Good University Governance: A Consensus of Higher Education Ideology?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21776/ijabs.2024.32.3.718Keywords:
GUG, Pancasila ideology, Hegemony Theory, False-consciousness, New Public ManagementAbstract
Objective — This study aims to reconstruct the concept of Good University Governance so that it is free from the hegemony and domination of neoliberalism, which is promoted through the concept of New Public Management.
Design/methodology/approach — Problem-solving in this study will use the Critical Paradigm, by applying the Pancasila ideology as a tool for solving problems. Pancasila as the original ideology of Indonesia is used as an effort to counter-hegemony and domination of ideological consensus that occurs as a result of false awareness created and disseminated through universities.
Findings — Researchers developed the concept of Good University Governance (GUG) based on Pancasila as an attempt to counter the hegemony and domination of neoliberalism in the field of higher education governance. Using four domains namely General Characteristics, Funding, Research, Leadership, and Academic Staff Pancasila as the original ideology of the Indonesian nation as a tool for the restoration of praxis GUG so that it becomes a more ideal GUG.
Practical Implications — This study emphasizes the importance of the original ideology of the Indonesian nation as a tool to carry out counter-hegemony actions on the ideological consensus that has occurred in a society that has been assimilated due to false consciousness indoctrinated by neoliberalism in the field of higher education.
Originality/value — This study cites the essence of the theory of hegemony from critical thinker Gramsci as an entry point to understanding various inequalities that occur in the field of education. The Pancasila ideology is used as a critical analysis tool, to fight the hegemony of ideological consensus that occurs as a result of false consciousness created and disseminated through educational means. Through a critical approach, researchers want to understand how neoliberalism practices domination and hegemony in the field of higher education management, giving rise to false consciousness in society. In this way, researchers can develop this concept as an effort to fight against existing hegemony in the field of higher education governance, namely using Pancasila as the original ideology of the Indonesian nation. The GUG concept based on Pancasila is grouped into four domains, namely General Characteristics, Funding, Research, Leadership, and Academic Staff.
Keywords: GUG, Pancasila ideology, Hegemony Theory, False-consciousness, New Public Management.
Research Papers: Types of Paper.
References
Altbach, P. G. (2005). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. The NEA Alamanc of Higher Education, 63–74.
Baswir, R. (2016). Bahaya neoliberalisme (Cetakan II). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Bessant, S. E. F., Robinson, Z. P., & Ormerod, R. M. (2015). Neoliberalism, new public management and the sustainable development agenda of higher education : history , contradictions and synergies. Environmental Education Research, 21(3), 417–432. http://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.993933
Bräunig, D. (2011). Why universities are not businesses. In The university as a business? (1st ed., pp. 21–31). Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften Springer Fachmedien. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93195-1_2
Darmaningtyas. (2015). Pendidikan yang memiskinkan. Malang: Intrans Publishing.
Deem, R. (1998). International studies in sociology of education “new managerialism” and higher education : The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8(1), 37–41.
Deem, R. (2001). Globalisation, new managerialism, academic capitalism and entrepreneurialism in Universities : Is the local dimension still important? Comparative Education, 37(1), 7–20.
Djamhuri, A. (2009). A case study of govermental accounting and budgeting reform at local authority in Indonesia: An institutionalist perspective. Disertation. Universiti Sains Malaysia.
DJPPI. (2016). Perdagangan jasa di WTO. Retrieved March 16, 2017, from http://ditjenppi.kemendag.go.id/id/perdagangan-jasa-di-wto/
Duke, C. (2004). Is there an Australian idea of a university? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(3), 297–314. http://doi.org/10.1080/1360080042000290168
Dwiyanto, D., & Saksono, I. G. (2011). Ekonomi (sosialis) Pancasila vs kapitalisme (I). Yogyakarta: Keluarga besar Marhenisme DIY.
Effendi, S. (2005). GATS dan liberalisasi pendidikan tinggi. Retrieved June 18, 2017, from sofian.staff.ugm.ac.id
Freire, P. (2016). Pendidikan kaum tertindas (8th ed.). Jakarta: Pustaka LP3ES Indonesia.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections From The Prison Notebooks. London: The Electric Book Company Ltd.
Hariyono. (2014). Ideologi Pancasila: Roh progresif nasionalisme Indonesia. Malang: Intrana.
Hayek, F. A. (2001). The road to serfdom: Edition of reader’s digest. London: The IEA-Institute of Economic Affairs.
Hayek, F. A. (2007). The road of serfdom: text and document. (B. Caldwell, Ed.). London: The University of Chicago Press.
Hill, D., & Rosskam, E. (2009). The developing world and state education: Neoliberal depredation and egalitarian alternatives. New York: Routledge.
Irianto, G. (2007). Transforming state university into autonomous state university in Indonesia: opportunities and challenges (the case of Brawijaya University). In The Association of South East Asian Institutions of Higher Education (ASAIHL) Curtin University of Technology (pp. 92–101). Perth Western Australia.
Jaramillo, A. (2012). Universities through the Looking Glass : Benchmarking University Governance to Enable Higher Education Modernization in MENA Validation of the Governance Screening Card.
Jupe, R., & Funnell, W. (2015). Neoliberalism , consultants and the privatisation of public policy formulation : The case of Britain ’ s rail industry. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 29, 65–85. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.02.001
Kim, T. (2008). Changing university governance and management in the UK. Intellectual Economics, 2(4), 35–42.
Mantra, D. (2011). Hegemoni dan diskursus neoliberalisme: Menelusuri langkah Indonesia menuju Masyarakat Ekonomi ASEAN 2015 (Pertama). Bekasi: MantraPress.
Mok, K. H. (2010). When state centralism meets neo-liberalism : Managing university governance change in Singapore and Malaysia. High Educ, 60(4), 419–440. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40864749
Mouwen, K. (2000). Strategy, structure and culture of the hybrid university: towards the university of the 21st century. Tertiary Education and Management, 6, 47–56.
Muktiyanto, A. (2016). Good University Governance dan Kinerja Program Studi: Pengaruh Penerapan Akuntansi Manajemen, Teknik Manajemen, dan Pilihan Prioritas Strategi Sebagai Model Mediasi Fit. Koleksi Perpustakaan Universitas Indonesia.
Mulawarman, A. D. (2012). Pendidikan akuntansi Indonesia: Pro neoliberal atau Pancasila? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260081022
Mulawarman, A. D. (2016). 2024 Hijrah untuk negeri. (A. Kamayanti, Ed.). Jakarta: Yayasan Rumah Peneleh.
Nugroho, R. (2008). Pendidikan Indonesia: Harapan, Visi, Strategi (1st ed.). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Nuryatno, M. A. (2011). Mazhab Pendidikan Kritis. Menyingkap Relasi Pengetahuan Politik dan Kekuasaan. Yogyakarta: Resist Book.
Parker, L. (2011). University corporatisation: Driving redefinition. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 22(4), 434–450. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.11.002
Peraturan Presiden Republik Indonesia Nomor 77 Tahun 2007. Tentang daftar bidang usaha yang tertutup dan bidang usaha yang terbuka dengan persyaratan di bidang penanaman modal. (n.d.). Retrieved February 8, 2017, from https://luk.staff.ugm.ac.id/atur/Perpres77-2007.pdf
Pujiningsih, S. (2014). Globalisasi ekonomi: Korporatisasi perguruan tinggi (Peran akuntansi dalam tinjauan teori kritis Habermas). Dinamika Akuntansi, Keuangan Dan Perbankan, 3(1), 1–9.
Putra, G. R. (2016). Politik pendidikan: Liberalisasi pendidikan tinggi di Indonesia dan India (I). Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
Rohman, A., & Wiyono, T. (2010). Education policy in decentralization era (I). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.
Saksono, I. G. (2009). Neoliberalisme vs Sosialisme: Membangkitkan Ekonomi Kerakyatan. Yogyakarta: Formokoma PMKRI.
Sayidah, N., Triyuwono, I., Sukoharsono, E. G., & Djamhuri, A. (2014). NPM sebagai model university governance modern (Analisis kritis dalam perspektif ketauhidan). Jurnal Akuntansi Aktual, 2(4), 229–238.
Shattock, M. (2006). Managing good governance in higher education (First edit). London: Open University Press.
Soetjipto, A., Seda, F. E., Noor, I. R., Budi, S., Wardani, E., & Soebagjo, N. (2014). Otonomi dan Tata Kelola Perguruan Tinggi Negeri (Studi Kasus di Universitas Indonesia, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, dan Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah). Jurnal Masyarakat & Budaya, 16(2), 293–304.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents (1st ed.). London: WW Norton Company.
Subkhan, E. (2016). Pendidikan kritis: Kritik atas praksis neoliberalisme dan standardisasi pendidikan. (Nurhid, Ed.) (Cetakan I). Yogyakarta: Ar-Ruzz Media.
Umar, A. R. M. (2013). UU pendidikan tinggi dalam jerat kapitalisme. Retrieved June 27, 2017, from https://indoprogress.com/2013/03/
Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 12 Tahun 2012 tentang Pendidikan Tinggi. (n.d.). Retrieved January 5, 2017, from http://risbang.ristekdikti.go.id/regulasi/uu-12-2012.pdf
Undang Undang Nomor 9 Tahun 2009 tentang Badan Hukum Pendidikan. (2009). Retrieved February 9, 2017, from http://www.hukumonline.com/pusatdata/download/fl58164/node/29030
Wijatno, S. (2009). Pengelolaan perguruan tinggi secara efisien, efektif, dan ekonomis. Jakarta: Salemba Empat
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 The International Journal of Accounting and Business Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright of the received article shall be assigned to the journal as the publisher of the journal. The intended copyright includes the right to publish the article in various forms (including reprints). The journal maintains the publishing rights to the published articles.
