Knowledge and its Enemies: Towards a New Case for Higher Learning ...

and global engagement. In this respect, a revised ‘heuristic’, emphasising the simultaneous impact of ‘global, national, and local dimensions and forces’, has been advanced, in what is awkwardly described as a ‘glonacal agency’ (Marginson and Rhoades 2002, 282). Further to this, a four-level approach, using institutional, local, national, and international variables, is advanced by Turpin, Iredale, and Crinnion (2002). These alternatives point to the need for an in-depth examination of the types and patterns of influence that have emerged as a result of global trends.

Much of the existing empirical evidence within higher education policy research supports the hypothesis that responses to reform pressures are often system related or ‘path dependent’; this idea is paradigmatic. The key explanation provided is that this phenomenon relates to the ‘terms of political settlement’ that represent ‘legitimate concerns, interests, their expression and their aggregation across different levels of administration which bind a nation together’ (Neave 2001, 3). In Continental systems, where the professoriate often held great sway, and particularly where there was also a lack of policy capacity, reform processes proved to be much more gradual, and some would argue therefore much less fruitful. In France, particularly in the initial phases, the process was fragmentary and halting but at the same time less directive and, to a degree, more consensual. This was particularly so in Finland, where reform proceeded by way of dialogue. As institutions were given greater autonomy, it has been found that this also generated diversity (Kivinen and Rinne 1996, 102–103). This scenario is more common across Europe, where ‘mutuality’ in decision making is more apparent (Scott and Hood 2004, 82). This stands in sharp contrast to reforms in the United Kingdom and Australia, where the process has been swift, transformational, and sometimes appearing to be brutal (Musselin 2005, 74).

It has been argued that the different manner in which states embrace reform grows out of the differences in ‘national styles’ that exist between the Anglo-Saxon and Roman types. The Roman model represents the centralised model of government with national elements being brought into the fold by the codification of law. Conversely, the Anglo-Saxon model, in which nationhood relates much more to the ‘sum of the parts’, attaches