Chapter 3Literature ReviewThis section presents a review of related academic literature, which contributes to the theoretical framework for the study. As shown in the model below several different theoretical aspects including (1) Autonomy, (2) Institutional theory, and (3) Organisational Effectiveness will be considered during this study. These themes are interrelated and contribute collectively to the development of an understanding of the issues of concern in this study. 3.1 Theoretical FrameworkThe theoretical framework below is shaped up from the basis of the background of Thai higher education and potentially relevant literatures that may contribute to the research topic, which focuses on the administration and management of universities as organisations, with explicit focus on the regulatory change towards a more autonomous status for the universities and how this change affects organisational capabilities, which consequently leading to organisational effectiveness. (Change the diagram later)

Educational reform, especially becoming autonomous is an important issue in Thailand. Several Thai researchers have identified the benefits and drawbacks of how becoming more autonomous may affect students and a universitys administration. However, the impacts of autonomy on the effectiveness of universities have rarely been debated. In fact, the change of regulatory framework in Thai Higher Education to more autonomy has emerged from more broadly based social and economic pressures. Such pressures challenge Thai universities to adopt new organisational forms in order to respond more effectively to the environmental shift. Like many other countries, Thai higher education is expected to produce quality graduates and develop new knowledge in order to enhance the national competitiveness, resulting in a strong demand for university quality and accountability. In addition, the new form of management is also presumed to have an effect on the university capabilities, which in turn will affect the effectiveness of the universities. In considering the shift towards autonomous model, concept of autonomy as a frame is necessarily reviewed. Also institutional theory as a contemporary idea is useful to address the changes and developments occurred in the Thai higher educational sector. Institutional theory is an alternative view of organisational action and is based on sociological perspective, is used to explain how the universities respond to the regulatory change, rather than the traditional perspective like organisational change (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). Moreover, institutional theory provides a good set of mechanisms that is useful for the study. In organisational management, it is inevitable to discuss about administrators, as they are one of the prominent keys that manage an organisation. Their skills, beliefs and values are dominant in the given organisation. Gumport and Sporn (1999) stated that administrators play a significant role in mediating their organisations with their environments. Therefore, good leaders are supposed to arrange the fit between internal and external environment. Along with the concept of autonomy and institutional theory, the notion of organisational effectiveness and its predictors regarding higher education sector is considered under the framework. The term effectiveness has become significant in studies of higher education institutions and systems. Effectiveness is reflected through goals accomplishment established based on the demands of environments (Cameron & Whetten, 1996). All of the aspects introduced above will be reviewed and discussed in the following section.

3.2 Literature Review

This section presents a review of related academic literature, which contributes to the theoretical framework for the study. As shown in the model above several different theoretical aspects including (1) Autonomy, (2) Institutional theory, and (3) Organisational Effectiveness will be considered during this study. These themes are interrelated and contribute collectively to the development of an understanding of the issues of concern in this study.3.2.1 Autonomy3.2.1.1 Definitions and ConceptualizationThere have been different definitions of autonomy given by a number of researchers, which are given below.Autonomy is defined by Ballou (1998) the capacity of an agent to determine its own actions through independent choice within a system of principles and laws to which the agent is dedicated (p. 105). Broke (2003) defines autonomy as the degree to which one may make decisions significantly without the consent of others. However, the perception and views on autonomy change over time, and might differ from one context to another. Therefore, it is useful to consider different definitions of autonomy in order to have a better understanding of the term.Autonomy can be used for both the organisation and the state. Its meaning is initially understood via political theory. The word autonomy originated from the Greek word autonomia, which means a state that is free to determine the norms by which it wants to live (Ostwald, 1982). Previously, autonomy has been considered synonymous with the right of self-determinism, for states or individuals. This definition of self-determinism can be seen to have a wide impact over the functioning of a state, or an organisation. Even partial autonomy could have a big impact, in comparison to a state with no autonomy. At the level of an individual, living by ones own law can be referred to as autonomia. This too has wider political implications, as this self-governing at individual level morphs into a wider system of self-governance with a set of principles, which include competence, decision-making, critical reflection, freedom and self-control (Ballou, 1998).The concept of autonomy, as considered from different perspectives mentioned above, is dynamic in nature; it is a consequence of wider social and political changes taking place in a society. Various studies have considered the enduring complexity of the concept of autonomy over a period of time (The autonomy of autonomy, 2007; Ballou,1998; Ostwald, 1982). Thus, it is imperative to look at individual components of autonomy, to be able to understand the fundamental issues associated with the concept.Self-governance within a system of principlesSelf-governance is the central tenet of autonomy. On an individual level, philosophers have on numerous occasions attempted to link the idea of autonomous behaviour to the morality of the subject. Thus, basically saying that for a subject to be autonomous, it was necessary to be in accord with universally valid moral principles and laws, via his or her own actions. Though, others have considered self-governance as a right and responsibility to create a conducive environment for decision making, which is helpful in establishing control over self, and working conditions (Aydelotte, 1983; Dayani, 1990; Susman, 1976).Ability, Capacity and CompetenceAccording to Haworth, competence is the foundation of autonomy. A person strives to be able to produce intended effects and to become able to expand his repertoire of skills that underlies that ability. In the view of contemporary philosopher Young (1985), who argued that the autonomous persons capacities, beliefs and values will be identifiable as integral to him and be the source from which his actions spring. Thus, it can be stated that competency and autonomy are linked together, which means that an individual, or an organisation cannot act autonomously without the competence to act autonomously. Therefore, the presence of competence is directly linked to accomplishing autonomy.Decision MakingDecision-making is also a significant theme in the concept of autonomy. Two components arise that make decision-making a component of autonomy. One is that agents have the freedom to choose how best to achieve an end or satisfy a preference. Two is that agents have the freedom to act on their choices. Individual ability to become autonomous depends on his/her capability or capacity to make choice among alternatives. Autonomy was defined by Batey and Lewis (1982), as the freedom to make discretionary and binding decisions consistent with ones scope of practice and freedom to act on those decisions. According to Leddy and Pepper (1985), the autonomous person is capable of making rational and unconstrained decision and acting on those decisions. However, the presumption here is that the individual is in possession of valid information (Argyris, 1997). This means that the individual has accurate and full information, based upon which, a decision can be made. However, increasingly that is not the case as individuals do not have accurate and full information, which means that the choice or decision cannot be unconstrained. Therefore, in such cases, the individual making the decision is constrained by what he does not know. An individual can be considered rational when he is capable of choosing the best means to some end, depending on the information available to make the choice. Critical ReflectionA theme related to decision making is critical reflection which was described by Haworth (1986) as being sensitive to thought and to being guided by it acting on reason, reflecting on impulses and outside influence. One adopts standards, values, and principles after having critically reflected on them. Kant (as cited in Haworth, 1986) believed that actions based on desire lead to heteronomy. Kants critics disagree by asserting that if one critically reflects on ones desires, one avoids heteronomy by assuring that ones choices are ones own. Therefore, the concept of autonomy involves the idea of authoring ones own world through reflection and decision-making and within a system of endorsed beliefs and principles.FreedomAutonomy, in essence, means seeking independence and acting with freedom from authority. These are two essential cornerstones for fermenting an autonomous organisation. Haworth (1986) emphasized that a positive connotation of independence is one actually ruling oneself, and that self-rule does not automatically follow from freedom and independence, but only guarantees the possibility.Self-ControlSelf-control is a common theme in the discussions about autonomy. Haworth (1986) mentioned that autonomous persons demonstrate this capacity through full rationality and unrestricted critical competence, expressed in a continuously expanding creative life that is fully ones own. This idea brings an existing awareness of liability for self and ability to control self. 3.2.1.2 Autonomy and OrganisationIt is becoming increasingly clear that organisations throughout the world are striving to cope with the need for changes from the traditional management modes to the new managerialism. This new managerialism involves the application of private-sector techniques to public sector management in order to increase productivity. With the new managerialism, management must have the freedom to plan, implement and measure its resources when it feels appropriate (Bottery 2000). Especially, in large or public organisations, where bureaucratic systems still dominates, there is a shift towards flexibility in management and administration. Centralization is a structural feature of classical bureaucracy. The locus of decision-making is based on the top level of organisations and it is debatable as to whether it works efficiently, especially in relation to organisations such as universities, which have complex social and economic goals. It is clear that bureaucracy is efficient for the administration of large-scale organisations; however, it may have a negative effect on routine tasks. Bureaucracy keeps the chain of command impersonal and stops favoritism, clear missions and policies for the organisations to follow will be defined clearly, and it has focused on the dominance of regulations. Such regulations cause rigidity, lack of responsiveness to client even discouragement of innovation, while not necessarily doing away with favoritism and often proving unable to develop effective policies. Even though bureaucratic structures and processes work effectively, in a broader consensus the ineffectuality of bureaucratic systems is well documented. Therefore, it is argued that the nature of bureaucracy must be replaced by flexibility and involvement (Berka, 2000; Salaman & Asch, 2003). The term flexible and involvement have been characterized by concepts of autonomy, which will be discussed as follows;Autonomy can be observed at various levels of analysis; the autonomy of an individual in the organisation or the autonomy of organisations. At the individual level, autonomy can be referred to as the right of an organisational member to make a decision relevant to their job without consent of other people. While, autonomy at the organisational level has been defined by (Datta, Grant, & Rajagopalan, 1991) as day-to-day freedom to manage. (Harris & Holden, 2001) showed the inter-relationship between autonomy and control, framing them as opposing organisational forces. The relationship between autonomy and organisation has been studied at different levels, highlighting the impact of low or high autonomy on the functioning of departments in an organisation, while also taking into account the impact autonomy has on the centralization of decision-making within an organisation (Brock, 2003). Hackman and Oldham (1976) showed that autonomy along with other factors promotes positive motivation, performance, satisfaction, absenteeism, and turnover outcomes. Therefore, autonomy not only affects the jobs directly, it also relates to important areas, which have a direct impact on organisational effectiveness. 3.2.1.3 Autonomy and UniversitiesUniversities throughout the world have been changed profoundly, due to globalisation and the rapid changes in the word. New demands of higher education have increased and this has also lead to changes in their objectives. Our society and economy as such, are increasingly becoming knowledge-based. The responsibility of universities towards the nation is not only teaching students but also to provide life-long learning, which helps create a developed society and also to support producing research as centers of research. Demands for a variety of educational services such as, distance-learning courses, multidisciplinary studies, are growing rapidly. Therefore, in order to meet a new societys overall needs, the organisational structures of educational institutes, have to be changed from a rigid bureaucracy toward more flexible structures. Consequently, universities are increasingly harder to manage, with fragmentation of disciplines, diversion of original goals and objectives with which they had started. A flexible structure, on the other hand, could give educational organisations an opportunity to adapt to changing demands. Moreover, it would result in creation of more nimble organisations, which are adaptive towards the changes. The present form of organisation, with interferences from bureaucratic arm of government hampers the universitys ability to adapt to the changing needs of a society (Mora, 2001).Universities around the world have moved towards a universal system of higher education over the last thirty years, consequently they are looking at making changes to their systems of governance and management (Mora, 2006). When university governance and management become a new objective, the concept of university autonomy is inevitable to be included. There are a number of views on the autonomy of universities and it has been argued to be an essential prerequisite for education (Berka, 2000, p. 5). (Glenn, 2000) stated that to be an autonomous educational institution implies that it is less subject to political and bureaucratic interference, and more responsive to those it serves. In Thailand the political influence is confined to the affluent few, and the democractisation is still at its nascent stages. Therefore, an autonomous education institution means that those without political influence have a better chance of becoming more influential stakeholders in the reformed organisation, as it attempts to become autonomous, and consequentially free from political agendas of the ruling class.Mora (2010) defined the meaning of university autonomy as the universitys ability to organise its own activities without the state consents.Lo (2010) defines the concept of institutional autonomy as the self-governance of education institutions without political or bureaucratic interference hampering the attainment of the most important goals of education.As indicated by these views the perception of autonomy in universities may vary from context to context and may vary over time. Thus, university autonomy might differ from country to country. Consequently, the definition of university autonomy should be made clear for particular context in order to understand the influence of context on university autonomy.The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of autonomy on the effectiveness of universities in Thailand. Thus, the meaning of university autonomy should be defined within the Thai context. In the Thai context, autonomy is considered as a significant step to strengthen and develop public higher education institution, so autonomy in Thailand is expected to be more accountable to the public, more adaptive to educational and social needs and market demand, and more proactive and dynamic in prioritising their goals, outputs and outcomes (Sinthunava, 2007).However, it is rare for educational institutions to be completely autonomous, and free of any political influence. The primary reason being that most universities, even the so-called autonomous ones, receive public funding in one-way or another. A number of arguments could be made in favour of university autonomy, but at the same time there are quite a few valid reasons for the State to have some form of control over higher education. These include, the States duty towards research and development, for the sake of wider social good. Also, it is important that governmental resources are utilised to increase social mobility, through public service in form of education and employment. Moreover, there needs to be accountability regarding government expenditure, so that the government protects the interests of the taxpayers and students (Mora, 2001).Therefore, an argument could be made that the supervisory power of the state has some positive consequences for the higher education, as in this way larger public good is ensured. At the same time, the role of state is considered by some to be pertinent for the development of such an important service, and thus, they advocate reliance on indirect methods compatible with autonomy ("The anatomy of autonomy," 2007). Following from this, different governments have used different approaches to deal with this particular scenario, that of indirect control with semblance of autonomy. As an example, in some countries governments play a decisive role in deciding the programmes at offer, whereas in more autonomous institutions this is left to the organisation as such. Another frequently used method is that of the quality assurance criteria, where the institutions are given funding if they meet the set criterion.Considering all the views discussed above, the idea of institutional autonomy is far more complicated than it seems on the first occasion. The factors, which give rise to this rising complexity, include the increasing pressure for accountability and different demands from a variety of stakeholders. Due to these demands, the higher education institutions are forced to take decisions in order to respond to those demands, which consequently affect their core institutional autonomy.The actual literature on autonomy has been sparse, and most of the fascination with the theme occurred, following the growth decades of the 1960s when the amount of institutions proliferated along with states did start to centralize coordination along with governance regarding public postsecondary training. During this era studies of varieties of coordinating point out structures were common (Berdahl, 1971; Glenny, 1959; Millett, 1984).States usually are characterized because having constitutional or perhaps statutory autonomy for degree, but autonomy from state is dependent upon state heritage, context, and kind of board together with legal position. An early on study contrasted their bond between point out and degree in four states with constitutional autonomy along with four claims with statutory position, and concluded that, "The findings of the present research indicate several occasions, even so, when any tax-supported establishment of degree, whatever its legal position, can productively resist concerted legislative pressures, particularly in matters requiring point out funds. inches (Glenny & Dalglish, 1973, s. 147). The learning notes that will limitations on autonomy come through from political pressure, the particular appropriations practice, judicial interpretations regarding constitutional autonomy, and constitutional powers fond of other entities such as legislature or perhaps governor.Through the years a several studies include operational autonomy. Research according to national info has presented constructs along with operational explanations of institutional autonomy. Examining point out regulation along with administrative flexibility in public places universities, Volkwein along with Malik (1997) confirmed two measurements of institutional autonomy, admin and academic, and elements and variables within just about every dimension. Management, or financial/personnel mobility is identified by four factors (revenue mobility; expenditure details flexibility; spending budget detail mobility; tuition along with fee flexibility) along with related variables within just about every factor. Educational flexibility is actually defined by means of six elements (program mobility; standards; liability requirements; disciplinary mobility; department mobility; degree requirements) along with related variables. The perform of Volkwein along with Malik comes with a tool pertaining to operationalizing along with measuring the degree of institutional autonomy. The learning, however, suggests that there is little marriage between degrees of regulation as well as a state's sociable, political along with economic attributes, and no significant marriage between autonomy along with faculty or perhaps undergraduate quality (Volkwein & Malik, 1997). Any related study surveyed campus managers to determine their levels ofjob full satisfaction, and observed little marriage between full satisfactions and point out and campus regulating conditions (Volkwein, Malik, & Napierski-Prancl, 1998). This finding, counter in order to expectations according to organizational theory, leads us to believe that further study may be needed in order to explore the character of mobility as experienced by those that work inside campuses. The carrying on concern indicated by groups just like the Association regarding Governing Forums (200 I) with regards to threats in order to autonomy is actually additional cause of searching past the operational definitions regarding autonomy to find insight by practitioners with the campus along with state levels.In hard work to figure out how autonomy is actually controlled, some research provides investigated the particular role regarding state rules and governance buildings. Both Fisher (1988) along with Sabloff (1997) analyzed state legislatures and also the restriction regarding autonomy in public universities. Fisher observed that, regardless of perceptions regarding increasing rules by those in the academy, there is no improve in hard to stick to legislation among 1900 along with 1979. How many restrictive degree laws elevated, but the entire number regarding legislation off types also increased through the period, without the need of disproportionate improve in hard to stick to legislation aimed towards postsecondary training (Fisher, 1988). Sabloff, even so, concluded that will legislatures may very well continue moving past laws restricting degree autonomy due to increasing professionalization regarding state legislators, an expanding regulatory weather, and the importance for congress to react to constituent calls for liability (Sabloff, 1997). Neither Fisher not Sabloff particularly discusses the particular potential effects of the decreasing degrees of public resources upon point out regulatory behavior. Given any climate regarding diminishing point out revenues along with multiple exterior claimants for degree accountability, legislators' perceptions of the responsibilities toward public degree would always be of vital fascination with understanding policy direction.Notwithstanding a adjusting environment, states form public degree governance buildings, and restructuring initiatives in the past decade include prompted numerous studies. Hearn along with Griswold (1994) observed that robust centralized governing structures usually are positively correlated with degree policy advancement in academic areas, but not in the community of capital education. Others are finding that government and specific systems were most productive at identifying priorities along with guiding perform processes, although specific systems are liable to external political interference unless of course protected by means of constitutional autonomy (F. L. Bowen et aI., 1997). 3.1.1 AccountabilityThis literature upon liability have been abundant, and also after that become examined here will be the literature that is almost all strongly related a new discussion of autonomy. Many studies describe a variety of constituents with an interest inside higher education focal points and also results. Open public terrain allow educational institutions, by way of example, ought to respond to wants of central stakeholders and also nearby constituents, but will also be dependable towards the federal legislation with which these were set up and also funded. These days as well as government, higher education features stuck romantic relationships using individual company and also foundations that include grants or loans and also endowments and search from educational institutions to be a method to obtain investigation and also advancement. In the course of instances of financial difficulties, everyone university can be encouraged to look for additional funding, and also these types of services of support potentially have an effect on the actual direction and also durability of distinct software programs from the academy (Harcleroad, 1999). Educational program focal points, customarily a new prerogative from the autonomous academy, additionally may be affected by policy and also governmental policies additional towards the academy (McGuinness, 1999; Eileen, 1998).Within the 1990s, the bigger knowledge literature illustrates the actual mind-boggling fascination with liability to convey government, stated through performance funding, tested through performance signals, and also inspired through structure and also governance (Trudy W. Banta & Borden, 1994; Bottrill & Borden, 1994; Burke, 1998; Freeman, 1995; Gillmore & Hoffman, 1997; Marcus, 1997; Ruppert, 1995; Serban, 1998b; Stein & Fajen, 1995). In additionally, taken on school production and also incentives, program examination, scholar results inside the energy to help gauge the prices and also results of open higher education (Milem et aI., 2000; Presley & Engelbride, 1998). Within this period, campuses documented towards the state in relation to issues which customarily have been beneath campus oversight.3.1.2 Autonomy and UniversitiesUniversities around the world have already been changed in a big way, due to help globalisation plus the rapid changes from the word. New needs of higher education have increased this also has also lead to changes within their objectives. Our society and economy therefore, are becoming increasingly knowledge-based. The accountability of universities to nation isn't just teaching students but to provide life-long mastering, which helps develop a developed society and to support generating research because centers of research. Demands for various educational services for instance, distance-learning classes, multidisciplinary reports, are increasing rapidly. As a result, in order to meet up with a brand-new societys entire needs, this organizational buildings of informative institutes, have to be changed coming from a rigid paperwork toward much more flexible buildings. Consequently, universities are generally increasingly harder to deal with, with fragmentation of disciplines, diversion of original ambitions and objectives with which they had started off. A variable structure, alternatively, could give educational organisations an opportunity to adapt to help changing needs. Moreover, it'd result inside creation of more nimble firms, which are generally adaptive to changes. Today's form of organisation, with interferences through bureaucratic provide of federal hampers this universitys power to adapt for the changing needs of an society (Mora, 2001).Universities world wide have relocated towards the universal technique of higher education during the last thirty many years, consequently they are considering making changes thus to their systems of governance and management (Mora, 2006). When college governance and management become a new objective, the thought of university autonomy is inevitable being included. There are many of views for the autonomy of universities there are been argued being an necessary prerequisite with regard to education (Berka, 2000, r. 5).(Glenn, 2000) reported that being an autonomous informative institution implies that it's less governed by political and bureaucratic disturbance, and more responsive to those that serves. In Thailand this political affect is confined for the affluent several, and this democractisation continues to be at its nascent levels. Therefore, an autonomous education and learning institution implies that those with out political influence possess a better possibility of becoming much more influential stakeholders from the reformed operation, as that attempts to be autonomous, and consequentially free from political agendas from the ruling class.Mora (2010) defined this is of college autonomy since the universitys power to organise its activities with no state consents.Lo (2010) defines the very idea of institutional autonomy since the self-governance of education establishments without politics or bureaucratic disturbance hampering this attainment of the extremely important ambitions of education and learning.As mentioned by these kind of views this perception of autonomy inside universities can vary greatly from framework to context and could vary as time passes. Thus, university autonomy might vary from country to help country. For that reason, the classification of college autonomy needs to be made clear for specific context as a way to understand this influence of context upon university autonomy.The intention of this study is always to investigate this impact of autonomy on the effectiveness of universities inside Thailand. Therefore, the significance of college autonomy needs to be defined from the Thai framework. In this Thai framework, autonomy is regarded as an important step to help strengthen and develop public higher education institution, so autonomy inside Thailand is expected to be much more accountable for the public, much more adaptive to help educational and social wants and current market demand, and more proactive and dynamic inside prioritising his or her goals, components and outcomes (Sinthunava, 2007).On the other hand, it is rare with regard to educational institutions being completely autonomous, and clear of any politics influence. The leading reason being that a majority of universities, perhaps the so-called autonomous kinds, receive general public funding inside one-way or perhaps another. A number of arguments may be made to be replaced by university autonomy, but while doing so there are quite a few valid reasons behind the State to possess some form of control over higher education. These include, the States responsibility towards study and progress, for this sake of wider social good. Also, it is essential that governmental means are utilized to raise social range of motion, through general public service in kind of education and employment. Also, there must be accountability regarding government costs, so which the government shields the interests from the taxpayers and students (Mora, 2001).As a result, an argument may be made which the supervisory power from the state offers some positive consequences for higher education and learning, as in this manner larger general public good is ensured. At the same time, the role of state is regarded by some being pertinent for development of this kind of important services, and so, they recommend reliance upon indirect methods appropriate for autonomy ("The body structure of autonomy, inches 2007). Following because of this, different governments manipulate different approaches to deal with this specific scenario, that of oblique control using semblance of autonomy. For example, in several countries authorities play the decisive role in deciding the programmes at present, whereas inside more autonomous institutions this is left for the organisation therefore. Another used often method is that from the quality confidence criteria, where the institutions are given funding as long as they meet this set qualification.Considering all of the views mentioned above, the thought of institutional autonomy is considerably more complicated than it seems like on the primary occasion. The factors, which bring about this growing complexity, include this increasing demand for accountability and different demands from various stakeholders. As a result of these needs, the higher education institutions are generally forced to consider decisions as a way to respond to help those needs, which as a result affect his or her core institutional autonomy.

3.1 Institutional autonomy in HEIt really is apparently distinct that, no matter whether in formulated or developing nations, the problem of institutional autonomy in She has been shared as the leading agenda connected with discussions. It really is believed in which autonomy may be the crucial characteristic of HEIs (Berdahl, 1990; Clark 1983; Kohtamaki, 2009). Lots of studies indicate that growing institutional autonomy is a key to be able to capacitate colleges to react to the challenges in a increasingly complicated and international environment (Eastermann & Nokkala, 2009). Additionally, it will be believed the issue connected with academic flexibility and institutional autonomy are generally basically important to understand the relationship between HEIs plus the state (McDaniel, 1996).

Even so, it seems that zero studies make a comprehensive explanation or which means of autonomy. This situation happens partly due to nature connected with autonomy to be a multi-dimensional principle that seems in using many autonomy related concepts along with various dimensions inside the same principle (Kohtamaki, 2009). Other than, its principle or which means shows variations in line with the level connected with analysis staying made, that may be autonomy on the basic device, unit degree, institutional degree and method level (Beacher & Kogan, 1992). Furthermore, the difference in traditional background of numerous HE systems in addition has its influence on the interpretations connected with autonomy. According to Kohtamaki (2009: 69), Historically, you will find variations concerning whose autonomy will be emphasized, within relations to be able to whose as well as what autonomy will be identified, and what is undoubtedly the content material of autonomy. Therefore, it will be common to determine different varieties of definitions provided to the phrase- institutional autonomy.

Careful discusses these descriptions of autonomy within HE, nevertheless, show they share popular important components. These definitions really should not be opposed to one another, but alternatively differ inside emphasis to merely give. First of all, Askling, Bauer & Marton (1999: 81) determine it as follows; Institutional autonomy is normally looked at as the level of freedom the actual university has got to steer itself. Even so, this popular concept will not necessarily make the task of defining the term easier. For Mora (2001) autonomy may be the right in the institution to set its own objectives along with manage its very own affairs with out interference on the state.Autonomy within HEIs on the institutional level can also be seen since the issue connected with academic extramarital affairs and current administration affairs. As a result, Berdahl (1990: 123) proposed to distinguish between two sorts of autonomy: procedural along with substantive. Substantive autonomy may be the power in the university or college in its corporate from to find out its own goals along with programmes, - the actual what connected with academe. Procedural autonomy may be the power in the university or college in its corporate from to look for the means in which its targets and programmes will likely be pursued-the precisely how of academe. In practical words, substantive autonomy would mean the guru of institutions to find out academic along with research policy such as standards, course load, programme choices, research regions, staff policy, and awarding degrees or usually the academic extramarital affairs. Procedural autonomy means the guru of institutions in essentially non-academic areas such as budgeting, personal management, as well as non-academic staff and human being resource managing or the actual institutional managing.

In lots of the literatures on the autonomy within HEIs, the apparent focus is on the ingredients in the autonomy not on the simple which means attached on there. There isn't any ideal style of autonomy, but rather a few basic principles that constitute crucial portions of autonomy (Eastermann & Nokkala, 2009: 7). This might help to be able to approach along with analyse the actual status connected with autonomy within HEIs. For example, for Ashby & Anderson (1966: 296), the ingredients within institutional autonomy are generally:The Freedom to select staff along with students and to look for the conditions under which remain inside university;The Freedom to find out curriculum content material and stage standards along withThe Flexibility to allot funds (within the actual amounts available) over different groups of expenditures.

Additionally, a complete analysis in the basic measurements of institutional autonomy in a few European countries may be made simply by Eatermann & Nokkala (2009). For that reason, according to be able to Estermann & Nokkala, (2009: 40) the essential dimensions connected with institutional autonomy within HEIs are generally organizational, personal, staffing along with academic autonomy. The in depth analysis of each dimension will likely be offered inside following sections.

3.1.1 Organizational autonomyOrganizational autonomy is the term for the framework and institutional governance, specifically, the capability to establish framework and regulating bodies, university command and who's going to be accountable to help whom. Put simply, it targets defining this modalities of its command model. Nevertheless, while this academic along with administrative framework is most likely under university control, the governance framework and leadership in many cases are strongly molded by national level regulating bodiesthe express. Besides, another important element inside structure of governing body is whether they comprise additional members along with how these are generally selected. This may mean the selection can be carried out by this universities themselves and/or by an additional body or perhaps authority (Estermann & Nokkala, the year just gone: 7).

The power of universities to select their executive leadership is usually another key indicator of the organizational autonomy. The university leadership frequently comprises numerous key staff members in this institution, such as rector, this vice-rectors, the top of administration along with the faculty deans. It's quite to identify that the legislation specifies this composition along with the competencies of such collection (Estermann & Nokkala, 2009).

As a final point assessed this role on the rector depending on governing bodies on the institution also results in a deeper comprehension of the amount and characteristics of organizational autonomy. This factor can also be affected by the nature on the university framework under research. For example, if universities follow this dual framework of administration, then this rectors relation to the body which is mainly responsible for more long term strategic selections, such as picking out statutes, ideal plans, number of the rector along with vice-rectors, and so forth, the aboard; in opposition to the body mainly interested in academic affairs- this senate seemingly different.

3.1.2 Financial autonomyA different significant as well as complex aspect of institutional autonomy would be the scope of universities personal autonomy (Kohtamaki, 2009). In other words, financial autonomy can be a crucial factor allowing universities to realize their ideal goals. In line with Eastermann & Nokkala, (2009: 18) personal autonomy mainly is the term for the issues-in certain:

a. The extent to which they accumulate supplies and maintain surplus about state moneyb. The power of universities setting tuition charges,c. Their capacity to borrow money about the financial marketsd. Their capacity to invent in financial loanse. Their capacity to issue explains to you and providesf. Their capacity to own the particular land as well as buildings they occupy

Financial autonomy is obviously the area where the links on the other proportions of autonomy are greatest and can therefore hardly be regarded as in solitude. The power or inability of universities to decide on tuition charges has benefits for college student admissions, national restrictions on salaries for all or some groups of staff impinge about staffing autonomy plus the capacity in order to freely use income specifically affects a chance to implement a defined strategy. Generally it is usually said that will universities capacity to control fully as well as allocate their own budget internally is usually an important component their personal autonomy. Besides, the method by which funding is allocated is another important aspect that demonstrates how unbiased universities take action vis--vis the particular political specialists. Thus, this indicates appropriate to summarize, if there is not certain freedom to behave independently with regards to financial troubles, and next the other proportions of autonomy may likewise exist only in theory.

Moreover, one of the most important factors within the financial autonomy would be the method of allocating of funding in the state on the universities. It is becoming apparently clear how the role from the state about financing it's HEIs is diminishing from time to time. Hence, a big burden is made for universities to manage up using less funding with more college students and large goals. Declined state money, however, could result throughout greater institutional autonomy (Fielden, 2008). Besides, nowadays it also becomes any fashion in order to issue prohibit grants pertaining to HEIs because essential ingredient of institutional autonomy. On the other hand, for educational facilities with full autonomy via a block grant allocation of funds the particular natural result is likely forced to offer their money body using genuine reports on what the money continues to be spent, and also other statistics associated with performance as well as outputs (Fielden, 2008). Consequently autonomy is connected with accountability.

Many scholars think that enhanced institutional autonomy has additionally implied advanced of liability for high quality assurance for the state and also institutional degrees. Accountability is additionally considered just as one important aspect in the governance of HE process. This might also indicate the particular recognition that there is a public curiosity about tertiary education which should be matched while using advantages which usually institutional autonomy can result in (OECD, 2008). With regard to this, De Boer & Data file, (2009: 13) comment, Greater accountability includes that HEIs need to redefine the ways that they inform their stakeholders regarding their performance. Additional demands they fit on the particular academic control, which therefore requires fresh modes of communication using and assistance from the decentralized devices (faculties, universities, institutes, departments).

While using existing situation of international locations, accountability comes through a sizable variety of channels. By way of example, many international locations have rigid rules controlling the place of fresh institutions, accreditation system to ensure quality expectations and skilled examinations in order to filter access to professional careers for example engineering, treatments or legislation. Governments furthermore rely increasingly on performance-based spending budget allocation mechanisms for example funding supplements or cut-throat funds about the supply aspect or funds, vouchers and so to speak . on the particular demand aspect (Salmi, 2007: 328-329).

3.1.3 Staffing autonomyStaffing autonomy is targeted on such matters because the capacity connected with universities to help recruit their staff, the obligation for terminology of job contracts in addition to civil servants standing (Estermann & Nokkala, 2009). However, as it had been mentioned preceding, the capability of universities to settle on staff recruitment is actually integrally linked to their personal and academic autonomy. Seeing that staff earnings and job contracts are usually, to an incredible degree, determined because of the financial agreements between the university in addition to their funders in addition to financial restrictions on staffing directly affect the opportunity to recruit the appropriate staff (OECD, 2008). It is also necessary to help analyse staffing autonomy in relation to an institutions academic and personal autonomy. Additionally, staffing autonomy can be analysed because of the recruitment procedures linked to the consultation of senior academic workers, the standing of college or university employees (whether regarded as civil servants or even not; along with the salary amounts of the workers (Estermann & Nokkala, last year: 40).

Consequently, it might be deduced that one of many important components of staffing autonomy will be the extent to help which schools have control within the financial aspects linked to their workers (OECD, 2008). This consists of the total salary charges and personal salary ranges, as well because the degree connected with flexibility schools have in the recruitment connected with staff (even when procedures are usually regulated to a certain degree). Universities staffing autonomy is restricted whenever schools are generally unable to settle on their staffing policy, including recruitment routines, salary ranges, and stint. If these types of issues are usually set to a large degree because of the public government bodies, the schools are remaining with tiny capacity to regulate overall wage expenses, or prepare incentives intended for attracting premium quality staff.

3.1.4 Academic autonomyAcademic autonomy pertains, among various other matters, to universities capability to determine their particular institutional technique. In various other words, the ability on the universities to be able to define their particular basic missions regarding research as well as teaching orientation and also other activities as well as including decisions regarding which usually actions are necessary to very best achieve these kinds of missions. It is clear of which universities capability to define their particular institutional technique also variations important aspects of the various other dimensions connected with autonomy and may even therefore be regarded as a overarching framework of most their activities. The electrical power of universities to discover their school profile is also another crucial dimension connected with academic autonomy. Moreover, the capability of colleges to add or discourage degree programs; and to settle on the construction and content of the programmes will also be considered seeing that essential components of school autonomy. As a final point, the assignments and duties of universities regarding the high quality assurance connected with programmes as well as degrees; and the extent to that they can decide on student admissions may also be the components of school autonomy connected with universities (Estermann & Nokkala, 2009).

The capability of universities to settle on key issues in connection with picking a students (student admission) is also an crucial ingredient connected with academic autonomy. This can be analysed on the following perspectives. First, whether universities are able to decide upon overall amounts of students. Minute, if they are able to decide about the numbers connected with student per discipline. 3rd, if they have control above student entry mechanisms. Final, the must comply together with special quotas is also one principle elements connected with academic autonomy with student assortment (OECD, 2008).

Hence, in terms of school autonomy, key issues range from the ability connected with universities to settle on their school profiles, especially instructional responsibilities (conferring degrees using some areas), and the ability to select individuals. And, one ways of giving better autonomy to be able to institutions can be granting separate legal position to HEIs. Put simply, having separate legal status signifies that the organizations concerned tend to be legally accountable for their operating. Other factors remain frequent, universities should have at the very least the autonomy to raise funds as well as manage assets looking for the base goals (OECD, 2009).

This dimensions connected with autonomy (Eastermann & Nokkala, 2009) specified the level of actions that you should possible pertaining to autonomous HEIs. However, the main question is if the dimensions connected with autonomy displayed above guarantee the full autonomy connected with HEIs. The answer is, they just don't. This does work, mainly, because it's not at all the components of autonomy detailed by different scholars tend to be incomplete, rather there isn't a such issue as absolute or total autonomy. Autonomy can be a relative concept or relational concerning the balance connected with power concerning HEIs and the government about the one side, and concerning administrative as well as academic career within institutions about the other (van Vught, 1989). In addition, Salmi, (2007: 226) recommends, increased autonomy doesn't mean the lack of control. In addition to, he additional commented of which autonomy really should not be confused together with total self-reliance. Therefore, autonomy can be meaningful and then the extent who's actually encourages institutions in a responsible method. In various other words, Mahony, (1992: 14) recommends at the very least universities should get rid government interference with regards to: course written content, methods connected with assessment, the conduct connected with research, the consultation of staff and the free manifestation of sights and opinions.

Moreover, it would seem clear which the movement to deregulation in the governance connected with HEIs contributes to various types of institutional autonomy. Therefore, different policies that help universities need to be freed through over-regulation as well as micro-management although accepting which the equivalent liability to modern society starts to be able to emerge. Also, it can be widely accepted in much more policy documents that much more autonomy inside the HEIs can lead to improved performance of those universities in particular and the HE system generally. The backbone with this argument rests about the autonomous HEIs having the ability to control as well as steer their particular outcomes as well as performance (de Boer & Data file 2008). Emphasising the advantages of having autonomy in a university Fielden, (2008: 18) reviews:

If a group of institutions in a university program is presented autonomy to respond to national policy goals while they think in shape, there can be a reasonable chance that they can choose various ways of reaching a similar goal knowning that some could be more innovative compared to others. Had they been centrally aimed, this variety might have been less likely.

However, you can find barriers with granting autonomy to be able to universities. These limitations partly emanate on the fear on the government of which institutions are not competent plenty of to exercising the powers as effectively and efficiently as you can. Besides, there's also a deep seated belief which the managerial expertise of school professors are not up towards standard to be able to lead their particular institutions in the highly sophisticated and reasonably competitive world (Fielden, 2008).

Last but not least, the essential motto driving institutional autonomy can be that institutions that are capable to control their particular future perform superior to otherwise. They might have the motive to succeed if they are able to directly take advantage of their actions; they will also be entrepreneurial as well as achieve the reward or they might be timed to see their competition institutions get the best of them (Fielden, 2008). In any case, it can be strongly argued the most significant governance pattern in She has been the widening connected with institutional autonomy (de Boer & Data file, 2009; Eurydice, 2008 and OECD, 2008).

Thus, it is usually deduced of which any activities that end in the overall flexibility or capability of almost any HEIs to do and accomplish their quest and eyesight without unnecessary rules, regulations as well as or sanctions is usually called institutional autonomy. Naturally, however, while guaranteeing institutional autonomy as well as academic freedom are classified as the basic requirements for the overall performance on the universities, it is additionally generally accepted that government features a legitimate involvement in exercising have an effect on on HE / SHE system (McDaniel, 1996). Emphasizing the role on the government Moor, (1993: 61) recommends that No country in the world has a government which doesn't retain many control above its universitiesuniversities tend to be public products and services. The issue, therefore, is just not whether government should have some command over colleges, but somewhat, how very much control as well as where it must be exercised.

Consequently, it can be natural to anticipate states to possess effective function or intervention in guiding their HE / SHE system. However, the intervention may be harmful when it is done with the expense on the autonomy connected with universities.

3.2.2 Institutional theory3.2.2.1 IntroductionIn todays world, organisations throughout the world have experienced political, regulatory and technological conditions that put pressures on them. Given that conditions affect capabilities of organisations to cope with such pressures to guarantee organisational survival (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). This could be the reason why organisational change has become a popular topic of organisational studies. When discussing about organisational change, two main different perspectives have been widely utilised to explain the concept. First, the dominant approach, which is technical perspective, suggests that organisations change in order to improve their performance or effectiveness. Second, an alternative perspective, which is provided by institutional theory, offers an idea that organisations change in order to achieve greater legitimacy, not more effective performances (Ashworth, Boyne, & Delbridge, 2007).Institutional theory is based on sociological perspective and even though, it is contrasted with some other traditional organisational perspectives, it is attractive to a number of organisational scholars (Zucker, 1987). The theory is one of the magnificent theories that has been broadly used to explain organisational actions over the past few decades (Dacin, Goodstein, & Scott, 2002). As the theory was developed from a number of rigorous empirical and theoretical work, it has been increasingly become popular and powerful. The origins of institutional theory are various and its meaning is disparate depending on the emphasis and context of disciplines as it has been pursued in a variety of phenomena including, social sciences, politics and economics. Thus, it is easier to identify what it is not than what it is (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 2005). According to, DiMaggio and Powells work (1983), there are two concepts of institutionalisms namely old institutionalism and new institutionalism or neoinstitutionalism. These two concepts share have similarities in some points, yet difference in a number of main concerns. In the earlier work, along with informal structure and power, the central emphases were issues of influence, coalitions and competing values. In contrast with, the latter work, which the centrality of classification, routines, scripts and schema, issues of legitimacy and embeddedness of organisational field were the main focuses. The starting point of institutional theory was begun in the 1940s by the work of Weber on bureaucracy, which inspired a group of sociologists in that time; Phillip Selznick and his associates as an example. A collection of works was conducted during the 1940s, until in the 1950s; there was an obvious connection between institutions and organisations (Scott, 2008). It had been a developmental years of the insight work to emerge more complex ideas during the 1960s and 1970s, which have become a fundamental concept of the recent institutionalism called neoinstitutionalism (Scott, 2008). 3.2.2.2 NeoinstitutionalismNeoinstitutionalism became well known since 1977 when Meyer and Rowan (1977) presented their work to challenge the most dominant view of the open system model. While, open system model suggested that the nature of organisational change is that organisations attempt to improve their performance in order to exchange their substantive products with their environments, they argued that environmental constraints restrict organisational capabilities to initiate changes (Hanson, 2006). Subsequently, there wereas a number of work had been developed but the level of analysis was different. While, Meyer and Rowan made an argument on macro level of analysis, Lynne Zucker who was Mayers student developed the micro level.Thereafter, another stream of work, which focused on environmental perspective, was developed by DiMaggio and Powell (1983) and Meyer and Scott (1983). This perspective has become prominent especially in sociological field. Drawing on DiMaggio and Powell work (1983,1991), which inherited from the earlier work of Meyer and Rowan (1977), the concept of institutional theory under their ideas was stress on organisations homogeneity not changes. They asserted that the competitive market as a primary force provoking organisational change no longer exists. Instead, it was institutional forces stimulating changes in organisations regardless of their organisational efficiency or effectiveness. Organisations were embedded in organisation fields, where were significantly diverse when the fields were not well defined, which normally happened at the beginning stage of organisational life circle. This can be understood that changes are more likely to occur in the first stage due to the variation ofin the fields. However, once the fields become mature, they will develop static characteristics, which permeated into organisations within the fields and eventually, push them toward similarity (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Kraatz & Zajac, 1996; Scott, 2005). However, Meyer and Scott argued that both technical and institutional forces do impact on all organisations but the level of such impact is varied depending on types of organisations (Scott, 2008). In other words, some kinds of organisations are more vulnerable to one force than the other. For example, educational organisations are more likely to experience stronger institutional pressures than industrial organisations (Scott, 2005). By organisational fields, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) defined them as those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of institutional life: key suppliers, resource and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce service or product (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 2). The term has become a prominent concept widely used as the unit of analysis in institutional studies. The concept of organisational fields reflects comprehensive ideas of connectedness and structural equivalence. As mentioned above, the earlier work and ideas of institutional theory are different. They most likely depend on individual premises resulting in difficulties in inclusive discussion every assumption. Drawing on Scotts work (2005,2008), he aggregated the various assumptions and provided a very broad definition of institutions that Institutions are comprised of regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive elements that, together with associated activities and resources, provide stability and meaning to social life. (Scott, 2008, p. 48).According to the definition, there are three main components of institutions comprising of rules, norms and cultural-cognitive beliefs. These three elements are recognised as a symbolic system and along with associated behaviors and resources, will shape institutional structures, which in turn guide behaviors and resist change (Scott, 2008). Moreover, institutions are processes involving in institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation and move through space over time by a variety of carriers. However, which carriers would be utilised areis varied by theorists preference depending on which elements they emphasis. These carriers are important foundations to examine institutional changes. As a result, more analysts are interested in how institutions undergo change rather than stability as stressed by the theory.The three main ingredients of institutionsThe key ingredients of institutions consist of regulative, normative and cultural-cognitive facets Scott (2005) termed as pillars. Some theorists might favor one over the others but in general they all together contribute to institutional framework. However, each facet has its own distinction so it is useful to distinguish and discuss their characteristics, indicators and mechanisms (Scott, 2005), which will be explained as follows; 1) Regulative elementMost scholars stresses their attention on this aspect especially, state agencies as rules maker. In institutionalism, the concept of regulation is a process attempting to capture future behaviors through establishing rules, monitoring and manipulating activities. The process could be done in both formal and informal ways. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) suggested the concept of coercion as a mechanism of such controlling. 2) Normative elementNormative aspect emphasises prescription, evaluation and obligation on social life and consists of two important concepts, which are values and norms. Values are the cultural standard indicating preferable and desirable activities and behaviors. Norms are more likely about what goals or objectives need to be achieved. Thus, this system concentrates on goals and objectives defined also the appropriate pursuit of them. However, not every values and norms are pertinent to everyone in every circumstance. In some circumstances, some values and norms could only be applicable to specific actors or positions and that emerges the concept of roles, which are the conceptions of the behaviors expected of specific actors. 3) Cultural-cognitive elementA collective set of sociologists and organisational scholars claimed the cultural-cognitive aspect that it is the shared conceptions that constitute the nature of social reality and the frames through which meaning is made (Scott, 2008, p. 57). This aspect focuses the impact of culture as an external environment on how it shapes institutions. Moreover, institutions operate in multiple levels and in a variety of contexts so the actions might vary from context to context. Thus, the degree of culture supporting each actor is also different. The actors reaction is subject to vary and depends on their cognition and interpretation of the symbols such as words and signs (A Posthuma, 2009). These three institutional elements are transported from time to time through a diversity of carriers. These carriers convey the ideas, thought and concept through space over time and they have an effect on the nature of the messages. The subject of carriers is related to a number of descriptions. Such description could be new technologies, innovation, and adoption of reform et cetera. Scott (2008) identified four kinds of institutional carriers including symbolic systems, relational system, routines and artifacts. Symbolic systems operate in the form of rules, norms, values, scripts and schema in order to guide behaviors. Relational systems function through the concept of role systems and lie across organisational boundaries. This can lead to structural isomorphism or structural equivalence. Routines are associated with repetitive activities reflecting actors tacit knowledge resulting in behavioral stability in organisation. Artifacts are referred to material culture created by human that once they are embodied, they become meaningful. In more recent sense, artifacts can also be referred to technologies. Moreover, artifacts can add value into particular ideas so more actors will adopt such ideas. Consequently, new set of standards is created. However, in many circumstances, the ideas and message do not just move and have been told but they are edited, changed, integrated and finally transformed to new meanings (Scott, 2008).Taking into consideration the statement above, it can be seen that organisations are encompassed by institutional environments, which penetrate institutional features across organisational boundaries. Such environments are bounded by cultural elements permeated into organisations in the form of taken-for-granted behaviors and established rules as templates for them. However, given institutional contexts could constrain and support organisations in different ways as institutional elements are conveyed over time and are interpreted by various carriers and actors because the message and ideas they carry around, in some circumstances, are interpreted, integrated, blended with some other ideas and finally be transformed. Therefore, organisations might adopt new structures that comply with their environment or they might respond to their environment by developing alternative strategies (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Scott, 2005; Zucker, 1987). 3.2.2.3 Institutional isomorphismAs discussed prior, under the perspective of institutional theory, even though there are two types of isomorphism which are institutional and competitive isomorphism, the primary objective of organisations is to obtain legitimacy not to increase performance. Legitimacy is a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions. (Suchman, 1995b , p 574). The easiest way for an organisation to receive legitimacy is to conform to institutional environmental demands. In doing this, organisations will be securely insured their reputation, acceptability and public recognisability, which are more vital than directly improving technical performances or effectiveness (Scott, 2005). Such environmental demands push organisations in a field to adopt similar structures even though they are emerged differently. This situation is termed as institutional isomorphism by DiMaggio and Powell (1983). The competitive isomorphism may exist in an organisational field where organisations within such field can freely, widely and openly compete and may not adequate to capture organisations in todays world (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Hawley (1968) described isomorphism that isomorphism is a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions (Hawley, 1968 as cited in DiMaggio & Powell, 1983 p, 149).Comment by Sawitree Panitcharoen: Make proper referenceComment by Sawitree Panitcharoen: Check referenceThe insight knowledge and assumptions of isomorphism were first introduced by DiMaggio and Powell (1983), which have become the dominant work to date. According to their work, there are three mechanisms that pressure organisations to face institutional isomorphism consisting of normative, coercive and mimetic. Each mechanism has its own distinctions, which are potential to identify predictors of isomorphic change. Acknowledging the isomorphic change predictors contributes to understanding why some organisations are responsive to pressures, while others are intractable.

Normative pressures Normative pressures are the influence of professionalisation and its networks on organisations. The antecedence of the forces is education and training from professional centres, such as universities or others professional agencies. These professional groupings share a similar orientation. They also shape institutional forms by creating standards, values and accrediting certifications. Moreover, they expand such institutional forms across organisations through their communities or networks and that diffusion accelerates homogeneity over organisational fields as organisations are induced to conform to the institutional forms in order to be recognised as legitimate organisations. With the effects of normative forces, organisations that tend to dependently recruit their employees on academic qualification and that managers participate in such professional communities are more likely to become similar to other organisations in their field (Ashworth et al., 2007; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).Coercive pressuresCoercive pressures are forces derived from external environment that deploy into organisations either in formal or informal ways. Normally, the pressures come in the form of state regulations, laws, and societal expectations or even from other dominant organisations, which coerce, convince or invite organisations to develop desirable structures. This type of forces strongly reflects the nature of organisational change under the perspective of institutional theory, which underlines the prominence of political effects rather than technical effects. Thus, organisations that rely heavily on other organisations or on the same resources tend to adopt identical structures as the organisations they depend on (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).Mimetic pressureMimetic pressures are forces that usually occur when organisations are experiencing uncertainty circumstances. Such circumstances could be due to organisational goal ambiguity or deficient technologies and solutions become problematic. Given these situations, organisations tend to mimic structures, systems or activities of other similar organisations they perceive as prestigious or successful organisations without any proof of greater performance (Ashworth et al., 2007).In addition, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) also illustrated the assumptions of isomorphic change under the field-level predictors, which took the aspects of resource dependency, transaction with state agencies, a variety of organisational models, technology unpredictability, professionalisation process and structuration of an organisational field in to account. They claimed that the higher degree of those aspects occurring within a field, the greater level of isomorphism. Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that institutional pressures do not only constrain organisations and organisational fields by creating pattern for them but also individual level by influencing the way of thought. DiMaggio and Powell (1991) confirmed this view in their statement that to the extent managers and key staffs are drawn from the same universities and filtered in a common set of attributes, they will tend to view problems in a similar fashion, see the same policies, procedures, and structures as normatively sanctioned and legitimized, and approach decisions in much the same way (p, 72).In conclusion, these pressures are bound to have an effect on isomorphism of individual, organisations and organisational fields. The influence of isomorphism is expected to encompass organisational main features. Frumkin and Galaskiewicz (2004) argued that the only institutional mechanism that associates with environment of organisational fields is coercive forces. The other two mechanisms are related to roles and structures within the fields. However, conforming to such pressures do not guarantee organisational effectiveness in technical way. Being recognised as legitimate or prestigious organisations in public opinions is the explicit benefit of being similar to other organisations. Though, organisational effectiveness could be reinforced in the easier forms of attracting quality staff, accessing to vital resources and contacting with other organisations when compared with those who do not obtain legitimacy (Ashworth et al., 2007; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004).3.2.2.4 Institutional theory and Organisational changeInstitutional theory is the theory that stresses the impact of environment on organisational fields. An organisational field is surrounded by environment, which contains of institutional features such as norms, values, regulations, societal expectation and et cetera. These institutional features can be presented whether formal or informal forms and are bound to have an effect on organisations within the field. Such institutional features diffuse across the field boundaries resulting in connectedness of organisations. Once organisations are tied together, they seem to share agreement, awareness and information through the network leading them to become legitimated patterned. A number of scholars arguing that when organisations face fragmented or uncertainty situations, - conflicts between various authorities, goal ambiguity are examples- they have a tendency to increase their internal stability by advancing routines and internal structures (Meyer, 1992 as cited in Hanson, 2006). Given these circumstances, organisations are restricted their ability to change and more likely to be solid. Even though, institutional theory emphasises on the environment that constrains and limits organisational capability to change, it cannot be concluded that changes will not be occurred. Scott (2008) and Scott and his associates (2000) asserted a strong statement confirming that organisational fields could be problematic and weak. This situation allows other institutional features to permeate into the fields and that causes varying set of behaviors.While fields provide a framework for locating and bounding the phenomena of interest, we must not assume that they are not problematic and unchanging (Scott, Ruef, Mendel, & Caronna, 2000, p. 13).In regard to institutional change, this claim is in line with Ashworth and his associates (2007) who stated thatThe possibility of change is identified and associated with the opportunities created by various antecedents of deinstitutionalization following which institutional norms may be challenged (Ashwort et al., 2007, p.168). The concept of agency plays a significant role in contributing to institutional change as it captures ability of an actor to make a difference, which is meaningful in the social world (Scott, 2008; DiMaggio & Powell, 1991; Oliver, 1991). Agency is one of the essential institutional constructs. Thus, even though institutions constrain agency behaviours, it also can empower agency in the institutional processes (Scott, 2005). In other words, even though institutions formulate actors through rules, norms and beliefs, they are capable of reformulating those institutional features. Therefore, the models of institutional processes can be both top-down and bottom-up (Scott,1995, 2001). Drawing on DiMaggio and Powell work (1991), organisations function in what they termed institutional spheres where rules, power and action are generated. Thus, the institutional spheres are the important and powerful sources of institutions and contain of three contexts including internal structure of the organisation, a collection of organisation in the organisational field and the state. These three contexts are constrained by institutions, simultaneously; they have a remarkable power to change, create a new set of logics for organisational fields. However, there are four conditions that might prevent or encourage actors to perform organisational change. Such conditions consist of the role of internal structure, existing strategies and power of organisations, actors and interests, the role of new organisations as models for other organisations and institutionalisation forces. Although, internal structure such as existing goals, strategies, systems and characteristics restricts organisational action, organisational authority can enhance changes by altering, transforming or editing those institutional limits if it is in their interest. Regarding the term authority, there are two types of them. One is the formal authority refers to those who have hierarchical power as structured in organisational structure. The other is informal authority who does not have official position but is authorised power to allocate resources of the organisation. Therefore, power and interest of actors are essential to initiate changes.The second context is organisational field- its meaning has been discussed prior- where a set of organisations operate in and is constrained by institutions. It is notified that the field is controlled by an individual organisation or a collection of organisations on the basis of their size and cooperation. In other words, the bigger size of and the greater degree of cooperation in organisation, the more powerful the organisation is in determining other organisations in the field.The third one is the state, which is considered as the most influential sources of institutions because it can regulate any organisational field without being a member by establishing rules and creating legitimisation, which could limit the organisational action. However, the state can at the same time empower authority to innovate institutions.Additionally, beside the combination wok of the three contexts and the four conditions, there is another condition, which is shock that stimulates organisational change in a mature field. In a well-established field, where organisations are profoundly structured by institutions, shock is crucial to be used to stimulate actors perception of need for change. The state and organisational field are the fundamental sources that bring about the shock in order to alter the rules. Here, the process of institutionalisation will begin again when an organisation or a collection of organisations performs change and they yield excellent outcomes. This will strike the perception of need for change of other organisations actors to follow such change even though the successful result could not be guaranteed. Once an adequate number of organisations adopt the change, the new logics will be institutionalised and diffused across the organisational field, which eventually, will be defined as desirable alternative logics for organisations within the field. This suggestion is consistent with Hanson (2006) who argued that there are three different external environmental forces initiating organisational change including environmental shifts, environmental shocks and environmental regression. Environmental shift is related to incremental change and is more likely to happen when an organisation or a set of organisations in a field alters the existing requirement or expectation. As the nature of this type of force is incremental rather than radical, any changes occurring are also in incremental sense. In contrast to environmental shift, environmental shocks are involved in radical change due to its serious condition. The shocks could be taken place by considerable shift of laws, technology and societal expectation. When organisational field experiences the dramatic shocks, the institutions in the field seem to be vulnerable causing undermining of public confidence. As a consequence, major change tends to be taken place. Lastly, environmental regression is the situation where an organisational activity is not in accordance with what is considered, as acceptable point in the field, the organisation will be pressure to conform to accepted norms.3.2.2.5 Institutionalism and public sector (Higher education)It is notable that organisations do not experience the same level of institutional pressures. One might be influenced by isomorphism heavier than others. Especially, public organisations, which are non-profit organisations, they are considered as key players in precipitating institutionalisation into other organisations and cause homogeneity. They are more likely to be subjects of isomorphism rather than objects by establishing regulations for, accrediting, allocating funds and resources for, monitoring performance of other organisations. The reason that these organisations are more susceptible to institutional forces than profit organisations is because they do not have neither owner, who monitors benefit of the organisations nor tangible organisational goals and performance. Such conditions cause complication of the non-profit organisations. Therefore, in order to avoid uncertainty and obtain accountability and legitimacy, they tend to embrace external key stakeholders opinion and adopt their structures to comply with the stakeholders expectation (Frumkin & Galaskiewicz, 2004; Hanson, 2006). The idea is supported by Frumkin and Galaskiewicz work published in 2004 under the title of Institutional isomorphism and Public sector organizations. They found that governmental organisations are in fact more vulnerable to coercive, normative and mimetic forces than other organisations. Higher education sector is no exception to experience the greater level of isomorphism as it is also recognised as non-profit organisation and is under the same complicated situations. Goals of education organisations are ambiguous and difficult to clearly define (Hanson, 2006). Moreover, education organisations are in public interest because they are a prominent source of new knowledge and are one of the important factors to enhance national competitiveness. As a result, society tends to have high expectation of such organisations. Therefore, key stakeholders who support and fund the organisations such as; state, students, parents and associated organisations have efforts to define the desirable goals for the education organisations in order to avoid public scepticism. The integrity of such diverse goals leads to the mission burden of higher education, which resource supports are performance-based. Responding to those stakeholders norms, values and beliefs may interfere with existing norms, values and beliefs embedded in universities. This circumstance put the universities under pressure to prioritise such environmental demands because obeying to one demand may invalidate others. In this situation, the universities are more likely to conform to the demands they feel will most secure their survival (Scott, 2007).

3.2.2.6 Institutional logics meaningAccording to Thornton, 2004, as cited in Greenwood et al, 2011, institutional logics are predominately standards and rules that set the understanding and analysis of what is appropriate behaviour and how to prosper within the organization (pg. 318). Different organizations cope in many ways with challenges when faced with multi facidit social situations. These logics help the company to operate within a social world and performing according to the set logics that may from time to time form an opposing opinion. These logics may also become a confrontation when it appears not be unsuitable or contradictory to what the company or organisation is subjected to. Many of these logics actually become a contradiction when behaviours set out for example within an academic institution that exhibits both science and a commercial setting through an open publication and continuum yet displays the proprietary right to retain and profitable manipulation of the final research results. Not only is the institution faced with complexities such as these but also those who represent the different profession each with its own cognitive and prescriptive system (Greenwood , et al, 2011).The researcher Scott (2008), claims that the organization that faces these issues cope through processes that exist within these surroundings.3.2.2.7 Institutional complexity in the emerging context (from Greenwood, 2011; Dunn Jones, 2010; Krattz and Block, 2008; Pache and Santos, 2011, 2012) field structure; formal-informal, fragmentation, centralisation org. characteristic1 field position2 structure3 ownership and governance4 identity3.2.2.8 Impact of institutional complexity (from article Krattz and Block, 2008)3.2.2.9 Organisational responses to institutional complexity (from Greenwood, 2011; Krattz and Block, 2008; Pache and Santos, 2011, 2012; Oliver, 1991) strategies and structure hybrid org.HYBRIDSAccording to Economist, 2009 (as cites in Pache & Santos 2013) hybrid companies are hard in predicting their performances because of this internal business functioning.Hybrid organisations according to Battilana & Dorado, 2010 (as cited in Pache & Santos 2012) are fields of inconsistencies as for example, when social or commercial undertakings are caught up between capitalistic market demands and state or welfare benefits, which are based on profit or non-profit. This leads to the question whether to invest in its owners or those who participate in its collective missions. The researchers, Pache & Santos 2012, address the issue that hybrids need to deal with external demands of those involved.

Many hybrids find themselves limited to the public demand, but should research other possibilities such as Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) or biotechnology companies. Both these variables have the necessary logics such as private market, state and science logics that will predict future organisations behaviour. Powell & Sandholtz, 2012 (as cited in Pache &Santos 2012) mention a further logic namely that of health care and academics.

Because of the omnipresence of these hybrids, we are reminded of the continuous exposing of these organisations over a long period of time to a collective institutional logic, which dictates what embodies legitimate practice, taken for granted perceptions of expected goals and what are justifiable actions necessary to achieve these goals (p. 973). Many of these emerging hybrids succeed through their expanded institutional references (Greenwood et al., 2011).

Pache & Santos, 2012) state clearly the complexity under which hybrids exist and functions. Hybrids, according to the researchers actually challenge the hypothesis of organisations as essentialising a template of coherent ideas or basis in order to secure support and sanctioned authenticity from external institutional referents DiMaggio & Powell, 1983,( as cited in Pache & Santos, 2012).

As incompatibility within logics strengthen organisations experiences, amplified confrontations as opposed logics may eventually find themselves in disfavour with not only external referents, but they now also face an internal conflict situations. Not only are the hybrid organisations faced with a dilemma of accepting these competing logics for a longer time period instead of that of a temporary situation. Research according to Belsharov & Smith, 2012 (as cited in Pache &Santos, 2012) shows that these hybrid institutions either keep these opposing logics separate or try to unite them in some way. It is suggested by Greenwood et al. 2011, that very little of how organisations deal with logic, are shown. The gap of substantiating the acceptance or non-acceptance is important as this clearly indicates how the organisations deal with the