Understanding Romanian Higher Education

1. Understanding Romanian Higher Education Adrian Miroiu MLW1, 24 September 2009 Bucharest, ROMANIA

2. Two decades of deep changes Is history relevant for understanding today’s state of the art? Routines, practices, norms and rules resisted transformation (higher education is one of the most conservative domain of human endeavour) Turning from contemplating the past to foresight Policies are not reactive, but tranforming and anticipatory Is this ideal feasible? Is it theoretically grounded? Is it ideologically appropriate? Is it politically sound?

3. Existing views Attempts to understand the state of HE White paper on Romanian Higher education (I. Mihăilescu, L. Vlăsceanu, C. Zamfir), 1994 Romanian Education Today (A. Miroiu coordinator), 1998 Review of National Policies for Education - Romania (OECD), 2003. Report of the Presidential Commission on Education (M. Miclea, coordinator), 2007 - However, short-term objectives: not prospective, - But sometimes with explicit policy focus. - Supportive for specific policy actions

4. Aims of the presentation Based on the preliminary work of Panel 6, QL project The purpose of the Panel is to elaborate a framework for understanding Romanian higher education: - To construct a framework for analyzing, explaining and predicting what happens in Romanian higher education within given or changing institutional arrangements - To provide instruments for constructing a methodology of evaluating alternative scenarios

5. institutions External drive Actors A graphic representation External drive: events, processes, institutions that affect higher education Actors: individual and institutional Institutions: sets of rules, norms and practices that constrain and motivate the individual and organizational actors

6. The external drive economic context political context values technological changes globalization European integration

7. political context The democratic turn: • University autonomy is a constitutional principle • A steady move: • - From the state control model of HE • - To the state supervising model of HE; and even • - To the market based model of HE. Privatization Competition Entrepreneurial university

8. economic context The move to a market economy 1990 – 2000: economic restructuring, and crisis 2009 – a new financial and economic crisis Severe lack of an adequate financing of RHE But: decentralization, financial autonomy and entrepreneurial spirit

9. values University values and political values Freedom: academic Equal opportunities, and the issue of social, gender, racial, etc. inequalities Equity More communal values (preserving cultural identities, multilingualism, multiculturalism etc.)

10. European integration Streams: Academic integration Competition and cooperation Student flows Political processes – the Bologna process

11. institutions External drive Actors Actors individual actors: students, faculty, administrative staff, university officials, public officials, other stakeholders organizational actors: universities, ministries (Education, Finance,Labor, etc.) parliament, buffer organizations, other providers of higher education

12. Individual actors: students. I A much larger number of students: (thousands) The demographic issue (thousands, new-born)

13. Individual actors: students. II • Diversification of the status of students: • - Supported by the state/ not supported by the state • - In private / public universities • - Full time / part time Fierce competition for attracting students The immigration issue Studying abroad Is there a much more student-oriented education?

14. Individual actors: faculty • Higher demand for teaching positions. • Poor incentives for the teacher career, • especially for young people • Academic freedom; • study opportunities • A non-competitive structure of the incentives for • academic performance • Focus on teaching, less on research • Parochial settings: weak cooperation with other universities

15. Organizational actors. I universities Public universities: 56 Private universities: 28 Other providers of HE: Not yet accredited institutions: 26 Branches of foreign providers • More structured organizations: • integrated management, strategic planning • Internal quality assurance procedures • Higher probability to experience external influences • Differentiated by the fields in which they offer programmes • Not differentiated in terms of mission, objectives assumed • Aiming to providing teaching and research, • bachelor as well as doctoral programmes

16. Organizational actors. II Ministries • Ministry of Education: • From administration of RHE to regulating • Procedures to replace arbitrariness • Involvement of the academic community • (for specific purposes) Ministry of Labor: The qualification issue Feedback from the labor market Ministry of Finance The Eternal Mistrust

17. Organizational actors. III Buffer organizations The National University Research Council: the main Romanian funding organization for university and postgraduate research programmes The National Council for Financing Higher Education: Develops procedures and instruments for distributing public funds to universities The Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ARACIS) Provides accreditation of study programmes and institutional evaluations of universties

18. universities Ministries and other public authorities Other providers of higher education Buffer organizations Other organizations Parliament

19. institutions External drive Actors Institutions Institutions: sets of rules, norms and practices that constrain and motivate the individual and organizational actors Institutions generate a set of incentives, behavioural patterns and specific institutional processes that are pivotal both for the understanding and the management of higher education

20. Types of rules Boundary rules – who are the actors with whom one interacts, how are these actors allowed or certified Positions rules – which are the capabilities and responsibilities of those in position Authority rules – how the actions of the actors are affected, what the actors can do, are obliged or forbidden to do Scope rules – what outcomes are permitted, mandated or forbidden Aggregation rules – how the individual actions and decisions are transformed into collective outcomes Information rules – how is information accessible, distributed or permitted Payoff rules – how are costs and benefits assigned to actions and outcomes

21. Boundary rules Students: rules for enrolling students in university programes Main process: deregulation But the need for monitoring who are the actors with whom one interacts, how are these actors allowed or certified Faculty: rules for occupying a position Weak deregulation But a pressure for more deregulation Quality research indicators Programmes: external evaluation by ARACIS based on a national methodology (including input, process, outcome and output indicatiors) Institutions: external evaluations in line with European lines

22. Position rules Students: a client oriented university? Access to higher education which are the capabilities and responsibilities of those in position The increasing role of university officials Strategic management, financial management, relations with the business sector Teaching staff: new role in research, new relations with the students, use of new educational technology Employers: new requirements for universities

23. Aggregation rules Universities: Traditionally, a collegial decision –making structure Persons in university positions are elected Attempts to remain in office beyond the legal terms Interest groups, nepotism, patronage how the individual actions and decisions are transformed into collective outcomes Interests aggregation: Low aggregation of student and staff interest: Diminished role of student organizations Reduced role, if any ,of unions Attempts to move to a more professionalized university management

24. Payoff rules Example: how are costs and benefits assigned to actions and outcomes • Funding mechanism: a key component of the • institutional arrangements that define • higher education in a country. • Initially, based on historical principles • Presently, formula-based • Role of quality indicators

25. Putting all together Economic and technologic conditions Patterns of interaction (institutions) Action arena Attributes of the academic community (historically established) Action situation Evaluative criteria Actors Rules in use: political, social values, aquiscommunautaire outcomes

26. Conclusion • Romanian Higher Education is a complex collection of • interrelated components: • 1. External factors • 2. Individual and collective or organizational actors • 3. Rules which help define seven types of variables: • Participants; positions; outcomes; action-outcome linkages; • the control that participants exercise; information; costs and • benefits assigned to outcomes Focus on these characteristics is aimed at analyzing, explaining and predicting what happens in Romanian higher education within given or changing institutional arrangements

27. Thank you!