Governing Modern University. Between Academic Freedom and managerial constraints

1. Presentation at HSE Moscow, 5th November, 2009 Giliberto CAPANO University of Bologna at Forlì Governing Modern University. Between Academic Freedom and managerial constraints

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 Government specifies the goal to be achieved Government specifies the goal to be achieved Government specifies the mean to be used Hierarchical governance Government substantial regulation: totally earmarked financing in research or in students’ access; numerus clausus for student access Bureaucratic governance Detailed national regulation on the procedures regarding recruitment, student access; curricula etc State control governance models Government does not specifies the means universities should has to use Managerial governance Financial incentives; quality evaluation; contracts; benchmarking; legislation regarding institutional governance; mergers,departmental grading Voluntary (or market or self-) governance participation, persuasion, negotiations, partnerships, competition;sponsorships, loans, natural selection, self-accreditation, subiect numbers determined by consumer choice Steering at a distance governance models

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 reforms:the 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 reforms:the 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 conclusion:facts 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 conclusion:facts and problems Individual academic’s 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