|
As described in the sections introducing complexity science (chapter 1 Annex C) the following section will elaborate the components of what provides the environment for an entrepreneurial  mindset. First, the power- or political-structures of the institutions in question are reviewed and to a certain degree set in relation. Then several complementary spatial and contextual arrangements are looked at, while in the last section the important aspect of resources (i.e. the forms of various types of capital) are discussed for the cases investigated.
The aspects of the institutions described in this section are seen to be as instrumental to implementing the goals defined at the mindset level. As such they are structure in the sociological sense or what Heidegger called Gestell. Gestell – a German word that means ‘skeleton’, frame, shelf and in the variation ‘Untergestell’ chassis and infrastructure – is used by Heidegger to describe the phenomenon of modern technology as that which “captures all what is extant and makes it available through a stock to be put in circulation” (Ciborra & Hanseth, 1998, p16). Applied to universities, Gestell in this sense means all physical and technological infrastructure [i] necessary to fulfil the universities three missions. Hereby it is important to point out the function or the phenomenon of the gestell, which can be distorted and is not always what it seems. Using the example of the telephone Heidegger writes “machines created by technology can only shorten distances, but at the same time do not give access to proximity and farness”, rather he says they deliver undifferentiated availability (Heidegger, 1994 as quoted in Ciborra 1998). Later at a conference in Munich he elaborated on the real potential that technology has. “The essence of what technology can do for human causes is to reveal. The revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging… Such challenging happens in that the energy concealed in nature is unlocked, what is unlocked is transformed, what is transformed is stored up, what is stored up is in turn distributed, and what is distributed is switched about ever anew. Unlocking, transforming, storing, distributing, and switching about are ways of revealing… the revealing reveals to itself its own manifold interlocking paths, through regulating their course.” (Heidegger, 1978). Heidegger did most likely not have information technology in mind but was rather thinking of production chains such as the one leading from trees to paper, to newspapers. Nevertheless, when we take his notion of the phenomenon of technology being revealing to information and communication technology we end up in a scenario where technology is used to reveal (unlock, transform, store, distribute, and switching about) the informational essence of the institution. And as Ciborra points out, Heidegger defines gestell as the reunion of the organising process, which “overcomes in a felicitous way the dichotomy between the ‘structural’, i.e. static, aspects of infrastructure and their dynamics” (Ciborra & Hanseth, 1998, p.19). It is in that way that gestell is used here.
4.2.5.1. Formal Governance Structure
It is necessary to elaborate on both terms ‘governance’ and ‘structure’ in order to reach a clear understanding of what is described under this attractor. Governance refers to acts and processes of governing and is meant to describe the organisation of power in the entity. Structure refers to an understanding that it is only the blueprint, the theoretic setting created by the policies, laws, and the otherwise institutionalized practices as well as the role descriptions of the individuals and mandates of the institutions. Giddens explains "Structures are necessarily (logically) properties of systems or collectivities , and are characterized by the 'absence of a subject'”(Giddens, 1979, p. 66).
The LSE is specialised in the study of the architecture and practice of social institutions and as such it comes as no surprise that it has applied its expertise to design a sophisticated governance structure that is defined and capable of dealing with all levels and all subject areas (see chapter 3 LSE section, 3.1.5.2.). In general, subjects and themes fall in the responsibility of a committee while leadership and implementation are handed to individuals. Also, while the continuous paradox between the need for standardization and the desire for individual flexibility (LSE2) is present and commented upon, it seems to be dealt with on rational grounds – leaving individual flexibility, but standardising where the business case is more compelling. Another expression of the robustness of the LSE’s governance structure is the fact that, even though the stakeholder basis complains about a managerial shift, most practices and structures remain unchanged as the institutional body is defined so clearly that it continues to work with various figureheads.
After many years of structural egalitarianism in the German university governance system, the FU was one of the first to test and apply a reformed approach (see chapter 3 FU section, 3.2.5.2.). The new way was meant to give more steering capacity to the university management and it succeeded in doing so. Similar to the UOC the FU is run by the top brass pair of the president and the chief administrator (Chancellor). When interpreting the observations, it seems that the FU has had so many micro- and macro-experiments with governance that when the new experiment started and a leadership team who rolled up their sleeves and took things in their hands appeared (colloquial), all stakeholders (faculty, administration and students) were somehow happy with letting them implement their vision, because crisis was, and still is, apparent. The result is that, even though there are multi-stakeholder governance structures, it seems that most administrative matters are decided by the Chancellor and his vassals (archaic word), while the President was the chief architect for the universities future vision as elite university. The FU represents a case for a strong leadership setting – resulting in clarity and consistence in practice (FU Chancellor 63) but also fostering clan-like-behavior and conspiratorial atmospheres due to power politics made possible by a lack of transparency and focus on trust relationships.
The UPC has perhaps the most democratic governance system (see chapter 3 UPC section, 3.3.7.2). All stakeholders vote for their schools leader but also for the rector and his management team who have presented their political program beforehand. This highly democratic system works in spite of, or maybe exactly because, the majority of the stakeholders are not very political, and to the degree of what could be observed during the investigation, no profound conflicts are present within the university community. Even though the former management team has been denounced as a socialist (UPC administration 15) and has made some non-market-conforming decisions, the UPC can be classified as a democratic technocracy. It is a university with a well-oiled machinery functioning according to a designed and standardized process architecture.
At the UOC a similar setup as for the FU has been observed (see chapter 3 UOC section 3.4.5.2). The absolute central role of the rector is complemented by a strong manager, who is responsible for the administrative matters. In contrast to the FU the UOC was purposely founded this way and only now, after the leadership change, have there been some signals that there might be a somewhat wider distribution of power. However, for now, - except for at the departmental level - there is little, or minimal participation of students and faculty in institutional governance. As is the case at the FU this concentration of power, lack of communication and subsequent opaqueness causes power politics and clan-like behaviour.
-----------------------------
[i] Including human labour as it is ‘standardized’
Users' Comments (3383) 
|
|
|
