Search results

Higher education systems of small(er) countries may be less attractive to investigate, and it is likely that only a small indigenous research community is interested in and capable of researching such small systems. In this chapter, we map which studies have been carried out at the meso- and macro-levels of the Flemish higher education system since the early 2000s. It allows us to discover gaps in our understanding of that particular system. We conclude that it would be beneficial for all stakeholders involved (researchers, policymakers, institutional management) to try to align their research and practical interests and develop a research agenda that fits these interests.

This chapter discusses the implications of New Public Management (NPM) and of alternative theories on the higher education sector. Three clusters of alternative concepts and theories are identified, positioned in relation to NPM, and discussed. The chapter concludes that the different theoretical approaches: (1) cannot always be distinguished easily, (2) entail a risk of normativity due to the position of higher education in society, and (3) demonstrate that higher education policy and research are in need of a multi-theoretical approach that is able to put higher education back into its social, political, and economic context. By formulating research questions on the role of higher education and on the impact of former reforms, it is suggested that policy and research look further than the current concepts and theoretical approaches to build a new agenda for future.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, Part One is to make a comparison of organization development (OD) and change management (CM) across eight concepts that are relevant to both OD and CM. The concepts or characteristics are (1) guiding philosophy, (2) value system, (3) theory, (4) primary skill, (5) intervention mode, (6) change model, (7) change activities, and (8) sustainment of change. OD stresses development of people and change regarding the organization, whereas CM emphasizes facilitation and expanding their business with the client organization. A concluding statement for the comparison of OD and CM is that OD has a rich underpinning of theory and a clear set of values that provide guidelines for the work with clients and CM has neither. Thus, CM is a misnomer. Part Two concerns the longer term and includes some consequences for OD from the pandemic of 2020–2021, such as the virtual workplace and leadership. The article concludes with some things to remember, suggesting the importance of group size, large group interventions, and loosely coupled systems.