Evolution of University Management Models: From «Studium Generale» to «Entrepreneurial University»

We present a historical overview of the development of management in Universities from their establishment in medieval Europe until modern times. Our key aim is to evaluate the influence that has been exercised by students, teachers and administrators in different managerial configurations. We attempt to determine how reliant their influence has been on the social functions of the University in different periods and how expectations of the relevant social communities have been reflected in its management. We begin the study with the creation of the Bologna University in the 11th century, which was established as a student corporation aimed at protecting their interests. In its turn, Paris University, recognized as such in the early 13th century ,was a union of teachers and senior students with the aim of promoting higher education. These two models corresponded to the main perspectives on the University as a social institution. The Bologna model was based on the premise that the main goal is the education of professionals, and the Paris model considered that its key function is building conditions for scholarship and that education is merely a secondary goal. In subsequent periods, it was the choice between these two priorities that determined the content of all ensuing models. In the Napoleonic model of higher schools, the choice was made in favor of education, in the Humboldtian model – in favor of research. The latter became the most influential model by the end of the 19th century mainly because it provided a balance between the two functions, even though it affirmed the primary role of research. In the second half of the 20th century, it was the American University that took the place of the most influential model. It relied on the commercial approach to the management of a University and made efficiency one of its central themes. At the same time, it added new functions: apart from research and professional training, the University became involved in mass higher education and expert evaluation of important social processes. Although the resulting structure appears overly complex, separation of functions does not increase efficiency and may deprive University of public support. The overview of history shows that efficient University management can be achieved by finding a stable combination of its functions and by balancing the interests of the three main stakeholders.

1. De Rydder-Symoens H. (ed.). (2003). A history of universities in Europe: Universities in early modern Europe. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2. Bok D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 256 p.

3. Cohen A., Kisker C. (2010). The shaping of American higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

4. Klark B. (2011). Sistema vysshego obrazovanija [System of Higher Education]. M.: Vysshaja shkola jekonomiki. 360 p.

5. Konnov V.I., Balyshev A.V. (2012). Nauchnaja politika SShA: ot koncepcij k praktikam [The US scientific policy: from concepts to practice] // Vestnik RUDN. Serija: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija. 2012. №2: 5-12.

6. Parsons T., Platt G. (1973). The American university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 474 p.

7. Weber M. (2012). Izbrannoe: obraz obshhestva [Selected: image of society]. SPb.: Centr gumanitarnyh iniciativ. 767 p.

8. Veblen T. (1918). The higher learning in America. A Memorandum On the Conduct of Universities By Business Men. Available at: http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/veblen/higher (accessed: 21.04.2014).