The Elements of University Organizations: A Comparison of the University of Genoa and the University of Vaasa
Mannelin, Riikka (2006)
Kuvaus
Kokotekstiversiota ei ole saatavissa.
Tiivistelmä
The Bologna Process, started by the Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations, aims at establishing a European area of higher education by 2010, making the higher education system in Europe more transparent. Interesting is how similar or different the universities, aiming to form a transparent higher education area, are as organization. This study concentrates on university organizations in Finland and in Italy.
The main question in this study is two folded. First under observation is what kind of similarities and differences can be found in an Italian and in a Finnish university organization, and secondly, how these observed similarities and differences can be interpreted by using rational, natural and open system definitions of organization comparatively as theoretical starting points. In order to find the answers to these questions, five detailed questions can be set a) who are the participants of the universities and how do they participate, b) what are the roles of the participants and the values of the university, c) what are the goals of the universities, d) what are the strengths and weaknesses of organizing the instruction, research and administration, and e) what does the surrounding environment mean to the universities?
The theoretical framework for the study is based on the rational, natural and open system definitions of organization and on the Leavitt’s diamond modified by Richard W. Scott (Scott’s diamond). The five detailed questions above derive from the five elements of the Scott’s diamond.
The method used in this study is comparative; this can be perceived already in the research problem which includes comparison of similarities and differences. Interview was used as a methodology because the needed information was empirical and best available when asking directly from the persons working for the universities under observation. In total, 16 interviews were conducted, 8 in both countries. The interviewees were chosen among the representatives of the administrative services, faculties, and students in the decision making organs of the universities.
The two universities studied do not differ much in what comes to the structure and the goal setting that are both highly regulated. The main participants in the universities are the administrative services, faculties and students / the Student Union. Their participation as well as their roles are mainly stated by the rules. Goal setting is also a similar process, where the Ministry creates the framework and the goals are set within this framework. The main differences are caused by different organizational cultures prevailing in the universities, which means that issues, like conflicts, are handled in a different way. There are also differences in the role of the environment which still in both universities seems to be increasing in its importance. Both universities mainly have the characteristics of natural and open system and it is rather difficult to say to which one they are closer, but due to the fact that they also have characteristics of the rational system, it can be said that they are closer to the natural than the open system.
The main question in this study is two folded. First under observation is what kind of similarities and differences can be found in an Italian and in a Finnish university organization, and secondly, how these observed similarities and differences can be interpreted by using rational, natural and open system definitions of organization comparatively as theoretical starting points. In order to find the answers to these questions, five detailed questions can be set a) who are the participants of the universities and how do they participate, b) what are the roles of the participants and the values of the university, c) what are the goals of the universities, d) what are the strengths and weaknesses of organizing the instruction, research and administration, and e) what does the surrounding environment mean to the universities?
The theoretical framework for the study is based on the rational, natural and open system definitions of organization and on the Leavitt’s diamond modified by Richard W. Scott (Scott’s diamond). The five detailed questions above derive from the five elements of the Scott’s diamond.
The method used in this study is comparative; this can be perceived already in the research problem which includes comparison of similarities and differences. Interview was used as a methodology because the needed information was empirical and best available when asking directly from the persons working for the universities under observation. In total, 16 interviews were conducted, 8 in both countries. The interviewees were chosen among the representatives of the administrative services, faculties, and students in the decision making organs of the universities.
The two universities studied do not differ much in what comes to the structure and the goal setting that are both highly regulated. The main participants in the universities are the administrative services, faculties and students / the Student Union. Their participation as well as their roles are mainly stated by the rules. Goal setting is also a similar process, where the Ministry creates the framework and the goals are set within this framework. The main differences are caused by different organizational cultures prevailing in the universities, which means that issues, like conflicts, are handled in a different way. There are also differences in the role of the environment which still in both universities seems to be increasing in its importance. Both universities mainly have the characteristics of natural and open system and it is rather difficult to say to which one they are closer, but due to the fact that they also have characteristics of the rational system, it can be said that they are closer to the natural than the open system.