email icon Email this citation

Science-Based Economic Development edited by Susan Raymond


Institutional Innovations in Higher Education

P.J.D.Drenth
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Amsterdam, Netherlands


In this conference attention is paid to factors that facilitate and impede changes in the educational system and educational institutions The aim of these changes is an improvement of the interactions between the educational and the economic field, and a furthering of economic development and industrial growth by a better adapted and more suitable educational system.

In this paper we intend to pose a number of preliminary questions and to reflect upon some basic assumptions with respect to these interactions. It may also be that national policies, tradition, and culture have a distinctive impact on the general validity of the models and theories in question. We will therefore bring forward some insights and experiences from Europe as well.

Need for Innovation

One of the keywords in this conference is "innovation." It may be good to recognize

It that this word has two meanings which should be distinguished. In the first place it can refer to innovation as process. This is the way it is used in the Frascati Manual of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), where innovation is described as the transformation of an idea into a marketable product or service, into a new or improved manufacturing or distribution process, or into a new method of social service. The innovation can refer to all the different stages in the process of development and selling: creation, design, development, production, marketing and distribution.

The second meaning refers to the result of the process, the product or service itself. Of course, there may be some variety in the magnitude and character of the innovation, ranging from a significant but minor improvement of an existing product to a radical and revolutionary breakthrough. What is essential is the significant transformation and novelty of the new product or service.

For each society today, innovation is precondition for growth and competitiveness. Due to the rapid growth and development of new technologies, industrial societies are in a constant process of adaptation to new demands and opportunities. An interesting question in this respect concerns the role of science and academic research in this development. It appears that the relationship between advances in science and technological innovations is not always simple and linearly positive. For instance, the situation in terms of economic innovation in Europe is unsatisfactory, despite some first-rate scientific achievements. In a recent "green paper on innovation," the European Commission even speaks of the "European paradox": "Compared with the scientific performance of its principal competitors, that of the EU [European Union] is excellent, but over the last fifteen years its technological and commercial performance in high-technology sectors such as electronics and information technologies has deteriorated." 1 This observation is illustrated by the figures for scientific performance and technological performance for the EU, the U.S., Japan, and the Developing East Asian Countries (DAE). The report concludes: "One of Europe's major weaknesses lies in its inferiority in terms of transforming the results of scientific and technological research and skills into innovations and competitive advantages."

In a recent report from the Working Party 17 of the Industrial Research and Development Advisory Committee of the Commission of the European Communities (IRDAC), Quality and Relevance, it is concluded that, regrettably, several dangers that had been warned of in an earlier report have become reality. 2 It sees rising unemployment figures and limited economic growth. Europe is losing market share, not least in many of the new and growing sectors, including high-tech products and services. However, in its advice on education and training IRDAC does not present a gloomy message. The key to Europe's chance to remain in the world's premier league lies in education and training, one of Europe's great assets. The vocational educational system at secondary and tertiary level is excellent and the academic standing of many of the universities is without dispute. But there are weaknesses. And the IRDAC report emphasizes the need for a greater concern with the needs of the economy in light of the challenges of industrial change. It suggests seven areas for action:

In a recent article in the Journal of the Association of the European Universities, the president of the Conference permanente des Recteurs, Presidents et ViceChancelliers des Universites Europeenes (CRE), Joseph Bricall, defends a similar point of view. "It is not a matter of achieving the consensus of the university community to preserve and continue, but to change and adapt. Change and adaptation are now necessary conditions for survival and to maintain quality." 3

The following developments in current social and economic demands will have a bearing upon the institutions for higher education:

The above citations make it clear that, probably in Europe even more then elsewhere, the society will exert strong pressure upon its educational system to direct its research programs, its curricula, and the "output" of students more to the needs of economic competitiveness and technological innovations. The extent to which this is needed, desirable, and possible is an interesting question, one which requires a nuanced approach to answer, as we hope to demonstrate in the rest of this paper.

Economic models

As was indicated, one of the elemental questions is: Can science and science education contribute to solving the problems of economic and labor market developments? Beneath this question, however, there lies an even more basic one: To what extent are these developments influenced by external (e.g., governmental) controls, and to what extent are they a product of free social and market forces? Obviously the question must be viewed from various perspectives on economic development. In a recent publication of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau (CPB) three perspectives where described. 4

1. The equilibrium perspective, which stems from the neoclassical tradition. The role of the government is modest, primarily limited to providing public goods and securing competitive markets. Some income redistribution may be warranted at the cost of efficiency if income distribution as the result of free market developments is socially undesirable. Otherwise, it is primarily the price mechanism that ensures equilibrium on markets, and that determines the structure and quality of the labor force and capital stock. Technological changes and saving rates, as well as demographic changes, are the main driving forces.

2. The coordination perspective emphasizes the need for coordination and cooperation between economic agents, both of which stabilize expectations and prevent high adjustment costs in an assumed uncertain and changing environment. Uncertainty is further reduced by regulatory laws and governmental intervention to stabilize prizes and wages and to regulate job market contracts.

3. According to the free market perspective, the innovative and risk-taking entrepreneur plays a central role. A system of incentives and punishments related to performance and achievements will motivate economic dynamism. Property rights and low tax rates stimulate growth and development. Minimal security keeps the economic actors alert. Governmental control of prices or wages is counterproductive.

Significantly, the CPB warns us that none of the three perspectives gives the full formula for success. In fact, history shows that all three approaches may lead to both success and failure. The Dutch postwar reconstruction period as well as the Japanese growth in the 1960s and 1970s show the success of the coordination principle. Nevertheless, the other elements, such as a lack of incentive and a nonfunctioning price mechanism, have ruined the economies of Eastern European countries. The U.S. economy shows some beneficial effects of the free market principle, while at the same time, Latin American economies illustrate its limits. The lesson is, as CPB states, that success requires a mixture of ingredients from all three perspectives. For any country, the right mixture will depend on its history, culture and environment. Complete neglect of one of the three perspectives entails real dangers. 5

Government intervention in education and in steering the choice of subjects and disciplines to be studied differs strongly in the three approaches. In the free market system there is no room for intervention at all. Rules, regulations, and government interventions block new developments and initiatives. Social security is an impediment to the stimulating incentive system. According to the coordination perspective, government interventions serve to stabilize the job market. Fiscal and wage measures try to control supply and demand, and schooling is promoted in areas where shortages are expected. A safe social security system for the unemployed is warranted. The equilibrium approach advocates modest government control and allows some room for intervention in education (quota system for certain disciplines, incentives to enter others), only when the job market system becomes clearly imbalanced.

What was said earlier about economic principles in general also applies to external interventions in education: no single formula is the best. There could be vast differences in countries around the world. Measures should be judged in light of political, cultural, and historical conditions.

Basic and Applied Science

A second important preliminary question is: Can or should science and science education contribute to solving the problems of economic development and employment?

Let us first focus our attention on the "should." In trying to answer this part of the question we have to ask ourselves: Should science be truthful only, or should it also be useful? Many people think that this choice is paramount to the distinction between fundamental and applied science. The popular line of thinking goes as follows: Fundamental science searches for the truth and applied science for technological or social usefulness. If one wants to promote technical developments and economic growth the emphasis should be put on the latter (applied) at the cost of the former (fundamental).

Of course, there is no doubt that applied research can make a major direct contribution to society. Everyday life constantly gives rise to questions and problems that can only be solved through (applied) scientific research. The economic position and the standard of living in the modern world is inextricably bound to and dependent on scientific achievements.

But it would be incorrect to restrict the designation of "usefulness" to applied research and technology. Pure research, i.e., research that is initiated by scientific curiosity and that aims at scientific knowledge and insights, has an important and useful social function as well. First, it has the function of satisfying human curiosity, a very basic human need. Second, it has also the function of educating the next generation of scientists. In places where good research is carried out in an inspiring scientific climate, we also find young researchers being trained for scientific careers. Given the social importance of preparing a future generation of high-level scientists and scholars, the educational function of basic research certainly deserves attention.

Third, basic research is needed to further our scientific insights, to expand the frontiers of our knowledge, and to find new technological applications of our scientific insights. We forget all too often that many significant industrial and technological breakthroughs have been a product of basic and not of application-oriented research. Reneman cites a meta-analysis in the medical sciences, which demonstrated that of the over 650 articles that had been essential to the ten most important breakthroughs in the area of cardial and lung deceases, almost 50 percent had no relationship to the later application. Furthermore, in almost 60 percent of the cases there was a time lag of more than twenty years (and in 30 percent of the cases even more than fifty years) before the finding made its way to clinical application. 6

But neither is it correct to restrict "truthfulness" to pure research. Applied research can be high-quality research as well. Even when the origin of the research question is field-induced and generated by a practical problem or a social need and the goal of the research is, again, practical application, the research itself can be of high quality and can lead to generalizable knowledge. Psychometric research in psychology, pharmaceutical research in biology, and the development of abstract languages in computer science are just a few convincing examples.

What I have been trying to say in the preceding paragraph is that part of the mission of science is to be useful and applicable. Another part of this mission is the generation of new insights and generalizable knowledge, and the preparation of new generations of researchers. Truthfulness is not the monopoly of pure research, and usefulness is not the monopoly of applied research. On the contrary, we have made a case for preeminent importance of fundamental research also for the economic and technological development of a country.

Science and Economic Development

Historical analysis seems to provide ample evidence of the crucial role of scientific and technological developments in fostering economic growth and increasing welfare. It was the superior quality of the ships and their armaments that enabled the Netherlands to gain maritime supremacy over the Portuguese at the turn of the sixteenth century. And again, it was the application of a (Dutch-invented) antifouling system on the ships that made the British ships faster and enabled them to take the lead over the Dutch some 100 years later.

Technological development and economic growth are becoming increasingly intertwined phenomena, as Nijkamp et al. have pointed out. 7 The nation's competitiveness, and consequently its welfare, are increasingly dependent on generating technologically advanced products. Particularly new technology and information technology are expected to lead to an increase in economic activity.

A key role will be played by the transfer of technology, the extent to which the industry and society at large will be able to utilize the knowledge and insights that have been generated in scientific research laboratories. In fact, four types of transfer can be distinguished:

It is important to analyze the ways in which transfer takes place and to optimize the conditions for transfer. Van Geenhuizen made an interesting contribution by studying the barriers in technology transfer, and particularly through two intermediary organizations: transfer centers and science parks. Transfer centers are primarily concerned with transfer of written, oral, or hardware knowledge. Science parks are largely concerned with transfer by means of human capital in that they foster direct formation of companies by academic staff or graduates. Science parks are also, unlike transfer centers, involved with a much larger range of activities than technology transfer. 8

Potential barriers for the transfer centers can be located in:

The barriers facing the science parks were of a different nature. In the first place, their organization and management proved to be crucial and according to Van Geenhuizen's findings, were not always of sufficient quality. Second, growth is hampered by the lack of attractive inducements for academics to start their own business. Here too the commercialization potential and flexibility were found to be poor when the science park was affiliated with a university.

The conclusion seems clear: Transfer of knowledge is an important precondition for the application of research findings. Careful analyses of this transfer process and the barriers identified in this analyses would serve to lower barriers and improve the utilization of knowledge.

Science Education and Employment

Although the relationship between the application of new knowledge and new technologies and economic growth seems apparent, there is still a gap between economic growth and employment. Economists show that this relationship is a complex one, and any positive effects will certainly not be equal for the various sectors of industry and, therefore, of the labor market. Although this is not the place to elaborate on these issues, the conclusion seems warranted that the introduction of new technologies requires all kinds of new skills and specialized knowledge, but will make other skills and experiences (particularly lower-level skills) superfluous and will, therefore, lead to selective frictions on the labor market. But with those innovations, the best qualified will always get the best positions, even in times of unemployment. 9

We should not forget that employment as such is not the only objective of a university education. Dutch education legislation formulates the objectives of the university as being first to train students for scientific and scholarly research, and second to prepare students for functions in society for which an academic education is necessary or desirable. In a great many countries, similar or comparable tasks have been attributed to the institutions of higher education. The mission of a university is therefore. twofold: scientific training and preparation for learned professions. In fact, we see here the two elements in Seneca's question: scholae aut vitae discimus? And the answer is indeed for both.

I want to stress again what was said earlier, that even the first goal—the training for scientific research—will have a positive effect on economic growth and national welfare. We have demonstrated that fundamental research is essential for technological innovation and new applications, and this also applies mutatis mutandis for the training of future generations who will devote themselves to fundamental research.

Concerning the other aim of higher education, direct preparation for societal functions, we should ask: Does an increase in the educational level of a population lead to an increase in the economic production of that society? Here, there seems to be a striking difference between the general expectations and the empirical facts. Generally politicians and policy makers feel that higher education should be encouraged, since it is assumed to be economically beneficial to society (see for example the OECD conferences of the 1960s). Empirical research shows that this is not unconditionally true. 10 How can this be explained?

First of all, a distinction has to be made between individual economic and macroeconomic effects. There is little doubt that for an individual person, the correlation between level of education and subsequent material income is positive. At the personal level, educational advancement is generally still a good investment. But at the macro-level, things are a lot more complicated. 11 First, the differences between micro- and macro-effects can be explained by the fact that educational differences and diplomas only have an effect on the internal ranking of the people competing on the labor market, and may not affect the total output of the system as such. Furthermore, education may have adverse effects on productivity, such as higher demands and better conditions for the workers, different power distribution in organizations, etc. In addition, there is often a reversed causal effect: additional schooling is chosen because of lower chances to find a job. Moreover, a faster-producing economy could produce a larger group of victims, people who cannot keep up with the higher pace of production and drain public funds through welfare and the cost of medical care.

But the primary reason for the low correlation between higher education and economic productivity is probably that the growing participation in higher education may not be geared towards the demands of the job market.

This imbalance problem has two aspects. In the first place, there is a surplus of graduates in disciplines that are not in great demand. The Kassel graduate survey showed that no dominant elements of study programs could be identified which might explain careers and job assignments. 12 We see also that two-thirds of the graduates in the U.K. enter fields not related to their undergraduate studies, 13 although this does not necessarily mean that their education was wasted or useless.

An interesting question in this respect would be: Should the government try to regulate the supply side, for example, by establishing a quota system (numerus fixus) for certain or all fields of higher education? This is probably not expedient, if not entirely infeasible. In the first place, restriction of freedom of choice is a politically sensitive matter in most countries. Second, the problems of developing a valid and fair selection system are almost insurmountable, in spite of popular optimism. Third, quota systems tend to discriminate against women, who often prefer the less market-oriented studies. Fourth, substantial unemployment in the better educated sectors of the labor force hardly exists, since well educated students often oust less educated candidates from the better positions on the market. It was also proven to be fairly difficult to make reasonably accurate predictions about the needs of the labor market, certainly in light of the five- or six-year gap between university entrance and graduation. Finally, a quota system for only a few disciplines, such as for medicine and dentistry, as exists in the Netherlands, is objectionable from the standpoint of optimal utilization of educational talent. There is no reason why such studies should have the right to select the better and more intelligent students at the cost of other faculties.

A better approach may be to start with the other aspect of the imbalance: insufficient preparation on the part of the universities for the demands of the labor market. If the universities were able to analyze the needs of the market in the medium long term future, and to adapt some of their curricula and courses to these needs, chances are that the problem would solve itself through a self-regulating mechanism.

Required Changes Within Universities

In what direction should such changes go? To answer this question we have to imagine the direction in which organizations of tomorrow will develop. 14 In most Western economies, we see a stronger emphasis on service industries, internationalization and globalization of markets, faster innovation in products (sometimes revolutionary), increasing introduction of technological changes, informatization, automation, and different means of communication, such as electronic mail, networking, and other computer-mediated forms of interaction. Organizations will be more flexible and more responsive to dynamic markets, and will make use of different kinds of organizational instruments, such as subcontracting, part-time workers and flexible work hours, semipermanent consultants and interim managers, more (semi) autonomous subunits, and more decentralization. They will show greater spatial dispersion, will be more goal oriented and less bureaucratic or position oriented. Employees will be less motivated by lifelong careers in organizations and will show less commitment to and identification with the company they work for.

Clearly, these new types of organizations will need new types of educated and trained employees, employees which are competence oriented rather than diploma oriented. Highly specialized knowledge and skills are quickly outdated or, if not used, forgotten. Intellectual skills should be oriented towards transferable knowledge and self-management strategies, including planning, goal setting, and the proper use of feedback. Scientific capacities should emphasize independent problem definition, analysis, and solving. Technical skills should strongly capitalize on the new informational and electronic instruments. Creativity, inventiveness and competence in dealing with new problems will be more important than existing and established approaches and methods. Also, personal qualities, such as leadershiD, communication, capacity for teamwork, and ability to deal with interpersonal conflicts will be of utmost importance in positions of responsibility in future organizations.

In addition, the classical university has to face completely new challenges and competition due to the rapid developments in information and communication technology. Many private institutes have easy access to the databases and results of scientific research that used to be "owned" by universities. They may use this information for commercial educational and training purposes. In fact, in many countries the "virtual" university outside the existing and acknowledged universities has already become reality. Likewise, the electronic library and the electronic mailing and communication system will drastically change the geographical identity of a university, its role in the generation and provision of scientific knowledge, and even its definition as a community of identifiable scholars and students.

Another challenge for the university is suggested by a recent report of the Science Policy Research Unit in Sussex, U.K., which analyzed, at the sectorial level, eleven years of U.K. scientific publications recorded in Science Citation Index. 15 From this research emerged a portrait of a dynamic, diverse, and adaptive science base. The universities are losing their monopoly in the field of research. Scientific research will be more applied and more interdisciplinary, and will be performed mostly in distributed networks. Industry and hospitals (for life sciences) are integral to the system of knowledge generation and help to funnel this knowledge into application. Collaboration, including cooperation between universities and external institutes, will become the rule, not the exception. Research will be published by a large diverse network of organizations.

A Dutch roundtable discussion between representatives from industry, government, and higher education recommended the drawing of a national road map for the development of capabilities needed now, in the immediate future, and in the more distant future. This, then, must be translated into training and education requirements. The development of the portfolio of key technologies for future products is essential in this process. It has to be developed in a tripartite consultation by industry, government, and academia.

It was concluded, that the government should:

The universities should:

Of course, industrial research, then, has to:

Obviously, these requirements will pose quite a challenge to the institutions of higher learning. Curricula and teaching methods may need drastic alteration and renewal. New strategies for linking the business world and universities need to be explored and developed. Two-way exchange of staff between university and industry, sandwich programs, lifelong learning development, continuing education, and updating courses will have to replace in part the existing teaching traditions. As the Massachusetts Institute of Technology acknowledged, the relationship between university and industry should not be based on the view that the university is the central source of new knowledge, but on the conviction that new knowledge and discoveries occur throughout society, and that movement of knowledge is never unidirectional. 16

Innovativeness of Universities

Are the universities capable of taking up these challenges, and able to cope with the stress caused by such changes?

In answering this question it is imperative to keep in mind that organizations— and this applies to universities as well—are not rational entities that develop strategies and make decisions on purely logical grounds. Organizations are composed of coalitions and interest groups, which create their own political agendas. Organizations are also social systems with group norms, values, and cultures. And organizations consist of (groups of) people with their own psychological needs and perspectives and specific ways of reacting to disturbances of the preferred homeostasis. The latter include resistance, anger, and even aggression at times. We are confronted with the classic chapter from organizational psychology called "resistance to change." 17

The literature suggests two types of causes of such resistance: primary and secondary causes.

Primary causes are defined as antecedents of resistance immediately related to the reasons to change, to the arguments used for the decision to change, and to the content of the change itself In the case of changes in the university system one can think of the required retraining of staff, fear of unemployment, the required reorientation of the researchers, the compulsion to collaborate both with researchers outside the university and internationally, the requirement to hunt for contract research, etc. One may also think of the unwillingness to change tax systems, legal protections and customs, the problem of property rights and patents, and the sharp distinction between precompetitive and competitive research. Cherishing the stereotypically sharp division between basic and applied research, or between research and development, the former being seen as the task of universities and the latter as that of nonuniversity (e.g., industrial) research laboratories, is another primary cause of resistance to change.

Secondary causes of resistance are barriers that directly or indirectly hinder acceptance or implementation of change. Four types of such barriers have been distinguished. 18 Psychological barriers refer to the lack of trust and lack of understanding of the intentions and reasons for the change, to fear of the loss of control over the unfolding events and their consequences, and to personality factors such as dogmatism, rigidity, fear of failure, anxiety, and the desire to preserve stability, safety and familiarity. Social barriers refer to resistance of groups or layers in the organization on the basis of shared attitudes and social norms. Group cohesiveness, solidarity, and identification with the group further reinforce such resistance behavior Cultural barriers create resistance on the basis of perceived differences between the expected social norms and values in the new situation, as compared with the present ones. Many changes and mergers fail or slacken because of the preponderance and stiffness of these cultural factors. We speak of organizational barriers if the organization insufficiently supports the implementation of the change or adaptation by failing to provide adequate financial resources or new personnel.

With respect to the changes needed in higher educational institutions, all four types of indirect barriers exist, with a possible emphasis on the social and cultural barriers. Particularly in Europe, the issue of academic versus the nonacademic world, research versus development, precompetitive versus competitive research seems to refer to two worlds even further apart culturally than Snow's two worlds of science and humanities.

An interesting question, of course, is how this resistance can be prevented or, if it occurs, reduced. The following approaches are suggested in the literature. 19

Coercion

This can be done through the use of the leader's position power or by the use of threats and rewards. The most common example in the case of universities is the pressure through budget control or (the threat of) budget reduction.

Negotiation

If parties disagree, a formal or informal bargaining or negotiating procedure can be followed, or use can be made of a third-party arbitration. At the university level this will pertain mainly to agreements on job security, wages, benefits, and the like, and less to the more basic issues related to the university's mission and direction.

Facilitation

Having analyzed the main areas and causes of the resistance, desired attitude and behavior changes can be wrought through discussion, persuasion, and other forms of facilitation. In specific circumstances this may help to alter specific negative attitudes or expectations.

Communication

One of the most important conditions for people to accept changes is to provide them with as much information as possible on the reasons for, the nature of and the consequences of the change. Misrepresentations and incorrect apprehensions regarding the objectives of the change and the nature of the change process will be important deterrents to its acceptance. Proper information will reduce many of these impediments. Of course this is particularly true if we deal with a rational decision, with explainable and transparent arguments, with no hidden agendas, and with a minimum of power-play or promotion of (self-) interest involved. Anyone who has some experience with academic decision making and with the competition for budgets and funding knows that this ideal description is far from reality.

Participation

It is generally accepted in the literature on change processes that participation of the various actors in the process of decision making itself is the best way to gain agreement with and commitment to the decision. And the (lost?) additional time it takes to reach the shared decision will be regained in the phase of the implementation.

This is especially applicable in the university setting. After all, we are dealing with an organization in which the professional has a central position. The emphasis in such a professional organization is on the operating core, and this is formed by scientists and professional specialists with a high level of knowledge, skill, and expertise. The control and stimulation system in such an organization must be attuned to the needs of such "professionals": need for autonomy, high intrinsic work motivation, opportunity to learn and to develop skills and knowledge, the use of functional, logical argumentation, confinement to expert power, and identification with professional peers rather than with the organization. 20

In such an organization external pressure and top-down control do not work. If major changes have to be introduced, and implemented, the acceptance and "internalization" of the objectives of the changes by the principal actors (the scientists and the professors) are absolutely essential. And this can only be realized if these actors participate in the decision-making and, as a consequence, share the responsibility for its outcomes.


NOTES

Note 1: European Commission, Greenpaper on Innovation (Brussels: EC., DY Xll, 1995). Back.

Note 2: IRDAC, Quality and Relevance (Brussels: European Commission, 1994). The earlier report was titled Skills Shortages in Europe (Brussels: European Commission, 1991). Back.

Note 3: J. Bricall, "Flexibility and Change: Two Necessary Conditions for the Universities," Journal of the Association of European Universities 106 (1995): 9-19. Back.

Note 4: . Central Planning Bureau, Scanning the Future (Den Haag: SDU Publishers, 1992). Back.

Note 5: . F.J.H. Don, "Opportunities or Problems? The Dutch Labour Market in 2000," Lysias symposium, "Word manager van je eigen toekomst," Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, 18 Nov. 1992. Back.

Note 6: R.S. Reneman, Het wetenschappelijk onderzoek in de jaren negentig; zijn we op de goede weg? (Maastricht: RU Limburg, 1993). Back.

Note 7: . Nijkamp et al. 1993. Back.

Note 8: . M.S. van Geenhuizen, Technology Transfer and Barriers: The Role of Intermediary Organizations (Rotterdam: E.G. Institute, 1993). Back.

Note 9: . Nijkamp 1990. Back.

Note 10: . See J. Dronkers's longitudinal study on Dutch data over a period of more than twenty years, showing very little effect of educational level of the labor force on the national economic output: "Educational Expansion and Economic Output in a European Industrial Nation during 1960-1980: The Netherlands," International Perspectives on Education and Society 3 (1993): 33-52. Back.

Note 11: Wilbrink and Dronkers 1993; M. Kogan and J. Brennan, "Higher Education and the World of Work: An Overview, " Higher Education in Europe 8 ( 1993), 2-23. Back.

Note 12: . H. Schomburg and U. Teichler, "Does the Programme Matter? Approach and Major Findings of the Kassel Graduate Survey," Higher Education in Europe 8 (1993): Back. 37-58.

Note 13: . Kogan and Brennan 1993. Back.

Note 14: . R.A. Roe, "New Technologies and the Future Organization," paper presented at the ENOP-Conference (Paris, March 1994). Back.

Note 15: . J. Sylvan Katz, D. Hicks, M. Sharp, and B.R. Martin, The Changing Shape of British Science (Sussex: S.8.R.U., 1995). Back.

Note 16: Quoted by L. Barden, "University-Business Partnerships," Industry and Higher Education, Dec. 1993, pp. 220-28. Back.

Note 17: . See for example L. Coch and J.R.P. French, "Overcoming Resistance to Change," Human Relations 1: 512-33; E.E. Metselaar and F. Wortelbier, "Het meten van weerstand tegen organisatieverandering," in Handbook Organisatie Instrumenten, ed. A.J. Cozijnsen and W.J. Vrakking (Samsom publishers, 1996), Katern c15-40, pp. 1-24. Back.

Note 18: E.E. Metselaar and N.R. Anderson, "The Psychology of Change Management," International Journal of Change Management ( 1996, in press) . Back.

Note 19: See for example N. King and N.R. Anderson,Innovation and Change in Organizations (London: Routledge, 1995). Back.

Note 20: . P.J.D. Drenth, "The University as a Professional Federation of Faculties: Balance Between Autonomy and Control," in ICHE, Second International Conference on Higher Education (Ankara, Turkey, 1989). Back.

Science-Based Economic Development