Marino Regini University of Milano

1
Marino ReginiUniversity of Milano

• Institutional Change
• in European
• Higher Education (HE)
• processes and actors
• A comparative research project
• to be presented at ISCTE, Lisbon, 29 May 2008

2
3 discourses on factors of change in European HE
(in chronological order)

• The transition to mass university from élite
  systems to demand for generalized access to HE
• The advent of a knowledge economy growing
  demand for socio-economic use of such HE
  products as high professional skills and
  research
• The unfolding of the Bologna process policies
  of harmonization of European HE systems to foster
  mobility, transparency and comparability

3
Organization of this presentation

• How do these 3 factors of change fit together?
• How do these 3 factors of change impact on
  traditional HE systems?
• How to explain institutional change in European
  HE the role of actors

4
1. How do the 3 different factors of change fit
together?

• The 3 processes outlined above can be usefully
  viewed as successive challenges, or repeated
  exogenous shocks, to the triangle of authority
  (Clark 1983), i.e. to the types of governance
  that traditionally governed HE systems.
• Reasons for adjusting Clarks traditional
  triangle to Europe state authority, academic
  oligarchy, university administrations, rather
  than market.

5
The 3 challenges to thetriangle of authority

state
academic community
university administrations
Bologna process harmonization policies
Mass university demand for access
Knowledge economy demand for use of outputs
6
Opening HE to the market and the outside
environment

• The 3 successive challenges can be seen as a
  consequence of demands by both external and
  internal actors, which forced all HE systems to
  increase openness to outside environment and the
  market, though to varying degrees and in variable
  ways.
• As a result of these challenges, all the 3 poles
  of traditional HE governance became more
  permeable to market logic.
• Greater openness to the market regards HE
  mission, priorities, activities and internal
  balance of power. The 3 factors above have
  reinforced each other in producing this outcome.

7
A. The transition to a mass university

• Over 30 years ago, Martin Trow (1974) described
  and foresaw a generalized expansion of HE
  systems. At different times, all HE systems would
  go through 3 main stages élite systems when
  University students were less than 15 of age
  cohort, mass systems when they were between 15
  and 35, and generalized access systems where
  more than 35 of a cohort attended HE
  institutions.
• Most OECD countries have currently reached this
  last stage of development. Why such 'generalized
  access' took place is a much-debated question.
  Basically, two theories try to account for this
  boom. The "skill-biased technological change"
  theory, that can be traced back to the concept of
  "human capital" (Becker 1964) sees increasing
  supply of tertiary-level students as a response
  to increasing demand for high skills by the
  economic system. On the other hand, the
  "inflation of credentials" theory (Collins 1971)
  sees generalized access to tertiary education as
  the result of a competition for social status.

8
B. The advent of a knowledge economy

• The increasingly crucial role of
  knowledge-intensive production of goods and
  services reinforced the "skill-biased
  technological change" theory, hence the widely
  positive view that economic élites and
  policy-makers held about the process of
  'generalized access' to tertiary education.
• More importantly, such élites and policy-makers
  developed a growing interest in the possibility
  to transfer the outcomes of scientific research
  into product and process innovation capable to
  increase economic competitiveness and social
  well-being. In planning HE activities, a growing
  emphasis was then put on technological transfer,
  and more generally on the economic-social
  dimension and scope of knowledge creation.

9
C. The unfolding of the Bologna process

• Growing demands for access to universities and
  for use of HE products, by potential students and
  companies respectively, spurred a search for
  greater transparency and comparability of HE
  national system, to make recognition of degrees
  and acquired competences in a wider labour market
  possible.
• The 'Bologna process' started in 1999 with
  decisions on 2-cycle structure and use of credit
  system, and progressively expanded to 46
  countries. However limited its initial aims, the
  process of harmonization gained momentum and kept
  enlarging to ever wider issues structure of
  doctoral studies, common standards of quality
  assurance, etc.
• On hindsight, the unfolding of the Bologna
  process can be seen as a series of top-down
  coordinated reforms of HE systems, by which
  European governments committed themselves to
  "open up" these systems to perceived demands from
  external environment. They did so by using
  supra-national imperatives of harmonization,
  mobility, comparability, with apparently minimal
  objectives. But the unintended effect was to
  further reinforce the first two factors, with the
  eventual consequence of leading HE institutions
  towards greater openness to the external context,
  as regards their mission, priorities, activities
  and internal balance of power.

10
2. How do the 3 factors of change impacton
traditional HE systems?

• The 3 factors of change have different but
  self-reinforcing effects on traditional HE
  systems and institutions.
• Impact of mass university
• Impact of knowledge economy
• Impact of Bologna process

11
A. Impact of transition to mass university on
traditional HE systems

• Destabilization of traditional function of
  socializing élites via cultural codes defined by
  academic oligarchy
• In some countries, initially growing dualism
  between vocational academic tracks
• Everywhere curricula more student-centred,
  concern with employability and mismatch
  demand/supply, emphasis on services like
  counselling, internships, placement, monitoring
  of transition to work and careers
• Generalized access means fiscal crisis for
  state-funded HE systems and search for external
  sources of funding
• Last two trends imply greater efficiency,
  evaluation, autonomy and decentralisation of
  power to universities
• Expansion and loss of power of academic
  community, while university administrations
  increase role and power

12
B. Impact of knowledge economy on traditional
HE systems

• External use of HE products implies trade-off
  between possibility to increase employability and
  compensate fiscal crisis, vs loss of control over
  processes of knowledge creation, use and
  transmission
• Less oligarchic and cohesive academic community
  forced to redefine its values objectives, to
  partly shift from teaching research duties to
  organizational service-provision ones
• Less sharp division or recombination of
  vocational and academic institutions as research
  extends to technology transfer, vocational
  institutions try to include it academic
  institutions increasingly adopt instruments to
  enhance employability and open to external
  stakeholders

13
B. (cont.) Impact of knowledge economy on
traditional HE systems

• Curricula are sometimes designed jointly with
  market actors, teaching roles are extended to
  non-academic professionals, research activities
  are often inspired by technology transfer offices
• Traditional values of academic communities,
  university administrations and states are often
  superseded by managerial-entrepreneurial
  considerations, that find their way into these
  actors behaviour to varying degrees
• Inconsistence between models of governance of HE
  institutions and new needs arise everywhere,
  though they receive quite different responses

14
C. Impact of the Bologna process on traditional
HE systems

• Though apparently limited to harmonize curricula
  within EU to allow for mobility and transparency,
  the reform process started in 1999 further opened
  European HE systems to external environment.
• In fact, the ideas of transparency,
  accountability and comparability, developed by
  the theories of new public management,
  strengthened a culture of competiton and
  evaluation among HE institutions.

15
3. How to explain institutional change in
European HE systems the role of actors

• The factors (or driving forces) of change in HE
  systems discussed above, as well as resistance to
  them, are interpreted and filtered by different
  actors, with distinct and changing preferences
  and power positions.
• Challenged by the 3 factors discussed above, each
  of the main actors preferences may change, and
  so do their perceived power relations, alliances,
  and eventually their behaviour.

16
3.1. General hypothesys actors changing
interests and power

• Governments from just supplying funds and rules
  to demanding socially relevant research skills
• University administrations and governing bodies
  from implementing rules and administering funds
  to autonomous potentially managerial role of
  defining standards and means for competition
• Academic community between sticking to
  traditional values and welcoming the market

17
3.2. Dependent variabledifferent degrees of
opening to the outside environment

• Extent to which different HE institutions move in
  the following directions (data from empirical
  work)
• Curricula more student-centred and oriented to
  learning outcomes
• Curricula jointly planned with employers (e.g.
  vocational tracks, LLL initiatives, short
  courses)
• Services to students and employers (counselling,
  internship, transition-to-work programs,
  monitoring of occupational careers)
• Research oriented to socio-economic impact and
  technological transfer, support of spin-offs,
  involvement in community development
• Increase in private funding of university
  activities
• From self-evaluation to peer-review to forms of
  external certification
• From collegial to managerial governance and role
  and presence of external stakeholders

18
3.3. Independent variablesfactors of the
differences among HE systems

• Hypotheses on national differences in timing and
  directions of change focus on 2 main factors
• Different timing and strength of external demands
  (students access, industry requests, etc.)
• Different degrees of power, cohesiveness, role of
  each supply-side actor

19
3.4. Research methods

• Macro-level comparative research project on 6 HE
  national systems (UK, Italy, Spain, France,
  Germany, The Netherlands)
• Micro-level case studies of HE institutions in
  these countries
• Data grey literature and interviews to informed
  participants, policy-makers, HE officers.