In 1980, during the military government (1973-1990), a profound transformation of the higher education (HE) system began. This change involved establishing a market to stimulate competition between... Show moreIn 1980, during the military government (1973-1990), a profound transformation of the higher education (HE) system began. This change involved establishing a market to stimulate competition between different institutions and encourage private entities to provide higher education. This reform took shape through new legislation that established the freedom to create and maintain higher education institutions (HEIs), with only a few prerequisites to be fulfilled to enter the market - filing an act of constitution, offering at least one degree course and being granted political permission from the Ministry of Interior. In addition, it created a new financing scheme for HEIs, which established that private institutions created from 1980 onwards could not receive direct fiscal support from the state and had to finance their activities by charging tuition fees. Likewise, state universities - and private ones created prior to 1980 - that until then had received direct support from the state had to start charging tuition fees from then on, forcing their students to ask for loans from the state itself.By the end of the 1980s, 22 new independent private universities (IPUs) had been created. These came to form part of the national HE system, together with state universities and private ones that had existed prior to 1980. There are currently 29 IPUs, which account for more than 50 percent of Chilean university enrolment. If enrolment in private universities that existed before 1980 and in non-university HE institutions is added to this, Chile today has an 84 percent rate of enrolment in private institutions, one of the highest in the world. Therefore, Chile after 1980 has become an early case study for the private transformation of HE, driven by the military dictatorship and the result of the neoliberal policies enforced by the Pinochet government.Talking about new universities might seem like a contradiction. In fact, such is the importance of tradition and centuries-long history at universities that no HE entrepreneur can escape this reality. Given that they cannot ignore this institutional ideal or standard, new Chilean universities founded after 1980 have ended up imitating the traditional university model. A deep current of mimetic isomorphism runs through the history of universities, something that is clearly seen in Chile.It is therefore relevant to question the decisions that the IPUs that have become high- functioning institutions in Chile have taken in what has been a complex environment. For example, they have set up efficient governing bodies to achieve their individual aims and have organised themselves efficiently to fulfil both their academic and their sustainable307business models. As a result, this has led to new universities obtaining recognition (accreditation) from the public body that regulates them, as well as prestige or a good reputation (seen though high positions in Chilean or international rankings).To answer this question, this study analyses the trajectory of a number of successful Chilean IPUs. It uses the theory of the life cycle of organisations in a model that has three stages: (a) creation and formation, (b) formalisation and coordination and (c) consolidation and organisational effectiveness. The general aim of this study is to analyse the decisions taken and practices implemented by these IPUs, which have turned them into high-performing institutions. Show less
The field of crisis and disaster studies has proliferated over the past two decades. Attention is bound to grow further as the world negotiates the prolonged challenges of the Covid‐19 pandemic. In... Show moreThe field of crisis and disaster studies has proliferated over the past two decades. Attention is bound to grow further as the world negotiates the prolonged challenges of the Covid‐19 pandemic. In this review, we provide an overview of the main foci, methods, and research designs employed in the crisis and disaster research fields in the period of 2001–2020. The review documents that the focus and methods used have not changed much over time. Single case studies and exploratory research prevail, the focus has shifted from preparedness to response, and methodological diversity is limited, but gradually increasing. Future challenges are to understand transboundary crisis management and creeping crises. Advancing the field calls for our community to put more effort in drawing lessons beyond the single case to uncover comparable and universal patterns that connect between events or phases, which help to theorize the multifaceted nature of crisis and disaster management Show less
