaira, 2004; Watty, Bellamy & Morley, 2008). Focusing on the Higher Education Sector (HES), this paper contextualises the changes that have occurred and examines organizational responses to those changes as research performance is built into universities’ Performance Management Systems (PMSs).
As the HES globally undergoes significant change with the implementation of research assessments, universities are faced with the need to develop research-oriented PMSs that will enable them to achieve their research objectives. The objective of this paper was to investigate the organizational change undertaken by UniA, in anticipation of, and in response to RAEs in the form of RQF and/or ERA. Adopting the model of Broadbent and Laughlin (2013), we analyzed UniA’s reactions to external imposed performance measures in the form of ERA. The findings indicate that UniA underwent significant or second order changes, not with the implementation of ERA in 2010, but with the appointment of a new VC in 2006, and his anticipation of RQF. There were significant and long lasting changes to UniA’s vision and mission (i.e., its interpretive scheme), brought about by the new VC in 2006 in anticipation of RQF. These changes then led to changes in the design archetypes (i.e., structures within UniA) in the form of KPIs, ‘X’ strategy, budgets and funding, which further drove changes to the systems (i.e., PMSs), in terms of PDRs for individual academics. With the requirements of ERA in 2010, first order changes are evident within UniA as there were no changes to the vision and mission statement. However, there were changes to PMSs to align with the requirements of ERA 2010. Although these changes were implemented and UniA’s outcome in the first ERA evaluation in 2010 was favourable, the findings from the survey reveal a level of discontent among academics as a whole, potentially threatening the university’s interpretive scheme. Academics voiced concern that the concentration on ERA inhibits and constrains their work. Academics also perceived that the focus on research had affected their teaching adversely. They were critical of the effects these PMSs had on their day-to-day work. It is crucial that the potential consequences of the increasing use of PMSs in universities are recognized.