Loading…

The changing relationship between institutional governance and management in the United Kingdom: A Scottish higher education funding council perspective

The changing relationship between institutional governance and management in the United Kingdom arising from the second report of the committee on standards in public life, the United Kingdom National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, and from significant increased government expenditure o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Tertiary education and management 2000-01, Vol.6 (3), p.159-176
Main Authors: Sizer, John, Howells, Laurence
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The changing relationship between institutional governance and management in the United Kingdom arising from the second report of the committee on standards in public life, the United Kingdom National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, and from significant increased government expenditure on higher education is examined. The framework of accountability within which higher education institutions operate is related to these reports. The Scottish Higher Education Funding Council's (SHEFC) perspective of the role of the governing body is examined and contrasted with Bargh, Scott and Smith's research on governing bodies. Both SHEFC's perspective and Bargh et al.'s research are also contrasted with, and related to, a number of National Audit Office (NAO) reports and also to Professor Sizer's investigation and the NAO report into allegations of misconduct at Glasgow Caledonian University (1998). Finally, the paper draws conclusions on the changing relationship between governing bodies and managements, on the requirement on governing bodies to demonstrate that they are appropriately constituted and operate effectively as corporate bodies, and on how these are reflected in the SHEFC code of good practice and good practice benchmarks.
ISSN:1358-3883
1573-1936
DOI:10.1080/13583883.2000.9967021