Content uploaded by Imanol Ordorika
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Imanol Ordorika on Apr 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Critical Approaches
to the Study of Higher Education
Critical Approaches
to the Study of Higher Education
A Practical Introduction
Edited by
Ana M. Martínez-Alemán, Brian Pusser,
and Estela Mara Bensimon
Johns Hopkins University Press
Baltimore
© Johns Hopkins University Press
All rights reserved. Published
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper
Johns Hopkins University Press
North Charles Street
Baltimore, Maryland -
www.press.jhu.edu
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Critical approaches to the study of higher education : a practical introduction /
edited by Ana M. Martínez-Alemán, Brian Pusser & Estela Mara Bensimon.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN ---- (hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN ----
(pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN ---- (electronic) — ISBN ---
(hardcover : alk. paper) — ISBN --- (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN
--- (electronic) . Education, Higher—United States—Research.
. Educational equalization—United States. I. Martínez-Alemán, Ana M.
II. Pusser, Brian. III. Bensimon, Estela Mara.
LB..C
.—dc
A catalog record for this book is available from the British Library.
Special discounts are available for bulk purchases of this book. For more information,
please contact Special Sales at 410-516-6936 or specialsales@press.jhu.edu.
Johns Hopkins University Press uses environmentally friendly book materials,
including recycled text paper that is composed of at least percent post-consumer
waste, whenever possible.
Acknowledgments vii
Introduction
Critical Discourse Analysis in Higher Education Policy Research
Ana M. Martínez-Alemán
Sense and Sensibility: Considering the Dynamic between Scholarship and
Lived Experiences
Mitchell J. Chang
A Critical Approach to Power in Higher Education
Brian Pusser
A Critical Reframing of Human Capital Theory in US Higher
Education
Sheila Slaughter, Barrett J. Taylor, and Kelly O. Rosinger
The Ideas and Cra of the Critical Historian of Education
Derrick P. Alridge
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era: Critical
Perspectives
Imanol Ordorika and Marion Lloyd
Critical Policy Analysis, the Cra of Qualitative Research, and Analysis of
Data on the Texas Top Law
Anna Neumann and Aaron M. Pallas
Critical Action Research on Race and Equity in Higher Education
Alicia C. Dowd, Robin M. Bishop, and Estela Mara Bensimon
Using Critical Race Theory to (Re)Interpret Widely Studied Topics Related
to Students in US Higher Education
Lori D. Patton, Shaun R. Harper, and Jessica Harris
vi Contents
Whose Structure, Whose Function? (Feminist) Poststructural Approaches in
Higher Education Policy Research
Amy Scott Metcalfe
A Critical Examination of the College Completion Agenda: Advancing
Equity in Higher Education
Robert T. Teranishi and Annie W. Bezbatchenko
The New Stratication: Dierentiating Opportunity by Race and Class at
Community Colleges in the United States
Gregory M. Anderson, Ryan P. Barone, Jerey C. Sun, and Nicholas Bowlby
The Transformative Paradigm: Principles and Challenges
Sylvia Hurtado
Aerword
Contributors
Index
Since their emergence in twelh-century Europe, higher education institutions
have been the sites of political conict and contest. Once controlled by church or
crown, universities today function as key political institutions of the state. As
such, they serve as a staging ground for conicting societal demands, ranging from
capitalist accumulation and the reproduction of existing class structures on the one
hand to upward mobility and social equality on the other (Ordorika, ).
In spite of historical evidence, theoretical perspectives that focus on issues of
power and political interactions within higher education—as well as those oc-
curring between universities and the state—are still scarce. In recent decades,
few scholars have conducted studies of higher education that are theoretically
grounded and focus on political perspectives. This approach, which lls a key
void in the eld of contemporary higher education research, incorporates theo-
ries of the state and political economy into a broader analysis of the combined
impact of the decline of the welfare state and the advent of globalization on
higher education institutions. In particular, it challenges mainstream notions
that universities are largely apolitical and autonomous institutions, and that aca-
deme is somehow a privileged space exempt from external pressures (Marginson,
; Pusser, ).
In this chapter, we seek to contribute to those theoretical perspectives by fo-
cusing on the role universities play in the struggle for hegemony in the globalized
era. We begin by providing a brief overview of the history of political contests
within universities, from their origins in Italy and France in the twelh century
to the present day. We then review the dominant theories of authority relations
in higher education since the s, with emphasis on the limitations of those
models and analytical perspectives, in particular, the lack of explicit theories of
the state and higher education. Next, we describe the main tenets of globalization
and the conicting theories regarding its impact on the nation-state. We follow
The State and Contest
in Higher Education in the Globalized Era
Critical Perspectives
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 131
with a discussion of the utility of critical theories for analyzing the eects of
changing power relations in higher education. Finally, we propose a hegemonic
model for the study of politics, governance, and change in higher education that
builds on emerging critical theories of the state and contest in higher education.
The struggle for economic, political, and cultural hegemony has intensied as
a result of the shiing power dynamics of globalization. We recognize that glo-
balization is not a monolithic process. Instead, its impact varies signicantly
from country to country, as well as among regions. But there are many similari-
ties in the ways governments and other institutional actors respond to the new
demands. Among fundamental transformations aecting higher education insti-
tutions are the commodication of education and the decline of the public sphere
in general (Boggs, ; Pusser, ), which has been replaced with notions of
individual responsibility and market competition. Other changes include a new
emphasis on accountability, exibility, and quality control; major reductions in
government funding; closer ties to industry; and demand for skilled workers for
the global knowledge economy.
These changes, which are fueled by the hegemonic market-oriented logic of
governance, have triggered resistance from both dominant and subaltern groups
(Jessop, ), where subaltern is dened as fragmented, subordinate, and sub-
ject to the hegemony of the dominant ruling classes (Gramsci, ). The result-
ing conict can be viewed as a sign of the repoliticization of higher education.
Among new spheres of political contest are the dispute over armative action
policies in the United States and Brazil; the protests against skyrocketing stu-
dent-loan debt in Chile, Colombia, the United Kingdom, and the United States;
and the backlash against the international university rankings paradigm in Latin
America and elsewhere. This conict is not restricted to public institutions, as
both public and private universities are subject to state oversight, in many cases
rely on state funding, and carry out broader state goals (Pusser, ; Pusser &
Marginson, ). As institutions of the state, universities play a crucial role in
adapting to market and societal demands. Change in higher education is largely
the result of internal and external power dynamics, however, with implications
that extend far beyond university walls. In sum, postsecondary change is the re-
sult of power and politics within—and external to—higher education.
One of the main proponents of studying higher education through the lens of
political dynamics is Sheila Slaughter. Her work focuses on power and the rela-
tionship between institutions and the state, which Slaughter () views as sub-
ject to similar internal and external pressures: “It may be necessary to conceive of
the state and higher education as engaged in multiple and sometimes conicting
132 Ordorika and Lloyd
functions simultaneously. For example, the state and higher education are both
the subject and object of struggle. They are arenas of conict in which various
groups try to win ideological hegemony, yet at the same time they are resources
for members of contending groups intent on political mobilization in external
arenas” (p. ).
Brian Pusser () has argued that the university should be understood as
“an institution with both symbolic and instrumental political value in broader
contests for state power and authority” (p. ). We argue that universities are not
only engaged in political conict with the state, but also are themselves political
institutions of the state. As such, they play a fundamental role in hegemonic contest
(Ordorika, , ; Ordorika Sacristán, ). These conicts have acquired
renewed intensity in the globalized era. Along similar lines, Pusser and Margin-
son () state that, in the context of international university rankings, “post-
secondary organizations in the United States (and elsewhere) are usefully con-
ceptualized as political institutions of the state, where the state is understood as
encompassing political institutions, laws, rules and regulations, judicial systems,
and formal systems of power including law enforcement and military organiza-
tions, as well as a variety of other formal organizations that serve to shape collec-
tive activity and protect individual rights” (pp. –).
This emphasis on the political nature of higher education represents a depar-
ture from mainstream approaches in the eld. Apart from a brief period in the
late s and early s, when student movements throughout the world fo-
cused attention on political conict within universities, political-theoretical per-
spectives have largely been absent from the study of higher education (Ordorika,
; Pusser, ). Instead, research since the early s has tended to utilize
structural approaches that downplay the role of the state and other sources of
institutional power in fueling change within higher education institutions.
Mainstream theories tend to view the state either as a source of funding or as
an intrusive entity interfering with the development of professional and scien-
tic expertise (Slaughter, ). At the same time, they adopt an implicit view of
the state as a pluralist institution that represents the interests of society at large,
rather than certain elite sectors (Rhoades, ). A powerful myth about the apo-
litical nature of education undergirds that perspective (Wirt & Kirst, ), por-
traying higher education institutions as politically neutral and autonomous orga-
nizations rooted in professional competence and rational behavior (as opposed
to the politically driven, irrational state; Ordorika, ; Rhoades, ). “This
myth or modern narrative of the university (Bonavecchio, ) was based on
the idealization of the German model of free and autonomous academic commu-
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 133
nities that produced universal culture and knowledge” (Ordorika, , p. ). In
consequence, political conicts within universities are viewed as an aberration
from the harmonious, disinterested, and pluralistic status quo, rather than a fun-
damental part of university life (Pusser, ).
Whether intentionally or not, these theories have served to reproduce existing
power relations in higher education. As Ordorika Sacristán and López González
() note, “The denial of politics is essential discourse for the exercise of power
and the legitimation of dominant groups, as well as a basic element of the political
nature of the university” (p. ). In moments of open conict, this tradition
ofapoliticism is frequently invoked to disqualify and dismiss actors and social
movements involved in the university conict. Such was the case of conicts in the
s between administrators and unions at the National Autonomous University
of Mexico, when members of the latter group were denounced as “politicians” and
“university outsiders” (Ordorika Sacristán & López González, , p. ).
Prevailing theories of the impact of globalization, which present a weakening
or dissolution of the state and its role in dictating policy (Rosecrance, ), such
as at the university level, may have recently strengthened the widespread ten-
dency to disregard the state’s role. Mainstream studies tend to view structural
changes underway in higher education as the natural outcome of globalization,
without taking into account the political nature of the drastic reduction in pub-
lic funding for higher education and the new evaluation culture, among related
trends. Nor do they acknowledge the conicts generated by those policies, par-
ticularly between dominant and subaltern social groups.
We argue that these perspectives oversimplify the changing power dynamics
wrought by globalization, in which the role of the nation-state is increasingly
transformed but not necessarily diminished. In that context, we view political
approaches as providing a particularly essential framework for understanding
the multiple ways in which globalization has aected higher education. Perhaps
more than ever, higher education institutions play a critical role in broader state
eorts to compete in the global knowledge economy, as well as in meeting indus-
try demands for a globalized workforce. But that relationship is complicated by
the state’s diminishing nancial support for higher education in many national
contexts and the resulting pressure on institutions and academics to secure alter-
native forms of funding (Ordorika, ; Pusser et al., ).
According to Slaughter (), conict in higher education is expressed around
“major policy issues” such as access, social uses of knowledge (career preparation
as well as research and service), and the allocation of resources (p. ), all of
which are deeply political in nature. Pusser (), in revisiting Burton Clark’s
134 Ordorika and Lloyd
() triangle of coordination, found that the dynamics of a contemporary leg-
islative contest over university restructuring placed the state, the market, and the
institutional estate in “an orbit of contest and negotiation” (p. ), one in which
these forces are politically interdependent and in competitive tension.
Universities and Conict in Historical Perspective
From their origins in twelh-century Europe, universities have occupied a priv-
ileged place in society. But their potential to shape cultural and economic pro-
cesses has also made them the sites of political contest. The term universitates
originally referred to communities, technical associations, or publicly constituted
corporations that emerged in Europe (Rashdall, ) through a process that
mirrored the guild system (Le Go, ). Students approached renowned pro-
fessionals—called doctors—in order to learn a trade, leading to the creation of a
new category of scholar-apprentices. Teaching evolved slowly into a distinct way
of life, through which scholars attempted to create their own special corporate
arrangement vis-à-vis the Catholic Church, secular authorities, and the rest of
society (Le Go, ).
The rst universities were founded in Italy and France in the twelh century,
and though they quickly became powerful, they were not completely autono-
mous from the Church or state. The University of Bologna, a largely student-led
initiative, acquired extensive privileges and jurisdiction as a result of the confron-
tation between the pope and the emperor (Luna Díaz, b). The University
ofParis, meanwhile, grew out of the cathedral schools of Notre Dame and was
strongly tied to the Church, although professors wielded considerable control (Le
Go, ; Wences Reza, ).
In spite of their dierences, both institutions enjoyed a large degree of auton-
omy owing to the absence of a unique centralized source of power in medieval
societies (Luna Díaz, a). But university demands for academic and adminis-
trative freedom—as well as eorts by the Church, the crown, and local authorities
to exercise external control over the institutions—led to frequent conicts (Le
Go, ; Luna Díaz, b).
One such conict triggered a two-year strike at the University of Paris in .
The university’s prolonged closure in turn prompted the mass migration of fac-
ulty and students, a period known as the Great Dispersion, to a second wave of
European universities (Brunner, ; Young, ). These institutions included
the new universities in Vicenza () and Padua (), both of which were
heavily inuenced by the lay and student-centered university model of Bologna
(Perkin, ). The Italian model eventually succumbed to external controls by
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 135
the pope and the commune, but it gave birth to a strong tradition of student
participation (Perkin, ). The Church-centered model of Paris, meanwhile,
inspired the creation of universities in Spain and Portugal, including Alcalá, Bar-
celona, Lisbon, and Salamanca (Brunner, ), as well as Oxford () and
Cambridge () in England. Eventually, the Paris model was to give birth to
the still-dominant university tradition in which scholars oversee students and the
learning process (Perkin, ).
The university as an institution grew rapidly throughout the continent, where
it played a key role in fueling political and social change. But the process was not
without conict. Tensions between university traditions and state needs perme-
ated higher education institutions during the Enlightenment and the Industrial
Revolution, leading to the eventual shi of control over higher education from
the Church to the state (Perkin, , ).
In Latin America, where the rst universities were established during the six-
teenth century, institutions were frequently caught in the crossre of Church-state
conicts (Brunner, ; González-Polo y Acosta, ; Lanning & Heliodoro
Valle, ), disputes that continued through the early years of independence.
Among the most relevant of those conicts was the university autonomy
movement in Córdoba, Argentina, which inspired subsequent battles for insti-
tutional autonomy in no fewer than eighteen countries in the region (Marsiske
Schulte, ; Portantiero, ).
Fueled in part by the rapid growth in enrollments in the post-WWII era, po-
litical conicts in higher education erupted again during the s with the
emergence of student movements throughout the world. Those conicts, exem-
plied by the student revolts in France, Germany, and Mexico—as well as at Co-
lumbia, Kent State, and UC Berkeley in the United States—prompted scholars in
the social sciences to begin to address the political nature of higher education
over the next decade (Ehrenreich & Ehrenreich, ; Lipset & Altbach, ).
That focus gave way to a new emphasis on the managerial aspects of university
governance starting in the s—a focus that remains dominant today.
Mainstream Theories of Governance and Change
in Higher Education
Despite eight centuries of conict within universities, contemporary approaches
to authority relations tend to downplay political factors. Instead, they either focus
exclusively on structures or view decision-making processes as deterministic,
causal relations between social actors. These functionalist approaches can be di-
vided into two broad perspectives,1 both of which provide helpful, but incomplete,
136 Ordorika and Lloyd
analyses of the dynamics fueling patterns of governance, politics, and change in
higher education (Ordorika, ; Pusser & Marginson, ).
The most common perspectives are concerned primarily with the manage-
ment functions of a university and decision-making processes (Ordorika Sacris-
tán, ), positing that universities change through rational responses to internal
ineciencies, organizational growth, and increased complexity (Clark, ). A
few studies also suggest that internal politics and interest dynamics drive change
within higher education institutions, where administrative leaders weigh various
interests in making decisions (Baldridge, ). In most cases, however, these
theories tend to overstate internal homogeneity—and harmony. More notably
they fail to acknowledge the impact of external requirements upon universities
as well as the contested nature of internal and external demands. In reality, uni-
versities’ organizational development oen responds to dynamics that contradict
the internal rationality of bureaucratic or collegial arrangements.
Other perspectives contrast with organizational perspectives in that they pre-
sent change as being imposed from the outside. They view university dynamics
as a function of the internal strategies adopted by institutions to adapt or mini-
mize the inuence of largely hostile or disruptive external surroundings, such as
in the case of organizational responses to market dynamics (Massy, ). Re-
source dependency theories, meanwhile, argue that universities change in order
to increase their odds of surviving in an environment where resources are scarce
(Pfeer & Salancik, ; Slaughter & Leslie, ).
There is no doubt that markets and resources are extremely relevant in the
transformation of higher education, particularly in the globalized era. While
these theories usefully turn attention to the need for resources, however, they
oer little insight into the ways in which universities dene key resources or the
choices they make in pursuit of resources. These theories are further limited in
their ability to explain why many universities resist or remain unresponsive to
labor and economic market demands, maintain unique forms of organization
and governance, and remain highly subsidized (Ordorika, ). They also fail
to explain situations in which universities make decisions that limit their access
to nancial resources.
Yet another group of theories emphasizes the importance of culture and
meaning in determining organizational dynamics. These approaches focus more
on processes than on structures, and highlight the relationship between the sub-
ject and object of study. Institutional theorists, for example, explain change in
higher education as a response to social and cultural demands for conformance
to prevailing sets of shared beliefs (Clark, ; Meyer & Rowan, ). They have
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 137
focused on symbolic as well as substantive interactions, and argue that myths and
belief systems are essential parts of organizational legitimacy (Meyer & Rowan,
; Weick, ).
Together, institutional perspectives have brought a much-needed cultural di-
mension into the study of higher education. But like other approaches, they pay
insucient attention to areas of conict and contest both within and outside
organizations. There is no recognition that institutional myths and cultural per-
ceptions shape and are in turn shaped by political contests at the organizational
and societal levels. Pusser and Marginson () note that “there is unrecognized
conict between those in power and the larger interests of social society” (p. ).
That conict is reproduced within higher education organizations, and those
tensions have acquired renewed relevance in the globalized era. In that context,
political theories provide a more eective lens through which to examine the
multiple changes underway in universities today, in part given the evolving role
of the state and its institutions due to globalization.
The Globalization Debate
In analyzing the impact of globalization on higher education institutions, we
begin by outlining the basic characteristics that dene this latest phase of capitalist
development. In the discourse of everyday life and in the social sciences, global-
ization has become an all-encompassing notion that attempts to be inclusive and
at the same time obscures a broad set of processes, ideas, policies, and structures.
Like the notion of industrialization, globalization broadly depicts a historical
period characterized by distinct dynamics, ideologies, forms, and institutions.
The vagueness and ambiguity of the concept itself account for the multiplicity
of denitions, perspectives, and debates about and over globalization (Altbach &
Balán, ; Carnoy & Rhoten, ; Castells, ; Marginson, Murphy, & Peters,
; Putzel, ; Sen, ; Stiglitz, ). Most notable among these exchanges
are arguments over the degree to which this contemporary phenomenon is truly
unique in light of historical instances of economic and cultural internationaliza-
tion (Lechner & Boli, ); discussions about the extent to which capital accu-
mulation has transcended nation-states to become supranational or transnational
in essence (Carnoy, ); or debates over the role and power of nation-states in
the face of globalization (Evans ; Jessop, ; Marginson et al., ; Rose-
crance, ; Stiglitz, , ).
In general, most authors agree that the essence of this phase of capitalist de-
velopment lies in the fact that economic processes, social interactions, politics,
culture, and even individual relationships transcend national borders (Muñoz
138 Ordorika and Lloyd
García, ). These exchanges take place in a world made smaller and at a vir-
tually instantaneous pace by information technologies, digital communications,
and modern transportation. Interactions occurring in real time and on a plane-
tary scale redene space and time (Castells, ).
At the same time, the scholarship of globalization rarely accounts for the mul-
tiple dimensions of globalization. Manuel Castells (, , ) identies
at least three signicant spheres: economy, society, and culture. For many au-
thors, globalization is essentially a new economic order (Castells, ), a “force
that is reorganizing the world’s economy” (Carnoy & Rhoten, , p. ). The
reorganization of core economic processes is based on the use of information
and communication technologies, which are knowledge intensive (Carnoy, ;
Castells, ). Knowledge, information, and symbolic communication have
consequently become the most important sources of productivity and prot
(Appadurai, ).
Among many aspects, this discourse addresses material transformations at
the level of economic production (Castells, ; Krugman, ); the future
ofthe nation-state (Castells, ; Evans, Rueschemeyer, & Skocpol, ; Rose-
crance, ); changes in the nature and speed of communications (Carnoy,
); incredibly fast exchanges in the nancial and commercial realms; the pre-
eminence of market and business practices and discourse in many spheres of
societal interaction (Santos, ; Sen, ; Touraine, ); the economization
of social life (Wolin, ); and the emergence of a hegemonic discourse based
on deication of the free market (Ball, ; Touraine, ). These changes
emerged from new conservative coalitions in the United Kingdom and United
States that transformed the economic and ideological foundations of the welfare
state in the s and s. A new approach to the political economy emerged—
neoliberalism—that endeavored to redirect state purposes and in turn propelled
the hegemony of a new discourse, a new public philosophy of a state focused on
privileging markets and private benets through public action (Harvey, ;
Wolin, ).
Despite common denitions of globalization, there is little consensus on its
impact on the state—in particular, whether the nation-state is destined to disap-
pear or give way to a global unied state. In Rosecrance’s () view, the “virtual
nation”—dened as “based on mobile capital, labor, and information” (p. )—has
essentially replaced the traditional nation-state. “Nations are shrinking—in func-
tion if not in geographic size” (p. ). That view implies a diminished role of the
state in guiding domestic policy, including in the realm of higher education,
which is seen as being at the mercy of market demands (Pusser et al., ). “Al-
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 139
though post-secondary education initially remained relatively autonomous rela-
tive to lower levels, it has subsequently lost control of its pact with the devil in
opening itself to commercialization in the name of public responsibility” (Mor-
row, , p. xvii).
Such changes do not imply the absence of the state, however, but rather its
shiing role on a global scale. Under globalization, the state continues to pro-
mote capitalist and other societal interests, albeit in a more multifaceted manner.
The privileged group is no longer a solely domestic industry; it has expanded to
include multinational corporations and institutions, such as the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank, under
the guiding principle of promoting competitiveness on a global scale. Building on
Poulantzas’s prescient analysis of the shiing economic paradigms of the s,
Jessop () describes the post-Fordist era as one in which the state promotes
“exibility and permanent innovation in open economies by intervening on the
supply-side and tries to strengthen as far as possible the competitiveness of the
relevant economic spaces” (p. ). Under what Jessop terms the new “Schumpe-
terian workfare post-national regime” (p. ), competitiveness depends more on
“penetrating the micro-social level in the interests of valorization” (p. ).
Higher education institutions play a dual role in this process: creating knowl-
edge and providing technical capacity for the global marketplace. But decisions
about the types and uses of knowledge, as well as the ideal prole of workers, are
largely determined from abroad and later internalized through domestic and in-
stitutional policies (Rhoads & Torres, ). Among external actors inuencing
university policy are international organizations such as the OECD, UNESCO,
and the World Bank; national and international industries; and of course the state.
The latter exerts its inuence through instrumental means as well as through
cultural processes and hegemony building.
Nonetheless, while the role of universities in stimulating economic growth and
development has perhaps never been greater, higher education institutions in
general receive diminishing nancial support from the state. Underscoring that
apparent contradiction is the hegemonic “neoliberal core message: that higher
education is a competitive market in the economic sense, that it primarily gener-
ates private benets rather than common benets, and that higher education or-
ganizations, which must resource themselves, are primarily focused on their own
interests” (Pusser & Marginson, , p. ).
These trends do not signify that the state is no longer necessary, but rather that
its priorities have changed in conformance with the hegemonic model. The state
“is not only an important actor in many individual governance mechanisms but
140 Ordorika and Lloyd
also retains responsibility for the oversight in light of the overall balance of class
forces and the maintenance of social cohesion” (Jessop, , p. ).
We share Jessop’s view of the shiing, rather than diminished, role of the state
in the post-Fordist era. Rather than a pluralistic or cohesive entity, however, we
view the state as serving privileged capitalist interests over subaltern ones, partic-
ularly in contexts such as Latin America (Ordorika, ; Santos, ). It is also
the site of struggle between competing groups and agendas. In the case of higher
education, the state plays a key role in promoting hegemonic values and in shap-
ing policies designed to bring institutions in line with the dictates of the global
marketplace, but those eorts are not without resistance. For example, students
in Canada, Chile, Colombia, the United Kingdom, and the United States (among
other countries) have staged mass protests over the past few years in opposition
to government funding policies for higher education that have resulted in crip-
pling levels of student-loan debt. Governments in all those countries have im-
plicitly dened higher education as a private—rather than public—good, shiing
the nancial burden of paying college tuition from the state to students and their
families.
Slaughter and Leslie () identify two distinct processes through which glo-
balization manifests itself in higher education: the reduction of public money for
higher education institutions and the emergence of new markets and market
connections for higher education products and institutions. The adoption of
market-oriented and market-like behavior in colleges and universities is among
the most relevant features of contemporary higher education (Slaughter & Leslie,
). At the same time, governments exert pressure to expand knowledge pro-
duction and skilled-labor training in order to attract foreign capital. In the pro-
cess, the university is expected to play a leading role in producing knowledge
goods and highly skilled graduates for a knowledge- and global-based economy
(Altbach, ; Morrow & Torres, ). “Governments have realized that sci-
ence and technology are essential to international competitiveness, at the same
time that a new global market has emerged for knowledge and its applications”
(Muñoz García, , p. ).
Among manifestations of globalization is the rise of for-prot higher educa-
tion providers, which are typically operated by US-based corporations. The for-
prot sector now accounts for half of all higher education enrollment in Brazil
(Lloyd, ) and an increasing share in other countries, in large part because of
the acquiescence or promotion on the part of the state as well as the legal backing
of institutions such as the World Trade Organization. But the overtly commer-
cial nature of the for-prot model, as well as its aggressive business model, has
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 141
sparked heated controversy in many countries, including in the United States and
Chile. Recent studies commissioned by the US Senate and the US Department of
Education concluded that for-prot universities have adopted questionable re-
cruitment tactics in their eorts to increase enrollment (Lloyd, ). Mean-
while, in Chile, an early government investigation determined that a number
of universities were illegally operating as for-prots—a frequent allegation of the
student protest movement (Gibney, ).
International university rankings are another essential site of contest. Having
rst gained prominence with the introduction of the Shanghai Jiao Tong Univer-
sity ranking in , a variety of rankings have expanded to become among the
dominant measures of institutional performance on a global level. Despite their
questionable methodologies (Lloyd, Ordorika Sacristán, & Rodríguez Gómez-
Guerra, ; Marginson, ; Ordorika & Lloyd, ), governments through-
out the world have increasingly adopted these hierarchical classication systems
to justify sweeping higher education reforms in countries such as Denmark,
France, Malaysia, and Russia. Those changes have in turn sparked resistance
from students, scholars, and administrators in many countries in yet another sign
of the repoliticization of higher education.
The popularity of rankings reects the increasingly pervasive “culture of ac-
countability” in policy agendas as well as societal demands for access to infor-
mation in both the public and private spheres (Pusser and Marginson, ).
Supporters of rankings argue for the need to reestablish the principle of academic
hierarchy, which the massication and indiscriminate dissemination of knowl-
edge via the Internet have undermined (Ordorika & Lloyd, ; Ordorika Sac-
ristán et al., ). The methodology responds to demands, established from a
market perspective, to classify institutions for the benet of potential consumers
of knowledge, research, and status credentialing. The rankings also reect the
evolving contest on a global level for control over the ow of knowledge (Margin-
son & Ordorika, ).
Even so, there is a growing backlash against the international university rank-
ings among academics in many countries. Critics view the tables as imposing a
single Anglo-centric model of higher education at the expense of local and na-
tional development priorities (Ordorika Sacristán et al., ). Others warn that
institutions are being forced to compete in an increasingly costly and high-stakes
“academic arms race” (Dill, ; Ehrenberg, ) to the detriment of more
pressing local or national development priorities. In Latin America, for instance,
critics cite the rankings’ failure to take into account their institutions’ broader
contributions to society as “state-building universities” (Ordorika & Pusser, ),
142 Ordorika and Lloyd
a regional tradition that has no equivalent in the English-speaking world (Muñoz
García, ). The debate signals the growing resistance within institutions to
models imposed from abroad, a central contest over higher education policy in
the globalized era.
Critical Theories of the State and Contest in Higher Education
None of these developments in higher education can be explained without tak-
ing into account the role of internal and external power dynamics, a phenome-
non we believe is best explained by theories of the state. In developing a concep-
tual frame for studying higher education, we draw from critical theories of the
role of the state, and higher education in particular. Many of these perspectives
view the state as representing, in some way or another, the interests of the eco-
nomic ruling class.
These perspectives vary essentially in two areas: the degree of autonomy or
“capture” of the state by the capitalist class and the weight of the economic struc-
ture versus the superstructure in the process of domination (Ordorika, ). In
this analysis we adopt the concept of hegemony and the state as a site of conict
as expressed by Gramsci () and Poulantzas (). Their perspectives pro-
vide an understanding of the capitalist state as a dynamic institution, the product
of historically evolving relations between competing classes in society. They also
emphasize the importance of the development of dominant (hegemonic) ideolo-
gies and provide a theory of social change as a product of the confrontation
between dominant and subaltern sectors of society. Finally, and critically, they
situate higher education in a broader context as a state institution.
As in many societal conicts, the contested nature of higher education is
largely the result of competing demands for capital accumulation and demands
for equalization. But political disputes within universities take a dierent form
than in the case of other state institutions (such as courts or political parties). In
higher education, the objects of the contest involve access to knowledge and its
social uses, the distribution of resources necessary for the production and distri-
bution of knowledge, and the participation of university actors in decision mak-
ing. In addition, universities serve as the “critical conscience of the nation” and
participate in diverse social and political processes (Ordorika & López González,
, p. ).
Of the various contested terrains in higher education, access is perhaps the
most contentious and politically charged. It is shaped by conicting goals—on the
part of the government and industry, of regulating the reproduction of skilled labor,
and social demands for higher education as a mechanism for upward social mobil-
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 143
ity (Labaree, ). The regulation of access is typically based on a meritocratic
ideology, which is in turn based on the principles of social Darwinism. The cer-
tication process, meanwhile, rewards “skills and attitudes possessed in abundance
by the middle class—cultural literacy, numeracy, perseverance, self-condence,
appropriate assertiveness, and social agreeable manners—and not found as fre-
quently among immigrants, the working class, or the working poor” (Slaughter,
, p. ).
Another area in which higher education reproduces existing class structures
is in the hierarchical structure, both among and within disciplines and profes-
sions. In Mexico and many other countries, for example, a disproportionate share
of working-class students become teachers, a profession that ranks low in terms
of status and economic remuneration (Vaillant, , p. ). Meanwhile, wealth-
ier students tend to migrate toward more competitive professions, such as law
and business, where both tuition and potential earnings are considerably higher
(Osa Edoh & Alutu, ). Aordability and the related patterns of resource
allocation—the sources of the funding and the share of the burden resting on
individuals and their families—are other sources of contest.
Other areas of conict involve the evolving labor divisions between academic,
administrative, and clerical hierarchies (the latter group ranks the lowest). Mana-
gerial requirements are producing changes in the autonomous and self-regulated
components of faculty work (Rhoades, ). The new “evaluation culture” (Or-
dorika Sacristán, ) is replacing collegiality with competition while giving birth
to a new, highly inuential class of higher education bureaucrats whose primary
job it is to secure government or private grants for research and other high-
priority activities (Acosta Silva, ).
A nal area of contest involves students. Academic organizations have tradi-
tionally been viewed as “people-processing” or “student-centered” institutions.
Individuals—in this case students—with specic needs come into the organiza-
tion from the environment, the organization acts upon them, and they are re-
turned to society (Ordorika, ). But the nature of student participation—once
a fundamental part of university power dynamics—has changed dramatically
inthe globalized era. In most countries, students are expected to shoulder an
increasing nancial burden but are largely excluded from institutional decision
making. This is particularly true in the case of online degree programs, in which
students have little contact with their professors and even less with university
administrators. The resulting exclusion of students from university reform pro-
cesses has fueled protests in Canada, Europe, and Latin America, where students
are demanding a return to free public higher education.
144 Ordorika and Lloyd
At the heart of many of the conicts are demands for rapid changes in the role
and nature of higher education institutions in the globalized era. At the internal
level, faculty and students react against perceptions about the role of the institu-
tion and challenge established rights and practices, while at the external level the
state and international organizations pressure students and institutions to con-
form to new economic and cultural priorities. Taken together, these distinct sites
of conict demonstrate the complex power that dynamics present in the univer-
sity as both the staging ground and instrument of contest.
A Hegemonic Analytical Perspective
We have identied what we view as deciencies in historical and contemporary
frameworks for the study of change and governance in higher education. The
most important is the lack of an explicitly analyzed theory of the state, through
which power relationships can be viewed (Pusser, ; Rhoades, ). Another
is the tendency to assume a pluralistic state, even in studying higher education in
contexts such as Latin America and other regions, in which democracies are ei-
ther fragile or nonexistent. A third weakness is the tendency to make distinctions
between governance, management, and leadership, thereby implicitly conning
the locus of power to a restricted notion of governance as decision making (Or-
dorika, ). This distinction is based on the assumption that the university is
essentially a technical institution. Finally, few theories dene universities as po-
litical institutions of the state (Pusser, ), instead portraying political struggle
as anomalous and generally counterproductive.
The absence of an understanding about the state and the position of post-
secondary organizations within society, as well as an insucient accounting of
theories of change, manifests in the limited success of postsecondary scholars’
attempts to grasp the complex relationship between “internal” and “external”
processes in higher education. There is a need to incorporate broader issues of
political economy and power relations within higher education organizations
and beyond in order to understand power and change in higher education.
Central to that framework is the following assumption: as an institution of the
state, higher education is a key site of struggle for cultural and economic hege-
mony. That struggle typically manifests through competing reform projects, par-
ticularly during periods of profound and rapid change, such as in the current
globalized era. But just as higher education has the potential to reproduce exist-
ing inequalities, it can also be a site of equalization and democratization (Carnoy
& Levin, ). The development of a political theory of conict in higher edu-
cation is based on the analysis of power struggles, understood as the potential
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 145
capacity of dierent groups to determine outcomes (Hardy, ). Central to this
process is the eort to understand the forces from which cultural hegemony
derives—the conformation and incorporation of perceptions, cognitions, and pref-
erences into a dominant ideology (Gramsci, ; Lukes, ). The outcome
depends on the resolution of demands generated both internally and externally.
This conceptual approach, as it turns attention to four key elements, enhances
our understanding of the process of governance and change in higher education.
It provides the foundations for a political theory of governance by
. framing political contest in education as a confrontation over ideology and
resource allocation;
. enabling the understanding of decision-making structures and processes
in education as a historical product of power struggles between dominant
and subaltern groups in education and the broader state;
. explaining the dynamics of educational reform as a consequence of com-
peting demands for the reproduction and production of ideology and skills
on the one hand and struggles for social transformation and equality on
the other; and
. establishing the linkages between political contest at the internal and ex-
ternal levels as central to understanding new sites of educational contest
and reform.
Together, these analytical perspectives enhance our understanding of the
complex relationship between internal and external forces in higher education,
and between the state and the institutions themselves. Yet the specic nature of
the political system in question also shapes power dynamics within higher edu-
cation institutions. In order to place governance and policy making in context,
four central characteristics should be taken into account: () the scope and limits
of political contest; () the nature of the dominant ideology; () the degrees of
political struggle or citizen participation; and () the characteristics of political
leadership, that is, the role of political parties and other formal state institutions
(Ordorika Sacristán, ). These elements have a major impact on power rela-
tions within state institutions, including higher education. Acknowledging the
complex interplay between the broader state and its institutions is key to under-
standing the forces behind change and governance in higher education.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have presented the principal limitations of mainstream theo-
ries of higher education governance and proposed critical alternatives to enrich
146 Ordorika and Lloyd
our understanding of the internal and external dynamics aecting institutions in
the context of globalization. We have argued that the study of higher education
requires alternative theoretical approaches that focus on political processes, from
the origins of the idea of the university to its current forms in the twenty-rst
century. Among key trends aecting postsecondary institutions are the new em-
phasis on accountability and eciency, the evaluation culture, dwindling public
support for higher education as part of a broader degradation of the public
sphere, the commodication of higher education, and a new emphasis on train-
ing workers for the global knowledge economy.
Hegemonic models of higher education fuel those trends, dividing universities
into two starkly unequal groups: “the autonomous and elite research university
focused on knowledge and prestige,” of which Harvard is the premier example,
and “the heteronomous mass training institutions focused on economic volumes
and revenues” (Marginson & Ordorika, , p. ), exemplied by the new
for-prot model of higher education. “The Bourdieuian binary logic of the global
sector . . . is the divide between knowledge power and the commodity economy
in higher education, and the ultimate divide between inclusion and exclusion”
(p.).
Such extremes are characteristic of the growing socioeconomic inequalities
present on a global scale—the legacy of several decades of neoliberal policies and
the dynamics of globalization. Universities play a key role in both advancing the
agenda of the economic elites and resisting it through the opposition of subaltern
groups. Thus there is a need to repoliticize the study of higher education by ac-
knowledging the role of universities within the broader state apparatus. By den-
ing universities as political institutions of the state, we are highlighting their role
in the struggle for cultural hegemony on a global level.
This theoretical perspective integrates distinct levels of analysis and processes,
from the most general level of the state to the more particular spaces of higher
education organizations. The integration of these levels of analysis with critical
theoretical standpoints constitutes a powerful tool for a holistic understanding of
the complex arrangement of actors, norms, agendas, and cultural views upon
which domination within higher education institutions is founded. Only by re-
claiming a critical model of postsecondary politics and conict can we fully grasp
the evolving power relations shaping higher education under globalization.
. Ordorika () divides these approaches into two broad schools: organiza-
tional-functional and societal-functional. The rst school, which dominated research
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 147
on higher education for decades, includes “the bureaucratic model (Stroup, ), its
variation the professional bureaucracy model (Mintzberg, ), and the collegial model
(Millett, ), all of which are perceived as natural outcomes of rational processes”
(p. ). The second school, which emphasizes the impact of outside forces on institu-
tional dynamics, is common in mainstream literature dealing with issues of univer-
sity autonomy and in studies about State involvement in higher education.
Acosta Silva, A. (). Príncipes, burócratas y gerentes: La educación superior en Mé-
xico. Mexico City: ANUIES.
Altbach, P. G. (). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an
unequal world. Current Issues in Catholic Higher Education, 23, –.
Altbach, P. G., & J. Balán (Eds.) (). World class worldwide: Transforming research
universities in Asia and Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Appadurai, A. (). Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Baldridge, J. V. (). Power and conict in the university: Research in the sociology
of complex organizations. New York: Wiley.
Ball, S. J. (). Global Education Inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imag-
ery. New York: Routledge.
Boggs, C. (). The great retreat: Decline of the public sphere in late twentieth-
century America. Theory and Society, 26(), –.
Bonavecchio, C. (). El mito de la universidad. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Brunner, J. J. (). Educación superior y cultura en América Latina: Función y orga-
nización. Santiago: FLACSO.
———. (). Gobierno universitario: Elementos históricos, mitos distorsionadores
y experiencia internacional. In C. Cox (Ed.), Formas de gobierno en la educación
superior: Nuevas perspectivas (pp. –). Santiago: FLACSO.
Carnoy, M. (). Multinationals in a changing world economy: Whither the nation-
state? In M. Carnoy (Ed.), The new global economy in the information age: Reections
on our changing world (pp. –). University Park: Pennsylvania State University
Press.
———. (). Globalization and educational reform: What planners need to know.
Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
———. (). Globalization and educational restructuring. Paris: UNESCO Inter-
national Institute of Educational Planning.
Carnoy, M., & Levin, H. M. (). Schooling and work in the democratic state. Stan-
ford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Carnoy, M., & Rhoten, D. (). What does globalization mean for educational
change? A comparative approach. Comparative Education Review, 46(), –.
Castells, M. (). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
———. (). The power of identity. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
———. (). End of millennium. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
148 Ordorika and Lloyd
———. (). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Clark, B. R. (). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-
national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Dill, D. D. (, September ). Convergence and diversity: The role and inuence of
university rankings. Keynote address at the Consortium of Higher Education Re-
searchers th Annual Research Conference, University of Kassel, Germany.
Ehrenberg, R. G. (). Econometric studies of higher education. Journal of Econo-
metrics, 121, –.
Ehrenreich, B., & Ehrenreich, J. (). Long March, short spring: The student uprising
at home and abroad. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Evans, P. B. (). The eclipse of the state? Reections on stateness in an era of glo-
balization. World Politics, 50(), –.
Evans, P. B., Rueschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (). Bringing the state back in. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibney, E. (, August ). The mañana project. Times Higher Education. Re-
trieved from www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/features/the-maana-project/
.article.
González-Polo y Acosta, I. F. (). La Nueva España y sus motines estudiantiles. In
G. Guevara Niebla (Comp.), Las luchas estudiantiles en México (pp. –). Mexico
City: Editorial Línea / Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero / Universidad Autónoma
de Zacatecas.
Gramsci, A. (). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci (Q.Hoare
& G. N. Smith, Ed. & Transl.). London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Hardy, C. (). Putting power into university governance. In J. C. Smart (Ed.),
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. , pp. –). New
York: Agathon Press.
Harvey, D. (). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Jessop, B. (). Globalization and the national state ( pp.). Lancaster: Department
of Sociology, Lancaster University.
Krugman, P. (). The great unraveling: Losing our way in the new century. New
York: W. W. Norton.
Labaree, D. F. (). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over edu-
cational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, –.
Lanning, J. T., & Heliodoro Valle, R. (). Reales cédulas de la Real y Ponticia
Universidad de México de 1551 a 1816. Mexico City: Imprenta Universitaria.
Lechner, F., & Boli, J. (). The globalization reader. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Le Go, J. (). Time, work & culture in the Middle Ages. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
———. (). Intellectuals in the Middle Ages. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Lipset, S. M., & Altbach, P. G. (). Students in revolt. Boston: Houghton Miin.
Lloyd, M. (, August ). El senado de EU arremete contra universidades con nes
de lucro. Campus Milenio, . Retrieved from www.ses.unam.mx/publicaciones/
articulos.php?proceso=visualiza&idart=.
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 149
———. (). Las políticas de fomento a la ciencia y tecnología en México y Brasil: Un
estudio de caso de la Universidad Autónoma Nacional de México y la Universidad de
São Paulo (master’s thesis). National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico
City. Retrieved from http://.../ptd/febrero//Index.html.
Lloyd, M. W., Ordorika Sacristán, I., & Rodríguez Gómez-Guerra, R. (). Los
rankings internacionales de universidades, su impacto, metodología y evolución.
Mexico City: DGEI-UNAM.
Lukes, S. (). Power: A radical view. New York: Macmillan.
Luna Díaz, L. M. (a). El desarrollo de la conciencia corporativa universitaria y
lapolítica eclesiástica en Nueva España. In L. M. Luna Díaz (Ed.), Historia de la
universidad colonial (Avances de investigación: La Real Universidad de México,
estudios y textos) (pp. –). Mexico City: CESU/UNAM.
———. (b). El surgimiento de la organización corporativa en la universidad me-
dieval. In L. M. Luna Díaz (Ed.), Historia de la universidad colonial (Avances
deinvestigación: La Real Universidad de México, estudios y textos) (pp. –).
Mexico City: CESU/UNAM.
———. (). The new higher education landscape: Public and private goods, in
global/national/local settings. In S. Marginson (Ed.), Prospects of higher education:
Globalization, market competition, public goods and the future of the university (pp.
–). Rotterdam: Sense.
———. (, June ). Improving Latin American universities’ global ranking. World
University News, . Retrieved from www.universityworldnews.com/article.php
?story=.
Marginson, S., Murphy, P., & Peters, M. A. (). Global creation: space, mobility and
synchrony in the age of the knowledge economy. New York: Peter Lang.
Marginson, S., & Ordorika, I. (). “El central volumen de la fuerza”: Global hege-
mony in higher education and research. In D. Rhoten & C. Calhoun (Eds.), Knowl-
edge matters: The public mission of the research university (pp. –). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Marsiske Schulte, R. (). Historia de la autonomía universitaria en America
Latina. Perles Educativos, 26(–), –.
Massy, W. F. (). Measuring performance: How colleges and universities can set
meaningful goals and be accountable. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Higher
Education Research.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (). The structure of educational organizations. In
M.W. Meyer (Ed.), Environments and organizations (pp. –). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Millett, J. D. (). The academic community: An essay on organization. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Mintzberg, H. (). The professional bureaucracy. In M. W. Peterson (Ed.), Orga-
nization and governance in higher education (th ed., pp. –). Needham
Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster.
Morrow, R. (). Foreword—Critical theory, globalization and higher education:
Political economy and the cul-de-sac of the postmodernist cultural turn. In
150 Ordorika and Lloyd
R. A. Rhoads & C. A. Torres (Eds.), The university, state, and market: The political
economy of globalization in the Americas (pp. –). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Morrow, R., & Torres, C. A. (). Social theory and education: A critique of theories
of social and cultural reproduction. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Muñoz García, H. (). Power and politics in university governance: Organiza-
tionand change at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer.
———. (). Ajedrez político de la academia. In I. Ordorika (Coord.), La academia
en jaque: Perspectivas políticas sobre la evaluación de la educación superior en Mé-
xico (pp. –). Mexico City: CRIM/UNAM.
———. (). Introducción. In H. Muñoz García (Coord.), La universidad pública en
México (pp. –). Mexico City: Seminario de Educación Superior / Miguel Ángel
Porrúa.
———. (). La universidad mexicana en el escenario global. Perles Educativos,
333, –.
Ordorika, I., & Lloyd, M. (). A decade of international university rankings: A
critical perspective from Latin America. In P. T. M. Marope, P. J. Wells, & E. Hazel-
korn (Eds.), Rankings and accountability in higher education: Uses and misuses
(pp. –). Paris: UNESCO.
Ordorika, I., & Pusser, B. (). La máxima casa de estudios: Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México as a state-building university. In P. G. Altbach & J. Balán
(Eds.), World class worldwide: Transforming research universities in Asia and Latin
America (pp. –). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ordorika Sacristán, I. (). Aproximaciones teóricas para un análisis del conicto
y el poder en la educación superior. Perles Educativos, 23(), –.
Ordorika Sacristán, I., & López González, R. (). Política azul y oro: Historias
orales, relaciones de poder y disputa universitaria. Mexico City: UNAM-Seminario
de Educación Superior, Plaza y Valdés.
Ordorika Sacristán, I., et al. (). Comentarios al Academic Ranking of World
Universities . Cuadernos de Trabajo de la Dirección General de Evaluación
Institucional, 1().
Ordorika Sacristán, I., et al. (). Las revistas de investigación de la UNAM: Un
panorama general, ().
Osa Edoh, G. I., & Alutu, A. N. G. (). Parents’ socio-economic status and its eect
in students’ educational values and vocational choices. European Journal of Edu-
cation Studies, 3(), –.
Perkin, H. (). The historical perspective. In B. R. Clark (Ed.), Perspectives on
higher education: Eight disciplinary and comparative views (pp. –). Berkeley:
University of California Press.
———. (). History of universities. In L. F. Goodchild & H. S. Wechsler (Eds.),
ASHE reader on the history of higher education. Needham Heights, MA: Simon &
Schuster.
The State and Contest in Higher Education in the Globalized Era 151
Pfeer, J., & G. R. Salancik (). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
Portantiero, J. C. (). Estudiantes y política en América Latina: El proceso de la
reforma universitaria (1918–1938). Mexico City: Siglo XXI.
Poulantzas, N. A. (). State, power, socialism. London: NLB.
Pusser, B. (). Burning down the house: Politics, governance and armative action
at the University of California. Albany: State University of New York Press.
———. (). Reconsidering higher education and the public good: The role of
public spheres. In W. Tierney (Ed.), Governance and the public good (pp. –).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
———. (). The state, the market and the institutional estate: Revisiting contem-
porary authority relations in higher education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher educa-
tion: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. , pp. –). New York: Agathon
Press.
———. (). Power and authority in the creation of a public sphere through higher
education. In B. Pusser et al. (Eds.), Universities and the public sphere: Knowledge
creation and state building in the era of globalization. New York: Routledge.
Pusser, B., Kempner, K., Marginson, S., & Ordorika, I. (). Introduction and
overview of the book. In B. Pusser et al. (Eds.), Universities and the public sphere:
Knowledge creation and state building in the era of globalization. New York:
Routledge.
Pusser, B., & Marginson, S. (). The elephant in the room: Power, global rankings
and the study of higher education organization. In M. N. Bastedo (Ed.), The orga-
nization of higher education: Managing colleges for a new era (pp. –). Balti-
more: Johns Hopkins University Press.
———. (). University rankings in critical perspective. Journal of Higher Education,
84(), –.
Putzel, J. (). Globalization, liberalization and prospects for the state. Interna-
tional Political Science Review, 26(), –.
Rashdall, H. (). Universities of Europe in the Middle Ages (Vol. , F. M. Powicke
&A. B. Emden, Eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rhoades, G. L. (). Beyond “the state”: Interorganizational relations and state ap-
paratus in post-secondary education. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Hand-
book of theory and research (Vol. ). New York: Agathon.
Rhoads, R. A., & C. A. Torres (Eds.). (). The global economy, the state, social
movements, and the university: Concluding remarks and an agenda for action. In
R. A. Rhoads & C. A. Torres (Eds.), The university, state, and market: The political
economy of globalization in the Americas (pp. –). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Rosecrance, R. (). The rise of the virtual State: Wealth and power in the coming
century. New York: Basic Books.
Santos, B. D. S. (). The university in the st century: Toward a democratic and
emancipatory university reform. In R. A. Rhoads & C. A. Torres (Eds.), The uni-
152 Ordorika and Lloyd
versity, state, and market: The political economy of globalization in the Americas
(pp. –). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sen, A. (). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. (, January ). How to judge globalization? American Prospect. Retrieved
from http://prospect.org/article/how-judge-globalism.
Slaughter, S. (). Academic freedom and the state: Reections on the uses of
knowledge. Journal of Higher Education, 59, –.
———. (). The higher learning and high technology: Dynamics of higher education
policy formation. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Slaughter, S., & Leslie, L. L. (). Academic capitalism: Politics, policies, and the
entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. (). Globalization and its discontents. New York: W. W. Norton.
———. (). Making globalization work. New York: W. W. Norton.
Stroup, H. H. (). Bureaucracy in higher education. New York: Free Press.
Touraine, A. (). Can we live together? Equal and dierent. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Vaillant, D. (). Construcción de la profesión docente en América Latina. Tenden-
cias, temas y debates. PREAL Document . Santiago: Programa de Promoción de
la Reforma Educativa en América Latina y el Caribe. Retrieved from www.oei.es/
docentes/articulos/construccion_profesion_docente_AL_vaillant.pdf.
Weick, K. E. (). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 21, –.
Wences Reza, R. (). La universidad en la historia de México. Mexico City: Línea /
Universidad Autónoma de Guerrero / Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas.
Wirt, F. M., & M. W. Kirst (). The political web of American schools. Boston: Little,
Brown.
Wolin, S. S. (). The new public philosophy. Democracy: A Journal of Political
Renewal and Radical Change, 1, –.
Young, S. E. (). Scholarly community at the early University of Paris: Theologians,
education and society, 1215–1248. New York: Cambridge University Press.
