TheServiceUniversity ArildTjeldvoll The traditional western research university’s academic freedom is in- creasinglychallengedbyexternaleconomicalinterests.Thishas conse- quencesforwhathasbeenregardedasakeyqualitydimensionofauni- versity.Thebalancebetweeninstitutionalautonomy,academicfreedom andaccountabilitytoexternalstakeholdersisclaimedtobechangingin disfavour of the academic freedom kept up by the professoriate. From itsstakeholderstheinstitutionisexpectedtoservepoliticians, statebu- reaucracy and market in a qualitatively different way from before, pri- marily from economic motives. Is academic freedom at all possible in an institution predominantly financed by producing services to meet economiccriteria? A likely answer wouldbe no, and another tentative, answer could be that yes, it is possible, due to the strong academic legacy imbedded in western academics’ identity – and to the global communicative room of free actions made possible by the new infor- mationtechnology. Key Words: serviceuniversity,quality,academicfreedom,ict , management jel Classification:z Allovertheworldtheuniversity’sfunctionandorganisationischang- ing dramatically. Due to globalization forces the old, academic and au- tonomous institution is pushed to change its organisation and produc- tion of research and training in order to be accountable to governments and markets. The traditional balance between individual academic free- dom (for the professors),autonomy for theinstitution andaccountabil- ity to those providing the funding – is challenged. Many claim that the balance is tipping in favour of the direct economical needs of society andthemarket,atthecostofopportunitiesfordoingbasicresearchand with less opportunity ‘to speak truth to the power’ of state and market. Thepurposeofthispaperis,firstly,toillustratethisnewsituationforthe academicresearchuniversitybypointingbothtochangedpoliciesandto reactionsfromtheacademiccommunity,andsecondly,toreflectonhow freedom and autonomy may still be achieved while forced to respondto increasedaccountability fromstakeholders. DrArildTjeldvollisaProfessorintheDepartmentofEducational PolicyandAdministration,NationalChiNanUniversity,Taiwan. ManagingGlobalTransitions8 (4 ):423 –447 424 ArildTjeldvoll More specifically, the purpose of the paper will be reached, firstly, by illustrating universities’ changed situation at individual, organisational andconceptuallevels;thatismicro-experiencesbyprofessors,newinsti- tutional labels (enterprise universities), twisting of the concept of qual- ity, the new mode of knowledge production and higher education as international ‘free trade.’ Secondly, the label most powerfully catching key features of the ‘new’ university – the service university–isoutlined. Thirdly,threescenariosaboutuniversitydevelopmentunderglobalcap- italism are envisaged, among which, one – the academic service univer- sity – is seen as one where a fair balance between freedom, autonomy and accountability may still be possible. In concluding, some assumed conditions forkeepingupthebalanceareenvisaged. TheNewWorldofHigherEducation theprofessors ’discontent World wide, university professors seem to feel an emotional discontent about their traditional place in the social division of labour (Tjeldvoll 2002 a). The professoriate seems bewildered about how to react to the paradox that the university is given greater autonomy simultaneously with lessfundingfrom theState (Altbach1996 ). Although thesetenden- ciesareglobal,reactionstothediscontentseemtobeespeciallystrongin countries like usa , Canada, uk and Australia (Harman 1996 ). In these countriesprofessorsfindthattheuniversityorganisationandframecon- ditions havedramaticallychangedinafewyears. The status of scientific knowledge organised as disciplines seems to be declining. The basic disciplines that students of the 50 s and 60 smet with were status cores of the university’s structure and content. Some disciplines have shrunken, changed or disappeared completely (Welch 1998 ). Professors see such changes as due to primarily two conditions: society’s need for studies of a more practical orientation, resulting in priority for ‘profession studies.’ Secondly, there have appeared new and often social policy motivated research needs, anchored in e.g. femi- nism and multi-ethnic cultures – challenging the traditional disciplines, not least by their problem-oriented and declared multi-disciplinary ap- proach (Welch1998 ). The changedstatus of the disciplines has been un- pleasant for many professors, because it has challenged their identity, of whichtheacademic partisanessentialcomponent. Pressures for changed teaching methods have also caused pains. The ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 425 traditional lecture approach has been challenged by the new ict .‘Vir- tual’pedagogyisliterally unlimited inrelationtofactorsliketime,space and form of communication (Weber1996 ). Socio-cultural learning the- ory and the e-learning industry’s need for ‘motivated learning just in time’ is illustrated in the slogan ‘from teaching to learning.’ The tacit message to professors is that their traditional teaching is not producing efficient learning(TjeldvollandJacobsen2002 ). Students’ morale and morality are different from before. When uni- versities became institutions for mass higher education, the professor met with lots of students of a different socio-cultural background and motivation (Tjeldvoll1999 ). Many students behave like the ‘schooltired pupils’ofmodernsecondaryschools.Theirmotivationforuniversityed- ucation seems to berather instrumental. Earlier, more students were at- tractedtotheuniversitybyamoregenuineacademicinterest.Nowtheir ability to work independently seems weaker. Students are also encour- aged to evaluate their professors. Suchactivities focus on the professors’ communicative competence, including his talent for being entertaining. Many professors see student evaluations as a paradoxical activity: How canstudentswhohavenotyetattainedtheknowledgetheyhavecometo learn,becapableofassessingthequality ofprofessors’teaching? Another source of discontent is the professors’ changed relations to keydecisionmakersinsideandoutsidecampus.Professorsusedtohavea stronginfluenceonpolicydecisionsoftheinstitution.Nowtheyfeelthat whatusedtobetheirsupportstaff–theAdministration–hastakencon- trol over decision-making processes. The Administration has increased heavily in terms of resources and influence, and manages the university more from an administrative than from a scientific rationality. Also, the changedbehaviouroftheMandatoroftheuniversity,theState,ispainful for theprofessor. Itis nolonger afaithfulfinancial patron of theuniver- sity. Professors feel pressure to take external work in order to bring in additional revenues totheinstitution. Finally, the perhaps strongest discontent is the fear of not having a tenure position. Increasingly people are hired on contract, for a fixed time,oronconditionswhereitcanbeterminatedwhentheAdministra- tionfindsthattheprofessorisnolongerrelevanttothecentralgoalsand strategies of the university (Welch1998 ). Professors feel that they are in- creasingly addressed by a new language with a vocabulary of the market economy: Competition, quality, profit, investments, benchmarking, ac- countability,efficiencyand‘totalqualitymanagement’(Donlagic2002 a). Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 426 ArildTjeldvoll Why have all these sources of professors’ discontent become active around the turn of the21 st Century? What has actually happened to the external andinternal contextoftheprofessors? ‘enterpriseuniversities ’appearing Pressures on the higher education sector from global capitalism seem also to have produced new labels to indicate the modern character or profileorbrandingofaninstitution.Inliteratureanddebateastreamof new prefixes is appearing. The most bluntly market oriented ‘new uni- versity’ so far seems to be the ‘entrepreneurial university’ (Clark 1998 ). Theintended meaningtobecommunicatedisofauniversitybeingsim- ilar to an effective market-based company, which has to be acting effec- tively towards its surroundings in order to survive successfully. Another labelis‘theinnovativeuniversity’–theconnotationisexperiencedasless provocative than ‘entrepreneurial’ by the professors. Actually, the con- tent of meaning is the same. Other labels are ‘the Net University’ and ‘the Virtual University’ (Weber1996 ) (e.g. Phenix University, owned by the Apollo Group). There are found different degrees of being virtual. Some are purely net-based, without any physical campus at all. Other institutions virtualise parts of their activities, often in virtual university consortia,inordertoofferabroadpackageofcompetitiveprogrammes. Intheus thisdevelopmentincludesbothprivateandpublicinstitutions. Finally,thereisthe‘serviceuniversity.’Studiesusingthisconcepthavees- pecially focusedhowtraditional, publicresearchuniversities indifferent countriesrespondasorganisations,whentheStatereducesfunding,and theuniversitiesthemselveshavetomakeendsmeet(Cummings1997 ). Behind these new labels for a university there are certain shared background factors attached to ‘globalisation,’ and some specific factors causedbystressonparticularaspectsoftheinstitution’s goals,strategies and organisation. The shared factors are ideology, economy and com- munication technology. These factors are interconnected, and the Cold War may be seen as a relatively distinct starting point for this particu- lar development of universities. The Internet and attached technologies werereleasedinthemostclear-cutformsbyus defencepolicies,through the Government’s successfulco-operation with leadingus research uni- versities (Castells 1996 ). This co-operation affected a communication technology revolution that strongly influenced the political power bal- ance and development in the Soviet Union, finally causing its collapse. The ideological consequences were dramatic. With the fall of the Berlin ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 427 Wall, there was also a fall of collective ideology, with a complementary advance for liberalist ideology. Liberalism and theict Revolution stim- ulated market economy and entrepreneurial thinking in corporate life, in the public sector, higher education included, and among people in general.Todaytheworldisinpracticeonemarket(cf.wto ).Theinbuilt development dynamic of the information technology and the corpora- tions’profitmotivearethekeydriversoftheglobaleconomy.Thisecon- omy is increasingly knowledge-based, and universities are seen as the ‘power stations’ for supplying this economy with its core means to stay competitive–newknowledge(Castells1994 ).Manyareconcernedabout how this development will affect what is traditionally seen as university quality. whendoesauniversityhavequality ? Quality is a buzzword, now applied in almost all spheres of human life. Related to universities the quality issue takes a particular significance – becauseuniversitiesinthewesternworldhavebeen‘institutions’(socio- cultural cornerstones alongside e.g. the Church and the Family) repre- senting certain value dimensions basic in our civilisation (Welle-Strand 2000 ). Quality can constructively be related to Max Weber’s distinction be- tween value goals and instrumental goals (Weber 1964 ). Value goals are aboutfundamental,universalqualities(orcharacteristicsorproperties), inprinciple validfor allhumanbeings.Instrumental goalsarerelated to economic and practical issues, often decisive in order to achieve value goals. For example, it is important for a university to have a healthy economy, strong enough also to employ philosophers and sociologists researchingconditionsforcivilisationanddaringtospeaktruthtopow- ers–likeStateandMarket.Thevalueaspectandtheinstrumentalaspect of quality can be further explained by two labels: Quality as fitness of purposefor something,andquality asfitness ofpurposeof something Qualityas‘FitnessofPurposefor’ Qualitymayberelatedtohowfitaparticularinstrument,toolorstrategy is for reaching a given goal, for example, the goal of competitiveness for a university to recruit students. When the instrument, e.g. a professor’s organising of learning, is producing high achievements by the students, quality of teaching as instrument has been high in terms of making the institution competitive. The instrumental ‘purpose for’ quality concern Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 428 ArildTjeldvoll is related to effectiveness, efficiency and, with globalisation as the con- text, increasingly to competitiveness. There is high quality of teaching activities when learning achievements by students are high, they are at- tained at lowest possible costs – and graduates from this institution are competitiveinthejobmarket. Qualityas‘FitnessofPurposeof’ Quality as ‘fitness of purpose of’ is concerned not about instruments or strategiestoachievesomething,butaboutthequalityofapurposeitself. Isouraimorgoalvaluable?Isitaworthwhilegoalwearetryingtoreach with instruments of high "purpose-for" quality? Instead of concentrat- ingonthequalityoftheinstruments,thefocushereisontheessence,or meaning of what we are doing. Is the purpose important in a value and moral perspective? Quality of education can be taken as an example. Is educationprimarilyameansforproducingworkcompetenceforpartic- ularjobs?Or,isthequalityofeducationprimarilyrelatedtothestudent’s personal development to maturity and moral standards as a responsible humanbeinginacivilisedsociety? TheClashbetweenQualityas‘FitnessofPurposefor’and‘Fitness asPurpose of’ Withinhighereducation, inthewesternworld,therearetodayobserved intensive struggles between the two quality camps of ‘fitness as purpose of’ and ‘fitness as purpose for.’ Governments/Ministries of education, large groups of students and working life are concerned about higher education’s quality in terms of qualifying people for being continuously competent andcompetitiveintheglobalknowledgeeconomy(Tjeldvoll 2002 b). Continuous relevant competence is seen as a necessity for sur- vivalofindividualsandnationsintheglobaleconomicalcompetition.A slogan from this campfrequently heard is:Learn or Burn (Welle-Strand andTjeldvoll2002 ). The Quality as the fitness of "purpose of-camp" is represented by groups ofprofessorsandintellectuals withtheir valuerootsinbothrad- ical and conservative ideologies. They claim that success of the Quality as ‘fitness of purpose for-struggle’ will be at the cost of the Quality as ‘fitness of purpose of’ – the classic values or purposes of the university as an autonomous social and cultural institution in a civilised society. This camp claims the overall mission of a research university as a so- cialinstitutiontobe:basicresearchandtrainingofstudentsforcreative, ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 429 independentandcriticalthinking.Overandaboveakeypurposeofuni- versities should be to train young people to speak truth to power – in ordertocounteractdehumanisingeffectsfromthepurposeofone-sided economical instrumentalism. Theparamountquestionintermsofuniversities’qualitydevelopment obviously is: Is it possible to organise a university that simultaneously can serve the purposes of human civilisation/culture-values and the needs of the economy, from which we all are surviving? And, if yes, how is such a double purpose designed in terms of a relevant university organisation andproductionactivitiesofresearchandorganisingoflearning?Toplay a bit on words – what would be indications of quality of the strategies achieving Quality both as ‘fitness of purpose of’ and ‘fitness of purpose for’? Some stakeholders would tend to think that a functional division of labour could be that classical research universities should mainly take care of ‘purpose of,’ while professional schools could take care of ‘pur- pose for.’ However, some would then claim that such a division would imply an intellectual class structure within higher education – between the ‘culturallyeducated’ andthe ‘instrumentally trained.’ Such‘inequal- ity’ might have difficulties in being accepted in a society with a strong democratic ideology. Maybe the majority of students are not interested inbeing‘purposeof-educated.’Maybetheywishpurposefor-qualityand a lucrative job. Maybe it is not possible under mass higher education to keep up the traditional purpose of-ideal, like before, for everybody. The studentmarketmayrefuseit.InNorwaythereseemtobesomeirrational tensions between the purposes of academic elitism, of equality thinking and of what is needed for staying competitive as universities in an in- creasingly global higher education market (Tjeldvoll 2001 ). The tension betweenthetwodifferentaspectsofqualitymayalsobeillustratedbythe difference between Mode1 andMode2 ofknowledgeproduction. newmodesofknowledgeproductionandnew publicmanagement The general understanding of what science and knowledge actually are has undergone a dramatic reinterpretation during the last part of the previous century (Cowen 1996 ). This has contributed to loss of power for the professors (Altbach 1996 ). A new understanding among impor- tant stakeholders of the university as an organisation is manifested in changed principles for university management. The ideas of ‘new pub- Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 430 ArildTjeldvoll table 1 Mode1 andMode2 ofknowledgeproduction Mode1 Mode2 Problemsofknowledgearesetandsolved inacontextgovernedbyacademic interestsofaspecificcommunity. Knowledgeisproducedandcarriedoutin acontextofapplication. Basedonthedisciplines Cross/trans-disciplinary* Homogeneity Heterogeneity** Hierarchicalstructure,andtendsto preserveitsform Heterarchical***andtransient Qualitycontrolbypeerreviewjudgements Sociallyaccountableandreflexive notes *Cross/trans-disciplinary:(1)Theknowledgeproductionisstartedfromprac- tical problems, not from theoretical oo discipline based problems. (2)Theproduction takes place in a ‘projectorganisation,’ not in a fixed andpermanentstructure, like a de- partment or institute. When the production is finished the organisation may be closed down. (3) The knowledge production implies problem solving, including both empiri- cal and theoretical components, and therefore contributions to the store of knowledge, althoughnotdisciplineknowledge.(4)Thedisseminationoftheresults–thenewknowl- edge – is made directly to those who have been involved in the project/production pro- cess. Mode 2 of knowledge production is dynamic, a problem solving capacity on the move. **Heterogeneity: an increased number of placed where knowledge can be pro- duced. ***Heterarchical: alliances and connections when establishing project organi- sations for Mode 2 production have in principle no limits, not least in terms of elec- tronic/communicationtechnology.Simultaneouslythereisacontinuousdifferentiation atdifferentplacesandwithindifferentactivities–toincreasinglysharperspecialities. lic management’ (npm ) have also reached the university ‘ivory towers.’ The Anglo-Americanhigher education worldisat theleadinthisdevel- opment, and the us government seems to be pushing hard for making higher education a free trade – wto domain (Altbach 2001 ). As a sum effect follows the emergence of a new type of university, where a new modeofknowledgeproduction seems tobeon therise. ‘Mode2 ’ofKnowledgeProduction Intheearly1990 s,astudywasundertakenwiththeaimofexploring‘ma- jorchangesinthewayknowledgeisbeingproduced,’notonlyinscience and technology, but also in social sciences and humanities (Gibbons et al. 1994 ). The overall frame of reference for the study was the assump- tion that a new form of knowledge production – Mode2 –isemerging, while simultaneously, the traditional discipline-based form of produc- tion – Mode1 – is continuing, but with reduced status and reduced ex- tent (Kvil1998 ;seetable1). Summarised, the difference between the two modes is that Mode 1 ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 431 represents the traditional production of knowledge, steered by the dis- cipline and the professors within the organisational frame of the re- searchinstitute,whileMode2 ispracticalandproject-oriented, andpro- duces knowledge for application within a flexible project organisation andmanagement.¹ ‘NewPublicManagement’ intheUniversities(Pollitt 1995 ) Mode 2 of knowledge production and changed external demands for competence, forces the university to look more closely at its own organ- isation. It hasto askwhether the existing structuring ofhuman and ma- terial resources,andthepresent goal-setting,decision makingand com- municationprocessesaffecttheinternalfunctionsrelevantforrecruiting asufficient numberofstudents andforacquiringfinancialresources. The relevant internal functions comprise the university’s production of services like research and organising of learning. The research seems pressuredtomoveincommissionedandapplieddirections.Fundingfor researchhastobeachievedthroughcompetitionwithotherinstitutions. The organizing of learning has to be efficient enough to be successful in thecompetitionforfee-payingstudents.Theproductionofresearchand learning services also has to include tailor-made deliveries off campus – tocustomers’satisfaction. The management sees these changes in the production of services as unavoidable, in order to survive financially. And, at the core of needed organisational changes is – governance and management. First and fore- mosttheinstitutionseemstoneedaboardrepresentingimportantstake- holders, having a motive to invest in the institution. Secondly, the in- stitution will need a daily management that is capable of making the institution produce services of such quality that users are willing to buy them.Thirdly,theinstitutionneedsaprofessionaladministrationofcor- poratetype.Theboardandmanagementhavetothinklikecorporations, intermsoffuturechallengesandstrategies.Theywillbeaccountablefor the institution’s ‘academic competitiveness’ and healthy finances in the sense that, if the institution is not competitive, they will have to leave theirpositions. anglo -american -dominatedhighereducation freetrade WorldModelPowerofAmericanUniversities? The market-oriented New Public Management development of univer- sities is still primarily an Anglo-American phenomenon. In Europe,uk Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 432 ArildTjeldvoll is a distinct and dynamic example of institutional adaptation to the ide- ological and economical conditions following from globalization. Ten- dencies aresimilarinAustraliaandCanada.However, inthesecountries thereisstillstrongresistancefrommanyprofessors(CurrieandNewson 1998 ).Onereasonforthedifferenceinorganisationalbehaviourbetween Anglo-American institutions and European Continent institutions may be found in their historically different relation to the State. On the Eu- ropeancontinent, universitieshavebeenratherstronglygoverned bythe ministries of education, in administrative matters, while having a high degree of academic freedom. In the Anglo American world, universities havealsohadahighlevelofadministrativeautonomy.Incommon,glob- ally,arenowseen strong tensions between threemain actors:professors, State and market.The speed of change in the power balance in the indi- vidual country is, however, conditioned by the specific national cultural and political legacy. While professors in England have lost tenure, and perhapssomesocialstatus,professorsinGermanystillhaveastrongpo- sitionandhighsocialstatus. American elite universities seem to have a model effect for the rest of theworld.Theirorganisation,management,formsofserviceproduction andfinancingareobservedbypubliceducationalplannersaswellaspri- vate business schools around the world. The interplay between science, education, technology and capital as seen in e.g. the relations between StanfordUniversity, theit companies,andtheventurecapitalofSilicon Valley, is as a model for public planners and the emerging education in- dustryoutsidetheus .ThemostrecentexpressionofSiliconValley’seco- nomicsofeducationdynamicisperhapsseenintheemerginge-learning industry, where tertiary education hardware and software are found as profit makingbig businesson thestockexchange(Trondsen2000 ). HigherEducation aswto -Regulated FreeTrade? The e-learning industry and the general industrialisation of higher ed- ucation products seem also to have resulted in pressures for legalising higher education services as free trade in a global market. The World Trade Organisation (wto ) has been considering a series of proposals aiming to include higher education and in-service training as part of wto ’s area of responsibility. This would imply that export and import of education products areregulated bythelaws andregulations ofwto , and, hence, outside of most national restrictions (Altbach 2001 ). wto and its affiliatedgats (General Agreement on Trade and Services) wish ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 433 thatuniversitiesinterestedininternationaltradewitheducationservices should do so with as few restrictions as possible. The education trade would be global and comprise the establishment of branch campuses, export of degree programmes, awarding of degrees, investments in ed- ucation institutions in other countries and establishing of distance ed- ucation delivering education services at any place of the globe (Altbach 2001 ). Still, however, the nation state has close to complete jurisdiction over its higher education activities. When in the future, thewto /gats regu- lationsareinplace,alltypesofeducation servicescanfreelybeexported from one country to another. One impact of the global commercialisa- tion of education is that countries having not already established edu- cation institutions and programmes of high quality might be overrun by foreign suppliers looking for profits, without being concerned with national interests and‘qualityasfitness ofpurposeof’(Altbach2001 ). Among the new ‘entrepreneurial’ universities, the Service University has appeared as a conceptual label productive for contrasting the new university model to the traditional professoriate-dominated research university. ServiceUniversityandResearchUniversityCompared theoriginoftheserviceuniversityconcept ‘Service University’ was for the first time applied as a label by Canadian research administrators in 1986 (Enros and Farley 1986 ). While consid- ering Canada’s overallbudgetproblems,they wondered howtheuniver- sities’ production could increase in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, and, hence,give betterservicefor Canada, with similarorslimmerbud- gets. Research on service university development at State University of NewYorktookasapointofdeparturethepublicauthorities’budgetbe- haviourinCanadaandthestatesofNewYork,WisconsinandMichigan. Thestateshadstartedtopushtheirpublicuniversitiestowardswhatwas termed more relevant activities. The authorities’ means to achieve this goal was a budget- and programme policy adapted to the State’s current economicsituationandtheState’sresearchneeds. theserviceuniversityandthetraditionalresearch universitycompared In 1995 an ‘ideal type’ of the service university was presented by Profes- sorWilliamCummings(1995 ). Researchers fromallover the worldwere Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 434 ArildTjeldvoll table 2 Theresearchuniversityandtheserviceuniversitycompared Researchuniversity Serviceuniversity Arts & science centred Professionalschools Two-tier+instructionalprogram Post-baccalaureatedegree&training programstailoredforclients Year-longcourses One-weektofour-monthcourses Life-longpersonnel Manyadjuncts Researchorganisationlayeredontopof teachingorganisation Servicecarriedoutinparallelunits Decentralisedchoiceofresearchagenda Centralplanningandcontracting ofservice Fundingbygiftsandgrants Fundingbycontracts notes AdaptedfromCummings1995 . invited to join a research network, in order to study and compare how service university development might appear in very different national contexts.² The ideal type-differences between the ‘traditional university’ andtheemerging‘serviceuniversity’areseenintable2. While the traditional researchuniversity has two levels, under-gradu- ateandpost-graduate,withcoursesthatusuallyspanoveroneorseveral years,theserviceuniversityismarkedbyprofessionally-orientedcourses lasting from one week to four months, tailored to fit the needs of the client/labour market. While scientists are usually appointed for life, the serviceuniversity hasmanytemporaryemployees. Theresearchtasksoftheuniversityhavetraditionallybeenplacedover andoutsidetheuniversityasacentreofeducation.Researchassignments andprioritieshavebeenrelegatedtotheindividualresearchersandtheir areasofinterest. Intheserviceuniversity,education andresearchareor- ganised in parallel. Responsibility for research policy also lies with the university leadership. Outside of the established teaching load, the indi- vidual employee of the traditional university can choose how to spend thetime. The service university is characterised by management’s control of its academic labour force through the type of contract that is concluded withexternalclientsonthepurchaseofservices,eitherinresearch,teach- ingorconsultation.Financingofthesetwomodelsisfundamentallydif- ferent. While the traditional university predominantly lives off alloca- tions from the State, which does not demand a clear control of results, ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 435 the service university’s survival is dependent upon the contracts it ac- quires,anditsconstantcompetitivenessonthemarket. Based on transitory tendencies, one can characterise developments as a transfer of control of the university’s total resources. With the tradi- tional autonomous research university as a point of departure, in which tenured staff in practice have all the power to decide over principal re- sources, one can now sight out a gradual trend toward the other end of the continuum, where control over resources is relegated to the admin- istrativeleadershipoftheuniversityonthewhole. Traditionally, it was the tenured staff of scientific personnel (the pro- fessors) who have full control over the three main resources: their own labour/time, temporary labour, extra personnel and infra-structure re- sources. This end of the continuum could represent an organisational laissez-faire model. The university’s actual operations were a result of the interests of the individual tenured staff. Planning, joint leadership and evaluation of the university as a whole are not emphasised, or else arelacking. Movement in the direction of the service university would seem to imply that the professors to an increasing degree are losing control over thesemainresources.Toalargerandlargerextent,theAdministrationis determiningwhichresourcestheprofessorsaregoingtohaveatdisposal. Acompletelynewmodelcouldbeinsight:thecompleteserviceuniversity. Here administration and management have full control over the profes- sors’ total labour, also their research activities. Their labour is priced in relationtowhatitsignifiesfortheincome-potentialoftheuniversity,and the professor’s work, be it research, teaching or performance of services for clients in the region is determined by what university management hasagreeduponwiththeindividualemployee.Table3 visualisesthisline ofthought. The various models for control over university resources can be con- sideredassuppositionsofhowthetrendwillbe.Thereareclearlydiverse conceptions as to the degree to which this description is synonymous with reality or not. Views are weighed differently in various research environments, and in various parts of the world. Philip G. Altbach has analysed developments within higher education in an historical and in- ternational comparative overview. He has found the same tendencies as Cummings,butunderscorestoamuchgreaterdegreethat‘thecommon heritage’ from theHumboldt tradition still seems to withstand, and will probablycontinuetodosointhefuture(Altbach1992 ). Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 436 ArildTjeldvoll table 3 Changedcontrolofuniversityresources Models Tenured professors Contract professionals Facilities Laissez-faire Professors Professors ? Universityfacilities priced Professors Professors Administration Professionalservice priced Professors Administration Administration Full services priced Administration Administration Administration notes AdaptedfromCummings1995 . Howhaveolder,traditionaluniversities reactedtotheServiceUniver- sity-trends? In most Anglo-American countries the transition has oc- curred powerfully and effectively (Currie and Newson 1998 ). The joint economicalinterestsoftheStateandtheMarkethaveforceduniversities to move towards becoming service universities. In Welfare State Scan- dinavia the development has been slow. An illustrative example of the Scandinavian situation is the University of Oslo.In the next section em- pirical findings on how professors actually react to service university- developments arepresented. AcademicResistancetoGlobalisation:UniversityofOslo In 1996 a study was made on how key actors of the University of Oslo assessed an assumed service university development at this university (Tjeldvoll and Holtet 1997 ). In concise terms, the Oslo-study showed that the Norwegian government wanted universities to take on greater responsibility for their budgets in the future.³ Within the University of Oslo the following finds were made: Through its plans and programs the university had taken the consequences of the government’s signals of future reduced allocations from the State. The central leadership was divided over the concept of the service university as a principle. Ap- pointed administrative leaders (not academics) had conceptions that were more in accordance with plan documents and government inten- tions.Electedtopleaders(tenuredpersonnel)expressedamoreambigu- ousview.Electedtenuredleadersonfacultyandinstitutelevelswereneg- ative towards or hesitant to the principle of a service university and its consequences.Themostsalientobjectionwasthattheuniversity’stradi- tional autonomy, its possibility to conduct basic research and its role as an independent critic of the political and administrative system, would ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 437 table 4 AssessmentofservicedevelopmentattheUniversityofOslo Level Negative(–) Reluctant Positive(+) Centraladministration(ceo +4 directors) 5 Centralelectedleadership(1) 1 Facultylevel(8 deans) 341 Departmentlevel(8 chairs) 431 Central public actors (4) 4 Regionalcustomers(3) 3 be threatened if university budgets became dependent upon selling its services.TheUniversityofOslo’spossible‘clients’intheOsloregionhad positive expectations of an improved ‘client relationship’ to the univer- sity,butconceivedtheuniversityoftodayas‘acloseddoor.’Thefindings arevisualisedintable4. Summarized, nearly all the key academic actors, except two, were re- luctant or straightforward – negative, while the key external users were positivetotheserviceuniversity idea, aslongasacademic independence wasguaranteed. InanewstudyoftheUniversityofOslo(CurrieandTjeldvoll2001 ),a sampleofprofessorsfromthreefaculties⁴wasaskedtoassessthepresent national and international influence on governance/management, fi- nancing, academic and administrative accountability and use of ict . The study was part of a comparative project where similar issues were addressedtoprofessorsinthreeothercountries.⁵Amainconclusionwas thattwothirdsofNorwegianprofessorsingeneralwerenegativetowards the effects of globalisation on the university’s production and organisa- tion. One third of theprofessors saw globalisation asan opportunity for strengthening the university. Over time, the Norwegian professors seem to be consistent in their resistance towards service university develop- ment. However, with the country’s announced national ‘quality reform’ of higher education (2002 ), the Government was actually trying to im- plement the service university.⁶ CantheTraditional ResearchUniversitySurvive? The review of studies on how universities are adapting to changed con- ditions internationally seems clearlytoindicate ageneral serviceuniver- sity development world-wide. There are, however, different assessments about how far this development will go and to which extent academic Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 438 ArildTjeldvoll traditionswillmodifywhatisactuallyhappening.Aspublicinstitutions, universities seem forced to some change for their survival, while try- ing to balance individual academic freedom and institutional autonomy with sufficient accountability to the stakeholders that provide the fund- ing (Tjeldvoll 1998 ). A key question is whether the university really has aninternalpotentialandcapacityforinitiatingandsteeringsuchchange processesforconstructivesurvivalontheinstitution’sownindependence terms.Ifthereisnotsuchapotentialorcompetencepresent,theresearch university asthecultureinstitutionofacivilisedsocietymightdisappear. Three scenarios are envisaged for future university development under globalcapitalism. AcademicFreedomunderGlobalCapitalism threescenariosforuniversitydevelopment When trying to imagine future development for the traditional research university, three scenarios are possible: bankruptcy, the knowledge en- terpriseortheacademicserviceuniversity. 1 stScenario: UniversitiesGoingBankrupt Asderegulationcontinues,theinstitutionsbecomeevenmoreautonomo- us,and,–simultaneously–moredependent ontheirownability tofind revenues,someinstitutionsmaynotbeabletosurvive.Inacountrylike Norway one can imagine, firstly, a round of mergers between a univer- sity and one or more colleges of the same region. Then it may be seen that some of the ‘district colleges’ will have to close down due to poor recruitment and financial problems. While study fees are still not an is- sue in Norway,⁷ there are already indications of institutions beginning to reflect on fees as a means to balance the budget. It may be just a question of time until study fees are introduced. If so, the market situa- tion of Norwegian higher education is dramatically changed. Students’ choiceofinstitutionforstudieswillbebasedonassessmentsof‘bestrate of return.’ They will be considering the relevance of study programmes and quality of teaching. Such student behaviour is likely to favour the larger and stronger institutions in terms of human resources and ability toadapttostudents’needs.Thosecollegeswhichcannotattractstudents will have to close down. If also privatisation increases and wto regula- tionscomeintooperation,eventheuniversitiesandscientificcollegesin oil-richNorwaymaybeintrouble. ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 439 2 ndScenario:TheKnowledgeEnterprise This scenario is rapidly becoming reality internationally. The number of institutions established, or changing, in order to supply customers or clients with tailor-made study programmes or commissioned research is increasing. The pattern seems to have three features. Firstly, there is the increased establishing of new, especially net-based institutions that are purely commercial. Next, there is a commercialising of some tradi- tionalresearchuniversities.Theyeitherwillchangetobecomeprimarily market-based, or else they will establish ‘an annex-institution’ to take care of commercialisation of the products that can be sold in a market. Finally, there are ‘corporate universities.’ Already several large corpora- tionshaveestablishedtheirown‘corporateuniversity’totakecareofthe company’s researchand training needs (e.g. Norwegian Telenor). Com- pared to the traditional content of the concept ‘university,’ it does not make sense to call these knowledge enterprises – universities. To the ex- tent that such enterprises will dominate the higher education sector, the university as‘institution’ islost. 3 rdScenario: TheAcademic ServiceUniversity Historically, the ‘university’ has always been a service university – pro- ducing services for state, working life and civil society. Included in its productionofservicestherehasdevelopedtheidealoffree,independent and critical research and teaching – as a particularly important ‘service to culture and civilisation,’ exemplified in the slogan ‘speaking truth to power. ’Willthis‘civilising’servicecontinuetobeproduced,whenthe university is forced to take more direct responsibility for its budgets, by e.g.marketingmoreandmoreservicestousergroupswillingtopay? Isnotthisalreadythenormalsituationforacademicallyexcellent,pri- vate, rich institutions in the us ? They have survived well by gifts and revenues, while simultaneously producing first class scientific research, critique of capitalism included. For these institutions the present situa- tion can hardly be seen as anything new. The more interesting question is:Whatwillhappentopublicinstitutionsine.g.Norway,thathasupto nowbeenfinanciallycarefullyprotectedbytheState?Willtheybeableto transfer to ‘academic service universities’ of theus type?Havingnotra- dition at all in management and financing on their own, they may face seriousdifficulties.Inprincipletheyoughttobeabletoestablishsystems of management and financing, making it possible for them to keep a healthybalancebetweenacademic freedom, institutional autonomy and Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 440 ArildTjeldvoll the need for sufficient accountability to the stakeholders supplying the revenues (the State and the market). Under certain general and specific conditions thismightbepossible. conditionsforsurvivalofacademicfreedom Some general frame factors obviously have negative effects on keeping up free, academic research, while other conditions may be the opposite. Among the negative conditions are ideological shifts and market econ- omy, while Internet technology, the importance of free research for in- novationsandthestrongwesternacademicculturetraditionsareseenas positiveconditions forkeepingupfreeresearch. Intheglobalmarketeconomy,competitionandprofitaretwokeyfea- tures. In order to survive, any organization has to produce services of such quality, – seen from customers’ point of view – that the producer candeliver andbringprofits toitsMandator (Owner). Increasingly, also public institutions are having boards that represent stakeholder interests more directly, and a management that is made ac- countabletothisboard.Withoutresearchandteachingproductsthatare seen as being of relevance and quality, and therefore are demanded by users, the institution will have a risky future. Within higher education a newrationalehasemerged.Highereducationisnolongerasocietalgood that everybody as a human right should have, paid by public resources. Instead, it is seen as a good for the single individual. Higher education increases the person’s ‘human capital’ in the labour market, and the ex- pensesshouldtherefore,mostly,bepaidbytheperson.Asaconsequence of this principal change, also the professor’s situation will be influenced by the ‘student customers’ needs,’ and the academic freedom may hence beconstrained. The knowledge-based global market economy has widespread effects in terms of next to immediate needs for new knowledge and for new learninginmostorganisations.Theyneedresearchandtrainingservices continuouslyinordertostayupdatedandcompetitive.Hence,theyhave tobuysuchserviceswheretheycanfindthehighestrelevance,bestqual- ity (as fitness of purpose for) and a price they can afford. Increasingly also public organisations find themselves in this situation. And, they do notanymorenecessarilyonlybuyfromtheir ownpublicinstitutions, as before,butmaygototheopenmarket,behavinglikeregularcustomers. The recent Norwegian higher education reform (from 2002 )canbe seen as an example of how a nation is trying to modernise its higher ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 441 education system in order to be better equipped to match international trends (Norwegian Ministry of Education 2000 ). Private higher educa- tionisgivenbetterconditions.Publicmoneywillfollowthestudent,en- couraging him or her to be conscious about choice of institution. Study programmes aremade three-tier (3 +2 +3 years)and theold‘domestic’ degree labels have been abolished in favour of internationally more fre- quently found degree labels (Bachelor, Master andp hd ). Against strong protestsfromtheprofessoriate, theNorwegiangovernment haschanged the legal framework in order to push the institutions to make necessary changesintheirproduction,content,degreestructureandorganization. Seen in a totality, it is fair to claim that the global knowledge economy hasmeantreducedconditionsfor freeandcriticalacademic research. According to Castells (1996 ), The Information Technology Revolution contributes strongly to intensifying market orientation and reinforces capitalism (of an impersonal character). The new technology is seen as the very Engine for globalising the economy. Simultaneously, the same technology has qualities for opposing global capitalism. The technology gives opportunity for different groups’ effective organizing in networks, wherever ontheglobetheyarelocalized.Aimsandactivities maybelib- eratingordestructive.TheSeptember11thattackisaparticulardramatic confirmation of Castell’s predictions from 1997 , about the force of net- workcommunities. The generalised lesson learnt, however, is that non-authorised activi- ties,culturalorpoliticalmaygoonasaliberatingeffectofthenewtech- nology.Thismayalsobethecasefortheuniversities.Theprofessorsmay use the Net and computers for effective data collection, quite cheaply. They may co-operate with colleagues all over the globe, uncontrolled – and workmaybedonefast.Professors’actual useofthenewtechnology differs, a lot considerably in different parts of the world. It is used a lot in market-oriented Australia (Currie and Newson1998 ), while hardly at all in publicinstitutions in affluent Norway (Currie and Tjeldvoll2001 ). The technology has the potential both to reinforce the autonomy of the institution and to safeguard the free academic work space of professors. Thepreconditionobviouslybeingthattheprofessorsseethepossibilities andaremotivated toapply them A particular feature of western, free research is that it generates gen- uinelynewideas.Lookingatus universitiesofexcellencethey,ontheone hand,areinnovativeintechnology,managementandeconomyandserve theus defence complex. On the other hand, they also have excellent re- Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 442 ArildTjeldvoll searchersine.g.philosophyandsociology,speaking‘truthtopower.’Itis possible to imagine that these universities are competitive, academically and financially, exactly because of their ability for creative and critical thinking, embedded intheirhistoricaltradition. Asfarassuchcreativityisexpressedintheirappliedactivities,thesein- stitutions may strengthen their positionin the international market(for researchandhighereducation).Creativityasunderstoodwithin‘human capitaltheory’andrecentgrowththeory,wherelearningandknowledge are seen as critical factors for competitiveness, may contribute to both public and private capital investments in traditional research universi- ties(Hatteland1995 ). The western, academic cultural tradition is likely to be an impor- tant positive frame factor for continued free and critical research, even though the university in general is being commercialised. This particu- lar tradition may prove to stay strong for a long time ahead. Even the present mosttypical knowledge enterprises – international private busi- ness schools – put great efforts into being seen as independent research institutions in the academic tradition. The motivation seems to be both pragmatic and symbolic. Research promotes the quality of their busi- ness. When the institution has an international reputation in terms of high quality of independent research – it gives an image of credibility. Independent research is primarily about validity and reliability in de- scriptions and analyses of phenomena done in a way that gives credi- bility. Credibility has great value in customer relations and marketing.⁸ Both the academic tradition in itself, its cultural strength in academic environments and in the public opinion – as well as its importance for credibilityin‘thechainofvaluecreation’–canbeseenaspositivegeneral conditions for keeping up free research within a market-based service university. ConcludingRemarks Within the general conditions of global knowledge economy, informa- tion technology and the university’s traditional innovative qualities, a number of specific conditions are likely to determine what is actually happening, which are the institutions that will continue as research universities, which will be pure knowledge enterprises and which will disappear. The Mandator’s academic identity and opinion of research, the management’s academic and administrative quality and creativity, and motivation among the professors will, in sum, determine the actual ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 443 destiny of the particular university facing global knowledge capitalism. TakingNorwayasanexample,theMinistryofEducationasMandator (Owner)oftheuniversityhas,aftergivenfundingandsettingcertainreg- ulations,keptatfairdistancefromtheinstitution’sresearchandteaching. So far. The University Board has had a majority of representatives from theacademicstaff.Gradually,theMinistryhasmadeattemptstoincrease the number of external representatives, in order to strengthen external legitimacy. In recent years there has been an option for institutions to freely increase and actually have a majority of external representatives. By2002 onlytwoofthecollegeshadoptedforthis.⁹Inrecentlegislation, external boardmajority issignalledtobecomestandardprocedure. Theboardmajority’srealopinionofscienceandindependentresearch will be decisive for the development profile of the individual university. Hence, the criteria for appointment of external board members, who appoints and which persons are actually appointed, may prove decisive for the quality of the institution’s inner life. In the Norwegian context it is likely that the Ministry will continue to play a key role in the im- plementation of higher education policies. Hence, the State’s opinion of science and research will be an important specific condition for contin- ued academic freedom. The ‘State’ is twofold: First there is the bureau- cracyintheMinistry,notleastrepresentingoldacademictraditionsquite strongly.Second,thereistheMinister,whowillchangeirregularly,repre- senting different partiesand ideologies. However, theMinister’s identity as a result of her/his own education and socialization may be an impor- tantspecificcondition foruniversity development. Even though the University Board’s decisions, in the future, normally will be decisive for the institution’s goals and strategies, there will often stillbeindependentroomforactionwithinthegivenpolicylines–which can be exploited by the daily management of the institution. Today, the managementofNorwegianinstitutionsconsistsofanelectedrector,and an administrative director with tenure. Popularity for being elected as rector, or reasons for being appointed as top bureaucrat have not very clearly been based on criteria of effective management for knowledge productionandteaching.Ithasprovedquiteincidentalwhethertheaca- demic and administrative top management has had real management competence. The rectors are normally only chairpersons of the board, andasymbolicrepresentationfigureexternally.Thedirectorisnormally behaving from traditional bureaucratic rationality, as the Ministry’s ex- tended strongarmintotheinstitution. Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 444 ArildTjeldvoll Whether university top management in the future will continue to be elected¹⁰orappointed, itwillprovedecisive whatsortofacademic iden- titythepresident-managerhas.Iftherector(withrealmanagementpow- ers) has a genuine academic identity, there are reasons to think that the roomforactiongivenbytheBoardwillbeusedtoitsmaximum.Onthe other hand, if the elected or appointed top management in reality has a purebureaucraticoreconomical-bureaucraticidentity,thefocusonrev- enues will over and above be more important than the conditions for free research, especially in subjects and disciplines without immediate marketvalue. If the university top manager, in addition to identity and status as an academicresearcher,alsohashighcompetenceincorporatemanagement, itwouldaddtomakingher/himapositiveconditionfortheautonomyof theinstitution. Thepresent system ofa stateappointed director bureau- crat would not suffice, when the university has to operate in a market, and take responsibility for the budget itself. Without a healthy economy base and healthy finance management, the institution would be uncer- tain and vulnerable. It might lose its best academic players (researchers and teachers of excellence), and by implication lose in the competition forimportantresearchandtraining contracts. The top management to safeguard academic freedom will provide creative recruiting of researchers, also philosophers and sociologists, in order to have a foundation for meta science discussions, to keep up a continuous debate about the eternal academic issues. Such activities are needed in order to keep up the institution’s identity and affect a con- vincing ‘brand name’ externally, as ‘the research-based service univer- sity.’ Hence, the top management will need to transfer resources from areas with external revenues to foundation areas, important in them- selves, but not directly market relevant. One way of safeguarding the ‘non-profitable’ subjectareas,istoearmarkstatefundingforthem. The final specific condition for keeping up academic freedom in a market-baseduniversity, istheacademic staff’sopinion oftheir ownor- ganisation. Normally, the single professor is mostly concerned with and hasidentityinhisownsubjectarea.Hisinterestfororganisationalissues normally is limited to how the annual budgets influence his research. In the future, the professors’ degree of involvement in the university’s to- tal production and organisational development may prove decisive for theinstitution’s position,statusandinternational competitiveness.Such ‘organisation competence’ is conditioned by the academic staff’s ability ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 445 tofindabalancebetweentheindividually decided freeresearch,thecol- lectiveresponsibilityfortheautonomyoftheinstitutionandthesocietal responsibilityinrelationtoState,workinglifeandthecivilsociety.Inor- der to keep up optimal conditions for individual academic freedom, the staff may have to assess how their preferred research is accountable for their institution – and for the society of public and private users – who finance theprofessors’projects andsalaries. Notes 1 Anexamplecouldbethe‘thesemi-publicInstituteSector’inNorway. 2usa ,China,Korea,Indonesia,RussiaandNorway. 3 In the study the following questions were posed: (1) How do you assess a transition in the financing policy toward the universities – from mainly a responsibility of the State, to a greater dependence on selling research- basedservicestotheirclientsintheregion?(Therespondents:administra- tive and academic leaders at the uo ), (2)Whatareyourexpectationsfor the uo ’s possibilities of offering research-based services? (Respondents: keyusergroupsintheOsloregion). 4 The three faculties were: Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Social Sci- encesandEducation. 5 TheotheruniversitieswerelocatedinFrance,Australiaandtheus . 6 Http://odin.dep.no/ufd/engelsk/publ/veiledninger/014071 -120002 /index- dok000 -n-n-a.html. 7 By 2008 it is still illegal to charge fees for any regular higher education study. 8 Aprivatebusinessschool,NorwegianSchoolofManagaementbi,hasre- centlytakenactivestepstoincreaseethicalconsciousnessamongstaffand students. In order to more effectively (!) reach this aim, cooperation has been established with another private higher education institution, spe- cializinginethics,TheIndependentFacultyofTheology. 9 BuskerudUniversityCollegeisanexample. 10 RecentsignalsfromtheMinistry(Autumn2002 )indicatethattheinstitu- tionsthemselveswillhave the rightto decidewhetherthey shallcontinue the pratice of electing the rector, or change to have an appointed leader (http://www.dep.no/ufd/norsk/utdanning/hogreutdanning/ kvalitetsreformen/04506 ). References Altbach,PhilipG.2001 .Highereducationandthewto :Globalizationrun Amok.InternationalHigherEducation23 :2–4. Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010 446 ArildTjeldvoll Altbach, P., ed. 1996 . The international academic profession: Portraits of fourteen countries. Princeton, nj : Carnegie Foundation for the Ad- vancementofTeaching. Altbach,P.G.1992 .Patternsinhighereducationdevelopment:Towardthe year 2000 .InEmergent issues in education: Comparative perspectives, ed.R.F.Arnove,P .G.AltbachandG.P .Kelly,39 –55.Albany,ny :State UniversityofNewYorkPress. Castells, M. 1994 . The university system: Engine of development in the new worldeconomy.In Revitalizing highereducation,ed. J. Salmi and A.M.Verspoor,14 –40 .Oxford:Pergamon. Castells, M.1996 . The rise of the network society. Vol.1 of The information age:Economy,societyandculture.Oxford:Blackwell. Clark, B. 1998 . Creating entrepreneurial universities: Organizational path- waysoftransformation.Oxford:Pergamon. Cowen, R. 1996 . Last past the post: Comparative education, modernity andperhapspost-modernity.ComparativeEducation32 (2):151 –170 . Cummings, W. K. 1995 . The service university. Paper presented at An- nualConferenceofComparative andInternationalEducationSociety (cies ),Boston. Cummings,W.K.1997 .Theserviceuniversityincomparativeperspective. HigherEducation35 (1):1–8. Currie, J., and J. Newson.1998 .Universitiesandglobalization:Criticalper- spectives.ThousandOaks,ca :Sage. Currie,J.,andA.Tjeldvoll.2001 .GlobalizationandEuropeanuniversities: AtrendsreportfromtheUniversityofOslo.ComparativeandInterna- tionalEducation7 (2):1-121 . Donlagic,M.2002 .Totalqualitymanagementintheuniversity.Paperpre- sentedattheBoshmanSeminar,Tuzla. Enros, P. and, M. Farley.1986 . University offices for technology:Toward the serviceuniversity.Ottawa:ScienceCouncilofCanada. Gibbons,M.,C.Limoges,H.Nowotny,S.Schwartzman,P .Scott,andM. Trow 1994 . The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science andresearchincontemporarysocieties.London:Sage. Harman, G.1996 . Funding crisis for Australian universities. International HigherEducation5:13 -14 . Hatteland, S. C. J. 1995 . On the contribution of learning and knowledge to economicgrowth.Oslo:UniversityofOsloPress. Kvil, T. 1998 .Governanceinhighereducation:Someaspectsofthesystems in Norway and France. Paper presented at the Annual Oslo Seminar of The Nordic Network of International and Comparative Education (nice ),Oslo. Norwegian Ministry of Education. 2000 . Freedom with responsibility: On ManagingGlobalTransitions TheServiceUniversity 447 highereducationandresearchinNorway.Oslo:NorwegianMinistryof Education. Pollitt, C. 1995 . Justification by works or by faith? Evaluating the new publicmanagement.evanpm foregpa WorkshopAdministrativeRe- formsandModernization,Rotterdam. Tjeldvoll, A. 1997 . The service university in service societies: The Norwe- gian experience. In Globalization and the university: Critical perspec- tives,ed.J.CurrieandJ.Newson,99 –121 .ThousandOaks,ca :Sage. ———.1998 . The idea of the service university. International Higher Ed- ucation13 :9 –10 . ———. 1999 . Students’ morale and morality in the Service University. Uniped2,TheNorwegianCouncilofHigherEducation. ———.2001 . Professorene,staten og markedet. Aftenposten,12 June. ———.2002 a. Thediscontentof the universityand someoptions. Occa- sionalPaperSeries5,CityUniversityofHongKong. ———. 2002 b. The service university in the knowledge economy of Eu- rope.InEuropeanuniversities:Changeandconvergence?,ed.M.Dewa- tripont, F. Thys-Clemet, and L. Wilkin: 85 –109 .Bruxelles:University LibredeBruxelles. Tjeldvoll, A., and K. Holtet, K. 1997 . The service-university in a service society:TheOslocase.HigherEducation35 (1):27 –48 . Tjeldvoll, A., and D. Jacobsen.2002 . Graduate students as learning assis- tants. Paper presented at the Seminar on Universities and Firms: A Comparative Analysis of the Interactions Between Market Processes, OrganizationalStrategiesandGovernanceatUniversitéLibredeBrux- elles. Trondsen, E. 2000 . The emerging e-learning industry. Stanford, ca :Stan- fordResearchInstitute. Weber, M. 1964 .Thetheoryofsocialandeconomicorganization.New York: TheFreePress. Weber, S. 1996 . The future campus: Virtual or reality. The Australian, 18 September. Welch, A. 1998 . The end of certainty? The academic profession and the challengeofchange.ComparativeEducationReview42 (1):1–14 . Welle-Strand, A., and A. Tjeldvoll. 2002 . ict ,learningandvaluecre- ation: Strategies missing? Research Report6 /2002 , Norwegian School ofManagementbi . Welle-Strand, A. 2000 .Knowledgeproduction,serviceandquality:Higher educationtensionsinNorway.QualityinHigherEducation6 (3):219 – 230 . Volume 8 · Number 4 · Winter 2010