European Journal of Education, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2005 © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UKEJEDEuropean Journal of Education0141-8211Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2005June 2005402Original Articles European Journal of EducationMaria Joao Rosa, Pedro M. Saraiva & Hen- rique Diz June 2005402Original ArticlesEuropean Journal of EducationMaria Joao Rosa, Pedro M. Saraiva & Henrique Diz Defining Strategic and Excellence Bases for the Development of Portuguese Higher Education MARIA JOÃO ROSA, PEDRO M. SARAIVA & HENRIQUE DIZ Introduction As from the 1980s, several voices were raised — especially at the political level — against the traditional model of governance and management of higher education institutions. It was considered to be inefficient and outdated to face the new challenges confronting these organisations. Almost everywhere, higher education has been under pressure to become ‘more accountable and responsive, efficient and effective and, at the same time, more entrepreneurial and self-managing’ (Meek, 2003, p. 179). It is in this context that one can situate the rise of managerialism (Santiago & Carvalho, 2003) in higher education, usually justified by two types of argument: on the one hand it is considered that both the higher education system and its organisations are not capable of renewing themselves at the pace of the changes that are occurring in their environment; and on the other, it is claimed that the traditional collegial decision- making bodies of these organisations tend to perpet- uate the academic’s corporative interests, ‘creating irrationalities and inefficiencies, in both the system and its institutions’ (Santiago & Carvalho, 2003, p. 1). It is important, however, to make a distinction between managerialism as an ideology for the strategic change of public services and the need to give higher education institutions a more flexible and effective administration. In the latter case, the new management processes and tools should be mere instruments at the service of institutions and their governance and management boards, without assuming determinant roles in defining the institution’s goals and strategies (Meek, 2003; Amaral, Magalhães, & Santiago, 2003). Or, as Trow (1994) claims, when he established a distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ managerialism: the ‘soft’ managerialists still see higher education as an autonomous activity, governed by its own norms and traditions, with a more effective and ratio- nalised management still serving functions defined by the academic commu- nity itself. (ibid, p. 11) To Amaral, Fulton, & Larsen (2003, p. 276), this ‘soft’ managerialism has a place in higher education, as ‘no one in his senses will raise his voice against the idea that higher education institutions should be efficiently run’. The present research work should be seen in this perspective of ‘soft’ mana- gerialism. Indeed, the self-assessment model developed and tested is no more than a quality assessment and improvement tool, to be used at the service of higher