1 Introduction
Multifaceted and sometimes even competing external demands, such as those for societal relevance, effectiveness, and accountability, have shaped the role of the Nordic higher education (HE) system towards complexity
For international readers, the case of Finnish UAS is interesting as it provides an example of a HEI operating as a limited company within a Nordic welfare setting and public funding framework. A hybridized operating environment and emerging hybrid structures and practices in Nordic HE are evident. One example of this hybridization is the metamorphosis of mostly municipality-operated vocational post-secondary institutes first into regional polytechnics and then into nationally funded UAS. The reform has not only upgraded the educational level of vocational institutes and merged them into larger units but also reformed organizational and decision-making structures. The 2014 legislative change transformed the Finnish Universities of Applied Sciences into limited liability companies. From this pupal case, a new mongrel was born.
Already the act defining the legal entity of the universities of applied sciences is hybrid by nature. The act defines UAS as Limited Liability Companies that are:
- –Statutory parts of the national higher education system
- –Constituents of their students and staff
- –Non-profit organizations
- –State-authorized agencies
- –Tuition-free education providers (with the exception of non-EU/EEA students)
- –Mostly state-funded
- –Employees have criminal liability for acts in office
To achieve this aim, we employ a mixed-method case study approach (Yin, 2017). The data consist of both quantitative and qualitative survey responses collected from board members in Finnish UAS. The survey data set is complemented with publicly available organizational and policy documents.
This study contributes to the growing body of work on hybridity in HE by assessing how board members reflect the competing values in UAS board governance and how these competing values appear in the actions of board members. Furthermore, we enrich the literature on university boards by incorporating the concept of hybridity into the body of work, demonstrating it as a functional theoretical starting point in explaining the complex phenomena of board governance in HE and pointing to the possibilities of navigating the complex accountability environment.
2 Networked Hybridity in Universities of Applied Sciences
Hybridity can be defined as a multidimensional concept occurring at different levels of social practices (Pekkola et al., 2020). In organizational research, it often refers to a mix of varied, contradictory values and practices emerging from public and private sector characteristics (Pekkola et al., 2022). The most notable difference between the two sectors can be summarized
Hybridity may manifest in some or many of the following features in public organizations: (a) mixed ownership, (b) goal incongruence and competing institutional logics, (c) multiple funding arrangements, and (d) diversity of financial and social control through a combination of public and private means (Johanson & Vakkuri, 2018). Some forms of control might include joint regulation between government and industry or a mixture of professional self-control determination combined with managerial imperatives (Noordegraaf, 2015).
In the aggregate, hybrid arrangements are open to two types of critique. On the one hand, they can be judged to present hollow politics, in which important decisions are made within company boardrooms rather than in democratic forums. On the other hand, they can be evaluated as lousy business for not being fully committed to the principle of profit maximization (Johanson & Vakkuri, 2018). Within HE, these aspects may complicate measurement, create problems in finding suitable metrics for evaluation, and lead to difficulties in building accountability and legitimacy (Vakkuri & Johanson, 2020). Moreover, in the context of HEI s, especially UAS, this mixture of public and private values is further complicated by academic and social values and interests, creating an even more complex operating environment.
UAS are a prime example of hybrid organizations as they exhibit hybridity at several levels and through the aforementioned four characteristics (Johanson & Vakkuri, 2018). First, they exhibit mixed ownership. Often, different municipalities are the main owners, but in many UAS, owners also include other organizations, such as universities, foundations, and other entities. Second, they show goal incongruence and competing institutional values (logics) by nature. On the one hand, they are limited liability companies, and thus by nature steered by market values, while on the other hand, their aim is to contribute to public value for all citizens, provide knowledge and education that cater to regional needs, and promote the generation of social value within local communities. Moreover, UAS are increasingly involved in research activities. For example, many UAS have established research positions and research tracks, increasingly influenced by academic values. Third, UAS have multiple funding sources. They are heavily publicly funded; however, besides public funding, their funding pool includes streams such as private organizations,
3 Public, Private and Academic Values in Higher Education Institutions
As discussed above, HE institutions, including UAS, are hybrid by nature. Already in 1983, Clark introduced three values (or principles) shaping universities: academic oligarchy, the market, and the state. UAS are not traditional comprehensive universities, and their faculty does not form an academic oligarchy in the same sense as in comprehensive research universities. However, Clark’s triangle, based on nuanced analyses of different steering forces of universities, can be used as a simplified heuristic in the case of UAS to illustrate the competing values emerging from market (monetary), public (policy), and academic (professional) values.
The rise of neoliberalism, academic capitalism, market competition, and NPM-inspired reforms has led to the marketization of HEI s, a trend that has accelerated also in the Nordic countries (Pekkola et al., 2020; Pekkola & Kivistö, 2016). Market value in the context of HEI s often refers to market/private sector principles of HEI s manifesting in performance-based budgeting, discourses of research excellence, as well as competitions and rankings, in which research and education are seen as products and universities as businesses (Marginson, 2011).
Public value in the context of HE often refers to widespread, normative ideas of human development, democratization, and collective interests of society (Marginson, 2011). Consequently, there is a moral element in the notion of public value as it implies showing probity in front of multiple audiences (Moore, 2013). For instance, HE should be “open, egalitarian and accountable to the larger community beyond HE” (Marginson, 2011, p. 418). Often, governments and public organizations are perceived to operate on behalf of the community and to represent the interests of the public (even if they may also have their own
Another set of values traditionally driving the HE sector are the traditional academic values, such as academic freedom, collegiality, and professional autonomy. These academic values are based on the ideal of a university as a collegial nest of knowledge, discussions, partnerships, and academic self-governance (Marginson, 2011). Due to economic, social, and technological changes, these traditional values are pressured in the contemporary HEI context, causing tensions between them and the need to adapt for instance to the market-driven demands. Even if the centrality of academic values may have decreased in recent decades due to the rise of academic capitalism and marketization, professional work and scientific (peer) evaluation remain central in many managerial reforms, evaluations, and funding decisions (Pekkola et al., 2020).
4 Analytical Framework
Based on the above theoretical sections, we have drafted an analytical framework to guide this study (Figure 13.1). The framework illustrates the micro, meso, and macro levels of hybridity in UAS, driven by the three previously identified values (public, private, academic; Clark, 1980), in addition to a fourth value (social value) illustrating the local role of UAS as defined already in the law. These values manifest at all levels.
Levels of hybridity in organizing public higher education services through limited liability company with multiple funding streams (Adapted and modified from Johanson et al., 2023)
The analytical framework leans on the idea of networked hybridity (Pekkola et al., 2020) in understanding the Finnish UAS systems as hybrid systems with different levels of hybridity and interlinkages between macro-, meso-, and micro-levels. The levels are not necessarily nested, meaning that each level would automatically have implications for the other levels. Rather, the levels are interconnected and complex, sometimes exhibiting nestedness and overlapping, while at other times the connections may be one-directional or occur through a network connection instead of direct interconnectedness from one level to another (Pekkola et al., 2020, 2022). In this sense, the levels do not possess independent existence. Instead, they offer a zooming device to focus attention on different scales of social existence (Ylikoski, 2014). In networked
At the meso level, UAS show hybridity especially in terms of funding. The funding system is directly connected to the macro level and policy aims because UAS are heavily publicly funded. However, at the same time, they may also use private funding sources, such as donations, tuition fees, and commercial services, or even third-sector funding, such as foundation funding. Through business-like operations, UAS can offer their services to local partners and engage in (partly) privately funded research, innovation, and development projects with local companies. Furthermore, tuition fees (for international students) and paid study programs provide another means for for-profit activity.
Finally, at the micro level, hybridity may manifest through the university management system. The other system levels can naturally impact the micro level and how the management system functions. For instance, is the management system based on traditional academic collegial bottom-up decision-making or on a more managerial, top-down decision-making process based on performance measures. Furthermore, as a mediating factor from the meso level to the micro level, different kinds of funding schemes may also impact the management system of the institutions, for instance in terms of whose interests the decision-making serves.
5 Research Setting: Universities of Applied Sciences in Finland
There are 35 HEI s in Finland representing three types of institutions: universities, university foundations, and UAS. 24 of the 35 HEI s are UAS. UAS can provide first and second cycle education (universities and university foundations are responsible for doctoral education), and they base their education, research, and innovation activities on responding to working-life needs (Mikkonen et al., in press).
UAS (previously polytechnics) were established in 1990. The juridical status of universities of applied sciences (UAS) was established in the 1995 Act on Polytechnic Studies and later refined in the Polytechnic Act of 2003. The board is the highest decision-making body in UAS. Under earlier legislation, the rector of a UAS also served as the chair of the internal board, which oversaw academic decisions and internal administration. However, from the outset, it was permissible to include external members on the boards of polytechnics/UAS. Additionally, UAS institutions maintained an external board, often referred to as a “board of trustees,” which represented the owners’ interests. This board was responsible for approving the economic plan and
6 Data and Methods
The data consists of the Finnish survey subsample of a comparative study on university boards and councils across five European countries (Finland, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Sweden; Antonowicz et al., 2025; Mikkonen et al., 2025). Answers were collected with an online tool (Qualtrics) between June 8, 2023, and October 16, 2023. The survey targeted board members of all public universities and universities of applied sciences in Finland. However, in this particular paper, we focus on the responses of the board members in Finnish UAS (number of UAS = 22, number of board members = 193). The questionnaire was sent to the chairs and secretaries of boards (the last reminder was also sent to the registry office) and asked to be transferred to the members of their boards, including a kind request to notify if they had received the message and transferred it forward. After three reminders, 15 of the 22 UAS had notified that they received the survey and forwarded it. The total number of board members in these 15 institutions is 133, of which 44 responded to the survey (33% response rate). The questionnaire included both open-ended and closed items, and we used qualitative and quantitative analysis to illustrate the hybrid nature of UAS. The survey data set was also complemented (when needed) with publicly available organizational and policy documents.
Quantitative analysis was undertaken with statistical software assistance (SPSS 28), mainly through means and frequencies comparison. The open-ended answers were analyzed with reflexive thematic analysis. We used the existing body of knowledge (see analytical framework section) to guide our analysis process, but in the coding process, we included both open and closed coding. During the process, we first familiarized ourselves with the data by reading and re-reading the textual inputs. Then, we engaged in coding by marking all the passages relevant to our research aim. Lastly, we generated preliminary themes and engaged in critical discussions to review and refine the themes. Through
7 Results
In the survey, the respondents answered two sets of 5-point Likert scale questions concerning their perceptions about (1) which issues should be under the control of university boards (Table 13.1) and (2) to whom they think the university board is responsible (Table 13.2). Each of the questions implied different macro-level forces and values shaping university governance identified in the analytical framework: public value, social value (local community), market value, and academic value. Table 13.3 condenses the item responses according to these underlying values, producing a single representative mean for each one of them.
Responses according to different university-bounding steering forces for academic priorities and activities UAS (n = 44)
| Answer | PV
1. National policy priorities |
SV
2. Regional development agendas |
PV
3. UN SDG s |
MV
4. Competitivity and university rankings |
MV
5. Maximisation of external funding |
MV
6. Employability of students |
AV
7. Freedom for lecturers and researchers |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree | 52.3% | 81.8% | 77.3% | 68.2% | 68.2% | 100.0% | 75.0% |
| Neutral | 22.7% | 6.8% | 20.5% | 15.9% | 25.0% | 0.0% | 9.1% |
| Disagree | 25.0% | 11.4% | 2.3% | 15.9% | 6.8% | 0.0% | 15.9% |
PV = public value, SV = social value, MV = market value; AV = academic value.
Responses according to accountability structures for the UAS board (n = 44)
| Answer | PV
1. Government/public authorities |
PV
2. Society at large |
AV
3. University staff |
–
4. Students |
SV
5. Local community |
MV
6. Business/economy |
AV
7. Academic/Scientific community |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agree | 75.0% | 86.4% | 88.6% | 86.4% | 65.9% | 77.3% | 56.8% |
| Neutral | 11.4% | 6.8% | 9.1% | 11.4% | 29.5% | 20.5% | 36.4% |
| Disagree | 13.6% | 6.8% | 2.3% | 2.3% | 4.5% | 2.3% | 6.8% |
PV = public value, SV = social value, MV = market value; AV = academic value.
Mean differences across different underlying macro-level values and standard deviations (n = 44)
| Level | Values | Value scores | Std. deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Macro | Public value | 7.74 | 1.20 |
| Social value | 7.73 | 1.40 | |
| Business value | 8.08 | 1.01 | |
| Academic value | 7.82 | 1.30 |
As Tables 13.1 and 13.2 show, responses were rather scattered between the different values bounding HEI s and to whom the HEI board is accountable. In both question sets, agreement rates in every case are higher than 50%, with most items scoring more than 75%. This broad scope of agreement statements in board members’ answers highlights the hybrid nature of the values driving decision-making in UAS and UAS boards.
Table 13.3 further elaborates the findings shown in the above two tables, illustrating how all different underlying values (public, social, market, and
Yes, and that [the roles] should be dictated by the needs of the business in the country, not regional politics.
[I]t would be easy to distribute roles and responsibilities according to the needs of the business and on the basis of already available expertise and the internal expertise/resources of the higher education institution.
Shouldn’t it be established in a coordinated manner by OKM and combine resources, expertise and at the same time spread the risks?
It would probably be up to the parliament to decide if regional profiling of higher education institutions is to be started. [It is] strongly involved in regional politics.
Yes, the ministry should determine.
I think it is good that the HEI s look like their region. A large number of students come from the area and stay there.
Universities’ own profiling is important.
Yes, the board of the HEI decides depending on the area’s development potential and business activities. If there is fierce competition for substance with another HEI, deep cooperation should be considered.
Maybe. OKM [the Ministry of Education and Culture], OPH [National Agency for Education] and higher education rectors’ councils should have a role.
It would be easy to distribute roles and responsibilities according to the needs of the business world and on the basis of already found expertise and the internal expertise/resources of the HEI.
The Ministry of Education and Culture and HEI s collaboratively.
Yes, there should, based on the national/regional educational needs.
The profiling work should be made by universities themselves, but the ministry should demand clear profiles when making the funding contracts with HEI s.
At the meso level, the focus was on the different funding sources of UAS. As Table 13.4 shows, state funding is the largest share of UAS annual funding, representing the significance of public influence through funding and funding steering. The second largest funding source is grants, which include targeted state grants and project funding from the EU and other entities, such as Business Finland and the Research Council of Finland, EU funding, project-specific funding from other funders, grants from municipalities, and the share of the Ministry of Finance of state funding for teacher training schools. However, it is considerably smaller compared to state funding (896 MEUR > 190 MEUR in 2023). Other funding sources include business activities, representing
Funding sources of UAS (Vipunen, 2024)
| Year | Turnover | State funding | Grants | Business activities | Other income | Fundraising activities, net income | Investment activities, net income |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 967,5 M | 777,9 M | 116,6 M | 49,5 M | 23,6 M | 17,4 M | −1,1 M |
| 2019 | 989,2 M | 777,1 M | 135,7 M | 51,5 M | 24,9 M | 0,3 M | 19,0 M |
| 2020 | 1,039,0 M | 819,7 M | 136,7 M | 51,2 M | 31,4 M | −4,989 | 9,7 M |
| 2021 | 1,093,9 M | 855,9 M | 147,8 M | 49,8 M | 40,5 M | 0,8 M | 32,9 M |
| 2022 | 1,126,0 M | 848,8 M | 170,2 M | 56,9 M | 50,1 M | 0,7 M | −35,5 M |
| 2023 | 1,214,9 M | 896,1 M | 190,3 M | 62,1 M | 66,4 M | 1,0 M | 36,5 M |
| Total | 6,430,8 M | 4,975,4 M | 897,3 M | 321,0 M | 237,0 M | 20,2 M | 61,5 M |
Shallow. The relationship is mostly expressed in finances; some degrees pay the university more, and thus are of interest. I don’t think I’ve heard more from our chair.
The role of the board members is smaller [than that of the chair], but significant when forming the board’s common line in responding to the ministry’s goals and in other directions that guide operations.
Fighting for ever-dwindling funds, trying to maintain an education system/policy that does not work in its current scope with decreasing funding at all.
The relationship is good. Constant competition of funding takes time away from other activities.
Involved in the performance negotiations.
At the micro level, the study considered the management system. The respondents were asked to rate their perception of the dominant decision-making model in their HEI, whether it aligns more with the collegial ideal (1) or managerial (9). As Figure 13.2 shows, the results suggest overall hybrid decision making-processes with a score of 5.73, although leaning towards a managerial style. While none of the respondents thought the decision-making process is fully collegial, the majority of the respondents thought the process is mixed, with a greater number of respondents rating five and above. Notably, nine respondents thought that the decision-making process is fully managerial, highlighting the inclination towards market values.
Frequency distribution of board member perceptions on their HEI’s decision-making process, where 1 is fully collegial and 9 fully managerial
Very authoritarian [the management system], in itself no different from a public or private company. Decisions are made at the top without listening to experts, which is really weird considering that it (the UAS) is an expert organization.
Very top-to-bottom managerial system, which seems to be a weird choice in an institution full of high achievers.
Naturally different because of [being] educational organization.
Academic freedom is wider and stricter processes will only come through information system reforms.
8 Discussion and Conclusions
The aim of this chapter was to explore and illustrate the hybridity occurring at different levels of UAS. We examined the phenomenon through UAS board members’ perspectives on public, market, academic, and social values shaping hybridity at micro, meso, and macro levels. This study has three main contributions to the literature on hybridity (Johanson & Vakkuri, 2018; Karré, 2020) and hybridity in HEI s (Pekkola et al., 2020, 2022; Winter & Bolde, 2020).
First, we provided an analytical framework that enables the exploration of hybridity in HEI s, particularly in UAS. The framework highlights the three interlinked levels of analysis (micro, meso, and macro) and the interplay of different values manifesting at each level. We were mainly interested in the four key perspectives on values in HEI s. The first, driven by neoliberalism, academic capitalism, and market competition, reflects the global marketization of HEI s, including in Nordic countries (Pekkola et al., 2020; Pekkola & Kivistö, 2016). The second focuses on public value, emphasizing human development, democratization, and societal interests, incorporating a moral element of integrity (Marginson, 2011; Moore, 2013). The third is rooted in traditional academic values such as freedom, collegiality, and autonomy, envisioning universities as self-governing spaces of knowledge (Marginson, 2011). In addition to the three traditionally cited values in HE studies, we have also included a fourth value, social value, in the framework to highlight the special role UAS have in local development compared to traditional universities.
Second, we show how UAS exhibit hybridity at all three interconnected levels. According to the findings, there are value tensions in the board members’ responses between managerialism and academic self-determination at the micro level. While the survey results (Figure 13.2) suggested a mixed management system leaning towards managerialism, the qualitative answers revealed variations between individual board members’ perspectives. The alignment with the managerial mindset present in UAS decision-making somewhat differs
At the meso level, the findings indicate a strong reliance on public funding, which naturally stresses the impact of public values and the steering power of the Ministry of Education and Culture. However, when considering the entire palette of funding sources, all four underlying values are strongly present. Market values manifest in competitive funding (part of grants), business activities, and investment activities, while the social value characterizing particularly especially UAS is embedded in fundraising activities. Considering the contemporary trend of public HE funding, which increasingly bases on performance (see e.g., Kivistö & Kohtamäki, 2016), it may be expected that public funding is partly seen to advocate for market values.
At the macro level, the findings revealed mixed aspirations between top-down national control and regional independence. Within the value regimes composed of public value, market value, social value, and academic value, the UAS board members showed equal emphasis on public value and social value, stronger orientation to market value, and weaker commitment to academic values. Based on the current body of knowledge (see e.g., Pekkola et al., 2020, 2022), these values seem to, again, differ from traditional comprehensive universities, in which academic values seem to have higher importance, and market values are more criticized, especially from the internal board members’ perspective.
Third, we show how hybridity manifests in two forms in the UAS boards. First, it manifests through the competing values the boards prioritize. Based on the quantitative analysis, the board members’ collective perspectives highlighted all four values measured, underscoring hybridity at the board level. Furthermore, the standard deviation was rather small, indicating consensus among the board members. However, the respondents also showed differing nuances in their answers. While some tended to advocate for market values, others highlighted more academic or public values or a combination of these. As the standard deviation was rather low in the macro-level quantitative answers, this may mean that individual board members exhibit hybridity by underscoring multiple values. An interesting path for future studies would be to explore whether there are differences between the value hierarchies of different board members based on their background (e.g., internal vs. external board members). Moreover, when considering the distribution of answers at the meso level (Figure 13.2), we can see that, even if a mixed system is largely embraced, the scores of individual board members are rather scattered, illustrating divergence in the constitution of boards. This suggests that hybridity emerges within the board as a result of combining the perspectives of different board members.
To conclude this chapter on hybridity in UAS, we will discuss UAS and hybridity on a general level and offer two dilemmas for future discussions.
The Nordic HE system has evolved toward complexity and hybridity due to external pressures such as societal relevance and accountability (Pekkola et al., 2022). Government reforms inspired by NPM and New Public Governance have introduced competing values and principles (Ejersbo et al., 2023). Hybridity in HE has drawn academic interest, with research exploring its impact on universities’ structures and academic professions (Bruckmann & Carvalho, 2018; Siekkinen et al., 2020; Winter & Bolde, 2020). However, most studies focus on comprehensive universities, leaving a gap regarding UAS.
Finnish UAS are organizationally an interesting combination of public and private institutions (Karré, 2020) since they operate as limited companies but are non-profit, have public duties, funding, and mission. The hybridity is mirrored at different levels of the HE system, namely UAS as organizations through the management system, their organizational environment through the funding system, and policy context (see Figure 13.1). Hybridity in the public sector is characterized by several features, including mixed ownership, goal incongruence, and competing institutional logics and values. Additionally, it involves multiple funding arrangements and a blend of financial and social control through both public and private mechanisms (Johanson & Vakkuri, 2018).
The ability to combine various value creation regimes within UAS puts them in a mediating position between central and local governments on the one hand and between public and private value generation on the other hand. In network governance, the intermediary position connecting various walks of life provides a relational advantage for information control and speed of information retrieval (Burt, 1995). Thus, the proximity to both governments and markets enables the detection of weak signals quickly from various sources, which can be used for adaptation. In financing, multiple sources for resource
The intermediary position in between comes with caveats. UAS, as hybrid organizations, are faced with multiple demands from their stakeholders, which may require mutually exclusive actions and replace complacent institutional consensus with destructive multiple accountabilities disorder (Koppell, 2005). Such disorder includes compromising behavior in many directions. At worst, it might be that compromising results in making concessions to a multitude of stakeholders, which pleases none of the involved partners. A seemingly rational consequence of the disorder could be more detailed performance measurement to clarify accountability, but it might only lead to an additional reporting burden without resolving the underlying controversies.
In another sense, UAS show multiple aspects of worth, in other words, things that we hold dear in our lives (Stark, 2011). It is not straightforward to combine and justify civic virtues of equality, trustworthiness, and authority with short-term market actions based on price and competition. As these aspects of worth reside in the same organisation within UAS, the justification of contrary registers of worth becomes difficult and is open to grievances. However, it is not the case that UAS are only torn between multiple lovers. Instead, they have some options in selecting their accountability structures. This caters to the long-term sustainability and survival of the UAS. Changing political constellations within government offer options to cater to more permissive demands, and government cycles are short enough not likely to produce serious adverse developments. As UAS produce a whole menu of different values, they have the option to strategically highlight and put forward the value in which they excel and downplay those forms of values they wish to hide. Furthermore, the existence of multiple institutional values at play and alternative decision-making heuristics gives hybrid organizations an excuse to select the most favorable decision-making forums to justify their decision-making procedures in a positive light.
References
Antonowicz, D., Jaworska, M., Mikkonen, M., Pekkola, E., de Andrade, L., Keczer, G., … Geschwind, L. (2025). Beyond the ivory tower: a survey of European university board members’ perspectives on institutional policy priorities. Higher Education Research & Development, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2559641
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Bruckmann, S., & Carvalho, T. (2018). Understanding change in higher education: An archetypal approach. Higher Education, 76(4), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0229-2
Burt, R. S. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
Clark, B. (1983). The higher education system. Academic organisation in crossnational perspective. University of California Press.
Ejersbo, M., Greve, C., Lægreid, P., & Rykkja, L. H. (2023). Nordic public management reforms seen from the top: Adaptive and agile governments. In E. Pekkola, J.-E. Johanson, & M. Mykkänen (Eds.), Finnish public administration: Nordic public space and agency (pp. 15–32). Palgrave Macmillan.
Johanson, J.-E., & Vakkuri, J. (2018). Governing hybrid organisations: Exploring diversity of institutional life. Routledge.
Johanson, J.-E., Hjelt, J., Pekkola, E., & Vakkuri, J. (2023). Hybridisyys kolmannen sektorin sosiali- ja terveyspalveluissa (pp. 37–51).
Karré, P. M. (2020). Hybrid organisations: Between state and market. In D. Billis & C. Rochester (Eds.), Handbook on hybrid organisations (pp. 31–47). Edward Elgar.
Kivistö, J., & Kohtamäki, V. (2016). Does performance-based funding work? In R. M. O. Pritchard, A. Pausits, & J. Williams (Eds.), Positioning higher education institutions (pp. 215–226). Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-660-6_12
Koppell, J. G. (2005). Pathologies of accountability: ICANN and the challenge of “multiple accountabilities disorder”. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00434.x
Marginson, S. (2011). Higher education and public good. Higher Education Quarterly, 65(4), 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2011.00496.x
Mikkonen, M., Alonso de Andrade, L., Lundborg, S., Pekkola, E., Geschwind, L. (in press). Board governance priorities in higher education institutions: Comparative analysis of board members’ visions in Finland and Sweden. Manuscript submitted for publication. Higher Education.
Mikkonen, M., Andrade de Alonzo, L., Pekkola, E., Antonowicz, D., Carvalho, T., Geschwind, L., Jaworska, M., Keczer, G., Kováts, G., Lundborg, S., & Videira, P. (2025). Gender differences in board members’ perceptions of governance: A study of four European HE systems. European Journal of Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2025.2460166
Moore, M. H. (2013). Recognizing public value. Harvard University Press.
Noordegraaf, M. (2015). Hybrid professionalism and beyond: (New) Forms of public professionalism in changing organizational and societal contexts. Journal of Professions and Organization, 2(2), 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jov002
Pekkola, E., & Kivistö, J. (2016). Higher education governance and reforms. In A. Farazmand (Ed.), Global encyclopedia of public administration, public policy, and governance. Springer.
Pekkola, E., Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Siekkinen, T., Carvalho, T., & Pulkkinen, K. (2020). Nested hybridity and value definition in public higher education: A conceptual view. In J. Vakkuri & J.-E. Johanson (Eds.), Hybrid governance, organisations and society: Value creation perspectives (pp. 59–80). Routledge.
Pekkola, E., Pinheiro, R., Geschwind, L., Siekkinen, T., Pulkkinen, K., & Carvalho, T. (2022). Hybridity in Nordic higher education. International Journal of Public Administration, 45(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.2012190
Siekkinen, T., Pekkola, E., & Carvalho, T. (2020). Change and continuity in the academic profession: Finnish universities as living labs. Higher Education, 79(3), 533–551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-019-00422-3
Stark, D. (2011). The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton University Press.
Vakkuri, J., & Johanson, J.-E. (2020). Failed promises–performance measurement ambiguities in hybrid universities. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 17(1), 33–50.
Vipunen. (2024). Korkeakoulujen tuloslaskelma [Dataset]. https://vipunen.fi/fi-fi/_layouts/15/xlviewer.aspx?id=/fi-fi/Raportit/Korkeakoulujen%20tuloslaskelma%20-%20Ammattikorkeakoulu%20-%20Tilastovuosi.xlsb
Winter, R., & Bolde, R. (2020). Hybridity in higher education. In D. Billis & C. Rochester (Eds.), Handbook on hybrid organisations (pp. 169–185). Edward Elgar.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
Ylikoski, P. (2014). Rethinking micro-macro relations. In J. Zahle & F. Collin (Eds.), Rethinking the individualism-holism debate (Vol. 372, pp. 117–135). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05344-8_7