**3. Knowledge-based economy and academic freedom**

Unlike classical economics, which rejects state intervention in individual freedom, neoliberalism actively evaluates the role of the state as far as it concerns appropriate market development, and the main feature of its ideology is that it regards knowledge as capital [34]. The higher education sector is undergoing a transformation at all levels—political, economic and philosophical—and the transformation of the organizational model towards a 'holistic model' [1] of the university must be understood in this context. It is also a transformation from a 'public good knowledge/learning regime' to an 'academic capitalist knowledge/learning regime' [35]. Marginson [36] points out that as long as NPM, the policy instrument of neoliberalism, exercises power based on 'freedom as control', the 'freedom as power' described by Amartya Sen is necessary as a corresponding force to that power. In other words, the heterogeneity of values surrounding 'freedom'—'freedom as control' on the part of administrators, who pursue organizational values and rely on legitimacy based on laws and regulations, and 'academic freedom', which is also a self-subjective right on the part of faculty—exists, while power-based enforcement against heterogeneous values is intensifying, The essential challenge of hybridisation in universities in a knowledgebased economy can be said to lie in such a situation. Currently, in university, the management of objectives, such as setting organizational goals, strategic planning and effective resource allocation, has become increasingly important [4], and a situation has arisen where the management of objectives has itself become an end in itself. Kogan [37] points to this ideology, in which ends and means are inverted, as 'managerialism' and distinguishes it from management. Birnbaum [38] also points out that 'governance' is a concept that describes organizational structures and procedures to achieve an 'effective balance' under different systems based on different validities, but a distinction between governance and managerialism should also be made.

March and Simon [15] identified three types of origins of 'intergroup conflict within organization': a difference in goals, a difference in perceptions of realty and a positive felt need for joint decision-making. Also, there are stages in the methods of

resolving these conflicts. The methods of conflict resolution at the individual level include persuasion and problem-solving, but when the conflict cannot be resolved between members, the level of the problem shifts to the organizational dimension. This solution then becomes 'bargaining' and 'politics' [12, 15], but these problemsolving methods are difficult to apply between members who have different perceptions on the value dimensions of goals and perceptions of realty. Bess and Dee [12] state that it is important that administrators and faculty members in universities do not aim to follow the same conceptual framework, but rather work together to transcend the conceptual frameworks attributed to their respective positions and to find a shared commitment. They point to the importance of *Appreciative Inquiry* as a solution method, which is a 'communication technique', allowing for conflict between groups and attempting to overcome the factors causing that conflict through dialogue. Lu [39] refers to the importance of members with different values exploring shared values through examples of practice in US universities and states that 'institutional restraint' is more important than 'institutional neutrality' in this practice.

The increasing hybridisation that value differences bring about is not only limited to within universities but also between university and business organizations. Geiger [40] states that while the knowledge-based economy is advancing, the culture between academic and industrial research is fundamentally different, with industrial research tending towards application and disclosure, whereas universities have a different interest: the advancement and diffusion of systematic knowledge. Difficulties exist in industry–academia collaboration in the form of differing values, with companies expecting university researchers to contribute to the task and universities expecting companies to contribute to research funding and student support. In overcoming inter-sectoral conflicts based on cultural differences, efforts are required to search for a compromise between the two sides through negotiations.

The shift to a 'holistic model' based on the development of a knowledge-based economy has led to hybridisation, where heterogeneous values coexist inside and outside university, resulting in inter-group conflicts within organization and interorganizational conflicts caused by value differences.
