Adapting University Structures to respond to societal needs “Quo Vadis, Universitas?”

1. Adapting University Structures to respond to societal needs“Quo Vadis, Universitas?” J.P.CONTZEN 6th EUA Conference Marseille, April 2, 2004

2. An evolving Environment for the University (1) • With globalization and the evolution of the Society, the wish expressed in the 1920’s by Albert Einstein « Science should be performed in isolated communities away from economic pressures » is no longer on the agenda for Science. The same applies to the University system that becomes more closely integrated in the socio-economic environment.

3. An evolving Environment for the University (2) • The University is subjected to strong external pressures. Their impact on the University structures is inescapable • Keywords for describing these external pressures are: • A broader demand for higher education impacting on teaching • An increased role in research and innovation

4. An evolving Environment for the University (3) • A greater involvement in building the local social tissue, in the life of the City • A stronger cooperation between Universities associated to an increased competition among them and from other institutions • An unstable financing

5. Teaching (1) • More people wishing to have access to the University (in spite of a demographic downward trend) • The pressure of the productive world for having a higher education system “attentive to its immediate needs” • A greater attention devoted to the sustainability of our Society creates new needs in education • A durable mismatch between the demand of the socio-economic stakeholders and the students’ own choices.  

6. Teaching (2) • Main results of this evolution: • More societal relevance means new curricula mostly based on interdisciplinarity • An increased demand has led to a multiplication of higher education institutions, creating institutional confusion • The nature of the demand leads to a concentration on those themes that respond to market opportunities and the setting-up of pseudo interdisciplinary schemes at undergraduate level.

7. Research and Innovation (1) • The University becomes increasingly the focal point for public R&D, replacing specific research centers. Why?: • The need for interdisciplinary knowledge expressed by industry, while at the same time, its search for highly specialized, advanced knowledge. Both factors lead economic operators to increased R&D outsourcing • A greater demand for R&D assisting the decision-makers and the civil society in managing change, in managing risk, leads to a renewed interest in social sciences and their marriage with natural sciences.

8. Research and Innovation (2) • A strong need for interdisciplinary knowledge is expressed by industry, while at the same time, it requires highly specialized, advanced knowledge. Both factors lead economic operators to increased R&D outsourcing • A greater demand for R&D assisting the decision-makers and the civil society in managing change, in managing risk, leads to a renewed interest in social sciences and their marriage with natural sciences • The shortening of the process bridging the creation of knowledge (research) to its effective application (innovation) brings the University researchers closer to the marketplace

9. Research and Innovation (3) • Innovation in the University is already a reality; one third of all the world’s biotechnology companies have been founded by faculty members of the University of California. It should not be forgotten that the implication of the University in innovation is not totally new: already in the 1890’s, the success of the German chemical industry was due to its close links with chemistry faculties of the German universities.

10. Research and Innovation (4) • Main results of this evolution: • A new impulse is given to the creation of knowledge, not solely to its transfer. Cross-fertilization between teaching and research within the University system is reinforced • New R&D areas featuring interdisciplinarity and associating natural sciences and humanities do appear

11. Research and Innovation (5) • There is a growing debate on the freedom of choices of R&D themes. Beyond the directivity that industry might impose, there is also a trend towards favoring those R&D areas where public money can be found more easily (perversity of targeted public research programs), leading to deficits in other areas (e.g. mathematics, humanities) • The proximity of the market may lead to restrictions on the free circulation of ideas within the University and may create conflicts of interest • There is a clear loss of the perception by social stakeholders of the neutrality and independence of the University when providing expert advice.

12. The University in the life of the City (1) • A growing role of the University as social stakeholder can be witnessed. The University is seen locally as: • An element of diffusion of culture • A forum for debate • A source of local expertise • An intellectual support to the elder generation.

13. The University in the life of the City (2) • The University is considered (rightly) as a tool for regional development. Its local presence is actively sought by political decision-makers and socio-economic operators. The University experiences “glocalization”.

14. The University in the life of the City (3) • Main results of this evolution: • Does that mean that there should be one University in each province, prefecture, département, county, etc? • How could the University - already burdened by its essential functions of teaching and research – assume its social role in the City?

15. Cooperation and Competition (1) • Globalization and the process of European integration have introduced a stronger competition among Universities that have now to attract and retain professors and researchers as well as students for survival • The attribution of funds for research on a competitive basis is increasingly adopted by public authorities; this factor reinforces the race between universities • There is an aggressive drive by non-University higher education institutions for competing with the University.

16. Cooperation and Competition (2) • Main results of this evolution: • The cooperation has been reinforced through educational and R&D networks, for the mutual benefit of the partners • The mobility of professors and students has increased but the « Vacuum Cleaner effect » encourages talented professors and researchers to conglomerate at the most prestigious places • The increased competition is a stimulus for improvement in quality; evaluation schemes have been introduced.

17. Cooperation and Competition (3) • How can the University be open to broad cooperation while at the same retain its identity? • Facing competition, how should the University react?: • Easy access vs. strict excellence? • Use research as the attraction pole or privilege teaching? • How should it meet the competition from non-University Higher Education institutions?

18. Financing (1) • The financing of the University has been a constant problem that has come once again at the forefront in some countries (UK, Germany) • Financing could come from 4 sources: • The Government: it constitutes the traditional source. In most European countries, public budgets are under severe pressure. Funding is often based on the number of students, with perverse effects • Students: they provide in general a (small) fraction of the corresponding cost • Individuals: they provide donations, endowments • Socio-economic actors: they allocate funds, with or without strings attached, rarely on a permanent base.

19. Financing (2) • Can the role of individuals be increased in Europe, following the US example? • Should a stronger involvement of socio-economic actors be sought, raising the issue of the autonomy of the University and of its impartiality? « In my opinion, the autonomy of a University consists of two elements: the freedom to decide on the content of education and research and the freedom to select people appropriate for this purpose. One condition to realize this kind of autonomy is sufficient financial backup » Akito Arima

20. The future evolution of the University (1) • The evolution of the socio-economic environment creates a series of challenges for the University. Strong governance is required for giving an adequate response to all of them. • Two elements of response should be considered in particular: • A new task sharing within the higher education system between University and non-University organizations, refocusing the mission of the University • A new governance scheme adapted to the realities of the 21st century introducing new managerialism in the University itself and establishing clear mechanisms for its interface with the outside world.

21. A new task sharing within the University system (1) • With the implementation of the Bologna declaration and Lifelong Learning, the length of the education period will no longer constitute a criteria for discriminating between University and non-University organizations • R&D intensity, degree of specialization (as opposed to interdisciplinarity), type of innovation (incremental vs. radical), regional impact, degree of internationalization, cultural dimension appear to constitute suitable criteria. Their application is illustrated in the following diagram comparing the two types:

22. A new task sharing within the University system (2)

23. A new task sharing within the University system (3) • The suggested task sharing is favoring the concept of the American Research University as described in 1982 by Robert M.Rosenzweig: «We choose to combine basic research, a fair mixture of applied research, training for research and undergraduate education at the same place, done by the same people, frequently at the same time »

24. A new task sharing within the University system (4) • BUT should we go further and use the model of the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology created in 1990 (the « Shinkansen University »)? It consists of « graduate schools without undergraduate programs, for the purpose of carrying out high-level researches and systematic education in the fields of advanced S&T » • Could the implementation of the Bologna declaration favor the latter concept?

25. A new Governance scheme for the University (1) • Adapting the structure of the University to the realities of the 21st Century will require strong governance.Two issues dominate the scene: • Introduce « new managerialism » in the management of the University system • Establish clear rules for the interface with the economic world.

26. New Managerialism (1) • « New managerialism » (Braun and Merrien 1999)has been presented often as « Academic Capitalism » (Slaughter and Leslie 1997). Ideological debates should be avoided over this important issue. The evolution should not be considered as the result of « a market-based ideology opposing public counter-cultures », it is part of the quest for efficient public structures.

27. New Managerialism (2) • What does « new managerialism » imply? • Decentralize, introduce flexibility in structures inherited from the 18th and 19th Centuries • Introduce and sustain modern administrative and financial procedures • Strike the right balance of power between the academic community and the administration • Reinforce the inner governance by installing such structures as Board of Trustees or Strategic Councils.

28. A new Governance scheme for the University (2) • The other important aspect of a revised governance scheme relates to a reorganized interface with the economic world obeying to clear rules. The lessons learned from the current interface problems should lead to a redeployment of the University structure • A proposal for a three-layers structure is presented here for further reflection. The three layers should exercise strong interaction between each other but maintain their functional identity.

29. A new structure for the University (1) Three layers: 1:teaching and basic research in disciplinary areas 2:teaching and research in multidisciplinary areas 3:innovation (spin-offs, incubators, joint ventures, entrepreneurship centers, etc) as well as social fora 3 2 1

30. A new structure for theUniversity (2) Composition of the three layers : • Inner Core: the heart of the University with teaching and basic research, both centered essentially on disciplines. Departments remain the basic structure. Freedom of choice should be the guiding principle. Gibbons mode 1 operation. Basic financing should be guaranteed with a fraction of competitive funding for testing excellence. Funding from Industry allowed only if no strings attached (the Berkeley/Novartis deal could be a model). Should work closely with like-minded outside academic organizations.

31. A new structure for the University (3) • Intermediate Layer: interdisciplinary teaching (no undergraduate level) and interdisciplinary theme-oriented research. Gibbons mode 2 operation. Performed in centers jointly operated by several disciplinary departments with the cooperation of outside academic organizations; clustering should be based on specialization and competitive advantage. Relies more heavily on outside financing from industry, public bodies and (hopefully) donations.

32. A new structure for the University (4) • Outer Layer: the interface with the economic world as well as the social world • In the first case, it consists of technology transfer and licensing offices, spin-offs, entrepreneurship centers, incubators, joint ventures and any other form of cooperative structure with economic operators. This layer should be at least financially self-sustaining and should aim at profit-making • In the second case, it works with local authorities and civic associations for promoting cultural events, providing fora for debates, museums, etc. It contributes to local expertise. Financing should be shared with the local stakeholders.

33. Ux1 U2 U1 U3 U5 U4 Ux2 THE UNIVERSITY GALAXY

34. In conclusion (1) The University must demonstrate its capability to manage an evolution that can’t be ignored or repelled. Past success should not be an excuse for doing nothing. What will happen should not be the product of fatality or the random combination of diverse external forces. It should rely essentially on what the University has decided itself to do. It should act with determination and vision, not just “reorganizing deckchairs on the Titanic”

35. In conclusion (2) The University should act NOW, not in splendid isolation, but with the support of all public and private socio-economic actors, for remaining what it has been through the centuries, i.e. « a place of light, of liberty and of learning » Benjamin Disraeli, House of Commons, 1873