Hybrid Decision Structures in Transnational Alliances of Higher Education
Saved in:
| Title: | Hybrid Decision Structures in Transnational Alliances of Higher Education |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Rómulo Pinheiro, Stefan Gänzle, Christel Claussen |
| Source: | Higher Education Forum. 2025 22:17-41. |
| Availability: | Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University. 1-2-2 Kagamiyama, Higashi-hiroshima, Hiroshima City, Japan 739-8512. Tel: +81-82-424-6240; Fax: +81-82-422-7104; e-mail: k-kokyo@office.hiroshima-u.ac.jp; Web site: https://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/journals/HighEduForum |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 25 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Education Level: | Higher Education Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: | International Cooperation, Institutional Cooperation, Higher Education, Decision Making, Models, Participative Decision Making, Foreign Countries, Governance, Partnerships in Education, Problem Solving, Trust (Psychology), Power Structure, Conflict Resolution |
| Geographic Terms: | European Union |
| ISSN: | 2432-9614 |
| Abstract: | Since 2019, the European Union has encouraged the establishment of 'new' university alliances, that is transnational strategic groupings involving more than three hundred higher education institutions in the European Union and associated partner countries. This paper treats the European Universities Initiative (EUI) as an instance of a meta-organization and investigates how decision-making processes have unfolded thus far reflecting four 'classic' decision-making models (i.e., the rational actor model, the collegial model, the political model and the garbage can model). More specifically, the study investigates two main stages in the alliances--the initiation stage and the consolidation stage--in more depth. The paper benefits from several (internal) documents and semi-structured interviews conducted with key staff from the selected alliances, the Circle U. and FORTHEM European alliances. The findings ultimately demonstrate the prevalence of key features associated with three of the four decision models, all except for garbage can, eventually resulting in hybrid decision dynamics. The data clearly show that most decisions are made by consensus, and that resource dependency, soft power, trust, and tensions underpin these decision-making processes. The paper provides insights on the mechanism underpinning alliance-level value frameworks, focusing on how different logics and values are blended, negotiated, and/or legitimized. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1479166 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | Since 2019, the European Union has encouraged the establishment of 'new' university alliances, that is transnational strategic groupings involving more than three hundred higher education institutions in the European Union and associated partner countries. This paper treats the European Universities Initiative (EUI) as an instance of a meta-organization and investigates how decision-making processes have unfolded thus far reflecting four 'classic' decision-making models (i.e., the rational actor model, the collegial model, the political model and the garbage can model). More specifically, the study investigates two main stages in the alliances--the initiation stage and the consolidation stage--in more depth. The paper benefits from several (internal) documents and semi-structured interviews conducted with key staff from the selected alliances, the Circle U. and FORTHEM European alliances. The findings ultimately demonstrate the prevalence of key features associated with three of the four decision models, all except for garbage can, eventually resulting in hybrid decision dynamics. The data clearly show that most decisions are made by consensus, and that resource dependency, soft power, trust, and tensions underpin these decision-making processes. The paper provides insights on the mechanism underpinning alliance-level value frameworks, focusing on how different logics and values are blended, negotiated, and/or legitimized. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2432-9614 |
