\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2015-05-15 (revised: 15 May 2015)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2015-05-15}
\title{}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Iman  Rabah}

             \affil[1]{  University of Wolverhampton in Dubai}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 13 April 2015 Accepted: 4 May 2015 Published: 15 May 2015}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


The purpose of this paper is to highlight the erosion of traditional management systems in universities including collegiality, academic freedom, shared governance, and academic tenure and to illustrate how those unique features of higher education were substituted by new management concepts like productivity, revenues, employment flexibility, moderate evaluation of students, pedagogical issues and many others. This paper identifies the characteristics of traditional management university systems, then and based on secondary data illustrates the changes in the higher education context, which were caused by the increase in the number of students and the decrease of public funds that had a great impact on the management systems of the university and led to the erosion of the collegial model including the loss of some if not a large part of academic freedom, professional autonomy, and academic tenure in many cases.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{university management systems; academic freedom; collegial model, shared governance, academic tenure, business management.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 \par
Introduction his paper reviews the traditional management university systems, and especially the collegial model that was in place before the new public management and before many other business management models crept into university governance. This governance gave the universities a unique context based on academic freedom and shared governance discussed by \hyperref[b11]{Birnbaum (1988)} and \hyperref[b23]{Giamatti (1988)}, and academic tenure in its relationship to collegiality as discussed by \hyperref[b14]{Brewster (1972)}, and their impact on teaching and research. This paper also highlights the changes that happened to the structure and administration of the university in the last few decades and which led to a great impact on the management systems, and consequently on teaching and research. It highlights the positive and negative influences in the university context. The main changes are represented by the loss of the universities for their academic freedom, shared governance, collegiality, academic tenure, and professional autonomy \hyperref[b20]{(Deem, 1998;}\hyperref[b43]{Shils, 1997)}. Within those changes the universities have witnessed the birth of new concepts which are basically derived from neoliberalism and a business management model including productivity, revenue gains, employment flexibility, and which focuses on students' choices and many other new concepts \hyperref[b38]{(Rochford, 2003)}. The changes that happened in higher education had both a direct and indirect impact on the morale of the academic profession \hyperref[b20]{(Deem, 1998;}\hyperref[b43]{Shils, 1997;}\hyperref[b38]{Rochford, 2003)}.The concepts of New Public Management that proliferated into the public sectors in a number of countries based on a business management model shifted the social and conservative government principles \hyperref[b8]{(Aucoin, 1995;}\hyperref[b12]{Boston, 1991)}. According to Samier, "Since the late 1970s, public bureaucracies in a number of industrialized countries, predominantly the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia and, to a lesser extent the US, have undergone a number of structural and managerial changes inspired by private-sector practices, generally referred to as the New Public Management (NPM)"  {\ref (2001, p. 235)}. The new public management concept is an administrative ideology that was applied from the private sector to the public sector, thus changing public organizations that adopt it including higher education to allow them to be run on market theories \hyperref[b41]{(Samier, 2001;}\hyperref[b42]{Savoie, 1994)}. According to Wright, Manigault, and Black (2004), some social phenomena in public administration are ambiguous such as employee motivation and organizational effectiveness, while other phenomena are contentious such as measuring the quality of outcomes in education and the effectiveness of the programs. Using a case study of an academic department in a public university in New Zealand, Houston, Robertson and Prebble (2008) demonstrated that audit processes and other quality models do not give enough attention to processes, educational theories, and student learning. These issues and other problems caused by new public management such as teaching overload and administrative tasks that prevent the faculty from 
\section[{II. Traditional University Management Systems}]{II. Traditional University Management Systems}\par
Traditional management systems in universities and the unique features of higher education which are classified by \hyperref[b23]{Giamatti (1988)} as one of the 'Helping Professions' like healthcare and social services is the focus of discussion in this section. The purpose of this section is to trace back the traditional form of university management in relation to faculty members' teaching and scholarship in order to determine what changes are brought to management in higher education.\par
This section is divided into four subsections. Firstly, it illustrates the university uniqueness that makes management systems very different from any other kind of organizations due to the uniqueness of the university context and the unique features of the faculty members' profession. \hyperref[b43]{Shils (1997)} argues that the academic profession is unique and different from any other professions like law, medicine, or engineering. Secondly, this section reviews the collegial model that is based on academic freedom in teaching and research and consensual decision-making. According to \hyperref[b11]{Birnbaum (1988)}, the collegial model is based on trust between all members of higher education including not only faculty members and top administrators but also students and administrative staff. Thirdly, this section reviews another model of traditional management university systems: the shared governance model where differences are put aside for the sake of creating a common vision and where subordinates may be just as experienced and expert as, or even more, than their leaders. \hyperref[b23]{Giamatti (1988)} focuses on the importance of shared governance within a university management system and explains that leaders in higher education should sacrifice authority for the sake of the university's culture and academic quality. Finally, this section reviews the literature of academic tenure that has had an impact on academic freedom and is part of the collegial model. According to \hyperref[b14]{Brewster (1972)}, academic tenure is an unexceptional tool that keeps faculty members in their positions until retirement, which adds a lot of value to the higher education quality and improvement since it increases commitment to the university community that faculty members belong to. 
\section[{a) Uniqueness of the Traditional University Management Systems}]{a) Uniqueness of the Traditional University Management Systems}\par
The literature of traditional management systems in higher education is based mostly on the Humboldt model from Berlin and in parts of North America and the Scottish model at the University of Edinburgh and reveals a common argument between scholars that the systems are unique due to the uniqueness of the university context in general and the faculty members' profession specifically.  {\ref Shils (1997, p. 3)} argues that the main task of universities is "the methodical discovery and the teaching of truths about serious and important things. Part of the task is to enhance the students' understanding and to train them in the attitudes and methods of critical assessment and testing of beliefs so that they can make what they believe as free from error as possible". Similarly, \hyperref[b17]{Crebert (2000)} explains that the distinctive task of the academic profession is to discover and transmit the truth, where the truth of a proposition is independent of the political orientation and the social position of the person affirming it.  {\ref Shils (1997, p.10)} states that the occupation of academics is called a profession because it has distinctive privileges, but also special obligations. He explains that some occupations like engineering, medicine, and law are also considered professions, however those professions apply knowledge whereas the academic profession "receives, assimilates, and discovers knowledge by methodical study and then interprets and transmits that knowledge; it transmits knowledge about the methods of discovery and especially of the validation of knowledge"  {\ref (Shils, 1997, p. 10)}.\par
Research gives a unique nature to the profession of academics since it is the foundation of the academic profession, and therefore faculty members should base their teaching on what they find in their research or in research done by other scholars in their field (Jary and Parker, 1994; Maringe and Foskett, 2010; \hyperref[b39]{Rosovsky, 1990;}\hyperref[b43]{Shils, 1997;}\hyperref[b50]{Whitehead, 1950)}. According to  {\ref Whitehead (1950, p. 139-140)}, "[t]he justification for a university is that it preserves the connection between knowledge and the zest of life, by uniting the young and old in the imaginative consideration of learning?the task of a university is to weld together imagination and experience".  {\ref Boyer (1990, p. 43)} states that the quality of scholarship is dependent, above all else, on the vitality of each professor. Traditional university management systems are called governance in most circumstances instead of management as traditional systems in universities are based on the collegial relationship between deans and top administrators from one side and faculty members from the other side instead of a management relationship (Abbott-Chapman, 2005; Birnbaum, 1988; \hyperref[b13]{Boyer, 1990;}\hyperref[b14]{Brewster, 1972;}\hyperref[b15]{Campbell, 2000;}\hyperref[b17]{Crebert, 2000;}\hyperref[b23]{Giamatti, 1988)}. 
\section[{b) The Collegial Model}]{b) The Collegial Model}\par
Until the 1980s the collegial model was the prominent university management model in western countries, in which the role of deans was to advocate academics and represent their interests within a selfgovernance organizational structure (Abbott-Chapman, 2005; Crebert 2000). According to \hyperref[b11]{Birnbaum (1988)}, the collegial model is based on slow deliberate change and consensual decision-making where responsibility is common between academics and administrators. There are three issues in higher education management that make it unique and suitable for the collegial model: understanding what academic freedom is, the relationship between universities and the government, and the appointing criteria of faculty to academic positions \hyperref[b17]{(Crebert, 2000)}. The first, according to  {\ref Shils (1997, p. 11)}, is a privilege of academic freedom and university autonomy in the academic profession. This includes autonomy of decision-making in hiring and promotion, in teaching methods, in designing courses syllabi, and examination criteria in addition to the freedom in research initiatives and topics. Many scholars like \hyperref[b8]{Aucoin (1995)}, \hyperref[b12]{Boston (1991)}, and \hyperref[b42]{Savoie (1994)} argue that academic freedom is the essential principle of the collegial model. In the early 19 th century and with the rise of the research from Humboldtian University, the definition of academic freedom was modified to include professional autonomy in teaching and research \hyperref[b4]{(Altbach, 2001)}. According to \hyperref[b31]{Menand (1996)}, "academic freedoms are socially engineered spaces in which parties engaged in specified pursuits enjoy protection from parties who would naturally seek to interfere in those pursuits" (p.3). The term 'academic freedom' has been defined since medieval times as the freedom of academics to teach in their area of expertise according to the criteria of their discipline, and it includes the obligations and responsibilities of academics \hyperref[b4]{(Altbach, 2001)}. According to \hyperref[b28]{Landler (2000)}, academic freedom is the major legitimating concept of the whole university, and it lies at the core of political battles in the future of higher education to defend non interference in the academics' search for knowledge. Consequently, this concept justifies the preservation of universities' autonomy and academics' autonomy within their universities \hyperref[b38]{(Rochford, 2003)}. As a result, this "embodies an acceptance by academics of the need to encourage openness and flexibility in academic work, and of their accountability to each other and to society in general"  {\ref (Tight, 1988, p. 132)}.\par
Through the collegial model faculty members hire other faculty members through representative committees. The purpose of self-referential hiring is to preserve the values and vision of higher education \hyperref[b11]{(Birnbaum, 1988)}. This model is based on trust -as a major value of the institutional culture-among all parties of higher education, including faculty members, administrators, students and bargaining units \hyperref[b11]{(Birnbaum, 1988)}.Trust is the essential component of the higher education culture in order to lead to the success of self-governance, and this differs from bureaucratic models where administrative agendas and careers are more important than institutional life \hyperref[b15]{(Campbell, 2000)}. Collegial governance still operates to varying degrees in major universities, in Canada, the U.S, and European countries under the universities legislation at either the national, state or provincial level where senior administrators play the role of agents for faculties with a shared power between governors, administrators, and faculty by creating a rich academic community that has same values which are purely serving academia in opposition to management \hyperref[b11]{(Birnbaum, 1988;}\hyperref[b23]{Giamatti, 1988;}\hyperref[b25]{Jary and Parker, 1994;}\hyperref[b29]{Maringe and Foskett, 2010;}\hyperref[b39]{Rosovsky, 1990;}\hyperref[b43]{Shils, 1997;}\hyperref[b50]{Whitehead, 1950)}. 
\section[{c) The Shared Governance Model}]{c) The Shared Governance Model}\par
The shared governance model is another traditional university management system. \hyperref[b23]{Giamatti (1988)} argues that in a shared governance model there is an effective decision making process due to motivation and power and the need to attain communality that makes all members focus on the university's benefits in decision making instead of individual benefits, even though there is always politics in a university and conflict among academic members. Differences are put aside that help in creating a common vision for the institution with a broad-based level of acceptance focusing on collectivism as a main source of effective responsibility and authority \hyperref[b11]{(Birnbaum, 1988;}\hyperref[b13]{Boyer, 1990;}\hyperref[b14]{Brewster, 1972;}\hyperref[b15]{Campbell, 2000;}\hyperref[b17]{Crebert, 2000;}\hyperref[b23]{Giamatti, 1988)}. Practicing democracy and commitment to it is essential in the shared governance model, and it is understood by seniors and all decision makers who "work to create, promote, and live democratic ideals and values, such as equality, common goals, respect, and participatory decision-making"  {\ref (Miller and Katz, 2004, p. 85}). \hyperref[b32]{Miller and Katz (2004)} explain that the belief system governing the culture of the university is based on this fundamental assumption in which "shared governance assumes that legally protected rights and responsibilities are brokered among decision-making bodies, and that one body might voluntarily share a legally granted right for the welfare of an institution" (p. 86). For example, even curricular content is the responsibility of the academic administrative bodies like the senate in some universities; they collaborate with faculty to determine the content. Academic administrators within the shared governance model are aware that sacrificing authority and adopting a consensual decision making process to achieve clearly defined outcomes leads to quality improvement of the university culture \hyperref[b23]{(Giamatti, 1988}). This model is not based on silos decision-making by academic administrators and doesn't focus on single criterion like efficiency, productivity, effectiveness, and cost \hyperref[b23]{(Giamatti, 1988)}. However, in a shared governance model "all college and university employees-top tenured faculty, junior faculty, temporary and part-time/adjunct faculty, graduate teaching and research assistants, professional staff with and without faculty rank, the classified and support staff who keep the educational enterprise going-should have a guaranteed voice in decision-making, a role in shaping policy in the areas of their expertise?"(American Federation of Teachers, 2002, p. 3). 
\section[{d) Academic Tenure}]{d) Academic Tenure}\par
The traditional university governance systems focus on academic tenure, which is not necessarily available or applied for faculty members in contemporary universities or at least not in all universities. \hyperref[b14]{Brewster (1972)} defines academic tenure as "[t]he practical fact in most places, and the unexceptional rule ?. A guarantee of appointment until retirement age" (p. 12). Another definition from Van Alstyne (1971) is: " Tenure, accurately and unequivocally defined, lays no claim whatever to a guarantee of lifetime employment. Rather, tenure provides only that no person continuously retained as a full-time faculty member beyond a specified lengthy period of probationary service may thereafter be dismissed without adequate cause" (p: 329). Therefore academic tenure, whether it is defined from a realistic observer point of view or from a cautious scholar perspective, is one of the main characteristics of traditional academic governance in universities that existed for decades. The declaration of principles of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) committee on academic tenure and academic freedom declared in its practical proposal in 1915 that:\par
[i]n every institution there should be an unequivocal understanding as to the term of each appointment; and the tenure of professorships and associate professorships, and of all positions above the grade of instructor after ten years of service, should be permanent subject to the provisions hereinafter given for removal upon charges. (AAUP, 1915, p. 405) Academic tenure was then developed in 1940 when the statement of principles on academic tenure and freedom included that:\par
[t]enure is a means to certain ends; specifically: (1) Freedom of teaching and research and of extramural activities and (2) a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive to men and women of ability. Freedom and economic security, hence, are indispensable to the success of an institution in fulfilling its obligations to its students and to society. (AAUP, 1940, p. 407) In comparison, the 1915 declaration was the result of a committee of professors, however the 1940 declaration was the result of a committee including professors together with presidents from colleges and universities. This brings to our attention the fact that the 1940 declaration that focuses on academic freedom whether in teaching and research and also gender among faculty members was introduced with the committee including presidents or top academic administrators who were supporting academic freedom and academic tenure which may not be the case nowadays. It can be deduced that academic tenure is part of the collegial model where senior academic administrators like deans and presidents who represented faculty or were agents for them as mentioned above used to stay in their positions for a few years and then go back to their academic positions. This is an important factor that may have encouraged presidents to defend academic freedom in teaching and research, such as in the 1940 declaration of principles of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). As \hyperref[b39]{Rosovsky (1990)} argues, tenure includes less interference with one's work, a learning environment of professors from the two genders, a guarantee from age discrimination, and a social contract.\par
It can be recognized that the characteristics of traditional management university systems are all interrelated: academic tenure came out not to guarantee a job for life, but it means that the political or religious realm cannot get rid of a professor for holding a critical view, and this is linked with academic freedom because tenure as a social contract makes a favourable climate of academic freedom in addition to a commitment to long term plans. Tenure also has a major positive impact on shared governance because senior professors do not feel threatened by bringing able faculty members to the university.  {\ref Carmichael (1988, p. 453)} argues "tenure is necessary, because without it incumbents would never be willing to hire people who might turn out to be better than themselves". Rosovsky (1990) also links tenure with collegiality by arguing that collegiality develops gradually and requires time to build, and tenure is one of the major reasons to build collegiality where people belong to one community that they care about, and therefore commitment needs a powerful tool, which in this case is tenure. 
\section[{III. Changes in Traditional University Management Systems}]{III. Changes in Traditional University Management Systems}\par
This section discusses the changes that have taken place in the university system within the proliferation of business management models to its context. All of the traditional management university characteristics that are discussed in the first section are reviewed in terms of the changes that they encountered within the increase of the university's size, the dwindling of public funds, and the application of business management models in a higher educational context. The purpose of this section is to show what traditional management characteristics were eroded and what new management characteristics emerged when the university gave its collegial model up. In the 1980s and 1990s the expansion of university systems to accommodate a larger percentage of the population going to university and the increase in technology expenses accompanied with the financial constrictions and the confused relationship between universities and governments all reduced the self-confidence of the academic profession in its dedication to its calling (Shils, 1997, p.7). Those changes had a great impact on the management systems in the universities, thus leading to the erosion of the collegial model including shared governance, academic freedom, professional autonomy, and academic tenure. Suddenly, new management concepts emerged like productivity, revenues, employment flexibility, moderate evaluation of students, pedagogical issues and many others  {\ref (Richford, 2003)}. The change from a collegial model to business models was not the choice of higher education. When public funds were restricted, universities had to use marketing strategies to attract funds. Accordingly the collegial model was gradually ignored, and business models took place.\par
This section is divided into two subsections. Firstly, it illustrates the introduction of managerialism into university administration and presents the literature that considers managerialism as an effective model within the new context of the university. For example, \hyperref[b38]{Rochford (2003)} considers that some terms like productivity, revenue gain, and employment flexibility are now very familiar in the university context as it shifts from a unique governance system into an organization that applies many of the business management models that would be considered most appropriate to serve its financial objectives. Secondly, this section presents the opposite view of the literature, which considers that the erosion of the collegial model had a negative impact on higher education. For instance and according to  {\ref Deem (1988)}, bureaucratic consistency erodes professional autonomy and replaces collegiality with regulations and control. 
\section[{a) Introduction of Managerialism into University Administration}]{a) Introduction of Managerialism into University Administration}\par
In 1970, and as a response to stagflation or inflation accompanied by the rise of unemployment, former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher were the first to advocate the neoliberalism creed \hyperref[b21]{(Friedman, 2002;}\hyperref[b24]{Harvey, 2005)}. Neoliberalism rapidly spread across the seven wealthiest countries on earth: Japan, Canada, Italy, Germany, France, the UK, and the US, and then continued to developing countries including most of South America, Poland, and Iraq \hyperref[b24]{(Harvey, 2005}; Taylor and Jordan, 2009). Neoliberalism involved politicaleconomic practices of deregulation and privatization besides the promotion of free trade and free markets \hyperref[b21]{(Friedman, 2002;}\hyperref[b24]{Harvey, 2005;}\hyperref[b45]{Schumpeter, 1996;} Taylor and Jordan, 2009). It had a great impact on higher education due to minimal interference of governments as this ideology states restraining public funds \hyperref[b24]{(Harvey, 2005;}\hyperref[b45]{Schumpeter, 1996)}. For example, in 1992 in Australia, in order to reduce future government liability for old age pensions and to increase national savings the financing of universities was deregulated \hyperref[b24]{(Harvey, 2005)}. Students were required to contribute to university fees through the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS), which is a repayable loan system, and universities were encouraged to increase income by admitting full-feepaying students including foreign students \hyperref[b24]{(Harvey, 2005)}. Consequently, this led to increase in the number of students and therefore university expansion and the increasing diversity of students due to international student mobility from less developed and poor countries to developed and richer countries \hyperref[b29]{(Maringe and Foskett, 2010)}. \hyperref[b29]{Maringe and Foskett (2010)} discuss changes in universities due to the increase in the international mobility of graduates and academic staff within the graduate labour market. Currently, heterogeneous global systems have a great impact on universities where higher education is subject to international laws and covenants, and international organizations like UNESCO and the World Bank are exporting practices from the west to the east where political validity of this perspective is questioned \hyperref[b31]{(Menand, 1996)}. Universities are facing an increasing competition for funding, staff resources, and student tuition resources as a result of the decline in public funding, and this is causing universities to focus on global citizenship \hyperref[b31]{(Menand, 1996)}. For example, in order to encourage a more educated workforce, the UK government has increased the competition between institutions in order to expand the number of participants, and this has led to the marketisation of higher education and redefined students as consumers \hyperref[b33]{(Molesworth, Scullion, and Nixon, 2011)}. The new environment of higher education forces universities to set marketing and investing strategies \hyperref[b38]{(Rochford, 2003)}. The new corporate style of university governance also has a great influence on the relationship of universities with their students, staff, and faculty members.\par
According to some scholars \hyperref[b10]{(Bastedo, 2012}; De Bary, 2010; \hyperref[b29]{Maringe and Foskett, 2010;}\hyperref[b31]{Menand, 1996;}\hyperref[b33]{Molesworth, Scullion and Nixon, 2011;}\hyperref[b44]{Schrecker, 2010;} {\ref Wildavsky, 2012)}, the relationship between the university and the society and between the university and students had to take a new form along with the changes affecting the university by shifting from the collegial model to a more managerial model. According to  {\ref Rochford (2003, p. 257)}, "it appears likely that the responsibility to society to educate its students is to be mediated and measured by the concepts of the market, which requires the mechanism of contract law to facilitate its transactions". Davis, Sullivan, and Yeatman (1997, p. 2) explainthat "[t]he development of contract law has been important in the economic world because of its capacity to support complex market exchanges". Nonetheless, "contracts are a device, sometimes useful, sometimes not, in promoting mutually beneficial relations" (Davis, Sullivan, and Yeatman, 1997, p. 27). The idea of contractualism is a direct reason for a new management system in the university known as 'New Public Management' \hyperref[b18]{(Davis, Sullivan, and Yeatman, 1997)}. The main characteristics of 'New Public Management' are: determination to manage, defined criteria of performance assessment, lack of resources accompanied with cost-cutting strategies, disaggregation of public sector departments leading to competition within the public sector, and stress placed on industry management models (Davis, Sullivan, and Yeatman, 1997).\par
Alford and O'Neill (1994) explain that "some form of organizational hierarchy is governed by contracts (or quasi-contracts) between buyers and sellers, either inside or outside the public sector".  {\ref Rochford (2003, p. 252}) explains that " pressures to move to fixed term contracts rather than to maintain the idea of tenure, change the language used to describe the university, allowing presumptions of strict market conditions and contract based relationships to be normalized". \hyperref[b30]{Meek and Wood (1997)} considers that when higher education organizations shifted from a few elite universities into a mass system of universities the collegial model of universities was challenged to manage more effectively. According to \hyperref[b30]{Meek and Wood (1997)}, along with the developing environment of universities, traditional governance forms may no longer be effective. Accordingly, many universities considered the collegial model to be constraining to their development and success. \hyperref[b3]{Alford and O'Neill (1994)} argue that participatory decision-making and the collegial model was incompatible with the increased focus on student choice and the need to keep pace with business and industrial development. Inevitably, many universities were not able to ignore those suggestions and the criticism of their collegial model, especially with the pressures to attract non-government funding sources; consequently they shifted to management systems that are adopted from industry.\par
Some scholars created the concept of 'soft managerialism' like  {\ref Trow (1994, p. 11)} who views "higher education as an autonomous activity, governed by its own norms and traditions, with a more effective and rationalized management still serving functions defined by the academic community itself". Contrary to, the ' hard managerialism that was especially adopted in Australia and the UK according to Trow (1994, p. 12), "the activities of [the academic] community through funding formulas and other mechanisms of accountability imposed from outside the academic community, management mechanisms created and largely shaped for application to large commercial enterprises". 
\section[{b) Changes in the Nature of the Professoriate}]{b) Changes in the Nature of the Professoriate}\par
Funding restraints and massification are the major characteristics that changed the traditional universities, causing a great pressure on its traditional methods of academic governance \hyperref[b9]{(Bargh, Scott, and Smith, 1996;}\hyperref[b26]{Kelsey, 1998)}. During the last two decades a critical debate was raised among scholars about a suitable management system for higher education. The combat is mainly between managerialism and academia. Many scholars like \hyperref[b8]{Aucoin (1995)}, \hyperref[b12]{Boston (1991)}, \hyperref[b41]{Samier (2001)}; and Savoie (1994) agree that when business management models were used in public organizations under the administrative ideology that is known as new public management the collegial model was eroded and the universities lost some of their traditional principles like professional autonomy and scholarly values in teaching and research. Shils (1997, p. 13) explains how the academic ethos developed from old Medieval traditions and early modern European practices that were influenced by the main Arab universities. He traces back its origins to the time before the establishment of official universities, when there were educated people who enquired about fundamental and reliable knowledge. Academic ethics representing academic professionalism was viewed as being selfevident to academics until the first quarter of the twentieth century, but universities are changing with the changes to the societies they are situated in. Universities are larger now, more administrative duties are required from academics, and administrators have more financial demand, and this has affected the morale of the academic profession \hyperref[b1]{(Agovino, 2000;}\hyperref[b4]{Altbach, 2001;}\hyperref[b28]{Landler, 2000;}\hyperref[b40]{Sachs, 2000)}.\par
Although the central value of higher education in traditional management systems is academic freedom as analysed in the first section, this is ignored by many universities and governments in western countries and the Middle East and is attacked in many instances. For example, many Siberian academics were arrested for publications that criticize the regime \hyperref[b1]{(Agovino, 2000)}, an academic researcher was warned by his university's president in Hong Kong not to conduct studies against the region's chief executive \hyperref[b28]{(Landler, 2000)}, and a well-known scholar was arrested in Egypt for 'defaming' the country \hyperref[b40]{(Sachs, 2000)}. Some topics are taboo for publications and research in Malaysia and Singapore because of government pressure \hyperref[b4]{(Altbach, 2001)}.\par
At the beginning of the current century Russia and Eastern and Central Europe countries accomplished reasonable levels but not the full range of academic freedom \hyperref[b4]{(Altbach, 2001)}. In fact, many countries recognize academic freedom and convey a commitment to it, but this is not enough because academic freedom is the core value of the university's mission, and it is by no means secure in the whole world. According to those beliefs, academics have a duty to speak out on the governance of their universities and of their communities, however universities are worried about research and especially political research conducted by their academics and therefore establish and implement policies to control what they say since it may have counter effects on their reputation and thus hinders their marketing strategies.  {\ref Rochford (2003, p.252)} states "the temptation to exercise that control grows with the growing value of the university name as a reputational asset".\par
One of the major principles of academic freedom is the participation of academics in university governance. According to the Development in the Law-Academic Freedom (1968, p. 1049), "By obtaining a voice in decisions of academic policy, faculty members are able to secure an area in which scholarship can thrive free from administrative restraint". Nevertheless, those traditional methods of academic governance have changed dramatically in many western and eastern universities. According to the American Federation of Teachers(AFT, 2002, p. 9), " [i]ncreased workloads, restrictive tenure standards, pressures to incorporate new technologies in teaching and demoralization resulting from top-level assertions of power have had the predictable, if perverse, effect of decreasing the willingness of faculty and staff to participate in the shared governance of their institutions".\par
By adopting business management models, universities created a new type of relationship with academics, it is now and in most circumstances an employment relationship between higher education institutes as a corporate entity more than the collegial community of academics. This new relationship created hierarchical structures where faculty members have a subordinate role that is clearly identified based on 'contractualism' in which universities are employers looking after their investments  {\ref (Rochford, 2003, p. 254}). Many universities now apply more control over faculty members about the topics and the release of research results and research material through intellectual property policies \hyperref[b34]{(Monotti, 2000)}. Even the curriculum and course syllabus can be constrained by legal regimes that have control over universities and their 'employees'. For example "if the administrative requirements of the university necessitate the publication of the subject syllabus in promotional documentation the academic is constrained by consumer protection statutes governing misleading and deceptive conduct to teach to that syllabus"  {\ref (Rochford, 2003, p. 256)}. Consequently, universities implement further constraints on students' assessment levels like moderate evaluation and make all information available to students, which then hinder students' scepticism, critical thinking, and knowledge searching. According to the American Federation of Teachers(AFT, 2002, p. 10), university systems are changing curriculum from"a broad-based liberal arts curriculum intended to help students develop and mature intellectually into critically thinking democratic citizens" to a curriculum that places students as trainees for the real world. National and international accreditation bodies forced academics to teach content, "[i]f the course or subject has been accredited, and this fact is promoted to students or employers, an additional constraint applies to the academic teaching the subject? [t]hese restrictions are a far cry from the German concept of Lehrfreiheitfreedom to teach-by which the professor was free in his or her choice of what to discuss in the classroom"  {\ref (Rochford, 2003, p. 256)}. As a result of this and due to the proliferation of commercial principles in university administration, the academics' role has changed and was identified by their value as instructors in courses that generate income, scholars who publish research that attracts funds and serve the reputation of the university, and maybe nothing more than being a consultant in university services \hyperref[b31]{(Menand, 1996)}. The contemporary relationship between the university and students experienced a new form so that:\par
[i]n the light of these changes, it is evident that a rational theory of the legal relationship between the student and the university can only develop within the context of the university as an instrument of society. In this concept, student-university relationships cease to be the private affairs the university has long considered them. The university's responsibility to its students is a responsibility to society.  {\ref (Furay, 1970, p. 245)} According to Deem (1998), professional autonomy is being eroded since business plans and hard data have replaced trust between staff for the sake of bureaucratic consistency and the form-filling of processes in higher education.\par
In his view administrators put pressure on faculty such as curriculum managers who force faculty to teach a large number of students with few resources, thus creating pedagogical issues. This is also seen among some faculty themselves who have administrative roles like department chairs or deans where they need to follow specific policies and procedures that make them put pressure on other faculty and on themselves for the purpose of better quality in teaching and research as they assume. As a result, academic collegiality is replaced by regulations and control (Ainley\& Bailey 1997; \hyperref[b36]{Prichard et al, 1998;}\hyperref[b37]{Randle \& Brady, 1997)}.\par
Indisputably, there is a great contradiction between the new bureaucratic techniques and establishing professionalism in higher education (Jary\& Parker, 1994). Therefore, faculty members who usually work autonomously cannot accept the erosion of their professional autonomy and work for the quantity of their publications in order to pass research evaluations \hyperref[b27]{(Kogan and Henkel, 1983)}. Research, which was once a symbol of freedom, is now exploited to assess academic performance for the sake of retaining credibility \hyperref[b35]{(Morgan, 2006)}.According to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT, 2002), the corporatized model of college governance is threatening the meaning of research and higher education through outsourcing teaching jobs, graduate research and teaching assistants, and adjunct faculty with no academic freedom, low pay, and little security instead of dedicated full-time professionals. As a result, research and teaching have changed their meanings among academics in some cases where faculty members accepted the erosion of collegiality, and in other cases these changes and the increase of control is faced with resistance \hyperref[b44]{(Schrecker, 2010)}.\par
Those changes in the higher education context, which were caused by the increase in the number of students and the decrease of public funds, had a great impact on the management systems in the university and led to the erosion of the collegial model including the loss of some if not a large part of academic freedom, professional autonomy, and academic tenure in many cases (see Figure \hyperref[fig_1]{1}). New management concepts emerged like productivity, revenues, employment flexibility, moderate evaluation of students, pedagogical issues and many others (see Figure \hyperref[fig_2]{2}).  In conclusion, this paper identifies the impact that many scholars have found along with the changes of traditional management university systems characterized mainly by academic freedom, collegiality, shared governance, and academic tenure, when universities became huge and public funds were constrained. This negative impact urges the need for future research to be done on how to go back to traditional management systems like the collegial model in today's universities. This can be done through creating a new management model that takes into consideration the issues caused by new public management, including overload in teaching, administrative tasks, faculty turnover and the reasons behind this along with the quality of teaching and research.\begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png}
\caption{\label{fig_0}}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-3.png}
\caption{\label{fig_1}Figure 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2}\includegraphics[]{image-4.png}
\caption{\label{fig_2}Figure 2 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US) 1} 			\footnote{© 2015 Global Journals Inc. (US)} 			\footnote{Introduction of Managerialism into University Administration: Erosion of the Collegial Model, SharedGovernance, and Academic Tenure} 		 		\backmatter  			 \par
This page is intentionally left blank 			 			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[ General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		\textit{},  	 	 		\textit{General Report of the Committee on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure}  		1915. American Association of University Professors.  		 			American Association of University Professors. 		 	 
\bibitem[Harvey ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		\textit{A Brief History of Neoliberalism},  		 			D Harvey 		.  		2005. New York: Oxford University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Giamatti ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		\textit{A Free and Ordered Space: The Real World of the University},  		 			A B Giamatti 		.  		1988. New York: W. W.Norton.  	 
\bibitem[Tight (ed.) ()]{b47}\label{b47} 	 		\textit{Academic Freedom and Responsibility},  		 			M Tight 		.  		Tight, M. (ed.)  		1988. Stony Stratford, England: Open University Press.  	 	 (So What Is Academic Freedom?) 
\bibitem[Rochford ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		\textit{Academic freedom as insubordination: the legalisation of the academy. Education and the Law},  		 			F Rochford 		.  		2003. 15 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Altbach ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		‘Academic Freedom: International realities and challenges’.  		 			P G Altbach 		.  	 	 		\textit{Higher Education}  		2001. 41 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Monotti ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		‘Allocating the Rights in Intellectual Property in Australia: An Overview of Current Practices’.  		 			A Monotti 		.  	 	 		\textit{Federal Law Review}  		2000. 27  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Friedman ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		\textit{Capitalism and freedom},  		 			M Friedman 		.  		2002. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.  	 
\bibitem[Landler (2000)]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		‘Citing Pressure, a pollster says academic freedom is under siege in Hong Kong’.  		 			M Landler 		.  	 	 		\textit{New York Times}  		2000. 16 July. P. 5.  	 
\bibitem[Abbott-Chapman ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		‘Competing discourses in higher education: Giving voice to the public intellectual’.  		 			J Abbott-Chapman 		.  	 	 		\textit{ISSA Review}  		2005. 4  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Samier (ed.) ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		\textit{Demandarinisation in the New Public Management: Examining Changing Administrative Authority from a Weberian Perspective. Max Webersherrschaftssoziologie: studienzuentstehung und wirkung},  		 			E Samier 		.  		Edith Hanke and Wolfgang J. Mommsen (ed.)  		2001. p. .  	 	 (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck) 
\bibitem[Campbell ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		\textit{Dry Rot in the Ivory Tower},  		 			J Campbell 		.  		2000. Lanham: University Press of America.  	 
\bibitem[Miller and Katz ()]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		\textit{Effective Shared Governance: Academic Governance as a Win-Win Proposition},  		 			M Miller 		,  		 			M Katz 		.  		2004. 28 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Sachs (2000)]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		\textit{Egyptian's arrest seen as plenty for criticism},  		 			S Sachs 		.  		2000. July. p. 4.  	 
\bibitem[Randle and Brady ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		‘Further education and the New Managerialism’.  		 			K Randle 		,  		 			N Brady 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Further and Higher Education}  		1997. 21 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Maringe and &foskett ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		\textit{Globalization and Internationalization in Higher Education},  		 			F Maringe 		,  		 			N \&foskett 		.  		2010. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.  	 
\bibitem[Bargh et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		\textit{Governing Universities: Changing the Culture},  		 			C Bargh 		,  		 			P Scott 		,  		 			D Smith 		.  		1996. Buckingham: Open University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Meek and Wood ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		\textit{Higher Education Governance and Management: An Australian Study},  		 			V L Meek 		,  		 			F Q Wood 		.  		1997. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.  	 
\bibitem[Schumpeter ()]{b45}\label{b45} 	 		\textit{History of economic analysis},  		 			J A Schumpeter 		.  		1996. New York: Oxford University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Birnbaum ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		\textit{How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership},  		 			R Birnbaum 		.  		1988. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.  	 
\bibitem[Morgan ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		\textit{Images of Organization},  		 			G Morgan 		.  		2006. California: Sage Publications, Inc.  	 
\bibitem[Carmichael ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Incentives in Academics: Why Is There Tenure’.  		 			H L Carmichael 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Political Economy}  		1988. 96  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Furay ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘Legal Relationship between the Student and the Private College or University’.  		 			S Furay 		.  	 	 		\textit{San Diego Law Review}  		1970. 7 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Crebert ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Links between the purpose and outcomes of planning: Perception of heads of school at Griffiths University’.  		 			G Crebert 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management}  		2000. 22  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Trow ()]{b48}\label{b48} 	 		‘Managerialism and the academic profession: The case of England’.  		 			M Trow 		.  	 	 		\textit{Higher Educational Policy}  		1994.  (7)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Prichard et al. ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		\textit{Managing further education -is it men's work too? Paper presented at Gender, Work and Organisation Conference},  		 			C Prichard 		,  		 			R Deem 		,  		 			J Ozga 		.  		1998. Manchester.  	 
\bibitem[Tanmia et al. ()]{b46}\label{b46} 	 		‘Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan’.  		 			A Tanmia 		,  		 			Mcgraw-Hill 		,  		 			C B Taylor 		,  		 			G Jordan 		.  	 	 		\textit{Studies in Comparative International Development}  		2005. 2009. 44  (2)  p. .  	 	 (Cultures and Organizations) 
\bibitem[Deem ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		‘New managerialism' and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom’.  		 			R Deem 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Studies in Sociology of Education}  		1998. 1968. 8  (1)  p. .  	 	 (Harvard Law Review) 
\bibitem[Kelsey ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		‘Privatizing the Universities’.  		 			J Kelsey 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Law and Society}  		1998. 25  (51)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Savoie et al. ()]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		 			D Savoie 		,  		 			Thatcher 		,  		 			Mulroney Reagan 		.  		\textit{Search of a New Bureaucracy},  				 (Pittsburgh)  		1994. University of Pittsburgh Press.  	 
\bibitem[Boyer ()]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching},  		 			E L Boyer 		.  		1990.  	 
\bibitem[Shared Governance in Colleges and Universities: A Statement by the Higher Education Program and Policy Council ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		\textit{Shared Governance in Colleges and Universities: A Statement by the Higher Education Program and Policy Council},  		2002. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.  	 	 (American Federation of Teachers) 
\bibitem[Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		\textit{Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure},  		1940. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.  		 			American Association of University Professors. 		 	 
\bibitem[Van Alstyne ()]{b49}\label{b49} 	 		‘Tenure: A Summary, Explanation, and "Defense’.  		 			W Van Alstyne 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Association of University Professors}  		1971. 57  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Whitehead ()]{b50}\label{b50} 	 		\textit{The Aims of Education and other Essays},  		 			A N Whitehead 		.  		1950. London: Ernest Benn.  	 
\bibitem[Kogan and Henkel ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		\textit{The Attack on Higher Education},  		 			M Kogan 		,  		 			M Henkel 		.  		1983. London: Kogan Page.  	 
\bibitem[Ainley and Bailey ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		\textit{The Business of Learning},  		 			P Ainley 		,  		 			B Bailey 		.  		1997. London: Cassell.  	 
\bibitem[Shils ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		\textit{The Calling of Education: The Academic Ethics and Other Essays on Higher Education},  		 			E Shils 		.  		1997. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.  	 
\bibitem[Alford and O'neill ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{The Contract State: Public Management and the Kennett Government},  		 			J Alford 		,  		 			D O'neill 		.  		1994. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Menand ()]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		\textit{The Future of Academic Freedom},  		 			L Menand 		.  		1996. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.  	 
\bibitem[Wildavsky ()]{b51}\label{b51} 	 		\textit{The Great Brain Race: How Global Universities are Reshaping the World},  		 			B Wildavsky 		.  		2010. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Schrecker ()]{b44}\label{b44} 	 		\textit{The Lost Soul of Higher Education},  		 			E Schrecker 		.  		2010. New York: The New Press.  	 
\bibitem[Molesworth et al. ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		\textit{The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer},  		 			M Molesworth 		,  		 			R Scullion 		,  		 			E Nixon 		.  		2011. New York: Routledge.  	 
\bibitem[Jary and Parker ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘The McUniversity: organization, management and academic subjectivity’.  		 			D Jary 		,  		 			M Parker 		.  	 	 		\textit{Organization}  		1994. 2 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Davis et al. ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘The New Contractualism?’.  		 			G Davis 		,  		 			B Sullivan 		,  		 			A Yeatman 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization}  		1997. 9  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Aucoin ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘The New Public Management: Canada in Comparative Perspective’.  		 			P Aucoin 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Institute for Research on Public Policy},  				1995.  	 
\bibitem[Bastedo ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		\textit{The organization of Higher Education: Managing Colleges for a New Era},  		 			M N Bastedo 		.  		2012. Baltimore, USA: The Johns Hopkins University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Brewster ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘The Report of the President: On Tenure’.  		 			K BrewsterJr 		.  	 	 		\textit{American Association of University Professors}  		1972. 58 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Boston ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘The Theoretical Underpinnings of Public Sector Restructuring in New Zealand’.  		 			J Boston 		.  	 	 		\textit{Reshaping the State: New Zealand's Bureaucratic Revolution},  				 			J Boston 		 (ed.)  		 (Auckland)  		1991. Oxford University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Rosovsky ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		\textit{The University: An Owner's Manual},  		 			H Rosovsky 		.  		1990. New York: W.W. Norton.  	 
\bibitem[De Bary, B. (ed.). (ed.) ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		\textit{Universities in Translation: The Mental Labor of Globalization},  		De Bary, B. (ed.). (ed.)  		2010. Aberdeen: Hong Kong University Press.  	 
\bibitem[Agovino ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		‘University of Belgrade beset by violence, paralysis, and frustration’.  		 			T Agovino 		.  	 	 		\textit{Chronicle of Higher Education}  		2000. 4 p. .  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
