Governing Modern University. Between Academic Freedom and managerial constraints

1
Governing Modern University. Between Academic
Freedom and managerial constraints

• Presentation at HSE
• Moscow, 5th November, 2009
• Giliberto CAPANO
• University of Bologna at Forlì

2
The problem of Governing Higher EducationBasic
assumptions

• Institutions (universities) and Higher
  education systems are loose-coupled.
  Loose-coupled systems and organizations are
  characterised by (0rton and Weick 1990)
• Causal indeterminacy (in higher education means
  unclear means-ends connections multiplicity of
  goals, different tribes and territories)?
• Fragmented external environment
• Fragmented internal environment (few members
  constantly care about every dimension of
  institutional or systemic activity)?

3
But also by

• Internal variety that permits to register
  external inputs with accuracy
• Behavioural discretion (autonomous actions) and
  cognitive discretion
• Adaptability

4
How has been solved the coordination problem in
the last 2 centuries?

• The Continental Model (systemic coordination by
  State-centred policies no institutional
  autonomy academic guild power faculties and
  school as confederation of Professors)?
• British Model (relevant institutional autonomy
  collegial academic predominance moderate role of
  State)?
• American Model (strong institutional autonomy
  relevant role of external stakeholders weak role
  for academics shared governance)?
• (Clark 1983)?

5
Tremendous pressures for changecoming from
(knowledge) Society

• Increasing participation rates (the long way from
  elite to mans, and the universal education)?
• Increasing diversification in the educational
  demands (general education, specialized
  education, life-long-learning, distance learning
  courses, internationalisation of courses
  training to research)?
• Strong demands for knowledge generation
• Strong demands for providing training and
  technology development for community
• Strong demand for generating economic development

6
In a changing world

• Internationalisation, globalisation but, above
  all, the New technology and information system
  which means
• The speeding up of new developments in the field
  of science
• Changes in the spatial boundaries and temporal
  limitations to knowledge production
• Strong pressure for results
• Increasing costs as public funding is decreasing
• Structural pressure for competition (for
  students, clients, research funds, etc.)

7
Universities are pressed to be accountable to

• Government,
• Students
• Local Community
• Private clients
• Other stakeholders
• Society at large
• and

8
To be accountable for

• Financial and physical resources
• Quality in innovation in teaching
• Student recruitment
• Faculty appointments
• Research resources, productivity, and knowledge
  transfer
• Rigour in management and quality assurance
• Well-being of students, faculty and staff

9
New typologies of governance

• Van Vught 1989, Becher and Kogan 1982, MCDaniel
  1996, Braun and Merrien 1999. In all cases the
  pivotal dimension is represented by the role of
  STATE (what and how the State/government
  decides to do or not dot)?

10
Types of governance and modes of governancein
Higher Education

11
Structural environmental and external pressureS
to change

• The way to govern institutions
• The way to govern national higher education
  systems
• The new challenges impose to re-think the
  governance model at the institutional and
  systemic level

12
Governance shifts

• Not only institutional changes (changes in the
  distribution of powers and responsibilities)?
• But changes in governance arrangements

13
The wave of reformsthe basic levers

• institutional autonomy
• mechanisms of funding allocation
• quality assessment
• State as supervisor
• internal institutional governance
• Governments have a predominat role in the reform
  process. They have the leading role

14
The wave of reformsthe systemic level

• Re-design of national governance systems and of
  national higher education policies
• European countries Governments have abandoned
  the State-control models in favour of Steering
  universities from a distance (by giving more
  autonomy to institutions). In same cases
  governments have radically changed the
  institutional arrangements of universities
• In Anglo-saxon countries Governments have
  increased their intervention and regulation

15
The wave of reforms the systemic level

• Different national strategies based from the
  different history but with some common features
• . Institutional autonomy (of public universities)
  does not mean independence and it does not mean
  academic freedom but the capability and the
  right of an institution to determine its own
  course of action without undue interference from
  the State but inside a context strongly
  influenced by the State itself.
• public funds (for the institutional functioning)
  are allocated on a lump-sum or block grant
  basis, but public funds for research are
  increasing earmarked.
• public funds are determined by output-oriented
  criteria and performance contracting systems,
• strong pressure to increase private funds (by
  increasing tuition fees and by selling services
  and research to private actors)?

16
The wave of reforms the systemic level

• National agencies for the evaluation and
  assessment of quality and performance of teaching
  and research in higher education institutions.
• Efforts to strengthen the executive authority of
  institutional leaders (decline of shared
  governance in Anglo-saxon countries?). In some
  national cases, Governments have radically
  transformed the formal democratic governance
  structure of university. In Sweden, Denmark,
  Netherlands, Austria, and Japan the
  institutional leaders are now appointed (and no
  more elected) like in the Anglo-Saxon systems.

17
The wave of reforms effects at the institutional
level

• A common trend (even in countries where the
  pre-existent institutional government structures
  have beEn not changed) the environmental
  pressures (coming from society governments, needs
  of economic system etc.) and especially the
  changes in the systemic modes of governance are
  shifting the balance of power and authority
  within universities. There is a common trend
  towards the centralisation of authority. This
  means, for instance
• The strenghtening of the role of individual
  leaders (Presidents, Rectors, Vice-Chancellor,
  Deans)?
• The reinforcing of the role of central
  administration and management

18
The wave of reforms effects at the institutional
level

• The strenghtening of power of Governing Board (in
  the Anglo-Saxon system and in the reformed
  European systems)?
• The power of academic voice and guilds in
  institutional decision-making is declining (or is
  conflicting and resisting the centralisation
  trends). This creates a structural risk of
  stalemate in the internal decision-making.
• The introduction of new management tools as
  strategic plans, budgeting and financial
  management, internal audit and quality assessment
  system.

19
The wave of reforms effects at the institutional
level

• External stakeholders are assuming a relevant
  role in governance also in UK system and in
  Continental Europe
• In Southern European countries a stronger role
  for local authorities is emerging

20
A tentative conclusionfacts and problems

• Degree of changes varies between countries (for
  instance in France, Germany, and Italy, the
  above-sketched process is going slower by a
  strategy iper-incrementalist. New Zealand, UK,
  The Netherlands are faster and more radical).
• Academic self-governance is the main loser (even
  if it can be the case of coexistence of strong
  leadership with strong professoriate, as in the
  case of U.S. Research Universities).
• The governance shift in higher education is
  characterized by a relevant and strategic role of
  State at the systemic level and by an evident
  process of verticalization at the institutional
  level (what about governance without government
  trend?)?

21
A tentative conclusionfacts and problems

• Individual academics influence and power has
  weakened as well as the formal collective power
  of academics in internal decision-making. But if
  the evaluation and assessment of research is well
  done and well-institutionalised this could
  develop an elite of academics.(we are going to a
  strong internal stratification)?
• The attack to the democratic internal culture
  and to the principle of shared governance needs
  to be re-balanced by guaranteeing (on strategic
  decisions) an extensive and true consultation of
  all those concerned.
• Too many universities have an amateurish system
  of management. It is necessary that
• University leaders (rectors, presidents, deans,
  etc.) should have management skills in addition
  to academic ones
• External stake-holders belonging to the Boards
  should have real interest and the right skills to
  be strategic policy-makers