Research challenges in policy implementation

Although research has been carried out at the hypothetical and experiential levels, dealing with how educational staff recognise expansion and policies in advanced learning, there are questions that remain unanswered about the relationship between the reforms and the real changes that take place in academic work (Maassen, 2003; Enders and de Weert, 2009; Rosa and Amaral, 2012; Metcalfe, 2012; Cardoso, 2012; Sahlin, 2012; Stensaker, Välimaa and Sarrico, 2012). Many authors have argued the existence of unanswered questions relating to collective academic values, shared governance, academic freedom, good management communication and the new meanings given to labour relations, and how these are affected by the terms of the New Public Management in different national and institutional contexts (Marginson, 2009; Enders, de Boer and Leisyte, 2009; Scott, 2009; Musselin, 2009; Fairweather, 2009; Cummings, Fisher and Locke, 2011; Kahlin, 2012; Dill, 2012). For this reason, research into resistance in the context of modern education culture created by the new policies is important, because it can lead to conclusions about the reasons for a mismatch between changes in the structure and mission of universities and the mentality and values of the individuals therein.

For this reason, Saarinen, Välimaa and Sarrico (2012) emphasise that, when attempting to understand the impacts of change, the ideological power related to change should also be considered. They state that policy in higher education is validated through a constant requirement for transformation: however, the issue may be more about whose viewpoint turns out to be the dominant one (ibid). Policy dialogues, as examples of policy-making, can be portrayed as encounters for meaning as they unavoidably turn out to be conflicts for planning supremacy and this meaning making is a conflict consisting of arguments derived from the cultural, political, and social spheres being fought over using politically, socially, and culturally motivated arguments (ibid).

Similarly, Metcalfe (2012), who considered the changes in the culture of research, argues that the empirical study of research culture is not typically found in policy studies where attention is

given to the economic activities of universities. Rosa and Amaral (2012) refer to quality assurance, stating that the viewpoints and outlooks, as well as the views of academics, in the direction of quality assurance are still immature topics of study. As a result, questions are often raised about the level of uptake of European Commission policies according to various state regulations. Likewise, Cardoso (2012) argues that transformations in the attitudes of learners, as well as the levels at which they internalise customer individuality must, on the other hand, comprise the focal point of the prospective study, considering the lack of such research on this matter. Sahlin (2012) disagrees with those who argue that there is only one type of change, or one perfect way of how governance or management should act on universities at a certain moment.

‘There are a number of open questions as to which organisational models dominate and how these varied organisational ideals mix and convert into common practice. For this reason, an important task for leaders in academia is to promote critical discussion internally, so as to build trust in university systems, even in the basic idea of what universities are and what universities are for … this points to the urgent need for much research on research, on reforms of university systems and on the role of universities’ (pp. 218-219).

Also, Stensaker, Välimaa and Sarrico (2012) identified a number of unanswered questions regarding change into higher education institutions, such as what is the meaning given to new practices and procedures, and how are new rules and routines culturally embedded and translated into universities and colleges? To research these questions, we need to delve into the micro-processes of academic life. Further, Stensaker, Välimaa and Sarrico (2012) suggested a twofold approach to the research of academic identity by examining how universities, colleges, units within these institutions, and also individuals, are all trying to make sense of, and cope with, external demands while simultaneously examining their own beliefs within their institutional or group values and norms.

Yet, despite the number of studies on academic identity, there is still a gap in the research about resistance to change in higher education institutions from an interdisciplinary point of view. As described in the previous sections, resistance to neoliberal change is a phenomenon that concerns not only Greece, but also other countries. This thesis contributes to an understanding of identity construction in the context of the specific form of organisational conditions of Greek universities in and around the recent policies, and offers new perspectives at the theoretical and empirical levels about how change is presented, the points of existing resistance, and reasons for the resistance, constraints, and possibilities provided by the institutions themselves. Combining CDA (the DHA) with Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) articulation theory can show how meanings are constructed and which meanings prevail or are undermined in a particular discursive field of articulation.

This study highlights the need for a holistic methodological approach towards change in universities that will provide a deeper understanding of academic culture. The evidence from this exploration will support the resolution of conflict between the different interests and ideologies, and so will contribute to the effective implementation of policy change in higher education.

However, before the examination of the political speeches and interviews with the faculty and students, I will present the landscape in which the policy changes, and the resistance to these changes, took place in Greece.