Le secteur public subit, avec la fin de l’Etat providence, des changements ayant comme but de rendre la bureaucratie plus efficiente, par l’intermédiaire d’un ensemble d’outils et de méthodes managériaux issus du secteur privé, ainsi que par la participation d’acteurs non-étatiques à la prise des décisions. La performance de l’action publique suppose un double objectif : l’efficacité de l’utilisation des ressources, ainsi que la prise en considération des intérêts de divers participants au processus. Cette problématique s’exprime avec d’autant plus avec acuité au niveau de l’Union Européenne où s’y développe un une gouvernance « multi- niveaux » par excellence, surtout dans les domaines pour lesquels l’Union partage ses compétences avec ses Etats membres, comme c’est le cas de la recherche et l’innovation. Comment assurer donc la performance de la politique de recherche européenne par la méthode ouverte de coordination et le soft law? Est-ce que l’Union dispose des moyens juridiques pour faire de l’Espace Européen de la Recherche un espace pour la libre circulation des connaissances et des chercheurs ? L’auteur répond à ces questions par une analyse des sources juridiques de l’Union Européenne, ainsi que des initiatives managériales dans le domaine de la recherche et de l’innovation, comme, par exemlple, les partenariats public-privé et la création des agences executives de recherche. / The public sector faces many changes with the objective of making public bureaucracy more efficient by, on the one hand, using private management tools and instruments and, on the other hand, by involving stakeholders in the decision making process. The performance of the public action has a double objective: the effectiveness of using the public ressources and and taking into consideration the interests of different stakeholders. This is even more noticed at the level of the European Union which is a multilevel governance sui generis and especially in the fields where the EU has not exclusive competences, but it shares them with its Member States, as for example, in the field of research and innovation. The question is how to ensure the performance of the EU research policy by the Open Method of Coordination and soft law? Has the EU the legal instruments in order to complete the European Research Area as a space for the free circulation of knowledge and researchers? The author adresses these questions by analyzing the EU acquis in the field of research as well as the public management initiatives in the field of research, such as the public private partnerships in research and the establishment of the research executive agencies.

Globalization has motivated universities to calibrate institutional responses for strategic purposes. Yet, specific challenges remain for Ukrainian National Research Universities insofar as the interplay between global and (post-)Soviet knowledge discourses reveal a dual framework, whereby adaptive responses to globalization and entrenched state-centered logics run parallel, and often in conflict, with one another. This study took a critical approach to identify and interpret how the phenomenon of internationalization manifested in the development of strategic partnerships, was translated and re-contextualized into structural innovations, and resulted in systemic institutional change. The thesis delves into the institutional behaviour of three flagship universities in Kyiv, Ukraine and their respective doctoral schools. The selected universities – Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, Kyiv Polytechnic Institute and Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv – represent a mixture of organizational types which fall into one or more of the three education archetypes, including the Humboldtian, Soviet and Anglo-American models. These governance models allow for differentiation of institutional interpretations of internationalization and a means of capturing the various ways in which university actors negotiate their spaces of action and translate higher education discourses into practice. The analysis addresses issues of ‘hybridity’ which is not evident in this categorization. The study attempts to problematize internationalization anew by shifting focus on non-linear accounts of the phenomenon in order to comprehend the complex, multi-faceted and often contradictory ways the process plays out across different university landscapes. The inquiry employs conceptualizations combining the Delta Cycle for Internationalization (Rumbley 2010) and a new institutional approach (North 1990). The study is structured as a single-case embedded case study design as described by Yin (2015). Data were collected via 45 semi-structured interviews with university actors and higher education stakeholder agencies, including: senior administrators, mid-level leaders, faculty members and doctoral candidates. The data were supported by scholarly literature, official documents, reports, strategy papers, grey materials, policy statements, field notes. as well as university and ministerial websites. These data were analyzed for content and triangulated according to a modified content analysis approach. This study expands and contributes knowledge on the internationalization of higher education by distinguishing variations of how the phenomenon manifested within different university settings. It examines the place of the university as an organization that not only produces and disseminates knowledge, but assimilates and adapts global knowledge to national needs. Finally, the inquiry explores internationalization as an academic innovation and a process of institutional change which shapes academic identities and legitimizes the university as a global actor.