Higher education governance between democraticculture, academicaspirations and market forces

Jürgen Kohler and Josef Huber (eds.) Sjur Bergan,Series editor

Council of Europe Publishing All rights reserved. Nopart of this publication may be translated, reproduced or transmitted,in any formor by any means,electronic(CD-Rom,Internet,etc.) or mechanical,including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the Publishing Division, DirectorateofCommunication (F-67075Strasbourgor [email protected]).

Cover design:Council of Europe GraphicDesign Workshop Layout:H.Mourreau/Heiligenberg

Council of Europe Publishing F-67075StrasbourgCedex http://book.coe.int

ISBN-10:92-871-5957-2 ISBN-13:978-92-871-5957-1 ©Council of Europe,April 2006 Printed at the Council of Europe

2 Table of contents

Preface

A wordfrom the series editor Sjur Bergan ...... 5

A wordfrom the editors JürgenKohler,Josef Huber ...... 11

Setting the scene ...... 15

Higher education governance–Background, significanceand purpose JürgenKohler ...... 17

(In the) Context of change ...... 33 Reconsideringhigher education governance Pavel Zgaga ...... 35

The objectives of and expectations towards higher education in the changed societalcontext –Anoverview Virgílio MeiraSoares ...... 51

European university governancein urgent need of change LucWeber ...... 63

Concepts ...... 77

Higher education governanceinEurope; autonomy,ownership and accountability –A review of the litterature Jochen Fried ...... 79

The governanceofhigher education institutions DijanaTipliˇc ...... 135

The actors in higher education governance Robin Farquhar ...... 145

What does it really mean? –The language of governance Josef Huber ...... 153

3 Higher education governance

Case studies ...... 161

Educational reforms in Georgia–Acase study Aleksander Lomaia ...... 163

The governanceofhigher education systems –Lessons from Estonia JaakAaviksoo ...... 175

Universities in Serbia RadmilaMarinkovic-` Neduˇc in ...... 183

The actors in higher education governance–The caseofUludag˘University ErdalEmel ...... 191

Conclusions and outlook ...... 201

General report MartinaVukasovic ` ...... 203

Considerations and recommendations ...... 213

List of contributors ...... 217

4 Preface

Governanceas a sine quanon of higher education policies A wordfrom the series editor Sjur Bergan

Welcome to the fifth volume of the Council of Europe higher education series. Weareproud that only a year and ahalf after launching the series in December 2004, the Council of Europe canalready present its fifth substantialcontribution on higher education policies and practiceinEurope. The Council of Europe higher education series aims topresent issues of concern tohigher education policy makers in ministries,higher education institutions and governmentaland non-governmentalorganisations as well as toall thoseinter- ested in and concerned with the further development of higher education in Europe. Wehope that the higher education series will continue tobeofinterest to higher education policy makers and practitioners all over Europe –and beyond. Wheredoes a volume of higher education governancefit in this picture? Firstly, the higher education series reflects the commitment of the Council of Europe – and alsoof the Europeanhigher education community – to the basic values of democracy,human rights and the rule of law.The Council of Europe is dedicated togood governance,based on democracy,human rights and the rule of law.It is one of the very positivedevelopments of Europe that this mission now unites 46 countries as members of the Council and 48 as party to the EuropeanCultural Convention. In 2005, wecompleted the celebration of the 50thanniversary of the European CulturalConvention. The year 2005alsomarked the 50thanniversary of the Higher Education and ResearchCommittee, whichhas been through anumber of organisationalincarnations but whichhas always remained focused on develop- ing higher education policies for Europe. Furthermore, 2005 was the European Year of Citizenship through Education (EYCE). No short formulacanbetter describe this key aspect of education,and the present publications,as well as the higher education forumon whichit is based,areimportant contributions to the year and tomaking sure that its coreconcerns will beon the agenda well after the year itself is over. Beyond this,governanceis what in current language is often referred toas a “transversalissue” in higher education policies,anissue that cuts across political

5 Higher education governance and administrativedevices likeaction lines, specificobjectives,logframes and immediately quantifiable “deliverables”. Higher education governanceis akey aspect of maintaining and developing the democraticculture without whichdemocraticinstitutions and democraticlegisla- tion cannot function. The importanceofdemocraticculture was recognised by the heads of stateand government in the action plan they adopted at the 3rdCouncil of Europe Summit held in Warsaw in May 2005. At the same time,higher education is crucial todeveloping the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that modern societies need. It is crucial toenabling higher education institutions and systems toaddress the coreissues of higher education. The Council of Europe higher education series aims toexplorehigher education policies with regard to the full range of purposes of higher education, which we, in the second volume of the series, 1 described as: •preparation for the labour market; •preparation for life as activecitizens in democratic societies; •personaldevelopment; •development and maintenanceofabroad,advanced knowledge base; and toput them in their proper context. Higher education governanceis alsoat the heart of the BolognaProcess,in which governments,higher education institutions, students and other partners aim to establishaEuropeanHigher Education Area(EHEA)by 2010.Put simply: this endeavour is unthinkable without good higher education governance. As withmost complex topics, thereareafew pitfalls along the road,and I would like tomention six. Firstly, wearedealing withhigher education governanceas a whole. Student and staff participation in governanceis of supreme importance–and it was already addressed in the first volume of this series 2 –but thereis more to the topic. Institutionalgovernanceis also vital,but thereis more to the topic– system gover- nance,for example. Democraticparticipation is essential,but again thereis more to the topic– suchas the ability tomake decisions, the ability toimplement them and the time and effort weinvest in doing so. Participation by actors within the higher education community is important,but thereareother considerations such as the role of the wider society. Secondly,as members of the academiccommunity or as policy makers witha closeaffinity toit, we understand the need for basing systems and actions on sound theory.What is perhaps less evident is the need for theoretical under- pinnings when taking action. Our deliberations must be theoretically sound –and ______1. Weber,L.&Bergan,S.(eds.), The public responsibility for higher education and research ,Council of Europe higher education series,No. 2,Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2005. 2.Bergan,S.(ed.), The university as res publica, Council of Europe higher education series,No. 1, Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2004.

6 Preface they must lead topracticalpolicy recommendations.Ultimately,higher education policies and the governancearrangements and procedures that define and adopt them will bejudged on their practicaland political value. Thirdly,and closely linked to the first two topics, the term“higher education gov- ernance” is bothcomplex and somewhat fuzzy.It is perhaps more widely used than understood. The issueis real: this is not aneasy topic.Ihope that one of the virtues of this book will beaclearer pictureof what higher education governance entails.Wedonot aim for acommon model for governancebut we should try to move towardacommon language. Fourthly,decisions oncemade and strategies oncedefined must beimplemented. Today,many academics complain about the time they spend on governancebod- ies and committees,and probably rightly so. Yet, they areoften unwilling todel- egate the implementation of their strategies toprofessionaladministrators,and in some systems theremay even bealackofadequately qualified administrators. For our purposes,it seems important toconsider the line tobedrawnbetween governanceand management.Perhaps it is not always easy todraw aneat line,but if wedonot attempt todraw one at all, wemay easily beconfused. Fifthly, the 3rdSummit refers to the importanceofdemocraticculture,and we are,as already mentioned,contributing to the EYCE.Governanceis important in this respect,and not only becauseof the composition of the governancebodies. Rather,governance should alsobe thought of as a set of practices and attitudes that encourage transparency,participation,interest and commitment on the part of all members of the academiccommunity.As such,good governance will help develop not only skilled representatives but amuch wider groupofcommitted, interested citizens who will feel that their contribution to society matters. Sixthly,higher education governancehas apurpose. It is aninstrument tohelp us, as academics and policy makers,fulfil the goals of higher education. While the temptations of single issuepolitics and policies arenumerous, wemust think of governancein terms of the full range of purposes of higher education as well as the context of society as a whole. Modern society is characterised not only by ahigh degree of complexity,but also by anextent of bewilderment and lackofoverview.In societies likeours,charac- terised by technologicalcomplexity as well as wide participation, the ability of politicaldecision makers toguide and steer the overall development of society is far less obvious thanit was ageneration or twoago. If thereis competition or ten- sion between centripetaland centrifugalforces, the latter often seem togain the upper hand. This has bothpositiveand negativeconsequences,but one of the neg- ativeconsequences is ageneraldisrespect –not to say disdain –for those who embarkonapoliticalcareer. The issueis,of course,morecomplex thancanbeexpressed in aparagraph or two, and most readers will haveno shortage of examples of politicians who havefully earned the disrespect with which they are treated. When disrespect is turned from individuals who deserveour scorn rather thanour admiration toour political

7 Higher education governance processes and systems as a whole, thereis,however,every reason to stop and think,because this touches at the coreofdemocratic society.“Politics”is hardly a termofendearment in modernparlance,afateit shares with the term“bureau- cracy”. Likebureaucracy,however,politics is essential todemocratic society. Max Weber,one of the foremost theorists of bureaucracy, underlined3 that a true bureaucracy makes impartialdecisions according to transparent procedures, based on facts,and withpredictable outcomes once the facts and procedures are known. Politics is about how societies aregoverned and –inits democratic variety – about how decisions aremade,legitimised and accepted. No society canfunction without politics,and the ones that have tried tobe“apolitical” arenot ones we would wish toemulate. Scornofpolitics and politicians, therefore, ultimately challenges democracy itself.4 Politicians should of coursebehavein sucha way that they earn the respect of their fellow citizens,but higher education institutions canalsodomuch todevelop democraticculture. Higher education governanceis animportant part of what institutions cando,for teaching the values of democ- racy does not lend credibility unless they arealso reflected in the practiceofgov- ernance. When people askme whether higher education is politically important,I some- times answer by asking how many governments havehad to resign in the faceof student protests.Luckily, the question is normally treated as a rhetoricalone, which saves me from actually trying tofind the answer. Thereare,however,muchdeeper reasons why higher education is politically sig- nificant.Perhaps the most important is that higher education plays a vitalpart in developing the kind of society in which we would likefuturegenerations tolive. Can we really imagine that society as: •one not built on high quality education and the advancement of knowledge? •one that does not seek tocombine economicdevelopment withdemocratic achievement? •one not built on the premise that intellectualdiscovery is of intrinsic value and that learning is one of our greatest pleasures? •one that does not value the individualas well as the community? •one that does not take education tobealifelong endeavour about which nobody can speakfrom the perspectiveofafully accomplished learner? •one that does not valuecoherent proseand institutions that by their very nature take the longer view,but that lives by sound bites alone? •one that does not combine the need for speedy reactions and rapid results withlonger term reflections on who weareand aprincipled view of the pur- ______3.In Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft ,originally published in 1922. 4. As one example among several, see AugustoPinochet Ugarte, Política –politiquería–demogagía , EditorialRenacimiento,Santiago de Chile,1983, written while the author held politicalofficeas President of Chile.

8 Preface

poseof what the Swedishauthor Wilhelm Mobergcalled “your time on earth”5 ? If wecannot imagine this kind of society, we urgently need good higher educa- tion governance. Ihope you will enjoy this fifth volume of the Council of Europe higher education series. Sjur BERGAN Strasbourg, 20 March 2006

______5. Din stund påjorden (Stockholm,1963:Bonniers).

9

A wordfrom the edi` tors JürgenKohler,Josef Huber This book on higher education governance, the fifth volume of the higher educa- tion series published by the Council of Europe,is not only the direct result of a conferenceonhigher educa` tion governanceheld in StrasbourginSeptember 2005,but also the outcome of aproject launched in 2003 by the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Higher Education and Research,in response to the strongly felt need toaddress and publicly discuss anissue whichalthough underlying muchof the current debateonhigher education reformhas not been fully discussed at aninternationallevel. The publication attempts todepict features and tohighlight current challenges of gov- ernancematters in higher education and tolink them tobasicissues debated in soci- ety at large and to the BolognaProcess in particular.Indoing so, the publication intends tocontribute well-founded arguments toanecessary ongoing discussion rather than topresent finiteconclusions.Furthermore, this discussion is bound togain in importanceand relevanceas the transformation process of the EHEA is intensify- ing and issues of sustainable governanceofchange will move up the agenda. It is tobe seen as part of acontinuumofissues currently debated in the same con- text, thus following the recent publication The public responsibility for higher education and research (Council of Europe higher education series No. 2, 2005), the previous investigation in Concepts of democraticcitizenship (Council of Europe Publishing, 2000),and the EYCE, but ultimately it is intent on providing a solid basefor further investigation,namely with regard toquestions concerning interdependencies between public responsibility,governance,management,qual- ity and quality assurance,and recognition. Higher education governanceas a topic requires definition of scope,identifica- tion of issues and among theseparticularly of values and necessities,and assess- ment of opportunities and risks.Last but not least, the topicdemands limitation of ambition as far as tackling the vast array of its features,connotations,practices, choices, valuejudgments,economicand politicalenvironments and demands, challenges of fact finding and of methodologicalapproaches is concerned. That is why this book cannot beexpected tobeacomprehensiveand exhaustiveman- ualofgood practice whichcould be seen as providing ablueprint ready for copy in order to‘manage’ –good –governanceofhigher education. Instead, this publication offers a survey of topicalapproaches togovernance issues related tohigher education on the backdrop of ablend of concretepracti- calexperienceand of more systematicand theoreticalanalysis.Bearing the com- plexity of the issueand the diversity of backgrounds of contributors to the debate in mind, this publication tries tofind anoptimalbalancebetween integration of

11 Higher education governance different approaches,completeness of survey,concreteness of dealing with issues,in-depth scrutiny,and clarity of message,in order tofacilitatefurther exploration. Finding acommon language for futuredebateand exploration is an essential step forward,and wehope that this publication contributes toit. Dealing withhigher education governancein the frameworkof the Council of Europe promises tobeparticularly rewarding due to the fact that its committee on higher education and research, under whoseauspices the project leading to this publication was launched,is composed bothof representatives of governments and of members of the academiccommunity,and that thereis stakeholder repre- sentation on the committee. This made the debatemorecomprehensivein that various perspectives could beincluded. Inaddition,it was obvious that matters of governanceinhigher education had tobe,and wereinfact,considered as issues of steering at institutional,at systems –nationalor regional–,and at interna- tional,particularly European,levels,including multi-faceted approaches and interests that reflect the multitude of roles of thoseinvolved. The inclusion of politicalinterests alsomeant that the proceedings werenot only concerned withamereanalysis of higher education governanceper sebut also tried toput emphasis on identifying elements,coreprinciples of what might con- stitute‘good’ governance, without attempting tocome up with“one-size-fits-all” notions of best practice tobecopied all over Europe. Finally,anassembly representing the full array of thoseinvolved in higher edu- cation policy making in Europe,and indeed in some cases beyond Europe,makes sure that the full spanof the topicis covered,both without neglecting issues and without focusing on just afew issues, thus trying to sketch– rather thanfully elaborate–anall-embracing pictureof the matter at stake. This overall approachhas transformed intoa subdivision and aggregation of con- tributions leading from aninitialoutline of the issues in anintroductory chapter by JürgenKohler (co-editor) to setting the scene by placing the issueofhigher education governanceintoa wider societalcontext of change withcontributions by Pavel Zgaga , LucWeber and Virgílio MeiraSoares . The second chapter sets out toillustrateand clarify concepts of higher education governance thanks to the review and discussion of the relevant literatureby Jochen Fried,and contributions by DijanaTipliˇc , Robin Farquhar and Josef Huber (co-editor). This is followed by achapter on studies of concretecases gathered from Georgiaby Aleksander Lomaia ,Estoniaby JaakAaviksoo,Serbiaand Montenegroby Radmila Marinkovic-` Neduˇc in,and the University of Uludag˘, Turkey,by ErdalEmel. The finalpart is devoted to the conclusions and suggestions for further development containing the general synthesis and report of the September 2005conferenceby

12 Preface

MartinaVukasovic and the concreteconsiderations and recommendations adopted by the participants at the conference. Put in anutshell, the view of good governanceofhigher education, which under- lies muchof the contributions and discussions,could bedescribed as follows: Good governanceinhigher education could be seen as amethod of reaching agreement on valid objectives and orientations of higher education (fitness of purpose) and of developing strategies and instruments toimplement them in practice(fitness for purpose). Inorder toaccomplish this aim,it should offer a spacefor the negotiation of interests of the diversity of stakeholders respect- ing the multiple mission of higher education tobest serve the interests of the whole of society and should beaparticipativeprocess as well as amodel of and preparation for lifeas anactivecitizen in ademocratic society.Sucha process should bebased on transparent procedures and tasks and contain the capacity to reach, win acceptancefor and implement decisions (legitimacy and efficiency)and be sufficiently flexible toadapt todiversecontexts on the basis of common principles. The articles in this publication speakfor themselves.At this stage theremay be just one observation concerning the article “What does it really mean? –The lan- guage of governance”. Unlike the other contributions, this article has emerged as adirect spin-offfrom the conference, reacting to the observation that the mean- ing and accompanying notion of the English term‘governance’ is not necessarily easily understood in,or transferable into,other Europeanlanguages.Fortunately, the presenceofpeople withagreat variety of languages not only highlighted this difficulty but alsomade it possible togather possible modes of translation, which indeed aremodes of understanding,on the spot,even though the findings do not pretend tobeall-embracing or valid researchinto the language complications involved. This publication,or indeed the conference,on higher education would not have been possible without the valuable support of anumber of people. Aboveall, sin- cere thanks areextended toall those who contributed by providing presentations for the conferenceand ultimately articles for this book. Inaddition, throughout the project’s duration and during the preparation of the conference, the working party underwent aperiod of intense reflection on the content of the issueand the format that seemed feasible for dealing withit within the limited scope and time- frame provided by the conference. This alsoapplies to the staff of the Higher Education and ResearchDivision of the Council of Europe,namely Sjur Bergan, CanKaftancı,Sophie Ashmoreand Mireille Wendling, who havefacilitated the preparatory workand support for the conferenceand for this publication. Particular thanks go toSjur Bergan,HeadofDivision, who has made invaluable contributions to the content of this project.Last but not least, special thanks are owed toMartinaVukasovic,` who has been a tremendous help both withpreparing the conference, while working within the Council of Europe,and later for accept-

13 Higher education governance ing and brilliantly mastering the challenging role of general rapporteur of the con- ference. The editors hope that this publication will serveas a useful thought-provoking and stimulating sourceof referencein the context of the continued debateon higher education governanceinEurope. If this has been achieved, this publication has met its purpose. Jürgen KOHLER and Josef HUBER Greifswald/Germany,and Strasbourg, 30 January 2006

14 Setting the scene

Higher education governance– Background,significanceand purpose JürgenKohler

I.Higher education governance: significanceof the issueand confusion of words and emotions Higher education governanceis anissuepermeating almost all matters of higher education dealt withbothby higher education and researchinstitutions,but no less by stateauthorities involved in higher education and research. Catchwords suchas optimising institutional structures,internaland externalparticipation and communication,democratic, legaland monetary steering mechanisms,public responsibility and autonomy,ensuring quality while minimising cost, toname just afew of the hotly-discussed topics concerning higher education governance, determine muchof the current debateinhigher education and research. This indi- cates that higher education governanceis indeed seen as being crucially impor- tant bothat institutionaland systems level. However,issues of higher education governancearenot necessarily explicitly and coherently debated under this very headline and name. Instead,in many acase thereis apiecemealapproach toaddressing issues of higher education gover- nance which,in order toenhancefull comprehension of the structuraland proce- duraloverlaps, should rather be viewed under acommon headline whichdenotes the interdependenceofall the issues mentioned. Thereare several reasons for this observation of a significant shortcoming: the termitself,or anequivalent,may not even exist in anumber of languages,and so the entireconcept seems strangely outlandish. The notion of higher education governanceappears tobehard to understand. It is seen as being complex and abstract.Rightly so; and yet,as men- tioned,it shows itself in very concreteforms and modes of cultures and tech- niques tobefound with regard toautonomy and external stewardship, tointernal leadership and steering, tocommunication and inclusion, tocollectivism, stratifi- cation and individualism,beit in relation topolitical setup,administration,deci- sion making,implementation,or monitoring of higher education institutions and their activities. Theremay beadeeper reason for not fully addressing the issueofhigher educa- tion governanceas such which reaches beyond sheer linguisticnon-existenceof the concept and intellectualcapitulation in view of complexity.Arguably thereis alsoanemotionalbarrier to taking up the term unequivocally in the context of higher education sinceit smacks of belonging to the realm of politics and busi- ness management.For many anacademic, governanceinhigher education may be seen as anintrusion of adifferent world into the sanctity of academia.The term seems tohail the arrivalofentrepreneurialoutlook on universities,and of the

17 Higher education governance intervention of non-initiated stakeholders in matters of academicexpertise. So, possibly,approaches tohigher education governance under this very name,par- ticularly when identified or confused with“higher education management”only, could be seen as a threat to traditional values and cherished styles of collegialism or individualism rather thanapositivechallenge. Bearing in mind the significanceof the higher education governanceissueon the one hand,but alsoon the other hand both the vagueness and the implicit cultural challenges of notions whichgoalong with the termand subject matter, this pub- lication is intended to shed light on the ever-present yet not necessarily fully understood or even fully appreciated notion of higher education governance.

1. Multiple purposes:a survey What does this rather general statement encompass in moreconcrete terms?In short, the answer is: this publication is meant toaddress anumber of purposes behind,and related to, the notion and the valueofhigher education governance, and it is about clarifying the concept of higher education governance witha view topromoting what could beconsidered tobe“good” governance. Subsequently,and this may becalled the overriding purpose, the publication is about formulating visions of good governancein view of our understanding of the mission,cultures and even,if one may say so,of the “mechanics”of three aspects: higher education and researchper se,higher education and researchfrom the viewpoint of the institutions dedicated to them,and the –local, regional,national, and international–political systems within which they operateand whichexpect them to serve,i.e. tobe“useful” in as many ways as possible. Obviously this endeavour encompasses the need tofirst of all lay open our preconceived notions of the concept,of which there will beanumber of different kinds due todiffer- ences of national traditions and politicalcreeds. Thesepurposes,and their expected outcomes,can roughly be summarised and specified under the following three main categories: •One set of purposes behind scrutinising the issueofhigher education gover- nance relates to the need toidentify the link between this issueand bothcur- rent and permanent politicalcontexts,agendas,cultures, traditions,or perhaps mere trends or even fashions.A suitable headline to summarise this aspect could be‘contextuality’. •Furthermore,amajor driving forceand purposebehind investigating the notion of higher education governanceis the need toexplore the practical “hands-on” elements of the issueand its long-termeffect, suchas under- standing the characteristic substanceof“good” higher education governance as well as the qualitativeand proceduralchallenges of implementing ade- quatehigher education governanceinagiven environment.If there was tobe a summativeline for this facet,it might be:“understanding and implement- ing ‘good’ governance”. •Last but not least,dealing withhigher education governanceis intended to answer pressing practicalissues of policy design with regard to sharing roles

18 Setting the scene

and responsibilities between higher education institutions and nationalgov- ernments,between centralinstitutional steering and decentralisation,and between higher education institutions and their members and stakeholders; in the end, the basic understanding of the role of higher education and the prin- ciples steering higher education institutions is essentially at stake here. This aspect,finally,might succinctly beput under the caption “job sharing between state,institution, sub-institutional structures,and the individual”. All theseaspects,if not more,appear tobeessential when dealing withhigher education governance. They should, therefore,be scrutinised moreclosely, while the sequencein which they aredealt withhereafter does not indicateany kind of priority in importance. 2.PurposeI–Proper sharing of roles and responsibilities: identification of demands,choices and their challenges a.Understanding the coreof the issue To start with the latter aspect: the question of proper job sharing is about investi- gating the buzzwords of legal,politicalor economicgravity fields shaping higher education policy debates.In that respect thereareanumber of archetypalques- tions and choices on the table whichmake dealing withhigher education gover- nanceaburning issue. Inessence, they revolvearound models of institutional steering,and thesearelargely concerned withdifferent ways of attributing responsibilities inside acomplex system of tasks.Discussions on “autonomy”and “public responsibility”,“overall institutionalorientation” and the “principle of subsidiarity”, the role of “centralplanning” and of “individualfreedom of research, teaching,and learning”,fuel the debatehereat the level of traditional terminology. The overarching issues behind all theseitems of formal structuring of responsi- bilities and rights are,in terms of substance, the perennialquestions of “regula- tion” versus “independent choice”,of “competence” versus “representativity”, and of “efficiency” versus “legitimacy and consensus”. This may be said at this stage irrespectiveof whatever thesenotions may really mean. However,it may even at this stage befair toassume that the term“versus”between thesebuzz- words should rather be replaced by the word“and” in the courseofany substan- tialdebateon the governanceissue,and that the quest for afitness-for-purpose approach towards aproperly blended balanceof theseconcepts of would-be extremes should appear tobe the actualjob tobedone. b.Multitier differentiation of roles and their (traditionaland new) institutionalisation When considering thesebuzzwords,at least at this stage,it becomes obvious that the entiregovernancedebateneeds toaddress the issuefrom amultitier approach laid out along the lines of types and purposes of the major actors in the field. Thereareat least two traditionaland perhaps twomore recent tiers whichmust beidentified as suchfor the purposeof understanding the issue,although the realchallenge lies in bringing them together by moving from afragmented

19 Higher education governance understanding of duties and rights toanintegrativeconcept of facing ajoint responsibility and effort. Traditionally,and hencefirst of all, the debateneeds todifferentiatebetween higher education governanceissues and viewpoints related to steering higher edu- cation and researchinstitutions at their individuallevel,and to those related to steering entirehigher education and research systems.Both worlds may consider the challenges moreor less differently,and findings of relevance toone level may not necessarily translateinto relevance to the other.That is why this differentia- tion of institutionaland system levels will have tobeborne in mind throughout the governancedebate,as well as the need todefine the interfaces in order to avoid confrontationalattitudes and toproceed tofruitfulco-operation. Moreover, therecertainly is another tier structure underlying this traditional set- up,and it applies toboth system and institutionallevels.The emergenceof the so- called civil society – stakeholders of various kinds –must beconsidered here,not just as amenacing challenge but alsofrom the angle of the potentialgained from integrating the civil society and its representatives intohigher education gover- nance; the issueofaddressing the role of boards and privatefunding of activities fits into this category.Last but not least,inclusion of internalpartners is at stake and still achallenge in various ways across Europe; the issueof student partici- pation is the major,but not necessarily the only item toconsider here. Bearing this stratification of roles and viewpoints in mind, the following outline of choices toconsider may be useful tooperationalise the proceedings of the debatealong concretemodels and challenges. c.Typology: traditionalarchetypology –and morechoices? From amoreorganisational viewpoint,but essentially reflecting the issues behind this terminology,Burton Clark’s taxonomy comes tomind first when labelling types of governancealong the line of basicchoices,and the balanceofchoices within his well-known triangle may well become afocalpoint of the ensuing debate. Inessence, the questions thus raised are:is thereapreferencefor the “entrepreneurial university” versus the “collegial” type versus the “externally, state-runbureaucratic”higher education institution? Infact, what do these terms as such,as opposites or in a reality of various crossovers, really mean, what are the pros and cons, what could bea wiseand workable amalgamof thesedifferent types –if thereis any choiceleft?Why,in fact,do thesequestions of choicearise? More radically,and witha view tohaving morechoices,or at least tofinding moremodels in reality:are thesequestions really a truepictureoffact,or should therebeacloser look at the role of the individual vis-à-vis the institution,in as muchas to say that thereis afourth type of higher education institution hiding behind the so-called collegial type? Suchapossible fourth type might be the anar- chicagglomeration of individuals gathered in “freedom and solitude”,as Wilhelm von Humboldt used toput it,and bound together not by a senseofinstitutional ownership and institutional responsibility of “true republicanism” but merely,as has been said jokingly,by acommon heating system. And will this type of higher

20 Setting the scene education institution survive,despiteofor becauseof the prevalenceofindivid- ualfreedom and the absenceofjoint policies and institutionalgovernance? Finally, what about afifth type of higher education institution, whichmight be called a university of stakeholders or acivil society university, superseding the traditional role-sharing between institutions and governments?The speedy arrival in very recent times of boards in universities outside the Anglo-American univer- sities heralds a type of higher education institution whichmight either be wel- comed as a sign of new openness to society or condemned as falling prey to partisaninterest groups ready tomake useofhigher education institutions for their individualbenefits only.

3.PurposeII –Correlating the governanceissue withits politicalcontext Challenging traditional role models of higher education institutions as suchand of the actors therein takes the debateback toidentifying the first purposemen- tioned above, whichis: toconnect the debateonhigher education governance with the current politicalcontext.Thereare substantiveand perhaps moreproce- duralanswers to that aspect of the governance topic. a.Elements of the Council of Europe agenda The proceduralaspect of this debateonhigher education governance,i.e. its link- age tooverriding general themes of policy,is the easier one. The issueofhigher education governanceblends intoCouncil of Europe policy fields and action lines.This is obviously truefor the present Council of Europe project “European Year of Citizenship through Education”(EYCE), resuming the previous Council of Europe analysis of universities as sites of democraticcitizenship.6 Morebasi- cally,matters of higher education governanceare strongly connected to the Council of Europe’s key missions,i.e. toprotect and enhancehuman rights, democracy and the rule of law,it can relate to the Council of Europe’s activities in the LegislativeReformProgramme, 7 and it links on to the previous Council of Europe exploration of the issueofhigher education being apublicgood and a public responsibility. 8 Last but not least,and probably most importantly so,it may befair to say that in effect higher education governance should contribute to meeting the objectives of higher education in general, which the Council of Europe has formulated sopoignantly intofour items:maintaining and advancing a solid knowledge base,being relevant to society at large,including making pro- vision for employability,contributing topersonaldevelopment and toactive ______6.Referenceis made in particular toarticles in: The university as res publica, Higher education gov- ernance, student participation and the university as a sitefor citizenship,Bergan,S.(ed.),Council of Europe higher education series,No. 1,Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2004. 7.The LegislativeReformProgramme was aproject conducted by the Council of Europe from 1991 to 2000.It provided support for reformofhigher education legislation in countries of centraland east- ernEurope. 8. Referenceis made in particular toarticles in: The public responsibility for higher education and research ,Weber,L.&Bergan,S.(eds.),Council of Europe higher education series,No. 2,Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2005.

21 Higher education governance citizenship in democratic societies,and that ultimately matching theseobjectives is the proper yardstickfor what could becalled “good” governance. b.Exploring the concept and implementation of democraticcitizenship However,despiteall theselinks, why is therean“EYCE”in the first place,and why link the issueofhigher education governance toit?Trying toanswer this question necessarily takes the debateback to the substantivepoliticalissues,of which thereareat least the following three items:democraticcitizenship as an educationalissueingeneral,and institutionalparticipation in particular; facets of the BolognaProcess; generalpoliticalparadigm shifts and evolution of circum- stantialchallenges suchas mass education, the advent of the knowledge society, development strategies and funding. The most obvious politicalissueconnecting higher education governance todemo- craticcitizenship is participation of university members – students in particular, but not only them –as “university citizens”ingoverning “their”institutions.This is along-standing debate,alot has been said and achieved,beit on paper or in reality,and yet theremay beneed for more tocome in anumber of countries.The specificquestion of integrating minorities actively into university life would be anadditionalfacet to that debate. At amore subtle level,however, safeguarding “democraticcitizenship” and preparing for activecitizenship in democratic societies should beconsidered tobe amajor objectiveofhigher education itself. The Council of Europe has been advocating this educationalpurposefor years,and it is now explicitly recognised in the Bergen Communiqué too, when stating that eachlevel of the three cycles serves toprepare, inter alia ,for activecitizenship. This approach to specific learning outcome turns the challenge of how tointegratepreparation for joining and steering socialprocesses,i.e. politics and policy making in the realms of administration and government as muchas of governanceina wider sense,intoa meaningfullearning experienceofhigher education. Here the quality issueof higher education as suchoverlaps with the governance topic. The politicalcontext relating tohigher education governanceis alsopresent in the discussions pertaining to the BolognaProcess even as it stood before the Bergen conference, whichaddresses another substantivepoint of the current higher education debate. Although the termhas not yet been covered extensively as such in the Bolognadocuments, 9 it is an underlying theme of all aspects of the Bologna Process –namely of the issues of participation and the socialdimension,but no less of quality and quality assurance–, 10 and it may require tobeaddressed more ______9. Governanceissues have,however,been dealt within the Bologna seminar on “Exploring the social dimensions of the EuropeanHigher Education Area”inAthens early in 2003,and in the Bologna sem- inar on “Student participation in governanceinhigher education” organised by the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Researchinmid-2003. 10.As for the participatory element of the governanceissue, the PragueCommuniqué states that min- isters affirm that “students should participateinand influence the organisation and content of educa- tion at universities and other higher education institutions”, which the Berlin Communiqué seconds by stating that students arefull partners in higher education governance. With regard to the issueofqual- ity assurance, the Berlin Communiqué recognises that quality assuranceis the prime responsibility of institutions, thus making the establishment of elements and procedures of quality and quality assur- ancecultures and mechanisms agovernanceissueat institutionallevel.

22 Setting the scene explicitly and coherently in the BolognaProcess in future.11 Inessenceand above all,governanceissues areinseparably intertwined with the BolognaProcess due to the fact that the latter, whatever objectives and tools it entails in detail,is about change –hopefully,in the senseofimprovement –and henceareabout aculture of change and about change management,bothof which undoubtedly arean essentialpart of governance. Inaddition, the notion of higher education being apublicgood and apublic responsibility has been highlighted explicitly again and again in the Bolognadoc- uments at least sincePrague, 12 and thereis no denying that this topicis closely linked tohigher education governance,at least in that matching the demands whichpublic responsibility makes on higher education provides anindispensable yardstickfor identifying “good” governance. c.Generalparadigm shifts in the public sector Finally, the most blatant politicalimpulsein the debateonhigher education gov- ernancebrought about by realpoliticalcontext is the intertwining of paradigm shifts pertaining to the entirepublic sector withnew demands on higher educa- tion and researchas such. As for embeddedness of the higher education world in the public sector,it must benoted that the sector as a whole has been undergoing a rearrangement –or at least adebate– under the heading “New PublicManagement”(NPM). Inessence, it may be said that this approachis characterised by a switchfrom traditionally legalistic steering mechanisms of top-downimplementation of normativeformu- lae toamoreeconomically driven steering system based on contractualconsent on objectives tobeachieved. Autonomy,as seen from the perspectiveof this approach,canbe understood as part of amanagement concept of freedom to negotiate which,however,needs tobecorrelated toa strict understanding of accountability in all its facets,not in the least economically.Despiteleaving aside the question as to where the roots of this development canbefound, whether it is a workable and fruitfulconcept,and what happens in reality,it may befair to assume that this undercurrent is shaping the more specificareaof higher educa- tion governance,and probably justifiably so sinceamoreconsensus-based steer- ing mechanism whichleaves room for localadaptation of devices is morein tune withmodern understanding of democratic stateoperations, withits trend towards decentralisation,and towards enhancing motivation at grass-roots level. This undercurrent blends into specificnew challenges tohigher education and research whichgive rise to reconsidering adequategovernanceat institutional ______11. Theremay bea starting point in the Berlin Communiqué which states that “ministers accept that institutions need tobeempowered to take decisions on the internalorganisation and administration”. 12.The PragueCommuniquéof 2001 states that “higher education should beconsidered apublicgood and is and will remain apublic responsibility”. The Berlin Communiquéof 2003 underlined this once again by stating that “the need toincreasecompetitiveness must bebalanced with the objectiveof improving the socialcharacteristics of the EuropeanHigher Education Area, aiming at strengthening socialcohesion and reducing socialand gender inequalities bothat nationaland at Europeanlevel. In that context,Ministers reaffirm their position that higher education is apublicgood and apublic responsibility.”

23 Higher education governance level and at national,or even European, systems level. One of thesechallenges is funding, whichis brought about bothby the advent of an“open access”policy and subsequent mass education paralleled by enhanced demand on quality and by researchexpenses, while funding has not been keeping paceadequately.“Doing more withless”has become a significant slogan steering the higher education governancedebatefrom the viewpoint of effectiveness and efficiency, the idea being that new approaches togovernancemay be the answer tomatching funding deficiencies and added tasks at the same time. Looking at the casefrom this angle,governanceis seen as creating a“money machine” or at least a savings bank, whichis alsoa way of interpreting the notion of entrepreneurship in higher education. Internationalising higher education and putting higher education into a widely open unprotected market placeof services,namely known under the term“commodification” newly coined in the context of including higher educa- tion in GATS, lends extradrive toacompetitive-oriented outlook on higher edu- cation operations where“output”may bemoreimportant than“outcome”, efficiency moreimportant thanquality in absolute terms,and speed of innovation rather thanextensivedeliberation on quality may havebecome anew essential. The same,basically economic, motivation and objective,i.e. the drivefor effec- tiveness and efficiency,may beat the root of readdressing governanceissues with a view towards turning higher education institutions into“jobmachines”, which could yet beanother way of understanding the term“entrepreneurial university”. Modernemphasis on the humancapitalfactor, the notion of the knowledge-based society,awareness of totalcompetitiveness around the globe,makes the general publicand governments in particular expect miracles from higher education insti- tutions, thus turning the governanceissueintoacentre-stage affair of affluence and socialpeace which requires higher education governanceeither toadjust or else tobeadjusted in order to“deliver”. d. Malfunctioning,misunderstanding,distrust? At the same time therearemany places in Europe where the aspiration of higher education institutions togain substantialautonomy, the preparedness toidentify challenges and the ambition tomeet theseeffectively and efficiently do not match the actualability to“deliver”, while the question is open as to whether this is in fact trueor merely falseperception. On the other hand and in return,in anumber of cases higher education institutions feel that the interventionist role of external publicor privateinstitutions,mainly executed viafinancialconstraints and ethi- caldemands whichmay at times be seen as executing mere“politicalcorrect- ness”,is on the increase,despiteall rhetoricendorsement of the notion of autonomy.So thereis acertain element of distrust,or of misunderstanding or doubt at least,between actors.Mutualfrustration in view of growing demands may bediagnosed, while ever-increasing expectations on conflicting objectives suchas quality,cost-effectiveness,open access,democraticparticipation,and instant reaction tonew requirements nourish the debate. Thus adebateon the issueofgovernancemay beadvisable toprevent distrust and frustration by finding out how to solveany suchproblems by means of wise,or

24 Setting the scene wiser,governanceat all levels concerned. This may beone of the major purposes of amulti-level debateongovernanceissues in higher education. In that respect, the Council of Europe’s composition, whichprovides aforumfor bothpublic authorities and the higher education sector,is the best forumfor the debateindeed. e. A wordofcaution:do concepts of governance really haveanimpact on higher education institutions? Eventually,however, when correlating the issueofhigher education governance toits politicalcontext –and when understanding “political” in the wider senseof national,institutionaland personalcultures, traditions,and habits – thereis rea- son toask to what extent aconceptualapproach togovernance will actually work in higher education institutions.Institutions of higher education,but in many a casenoless ministries of education, show a tremendous amount of inertia, tend tobeat least mentally fragmented organisations withahigh degree of anarchy, working on what looks like the principles of fuzzy,if any,logic.That is why plan- ning and “constructivism”, which tend tobe the traditionalapproaches toissues of governance,havefailed moreoften than they have succeeded in matters of higher education. Higher education institutions have seen many agovernancephi- losophy or management scheme come and go. Infact it may beargued that the element of disorganisation characteristicof higher education institutions is part of their talent for survivalin view of many anill-conceived, wrongly politicised and hence short-lived concept of governance. Bearing this in mind, the essenceof the message is two-fold. First, that thereis reason tobehumble as for any belief in swift and lasting change by means of externalintroduction of governanceconcepts.And finally,and no less, that the reality of governanceinhigher education institutions and in systems will only be seen when thinking in at least twodistinct layers: the outer organisational struc- tureand operations,and the meta-level,or perhaps rather the undercurrent,of live attitudes and patterns of behaviour which tend to survive, resist and prevail, largely due to the type of independent minds whichagood higher education insti- tution prefers toattract as its staff in order tofoster innovation,i.e. tobreaknew – unplanned –ground.

4. PurposeIII –Exploring the concreteissues of higher education governance:a survey Beyond thesepoliticalcontexts,implications and aspirations,and bearing the notion of cautious self-constraint with regard toexpectations of success in mind while nevertheless not abandoning a“constructivist”approach to the issueof higher education governance, thereis a wide array of permanent and substantive debates on the notion and contents of higher education governance. This is, so to say, the expert level of the issue whichis bothered with the small print of the nitty-gritty questions of what might becalled “doing –good –governance”. In

25 Higher education governance essence, this debateis centred around the following, whichadmittedly is abrave attempt to summariseacomplex issueintoone question around one formula. a.Anapproximatedefinition –abasicquestion If–good –higher education governancemay be roughly defined as: •that institutional set-upand thoseprocesses at strategiclevel of bothhigher education and researchinstitutions and of nationaland international systems • whichareconcerned with the identification, validation,and realisation of thoseprerequisites and consequences and of that cultureand those steering devices whichpertain toinstitutionalautonomy and individualfreedom in their contexts withpublic responsibility of the institution tobegoverned, •and whichmust bedescribed and developed for the sake of maintaining and enhancing benefits •with regard to the well-being of individuals and society, traditionaland more recent academic values and objectives, 13 quality and quality assurance,insti- tutionalpositioning,effectiveness and efficiency of mass higher education and advanced researchindemocratic societies •based on expert competence,on inclusion and participation,on the rule of law, on the freedom of ethically responsible individuals,and on mutual respect, •and, toadd the notion of “good” governance to the definition of governance of higher education as such, serves toidentify and to realise theseobjectives best and at least toanoptimumofcompromisebetween conflicting aims and devices and alsobetween expenseand outcome; what does this meaninconcrete terms,and how cananswering this question and implementing the answer beput intooperation? And while asking theseques- tions, what are,and how do wedefine in dueprocess, the aforementioned opera- tionalobjectives of societaland individualbenefit which should provide the qualitative yardstickfor judging the “fitness for purpose” of good higher educa- tion governance set-ups and devices? b.Itemising afew concretequestions The full spanofbothbasicand concreteissues unfolding from this summary view on higher education governanceis impressive,and dealing withit certainly is unmanageable within the constraints of a single publication, thus leaving enough ______13.The Council of Europe has repeatedly advocated the following itemisation of purposes of higher education,i.e. of higher education values and ulterior objectives, whicharelisted here without indicat- ing any prioritisation:personaldevelopment (which relates, inter alia , to traditionalconcepts of Bildung and indicates the development of intellectual,emotional,interpersonalcompetences); maintenanceand development of abroad,advanced knowledge base(whichdenotes researchactivities in order to widen knowledge as well as the preservation and promulgation of knowledge gained); preparation for the labour market (which stands, pars pro toto ,for what could be understood in a wider senseas being rel- evant to societalneeds); and preparation for life as activecitizens in democratic societies (whichdenotes bothpreparedness to take on responsibilities and accepting principles of ethics and mutual respect). The Bergen Communiqué,in its finalconsiderations,has now largely adopted theseorientations.

26 Setting the scene tobedone later.Toname just the main items whichappeared in the courseof debate when preparing this publication: •Locating and defining higher education governanceas a termand as a sub- stantiveconcept of culture,actors,institutions, structures,processes in rela- tion tonotions suchas devising and implementing “policy”,employing “strategy”,making useof“management”and “administration”,all these items both with regard todifferences and tooverlap. This taskis particularly difficult but alsonecessary due to the fact that many Europeanlanguages do not provide fitting parallels to the English words “governance” and “policy” and possibly even “management”. •Understanding the essenceand notion of “good” governanceby clarifying the purposeofhigher education governancebeyond maintaining socialharmony and cohesion inside and outside the institution through identifying and match- ing the institution’s mission, vision and role vis-à-vis educational, research, services,knowledge transfer or dissemination and other individualor social objectives of higher education in general, suchas regionaldevelopment,and the given institution in particular,doing all this effectively and efficiently. Exploring this encompasses taking intoconsideration that therearedifferent aspects and value systems of various parties – stakeholders –concerned. •Assessing, selecting,and developing the type(s)of structures, responsibili- ties,personalcompetencies,and processes whichbest contribute toidentify- ing and achieving valid,mission-related objectives and opportunities,bearing in mind that theremay benumerous answers due to,among others,mission, size,environment,cultures and funding structures of agiven system and a given higher education institution. –Indoing so, the point of view may need tobe shifted from the rather traditional focus on institutionallayout towards a“perspectiveofprocess and interaction” and proper definition and sharing of roles,bothinside the institution and between governmentalagents or representatives of civil society, whichcovers all aspects related to steering processes suchas defining tasks and responsi- bilities, setting timetables and milestones, signalling a senseofdirection, organising input of expertise, summarising and arriving at decisions. •Following on from that and,in particular,addressing the issues whicharise from the stratification of participants and institutional structures by ensuring not only proper sharing but alsoproper interface structures by optimalinter- twining of legal,economic, and political tasks and responsibilities, which means striking abalancebetween “unitary”,“federalist”and “individualist” approaches,including the aspects of institutionalleadership and the princi- ples of subsidiarity and collegiality. –This encompasses considering who the relevant units and stakeholders areor might preferably be,for example,institution and government,government and society,nationaland internationallevel,“internalexternals” suchas boards or trustees,but alsodonors and contract partners in researchprojects or in teaching,

27 Higher education governance

vis-à-vis the university,in addition university and departments/faculties either in a traditionalinterpretation or seen as “cost centres”,and finally institution, groups,and individuals of various kinds, what their roles,perspectives,inter- ests and conflicts –as well as modes of solving these–are,and in what capac- ity and to what extent they are supposed toparticipateinhigher education governance,and how perspectives,interests and functions of various units and stakeholders at different levels relate toeachother. –This analysis should contribute to solving conflicts between aspirations at overarching stateand institutionaland sub-institutionalentity –namely fac- ulty/department –levels,and aspirations of specificgroups,namely stu- dents but alsoothers,and of individualmembers, whicharenoticeable problems in anumber of systems. –This item also raises the question of duebalancebetween democratic“lay” participation, weighing partisaninterests,and developing and employing professionalism required to steer higher education systems and institutions; thesequestions canonly beanswered with respect toidentifying choices between various modes of participation ranging from information viacon- sultation todecision making in afair and workable overall system. •Alsoinparticular: the placeof the individualinacollective system whichas suchis bound todefine and realiseinstitutionalmission, vision,and policies, needs tobeidentified with regard toindividualacademicfreedom and to the protection of minorities,including non-mainstream thinking,in various cir- cumstances.It must beborne in mind that protecting the individual’s aca- demicfreedom is tobe seen bothas a valueinits own right and aprerequisite for truecreativity in the senseof“enabling the disclosureof the unexpected and unplanned”,and that theremay beclashes withinstitutionalpolicy and the notion of “leadership” which should be resolved. •Assessing governancematters from the viewpoint of ownership and inclu- sion, whichpertains toquestions suchas the connection of different members and stakeholders at different levels,how coherent strategies,policies and convictions between top-downor bottom-upapproaches and externalinflu- encearedeveloped,and how transparency,communication and,if necessary, mediation areorganised and safeguarded in at least bothabilateralbottom- upand top-downmode or preferably in amultilateral way. •Contextualising higher education institution governance withexternalfac- tors,namely regional,national,European,globalpolicy issues in generaland in education and researchinparticular,but alsoincentives or constraints caused by economicfactors,by location,by size,and by elements of culture and prevalent value sets in general. •Exploring and validating modern trends of multitier institutionalisation, either internally when considering substructures suchas the position and role of spin-offs,clinics, technology parks,etc.,or externally witha view tonet- working brought about by joint programmes in researchand teaching which

28 Setting the scene

develops intoinstitutionalintertwining and formation of “partnerships”, “trusts”or “concerns”as knownfrom the world of business. •Assessing tools usefulfor designing, validating and monitoring policies and their implementation as instrumentalfacets of effectivegovernanceinits overlap withmanagement.Here the role of law –beit top-down regulativeor based on the notion of contract management –,of economicdevices –beit market-oriented and success-driven formulation of funding or input-based funding –,but alsoofcultures and in a wider and at the same time essential senseof trust and of ensuring conviction and a senseofownership enter into the arenaof governanceconsiderations. –The question may be raised as to what extent thereis a shift towards the “entrepreneurial university”as contrasted toa traditionalcollegial type,and what the reasons as well as the pros and cons of suchadevelopment may be. •Finally,assessing the validity and success of governanceobjectives, strate- gies,and outcomes, thus including the role of quality assuranceand quality enhancement for higher education governance.

II.The Council of Europe ForumonHigher Education Governance, September 2005 The wide array of purposes illustrated abovemade it imperative tobe selective with regard to whichaspects toaddress during the foruminSeptember 2005. In no way could all aspects becovered,and any attempt would havebeen afutile overburdening of the conferenceand the scope that could possibly becovered within less than twofull days.

1. Emphasis on workshops It was, therefore,decided tofollow aprogrammaticapproach whichcentred the investigation on apathway leading from the macrocosmofcontext and systems level to the microcosmof the institution and of the actors therein. Thus,as for the workshops the programme was structured as follows: •the mission of higher education in the changed societalcontext and its impli- cations for governance; • the governanceofhigher education systems; •the governanceofhigher education institutions; •the actors in higher education governance. Thesefour items were tobe reflected upon in the light of the substantiveissues mentioned by the keynote speaker,as well as in the light of the literature survey provided. Another itemisation that proved tobe useful was the following:

29 Higher education governance

•mission and stakeholders:considering moreand morediversified missions of higher education institutions,and how these reflect governancemodels and involvement of different stakeholders in the decision-making process; •governanceofhigher education systems:looking intogovernanceof“com- plete” systems of higher education,i.e. the national–or even Europeanand global–level,including identification of current practices and best practices; •autonomy and externalparticipation:autonomy of aninstitution and the role of society, state,and other “external” stakeholders in governance; •internalparticipation and levels of governanceand management:concepts of governance within ahigher education institution and practicalimplementation; •interdependencebetween culture,management and governance:influenceof the overall cultural setting on higher education governance,different notions of governancebetween the strategicpolicy level and the technocraticman- agement approach,also related to the discussion on legitimacy of representa- tives in governing bodies and the call for professionalism; •stimulating stakeholder participation:from making legalprovisions for stakeholder –namely student –participation toensuring widespreadaccept- anceofopportunities toparticipateindemocraticgovernance structures; •collectivismingovernanceand safeguarding academicfreedom in research, teaching,and learning:considering the limits of governanceand institutional policies vis-à-vis the individualperson; • the role of higher education governancefor fostering democraticcultureof toleranceand inclusion:design and examples of positiveinfluenceofhigher education governanceon the wider community,especially in conflict areas; The choiceand structureof the four workshops, while admittedly not being extravagant,allowed anumber of things tobeachieved. First, the topics chosen evolved witha view tointerpreting and solving their specific topicalchallenges in the light of all the concreteaspects of the governanceissuementioned above. Second,proceeding from the macro- to the microlevel helped to reflect and make useof the specificadvantage of the set-up whichcharacterises the Council of Europe higher education sector,i.e. tointegrateboth the governmentaland the academic sides,but also stakeholders represented, suchas students,in fruitful debate relevant toall concerned. Third, since the issueis rather complex it prom- ised tobeeasiest for participants toaddress the debatefrom the angle of arche- typalquestions whichas suchareeasily understood since they arebasicin structureand in politicaldebate. The second guiding principle of conferenceprogramme design,apart from hav- ing tobe selectiveand basically transparent in approach, was to try and givepar- ticipants as muchofa voiceas possible. It is for this reason that the allotment of time for workshops hadbeen extended to the utmost,bearing in mind the request todo soby those who attended the 2004conferenceonhigher education as apub- licgood and apublic responsibility.This leadorganisationalidealed the Council

30 Setting the scene of Europe working party tointegrate the subject-related input into the respective workshops rather thanpresent the general substantive remarks in the plenary at the onset of the conference, whichmight havebeen too overburdening. 2.Input and winding up However,in order tofacilitate the debateingeneral the keynotepresentation served as anoverarching,possibly even provocative,introduction to the chal- lenges of the higher education governanceissues at all levels,i.e. at systems,at institutional,at group,and at individuallevels.The exposition of politicalcontext and of concretequestions provided in the previous section of this introduction served the same purpose,especially in order toidentify the catchwords and their correlations as challenges tohigher education governance. The subsequent liter- ary review eventually cast light on what has already been thought about and workedout in substance, showing the fields of researchbut also the white spots on the map, the unknown stretches of land waiting tobediscovered –hopefully in part by the conferenceitself. The panel debateon the second day helped integratefindings in the workshops and tobring about acoherent pictureof the issue.

III.Expectations What outcome then,by and large,canbeexpected from this undertaking? 1. The conferenceper se Certainly the conference was expected tohave results per se. It offered aforum for exploring the topicand for debate whichhelped tobring the issueforwardby raising awareness of challenges,choices,and solutions.Ofcourse,beyond the liveexperience whichparticipants shared thereis valuein the survey and docu- mentation of researchmaterialavailable on higher education governance. Finally, the present Council of Europe publication preserves and disseminates the presen- tations, the essenceofdebates in workshops and in the plenary,and the conclu- sions drawnfrom these. The Council of Europe would alsolike to take the matter further by means of adequatefollow-ups, suchas workshops on concreteissues. 2.Politicalprogrammes,namely of the Council of Europe Recommendations formulated at the end of aconferencehopefully influence real politicaldecision making on governanceissues at European,national,institu- tional,and stakeholder grouplevels.So thereis the promiseofanimpact on the future workof the Council of Europe in its operations in the field of higher edu- cation. The conferencecertainly was of adhoc significance toCouncil of Europe activities in a wider senseinas muchas it contributed to the EYCE by advocat- ing that higher education governanceis required toensureparticipation of stake- holders and partners adequately,i.e. namely of students but alsoofothers suchas young researchers aspiring todoctorates,and that higher education institutions

31 Higher education governance should provide spacefor experiencing socialinclusion and for learning demo- cratic self-organisation. 3.The BolognaProcess – the link toquality and quality assurance Beyond reflecting on the Council of Europe’s institutionaland coremissions as such,in the medium-termperspective the BolognaProcess may alsoincorporate the issueofhigher education governancemore strongly and assimilate the find- ings outlined in this publication. This is tobeexpected since steering institutions properly with regard todefining and actually “living” educationaland research missions,beit at systems or institutionallevel,has aprofound impact on all issues of teaching and researchquality and quality assurance. The very debateon addressing quality assurancematters either at the level of programmes or at the level of higher education institutions and their internalquality processes indicates the profound significanceof the governanceissuefor matters of quality and its certification on the backdrop of the presenceor absenceof trust in the quality of proceedingsin autonomous higher education institutions.Contributing tomatters of the BolognaProcess could thereforebeanother valuable outcome. 4. Outlook on follow-ups Thereis anobvious warning of caution at the end of theseintroductory remarks. The topicis anenormously vast one. And sincenot only is ars longa a striking truthbut also vitabrevis ,no miracles canbeexpected as toexhausting the topic. Thereareafew findings,hopefully,and in addition thereareanumber of open questions.Inasmuchas the publication succeeds in clearly formulating these questions,it will havefulfilled its purpose toinitiateapoliticaldebateof which thereis,and must be,more tocome.

32 (In the) Context of change

Reconsidering higher education governance Pavel Zgaga Governanceis anold termand at first sight it seems tobe simple and clear.As a word withancient roots it canbefound in severalmodernlanguages,quiteoften witha variety of meanings.Nevertheless,in various languages wecan say and understand that “aking governs (rules,controls)akingdom well or poorly”or that “somebody’s principles govern(influence,direct) their life” while wecan also say that “people obey –or disobey – their king” or that “somebody complies –or does not comply – with their internalised principles”,etc. Ingeneral,governanceis perceived as the exerciseofauthority,control or direc- tion. Wemost often associategovernance withpoliticalauthority (government, but we should not confuseor equate them:governanceis not government)and withbroader issues in society and politics whichdemand institutions and control, yet wealsoassociateit with the economy and organisations (for example,corpo- rategovernance). It is usually understood in relation toadministrativeand mana- gerialissues; clearly governancecomprises the processes and systems by which a society,anorganisation,etc.,operates although it cannot be reduced solely to this dimension. But how do we use this old termin the context of contemporary higher education? Beforeanswering this question we will make a short detour intoits history.

“The agents themselves must consider what is appropriate to the occasion” As in somany other cases, the roots of this termgoback toancient times.The Latin ‘ gubernare ’still sounds quitefamiliar in various modernlanguages.Even its Greek background canproducea surprisingly contemporary linguisticassociation for modernears:‘ kybernaein’–cybernetics?Not really; ‘ kybernaein’means to steer (a vessel) while ‘ kybernetike ( tekhne)’ is the art of steering (a vessel). Nevertheless, the twomeanings –anold and a very recent one –call out tobecom- pared:on the one hand ‘navigation’, the old art of ascertaining the position and directing the courseof vessels at sea, and on the other hand,‘cybernetics’, the modern theory of control and communication in machines and organisms. With the ancient Greeks, when humanconduct was being discussed by philosophers, the art of steering,navigation –or ‘governance’ in the senseof‘directing the course at sea’– was afrequently used metaphor,often paralleled to the art of medicine. Thus,in Aristotle’s NicomacheanEthics (1908) wefind the following statement: But this must beagreed upon beforehand, that the whole account of matters of con- duct must begiven in outline and not precisely,as we said at the very beginning that the accounts wedemand must beinaccordance with the subject-matter; matters

35 Higher education governance

concerned withconduct and questions of what is good for us havenofixity,any more thanmatters of health. The generalaccount being of this nature, the account of particular cases is yet morelacking in exactness; for they do not fall under any art or precept but the agents themselves must in eachcaseconsider what is appro- priate to the occasion,as happens alsoin the art of medicine or of navigation. In this paragraph,Aristotle obviously dealt withethicalproblems yet “matters concerned withconduct and questions of what is good for us”are seen as paral- lel tomedicine and navigation. Let us pursue this example and say that matters concerned withnavigation also“havenofixity”; “they do not fall under any art or precept”but sailors themselves “must in eachcaseconsider what is appropri- ate to the occasion”. Likedoctors in medicine: they do not study ‘healthitself’, as Aristotle said,“but the healthofman” (1908); doctors must also withevery particular patient “consider what is appropriate to the occasion” –just likegov- ernors in governance? Aristotle admonished about the uniqueness and singularity of ‘the occasion’ that we encounter again and again in our lives and always have todecide what is most appropriateinaparticular case. He rejected ‘precepts’, that is, ready-made recipes. He relied on his ideaof phronesis ,‘practical wisdom’ as acultivated ability – the trained insight of man– whichhelps us make appropriatedecisions in various uniquehuman situations.When considering adecision, wehave to“consider what is appropriate to the occasion”: wehave to take intoaccount the always uniquemix- tureof specificcircumstances.Certainly,a sailor should beeducated and trained for reading seamaps, understanding changing weather conditions and the natureof vessels,etc.,but he has always tochoose the appropriatedecision in the given cir- cumstances at sea, and not merely apply precepts learned on land. Therefore, nobody canlearnhow tonavigate simply by consulting a set of prescriptions for the reason that they cannever bedetailed enough tobeapplied withaccuracy toany caseand because the selection of whichprescription toapply is amatter of requir- ing aconcreteinsight, something that is not determined by anabstract rule. The stress is not on “precepts”; the stress is on “the agents themselves”. If wenow change our focus from ‘governance’ as ‘directing the courseat sea’to governanceinits modern senseat least twomessages emerge from theseconsid- erations.Firstly,‘given circumstances’donot only apply to those‘objectivefac- tors’determined by nature:for example,buoyancy, the position of North, weather conditions,etc.They alsoapply to‘people on board’:a reasonable captain would always take adecision after very carefully considering who he has on board– well-trained parachute troops or agroupof tourists with small kids.The answer to this sensitivequestion candecisively influence the way of interpreting ‘objec- tivefactors’and taking decisions.Furthermore, this is the point at whichmodern politicalphilosophies and their popular applications in politicalculturegenerally established anew understanding of governance:people cannot bejust anobject of governing. Good and effectivegovernancecalls for ‘ownership’; it is only achieved together withpartners and stakeholders; it presupposes broader policy consultations and participatory processes.Here weare talking about democratic governance.

36 (In the) Context of change

Secondly,for some –let us say relatively academic–purposesit might be absolutely legitimate toconsider governance theoretically, that is,‘in general’,as ‘governanceitself’; however,it is absolutely inappropriate toconsider it in this way when weapproach the singularity of a‘reallife’. We reiterate:generalpre- cepts or ready-made recipes do not help at all when wefind ourselves in the com- plex conditions of ‘reallife’ and in aposition to take decisions whichcould influ- enceand/or direct other people (or ourselves alone). At this point, we should be particularly cautious today –especially within anacademiccontext – when vari- ous governanceissues areincreasingly supported by ‘theoreticalcounselling’ from highly specialised scienceand researchpools and when this kind of assis- tancehas even become export merchandise. Onone hand,it is sometimes argued that the realissueis just amatter of inventing,defining and applying ‘the most efficient model of governance’. On the other hand,it is not difficult toagree that within this assistanceas a rule “a very low valueis placed on the culturaland his- torical skills”and that “the situation observed in recent years where social scien- tists offer advice to troubled countries while possessing minimalknowledge of local societies,combined with the frequently poor results”does not givea reason tobeproud; on the contrary,it “provides encouragement toquestion the intellec- tual status quo ”(Rosovsky, 2003).14 Wecanalso talk about ‘fair governance’ and the ‘governanceculture’.

Anew concept withgrowing frequency Now,how do we use this ‘old’ termin the context of contemporary higher edu- cation? Indiscussions on higher education,governance seems tobea relatively new concept and at least in some Europeanlanguages therecanalsobecertain problems of how to translateand useit in acontext dominated by traditional terms.The term‘government’has been used,of course, very frequently in con- temporary policy discussions relating tohigher education although this has not been the case withhigher education governance. For example,it has not been used in any well-knownand influentialinternationaldocuments over the last fif- teen or twenty years; nor in the MagnaChartaUniversitatum (1988), the Lisbon Convention (1997),nor in the Sorbonne and BolognaDeclarations (1998,1999), etc. Modernelectronic search tools allow us anexcellent opportunity tochecklin- guisticdevelopments and changes.Searching for ‘governance’ within the so- called Bologna Trends reports canhelp us observeits coming into use: thereare no hits at all in Trends 1 (1999), twohits appear in Trends 2 (2001),four hits in Trends 3 (2003)and 8hits in Trends 4 (2005). Useof the term‘higher education governance’ is obviously growing; however, the absolutefigures do not seem to support the claim that it is really afrequently used expression today. ______14. While discussing ‘internalpermeability’and disciplinary barriers within modern universities Rosovsky argues that “no one stands higher than theorists, today using almost exclusively the sophisti- cated language of mathematics.This methodology – this adoration of science–means that cultureand history play almost no role in analysis.Business cycles area worthy subject of study,but not Japanese or Argentineanbusiness cycles.After all,one does not study Japaneseor Argentineanphysics; we sim- ply study physics”heconcludes cynically (Rosovsky, 2003: 20).

37 Higher education governance

It is alsointeresting to see within whichcontext the concept has been emerging. Surprisingly (or not),both references from Trends 2 refer tohigher education in south-east Europe: with regard to the Dayton PeaceAccords the “uniqueprob- lems of governanceand co-ordination” in Bosniaand Herzegovinaarementioned on one hand and,on the other,“the Interim Statute” aiming “at restoring autonomous governanceat the University of Pristina”(Haug,Kirstein & Knudsen,1999:47, 69). Already hereit is impossible tooverlook that the first reference refers to the governanceofahigher education system while the second refers to the governanceofahigher education institution. All four references from Trends 3 stress institutional‘governanceand management structures’(Reichert & Tauch, 2003: 24, 73)and the need tochange or improve them (for example,in relation toquality assurance, supervisory councils,etc.). It is similar in Trends 4 : internal‘governance structures’aremost often used in relation toinstitutional leadership and internalmanagement but alsoin relation to recent systemic reforms in various countries (Reichert &Tauch, 2005: 7, 32,41,42,46, 62). Thus, the concept of governance seems tobemorefrequently used within the institutionalcontext thanat the system level. Inacompendiumofbasicdocu- ments in the BolognaProcess, the earliest useof this termcanbefound in the EUA’s Message from Salamanca (March 2001), this time in relation toquality issues: theseissues encompass “teaching and researchas well as governanceand administration, responsiveness to students’needs and the provision of non- educational services”(EUA, 2003b: 64). The Message from Salamanca was addressed to the Pragueministerialmeeting but the concept of governanceas suchdid not find any echo in the PragueCommuniqué. Nevertheless,animpor- tant change in accent did occur: the socialdimension of higher education was recognised in Prague 15 and thus anew context was alsoprovided for the emerging concept of ‘higher education governance’. As may already be seen from checking the Trends reports, the frequency of the concept’s useincreased during the period between the Pragueand Berlin confer- ences (2001-03). Thus,in May 2003 the EUAGraz Convention put the topicof “improving institutionalgovernanceand management” 16 firmly amongits five key themes and launched it in the middle of further discussions on the role of higher education institutions while,on the other hand,a specialBologna seminar was organised only afew days later in Oslo on “student participation in gover- nanceinhigher education”.17 This seminar broadened the meaning of higher edu- cation governance toencompass animportant dimension that was later confirmed by ministers in Berlin:“Students arefull partners in higher education governance. ______15. “Ministers affirmed that students should participateinand influence the organisation and content of edu- cation at universities and other higher education institutions.Ministers also reaffirmed the need, recalled by students, to take account of the socialdimension in the BolognaProcess”(PragueCommuniqué, 2001). 16.See Graz Reader (2003b: 12-14). It contains 17 such references,equally as Glasgow Reader two years later; they aremostly related togovernance structures and university management.Yet, the Glasgow Declaration contains only a vague reference to“governing structures and leadership competence”. 17.This has sofar been the only officialBolognaevent directly related to–aparticular dimension of – higher education governance. See Bolognafollow-up seminar on Student participation in governancein higher education,Oslo,12-14 June 2003.Report from Council of Europe,AnnikaPersson. Article by Sjur Bergan,Council of Europe. Ministry of Education and Research,Oslo, 2003.Also see Bergan(ed.), 2004.

38 (In the) Context of change

Ministers note that nationallegalmeasures for ensuring student participation are largely in place throughout the EHEA.They alsocall on institutions and student organisations toidentify ways of increasing actual student involvement in higher education governance” (Berlin Communiqué, 2003). Infact, this was the first – and sofar the last – time that anofficialBolognadocument adopted by ministers used the term‘higher education governance’. Higher education governanceis obviously a multidimensionalconcept .Onone hand,it canbeconnected directly togovernment(s):in modern times,govern- ments ‘govern’ social subsystems likehigher education,etc.It is important to noteeven here that this taskhas already exceeded the limited national scope. On the other hand,in its common useit is close to‘management’and/or ‘adminis- tration’,particularly with regard toinstitution(s)and/or organisations. Furthermore,it alsoprovokes questions of participation in governance,etc.At this point,beforeexamining any further details, wepropose to roughly distin- guishbetween the three structuraldimensions of higher education governance (HEG): a. internalor institutionalHEG:governanceofhigher education institution(s); b. externalor systemicHEG:governanceofhigher education system(s); and c. internationalor globalHEG:governanceofhigher education systems with- in aninternational(global) perspective,for example, the BolognaProcess.

Structuraldimensions of governance:aninterdependent totality The term‘higher education governance’ as we useit today did not appear in tra- ditionaldiscussions on higher education; yet, this does not mean that traditional higher education institutions werenot ‘governed’. Since the origins of the European university,it has always been very important to steer the courseofan institution and regulateits internalorganisation as well as its relationships with both the environment and ‘externalauthorities’. Therefore,for any period it is possible todistinguishbetween internaland external‘governance’ or ‘govern- ment’ 18 in acertain way.However,higher education governanceas today’s con- cept radically differs in certain aspects from older traditions. Thereis muchevidence that the conceptualorigins of the modern term‘higher education governance’ areclosely linked to the complexity of the societalcontext characterised by the transformation from elite tomass higher education whichhas occurred during the last few decades.The phenomenon of mass higher education involves ademarcation between traditionaland modernhigher education in sev- eral respects.A review of developments in the past twoor three decades shows that the democratising and liberalising of access tohigher education put the need for systemic reforms ontonationaland institutionalagendas everywhere. Mass higher education challenged –and in its further course totally changed – the ______18. Indealing with the management and resources of medievaland early modernEuropean universi- ties Ahistory of the university in Europe contains detailed contributions on its ‘internal’ and ‘external government’(Rüegg,1992:1:119-133; 2:164-183).

39 Higher education governance traditional university as well as its complex relationships with the modern state. Afew years ago, the Eurydicenetworkproduced a very instructive study cover- ing twenty years of reforms in Europeanhigher education at the end of the 20th century and found that “the major focus of legislation and policy was the man- agement and control of higher education institutions and in particular the financ- ing of suchinstitutions”(Eurydice, 2000: 33). Since the 1960s higher education systems worldwide havebeen constantly expanding. At acertain level of their expansion and in combination with the broader economicand politicalagendaof the time –for example, the budget con- straints of the 1970s and 1980s in the West or the ‘transition’ of the early 1990s in the East – theseprocesses raised the question of the efficiency of bothhigher education institutions as well as systems.Country by country this issue was approached in discussions at the nationallevel viathorough reforms of financing and management as well as the preparation of new qualifications structures. These reforms were underpinned by a radicalconceptual shift in understanding of the relationship between institutions and the state; in the literature,it was remarkably described as amoveaway from the traditional“interventionary” towards the new “ facilitatory state” (Neave&VanVught,1991). It is widely recognised that throughout Europe the government’s role in the gov- ernanceofhigher education institutions has been and remains very significant. However, since the 1980s governments havebeen gradually withdrawing –in var- ious directions –from direct institutionalgovernance. The state’s influence was redirected to setting generalhigher education objectives, that is, tohigher educa- tion output rather than the process.The circumstances of mass higher education in combination with the challenges of the emerging knowledge society demon- strated that effectivegovernanceinhigher education requires muchmoredecision- making freedom at the institutionallevel. The concept of the autonomy of uni- versities moved to the centreofdiscussions.Consequently,legislativeprovisions were redirected from,for example,funds allocated toinstitutions strictly by budget lines (salaries,equipment,maintenance,etc.) to the allocation of block grants.This redirection aimed toincrease university autonomy in terms of its ‘financialdimension’; yet it included the need and opportunity to searchfor alter- nativefinancial resources.A well-known sloganoften heard since the 1980s is that higher education institutions deserve moreautonomy but they should become moreaccountable. 19 After the unannounced and unexpected storms of the late1960s and early 1970s, universities found themselves up until the 1980s –in some places alittle earlier,in others alittle later –ina totally new environment.As universities, they had tobe able to reflect thesechanges and to understand that they should take them into account while reconsidering their mission. Animportant and today well-known ______19. “The granting of greater autonomy toinstitutions,particularly in institutionalgovernance,budget spending and courseplanning was intended toencourage anentrepreneurial spirit and thus promote efficiency,cost-effectiveness,flexibility and quality in educationalprovision. At the same time,insti- tutions wereencouraged to seek additionalfunding through bids for governmentalcontracts and the sale of their researchand teaching services”(Eurydice, 2000:177).

40 (In the) Context of change convention of European universities took placein1988 –“four years before the def- initeabolition of boundaries between the countries of the EuropeanCommunity” and, we should add this from today’s point of view, two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall – to stress the importanceofbeing “awareof the part that universities will becalled upon toplay in achanging and increasingly international society”. Its most remarkable message is that “the university is anautonomous institution at the heart of societies […].Tomeet the needs of the world around it,its researchand teaching must bemorally and intellectually independent of all politicalauthority […]and economicpower”(MagnaChartaUniversitatum ,1991:59).20 However, this is not the first time universities havefound themselves in radically changed circumstances.The debateonautonomy goes back to the very beginning of universities.Yet,as the discussions on university relationships with the ‘exter- nal world’ in generaland on university autonomy in particular can sometimes be treated as ‘eternalissues’,in reality theseissues havebeen appearing each time as different:always in concrete ways and under anew light.If wecompare the concept of autonomy as it appeared during previous centuries and in modern times then thereareactually twoconcepts whichdiffer substantially at least on one point.Universities of the ‘old times’had tonegotiateand articulate their rela- tions with‘external’ –either secular or church–authorities; at first sight similar- ly to today.Like today, they depended on them togrant them their particular power (autonomy)as well as for the more‘material’ troubles of their survival. However, they wereconfronted by circumstances prior to the appearanceofa modernnation state. The birthof the industrial society in the 19thcentury marks a sharp turnin the development of higher education. The traditionalmission expressed as the ‘pur- suit of truth’ and ‘disinterested research’ was challenged in a radical way and for the first time it confronted the ‘needs of the economy’very directly.Universities met anew,previously unknownagent; as aconsequence, they alsoencountered competitors,other higher education institutions closely related to professional training aimed at the ‘needs of the economy’. The challenge was even bigger: they faced anewborn modernnation state that understood the protection and acceleration of economicdevelopment in terms of the ‘nationalmarket’as the most important issueonits politicalagenda.The dissemination of knowledge and skills and organisation of researchas the means for strengthening ‘productive powers’simply became anintegralpart of this agenda.“Until the nineteenthcen- tury one cannot observeany visible direct connection between the economic development of countries and their university systems”(in ‘t Veld,Füssel & Neave,1996: 20-21); now, this question was raised loudly and it was necessary to respond toit – yet in circumstances that had radically changed. ______20.Inhis speechon the occasion of the adoption of the MagnaChartaUniversitatum , the Rector of the University of Bologna, Fabio Roversi-Monaco, was even moredirect about how “to take up the challenge of what is new”. “The society into which this new University has tointegrateitself is the advanced indus- trial society of our time […].It would bea serious mistake if the University,in this new society,decided to withdraw intoitself,intoits pride of academiccorporation” ( MagnaChartaUnivsersitatum ,1991:13).

41 Higher education governance

Inpractice, thesecircumstances differed from country tocountry; nevertheless they hadacommon denominator: the challenge to universities tobecome ‘nation- al’ universities.This meant ahuge challenge to their traditional,‘universal’ role. There werenogeographical,politicaland institutionaldelimitations for universi- ties in the middle ages 21 but in the 20thcentury weexperienced borders between various higher education systems.They grew upparallel to the industrialisation processes in modernnation states.Thus,as a sub-chapter to the protection of domesticmarkets protectivemeasures in the field of higher education qualifica- tions emerged and various national recognition procedures –predominantly for professional recognition – werealsoput in place. At the nationallevel decisions weremade toclassify institutions, their qualifications,etc.,on one hand and to establish selection procedures on the other.In thesecircumstances,it became nec- essary tonot only regulate relationships between the stateand anindividualinsti- tution in anew way but to regulate the system,namely, togovern the national sys- tem of higher education. From this angle, the 20thcentury was aperiod of growing regulation of national systems of education; the importanceof systemicgovernance was continuously increasing. Specificfeatures of particular countries and/or regions whichdevel- oped originally as cultural traditions weregradually transformed into sophisticat- ed legal systems and reinforced by politicalaction. Europe developed strong pub- liceducation systems but the management,control and financing of education institutions are simply not the only legislativeissues.Knowledge and skills as defined in nationalframeworks of qualifications – usually based on a specialleg- islativeprovision –had throughout the century their closest relation with the approvalofcurricula; exact procedures of selection and examination weredevel- oped (for example, the ‘stateexamination’) and the working conditions of teach- ers in publicinstitutions were regulated by governments in detail. The practices of national regulations sometimes overlapped one another but werealso separat- ing. A serious problem was encountered when these‘extremely different’and in many respects ‘incompatible’ national systems started toemerge as a significant obstacle to the new politicalagendaencompassing mobility,employability,attrac- tiveness and co-operation in society at large as well as in higher education. Within the historicalcontext wehavejust sketched we should also reconsider developments in higher education after new challenges appeared in the last quar- ter of the 20thcentury and which webriefly reflected on at the beginning of this paragraph. The importanceofhigher education for economicdevelopment has only increased todate; in fact,it has grownenormously and continues to rise. Under this ‘new light’mass higher education and its rapid internationalisation requireaneven greater concernover governance. It seems that thereareat least twonew elements that can significantly influencefurther developments.As a result of processes in the last twodecades,governments areincreasingly occupied by systemicgovernanceand institutions are recognised as being the most responsible ______21. “Until the sixteenthcentury European universities were toalarge extent all organized on the same line. They showed no nationalparticularities or localfocuses.[…]The picturechanged with[…] the emergenceof the Europeannation state” (Zonta, 2002: 25-37).

42 (In the) Context of change for their internalgovernance. On the other side, the globalisation of economies, the emerging knowledge society,integration processes and internationalco-oper- ation in the broadest sensealsodefinitively bring anew challenge tohigher edu- cation – the challenge of higher education governanceinaninternationalcontext. It is needless toarguehereindetail that all three structuraldimensions of gover- nance–institutional, systemicand international–construct a triangle:aninter- dependent totality.

Governance:between academicaspirations,market forces and demo- craticculture The concept of higher education governanceis obviously multidimensional. However,only consideringits structuraldimensionsor ‘levels of governance’ would leavefurther dimensions unexplored. Its multidimensional‘space’ canbe defined by another triangle delineated by academicaspirations,market forces and democraticculture. This scheme links three key factors together whichinfluence higher education today but at acertain point it seems rigid and deficient.The rigidity canprobably be softened if the three ‘fixed’ views – the academic view, the government’s view (externalitself) and the external view (non-governmental) – were tobeestablished as opposed toa‘fluid’ one, the students’view.In sucha classification, the academic view exposes the institutionaldimensions of gover- nanceas collegiategovernance(that is,epistemologically based self-governance), the government’s view stresses the systemicdimensions of governance(legal framework,publicfinancing),and the external view calls attention to the ‘reality dimension’ (efficiency in economic, cultural,etc., terms). The students’view is connected toall previous views and, thus, sets the concept in motion. From certain points of view, the pressureof the economy towards the traditional role which universities haveplayed in the societalenvironment may today seem inconvenient and even dangerous; however,even when criticisms of the commer- cialisation of higher education yield convincing arguments wecannot avoid the fact that neither institutions nor society at large can simply return to the middle ages.It is similar withgovernanceat the system level: the legal regulations of nationaleducation systems may seem overstated –and they may indeed beover- regulated and may urgently need reforms leading towards deregulation –but their radicalabolition would put bothinstitutions and individuals into serious trouble as regards standards,financing,qualifications, transparency and compatibility, mobility and employability,etc.To summarise,from a‘pragmatic’point of view neither the influenceof the economy nor the legislativeburdens on higher educa- tion canbe seen only as a threat toacademicaspirations; they canalsobe seen as supportive , that is,as ‘external’ factors whichmake theseaspirations feasible. It is very important toanalyse this triangle precisely and thoroughly:as aninterde- pendent totality whichis acharacteristicof modern times.The threat is not just anillusion –nor a support. This is particularly important when considering the relationship between internal and externalgovernance. Ifexternalfactors were treated merely as threats,inter- nalaspirations should beclosed within ‘ivory towers’. The metaphor suggests a

43 Higher education governance closed universeof scholars –probably not students –delineated from the ‘exter- nal world’ whichhinders them in their pursuit of the truthand disinterested research. However,“the ivory tower is amyth,becauseinmoderninstitutions of higher education22 therehas always existed tension between service to the public and morecontemplative scholarship” (Rosovsky, 2003:14). Why can theseexter- nalfactors not be treated as challenges,proactively,insteadof threats from which academiahas to withdraw behind their walls?Infact, who says that academia avoids contacts with the ‘external world’? Inmodernacademicpracticedisinter- ested researchis being ever more‘challenged’ by research that yields interest.The realquestion is not ‘tocloseor not toclosefrom the external world’ nor ‘to start or not to start commerce with the external world’. The realquestion is how to respond to the new challenges in a way we will not come to regret. Probably the biggest challenge of the ‘external world’ tocontemporary higher education institutions is commercialisation. Within our societalenvironments accustomed to well-developed publiceducation systems,initiatives to reorient institutions towards alternativefinancial resources and entrepreneurship havenot only met scepticismand restraint but alsocriticismand protest.Nevertheless, the proposed reorientation seems tobemoreand morefirmly found on political agendas in all countries.Here,it can remain anopen question of whether budget cuts pushed universities to searchfor alternativefunds or universities’success in finding alternativefunds influenced governmentalbudget cuts.Inany case, since the 1980s it has become quiteclear that the extraordinary expansion of the high- er education sector for structural reasons cannot expect aproportionalexpansion in terms of nationalbudgets –particularly if additionalpressurefrom sectors like healthcareand social security as well as the fact of the ageing society is taken intoaccount.Thesequestions importantly influencegovernanceissues and raise severalnew dilemmas.However,is commercialisation the only alternative? And what does it actually mean? In this respect,Europe probably started toencounter similar questions which NorthAmerica hadexperienced earlier; for that reason it is also useful tocite the Americananalyst,Derek Bok,formerly President of HarvardUniversity: If thereis anintellectualconfusion in the academy that encourages commercializa- tion,it is aconfusion over means rather thanends.Tokeep profit-seeking within reasonable bounds,a university must haveaclear senseof the values needed topur- sueits goals withahigh degree of quality and integrity.When the values become

______22.Rosovsky argues that “the ivory tower does not describe the modern research university:learning and servicearealways present.Externalinfluences arebecoming morepowerfulfor many different reasons: the power of government, the searchby commercialinterests for knowledge within the university,and –not least – the opportunity for individualfaculty members tomake economicgains. […]Can universities preserve their objectivity as disinterested researchers and socialcritics if current trends persist?” (Rosovsky, 2003:18). Incontrast to the common comprehension that links the metaphor of the ‘ivory tower’tocenturialacademic traditions,Rosovsky prescribes its first application to universities or scholars toH.G.Wells in The New World Order (1940).

44 (In the) Context of change

blurred and begin tolose their hold, the urge tomake money quickly spreads throughout the institution. (Bok, 2003: 6) It is obvious that wecannot only speakabout ‘external’ threats toinstitutions but institutions themselves should alsobe scrutinised; it is important for them,for example, toavoid self-illusions.The almost proverbial truth says that academic institutions havenot always been anexample of a transparent and efficient organ- isation; 23 on the other hand, unfortunately,academic values could suffer from dis- tortions within and not only from pressures stemming from outside institutions. Therefore,interference with the external world canbeproductive. “Left toitself, the contemporary research university does not contain sufficient incentives to elicit all of the behaviours that society has a right toexpect”(Bok, 2003: 28). As wementioned above, efficiency is increasingly being demanded from higher education in contemporary systemic reforms.Institutionalas well as systemic governance should beimproved tobring better results: this claim seems tobe undisputed. However,it would seem quiteajokeifone were topropose the trans- plantation of anefficiency matrix from economicenterprises straight intoaca- demicinstitutions.The natureof teaching and researchis ‘strange’ –as creative work they arecharacterised by ‘soft’standards –and efficiency as expressed in exact,for example,quantitative, terms is not ahelpfulguide for them. ‘Entrepreneurial’ efficiency measures canhelp in administration and services but caneasily damage the quality of education; the quality of education should be approached differently.The education process has certain features whichdistin- guishit from ordinary profitable services competing in the marketplace:“amajor reason why competition does not yield optimal results in higher education is that students cannot adequately evaluate the options available to them” (Bok, 2003: 179). Efficiency in researchas valued in terms of commercially profitable results canonly be trivialfrom a scientificpoint of view while,on the other hand, the fundamentalinquiries in science–for example, the solar system,cell, the sub- conscious,etc.,–havebeen always useless from a short-termenterprise’s point of view. For theseand similar reasons the university cannot begoverned as anenterprise. Service to the publicand morecontemplative scholarship havealways co-existed at universities – together with the tensions between them –and the formofinsti- tutionalgovernancehas always had tobear their uneasy balanceinmind. Ivory towers and knowledge enterprises canonly be regarded as extremes.Today, searching for abalance requires adeliberateanalysis of the costs and benefits of commercialisation; yet it puts modern universities intoaUlysses-likeposition

______23.Bok argues that “universities have something tolearnfrom the world of commercialenterprise. […]In the first place, university administrators do not haveas strong anincentiveas most business executives tolower costs and achievegreater efficiency.[…] university officials will beless success- ful thanbusiness executives in operating efficiently.Presidents and deans lack the experienceofmost corporatemanagers in administering large organizations.[…]A second important lesson universities canlearnfrom business is the valueof striving continuously toimprove the quality of what they do. […]corporateexecutives havemade major efforts todecentralize their organizations and givemore discretion to semi-autonomous groups toexperiment and toinnovate” etc.(Bok, 2003: 24, 25)

45 Higher education governance between the prospects of bringing in substantialnew revenues 24 and the risks to genuine academic values. 25 What should wedoin this position? Bok calls for clear academicguidelines:“Setting clear guidelines is essential toprotect aca- demic values from excessivecommercialization”.26 But guidelines alone will not beenough:“Unless the system of governancehas safeguards and methods of accountability that encourage university officials toact appropriately, the lureof making money will gradually erode the institution’s standards and draw it into moreand morequestionable practices.” Heis quiteapessimist:“Unfortunately, the structureofgovernanceinmost universities is not equal to the challenge of resisting the excesses of commercialization” (Bok, 2003:185). The university in the market placeis a university under public scrutiny.Several authors,including Bok,haveargued that universities arebecoming more suscep- tible topubliccriticismbecauseof their increased importance to the economy and society at large; similarly, the decline of confidence sofar characteristicof gov- ernments and their agencies cannow alsobeapplied toacademicinstitutions. Herecomes animportant warning signal: The university’s reputation for scholarly integrity could well be the most costly casu- alty of all. Ademocratic society needs information about important questions that people can rely upon as reasonable,objectiveand impartial. Universities havelong been one of the principal sources of expert knowledge and informed opinion on a wide array of subjects […].Once the publicbegins toloseconfidencein the objec- tivity of professors, the consequences extend far beyond the academiccommunity. [Namely,any damage to the reputation of universities] weakens not only the academy but the functioning of our democratic, self-governing society.(Bok, 2003:117-118) The problems which universities and higher education institutions generally encounter today would be trivialifacademicinstitutions werenot “at the heart of societies”(MagnaChartaUniversitatum ,1991:59), that is,if they werenot crowded with students and if they werenot expected tocontribute todramaticenvironmental, energy,health,communication,etc.,problems through their teaching and research. However,if this were the case they would not be‘modern’ academicinstitutions. Moderninstitutions have tocompete withproblems that arenot trivialat all. The increasing externaldemands on modern universities requireinternaladjust- ments: universities must reorganise themselves,find new modes of operating and answer the challenges of how tocarry out their new roles, yet without sacrificing ______24. Bok admonishes that revenues arenot as high as usually expected:“Despite their attractivefea- tures,commercialprofits do not always live up toexpectations.[…]Ofanestimated 200 or more patent licensing offices on Americancampuses,only a small fraction received more than$10 million in 2000 and alarge majority failed toearnany appreciable profit”(Bok, 2005:100-101). 25. “Another educationalcost that commercialization canincur has todo with the moralexample such behavior gives to students and others in the academiccommunity.Helping todevelop virtueand build character havebeen centralaims of education since the time of Platoand Aristotle. After years of neg- lect, universities everywherehave rediscovered the need toprepare their students tograpple with the moraldilemmas they will facein their personaland professionallives”(Bok, 2005:109). 26.Similar statements canbefound in other places:“What universities should do insteadis tolook at the process of commercialization whole, withall its benefits and risks,and then try todevelop clear rules that are widely understood and conscientiously enforced” (Bok, 2003:121). “When rules are unclear and always subject tonegotiations,money will prevail over principle muchof the time” (Bok, 2003:156).

46 (In the) Context of change their basic values.Basicacademic values –for example,“researchand teaching [as]morally and intellectually independent of all politicalauthority […]and eco- nomicpower”,“scholarly integrity”,etc.,–arenot academiccaprices at all. They areof vitalimportancefor society at large:“strong universities”(EUA, 2005b) are today a well-recognised and important lever of democratic society and eco- nomicdevelopment.They must set clear academicguidelines,including in terms of governance. However, the increasing externaldemands require some ‘external’ adjustments as well: the governanceofahigher education system should support universities in being successfulin their endeavours.For (not only) this reason the public responsibility for higher education has been stressed several times in recent discussions and documents.Legislation should contain clear provisions not only about the relationship between higher education institutions and the (nation) state; the relationships between academicaspirations and market forces should alsobe specified in a similar way. 27 In the last instance, the increasing externaldemands on modern universities have started to require international and global adjustments.Thesedemands arelarge- ly accelerated by the globalisation of markets and growing internationalisation of higher education. This dimension is no less important when the interplay between academicaspirations and market forces and democraticcultureis considered; yet it differs from the previous two. Responsibility for higher education remains with nation states but therearemany problems whichexceed the level of nationalhigh- er education systems.When problems like the recognition of degrees and periods of study –particularly with regard to transnationalhigher education –come under discussion then the responsibility for higher education becomes international. Thereis no supranationalpoliticalauthority in higher education today but there is growing co-operation as proved in Europe’s BolognaProcess.It is not only a forumin whichauthorities responsible for the governanceofnational systems can come together; it alsochallenges higher education institutions and their gover- nance. As Rector Fabio Roversi-Monacoonce said in Bologna: “In the name of the unity of culture the needs for supranationality of Universities could oncemore confront the difficulties ensuing from the birthofnationalStates and nation- alisms”(MagnaChartaUniversitatum ,1991:11).

Aconclusion:aconcept open tofurther reconsideration Here,at the conclusion wecan return to the beginning of this paper and say that questions of what is supposed tobe‘effective’,‘fair’,‘good’,etc.,governancealso “havenofixity”and “they do not fall under any art or precept”but as sailors at sea weourselves “must in eachcaseconsider what is appropriate to the occasion”. ______27.Bok argues that “the statemust intervene toprotect legitimateinterests apart from the universities themselves”and stresses that “reasonable financial stability is the ultimateguarantee against irre- sponsible entrepreneurialbehaviour”. Within this context,in Europe we stress the responsibility for higher education; however,not forgetting the responsibility of higher education:“Unless universities createanenvironment in which the prevailing incentives and procedures reinforceintellectual stan- dards insteadof weakening them,commercial temptations arebound to take acontinuing toll on essen- tialacademic values”(Bok, 2005:196-198).

47 Higher education governance

The analysis of ‘the occasion’ is thereforecrucial. It can–and should – take place in institutional,nationaland internationalenvironments. Thereis acertain difficulty in undertaking this analysis.At the institutionallevel broader dimensionsareoften invisible while at the internationallevel the ‘unique- ness and singularity of the occasion’ could beignored. Thereare several types of higher education institutions and severalclusters of higher education systems; all of them arelegitimatein sofar as they all rest on pronounced philosophies and cultures.It is similar withgovernance:it is absolutely not a‘neutral technical matter’but is founded on types of institutions and/or systems, that is,on concep- tualand culturalbackgrounds.This is another argument why thereis no ‘best pre- cept’for governance. Yet, therearebasicprinciples and therecanbenoeffective, fair,good or democraticgovernance without them: shared responsibilities and levels of governance,participation and partnership,etc.,aiming at strengthening the basic roles of higher education.28 Therefore, the concept of higher education governanceis not ‘uniform’,‘fin- ished’,‘unproblematic’nor ‘indisputable’. Far from that!As wehave seen,it is connected with severalopen questions,problems and dilemmas.It is welcomed and will surely bring about positive results in that this concept has finally found appropriateattention tobeconsidered from various angles within abroaddiscus- sion. Asking thesequestions and disputing existing dilemmas enables us toiden- tify potentialcollisions that could affect higher education,and toleave the con- cept open for further reconsideration by never treating it as afinalone.

______28. “Having considered the philosophical substanceof[…] university styles that havehadaninfluence in different parts of the world, wecan say that the university differs in the priority that eachplaces on scientific research,on the development of the humanbeing,or on the various forms of service to soci- ety.It is aquestion of preferenceand practicalemphasis,not exclusion so that abalanceamong all three objectives canbe reached” (BorerroCabal,1993: 30-31).

48 (In the) Context of change

Bibliography Aristotle, The NicomacheanEthics , translation byW.D.Ross,Clarendon Press, Oxford,1908. Bergan,S.(ed.), The university as res publica, Higher education governance, stu- dent participation and the university as a siteofcitizenship,Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2004. Bok,D., Universities in the marketplace,The commercialization of higher edu- cation,Princeton University Press,Princeton, 2003. BorreroCabal,A., The university as aninstitution today –Topics for reflection, UNESCO Publishing,Paris,1993. EUA(2003a), Graz Declaration,EUA,Brussels. EUA(2003b), Graz Reader ,EUA Convention of EuropeanHigher Education Institutions,Graz, 29-31May 2003. EUA(2005a), Glasgow Declaration,EUA,Brussels. EUA(2005b), Glasgow Reader ,EUA Convention of EuropeanHigher Education Institutions,Glasgow, 31March– 2 April 2005. The EuropeanHigher Education Area.Joint Declaration of the EuropeanMinisters of Education [BolognaDeclaration]. Convened in Bolognaon 19 June 1999 (4 p.). The EuropeanHigher Education Area–achieving the goals .Communiquéof the ConferenceofEuropeanMinisters Responsible for Higher Education [Bergen Communiqué].Bergen,19-20 May 2005(6 p.). Eurydice, Twodecades of reforminhigher education in Europe:1980 onwards , Eurydice,Brussels, 2000. Haug,G.,Kirstein,J.,&Knudsen,I., Trends in learning structures in higher edu- cation [ Trends 1 ], Project report for the BolognaConferenceon18-19 June 1999, The DanishRectors Conference,Copenhagen,1999. Haug,G.&Tauch,C., Trends in learning structures in higher education [ Trends 2 ], Follow-up report prepared for the Salamanca and PragueConferences of March/May 2001,FinnishNationalBoardofEducation; EuropeanCommission; Association of EuropeanUniversities (CRE),ETF, 2001. in ‘t Veld,R.,Füssel,H.-P.&Neave,G.(eds.), Relations between stateand high- er education,Kluwer Law International,The Hague/London/Boston,1996. MagnaChartaUniversitatum ,Bologna, 18 September 1988,Segretariato Europeo per le Pubblicazioni Scientifiche,Rome,1991. Message from the Salamanca Convention on EuropeanHigher Education Institutions.Shaping the EuropeanHigher Education Area .Salamanca, 29-30 March 2001,(5 p.).

49 Higher education governance

Neave,G.,& vanVught,F.(eds.) Prometheus bound. The changing relationship between government and higher education in westernEurope,Pergamon Press, Oxford,1991. Realising the EuropeanHigher Education Area .Communiquéof the Conference of Ministers Responsible for Higher Education [Berlin Communiqué].Berlin,19 September 2003 (8 p.). Reichert,S.&Tauch,C., Trends in learning structures in Europeanhigher edu- cation [ Trends 3 ], Bolognafour years after:Steps towards sustainable reformof higher education in Europe,EUA Graz Convention, 29-31May 2003. Reichert,S.&Tauch,C., Trends 4:European universities implementing Bologna , EUA, Brussels, 2005. Rosovsky,H.“Noivory tower:University and society in the twenty-first centu- ry”inWerner Z.H.&Weber,L.E.(eds.), As the walls of academiaare tumbling down ,Economica, London, 2002:13-30. Rüegg,W.(ed.), Ahistory of the university in Europe,Vols.1, 2,Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,1992. Towards the EuropeanHigher Education Area .Communiquéof the meeting of EuropeanMinisters in Charge of Higher Education [PragueCommuniqué], Prague,19 May 2001(4p.). Zonta, A.C.,“The history of European universities:Overview and background” in Nuria, S.&Bergan,S.(eds.), The heritage of European universities ,Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2002: 25-37.

50 The objectives of and expectations towards higher education in the changed societalcontext – Anoverview Virgílio MeiraSoares

1. Introduction I was asked topresent anoverview of the present situation and of the possible effects of the societalchanges on the governanceofhigher education. The topic is too wide tobeaddressed in sucha short time and,indeed, the personalposition of the speaker should not bediscarded even if s/he tries tomaintain aneutralposi- tion. As amatter of fact different researchers in this field draw different conclu- sions,although some efforts tofind common patterns canbefound (see,for example,Amaral,Fulton &Larsen).29 Therefore the views Iamgoing topresent will bepersonal,based on my readings and contacts (this is not a researchpaper) and will be,probably,a sourcefor discussion.

2.Evolution during the last decades It is widely accepted that the challenges universities arefacing nowadays have their main roots in the developments of the last three tofour decades.The so- called statecontrol model gaveplace to the state supervisory model in the 1970s/80s. 30 This was mainly due to the ‘massification’ of higher education (HE) that led toincreased difficulties in financing the HE systems.Governments were faced withcompetition for morefunding from the different sectors of society (health, social security,etc.). This suggests that governments,pressed with the need tocut funding of HE institutions,had tointroducemeasures that,on the one hand, would safeguard them from accusations of decreasing the qua-lity of teach- ing and researchinHE and,on the other hand, would alsoput the ne-cessary pres- sureon the institutions todemonstrate that they weredoing their best tomaintain quality while they weregiven moreautonomy and,hence,more responsibility – accountability was one of the new words introduced in the vocabulary and was (reluctantly?) accepted by the universities,being alsoameans the governments used to steer the institutions. Theseconditions paved the way for the introduction of forms of evaluation (qual- ity assuranceand quality evaluation arenow widespread) that were viewed by the universities as ameans tocontinuously improve their performanceand by the governments as ameans tointroduceaccountability, to steer the system and to justify the decreasing financing of the HE systems.Not surprisingly, the results of these“exercises”led to some obvious conclusions.Universities werenot models of efficiency and the funding cuts would affect the quality of their performance. ______29. Amaral,A.,Fulton,O.&Larsen,I.M.,“Amanagerial revolution?” in Amaral,A.,Meek,V.L.&Larsen, I.M., The higher education managerial revolution?,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht, 2003. 30.Neave,G.& vanVught,F.(eds.), Government and higher education relationships across three con- tinents:The winds of change ,Pergamon Press,London,1994.

51 Higher education governance

Thereforeit was alsonot surprising that some (many?) governments started to encourage universities todiversify their funding baseand launched campaigns to discredit their decision-making processes,calling for changes that would make them moreefficient and responsive to the “needs of the society”,by doing more withless,by changing their owninternal structureand balanceofpower,in short, by changing their governance tomeet thosedemands.And it seems that society at large has been supportiveof theseattitudes. Inaddition, the riseof the private sector changed the paradigm in which the State, as the main employer until then, was responsible for the definition of what should be“usefulknowledge”.31 The emerging ideas were that the private sector should from then on play akey role in the definition of what should beconsidered as “usefulknowledge”. At this point one caneasily accept that the states,incapable of “controlling” the institutions,but feeling also the impossibility of increasing funding,and knowing that HE institutions could not maintain the same quality without finding other sources,began to shed some of their responsibilities while,at the same time,cre- ating conditionsfor the private sector tointervene in the Academies . The first steps takenby publicauthorities in many Europeancountries were well received by the institutions:accepting members of the private sector as advisers to their democraticdecision-making bodies was indeed a way tomeet one of their missions (tooffer their potentialfor knowledge production to society) while,at the same time, the prospect of increasing their income was alsoagood perspective. Despite thesechanges HE institutions were still considered a“model” of ineffi- ciency mainly attributed,among other factors, to their collegialdecision-making organisation, to their “organised anarchy”, to their difficulty in reaching conclu- sions quickly and to the idea that they wereacting as organisations whosemain interest was todefend the privileges of academics.As a result,according to the governments, their power structureand their decision-making bodies should change tomeet the demands of society,as if their main mission was to“contribute to the development of the economy of the[ir]country[ies]”. This would be the beginning of anew eraand alsoofnew fights,discussions, resistances, reorgan- isations,in short,of new forms tolook at the governanceofhigher education. Words like stakeholders,managerialism,entrepreneurialism,market,for-profit activities,competition,just tomention some of them, started tobepart of the offi- cialdiscourse. The so-called New PublicManagement (NPM) started toemerge and tobeapplied to the public sector.Universities,likemany other public services, wereprogressively pressed toact likeprivateenterprises,publicauthorities trans- ferred part of their steering functions to“external stakeholders”or the “market”, although not leaving their main control functions, whereas “internal stakeholders” (teachers,non-academic staff and students) weremoreand more regarded as con- sultativeactors, while students werebeing regarded as “consumers”or “clients”. ______31. Neave,G.,“The Europeandimension in higher education; anhistoricalanalysis”presented at the con- ference“The relationship between higher education and the nation state”,Enschede,Netherlands,1997.

52 (In the) Context of change

As a result,in many Europeancountries, the centraladministration of the institu- tions was strengthened, 32 in some cases “external stakeholders” wereappointed to the directiveboards as “representatives”ofdifferent sectors of the society and of the market,forcing the marketisation of universities (or shall wecall it “privati- sation”?) so that they could “contribute to the development of the economy of the country”and toobtain funding from market-oriented activities,insteadofpro- tecting them from that same market (one must not forget that until the 1980s the state used toprotect them from externalinterferences!– the mythical Humboldtianmodel), the internal stakeholders werekept away from the decisions or saw their influencedecreasing. This is not the practicein the US, where trustees areexternalpeople,“typically well-regarded business people or other professionals in the community”,not representing any specific sector of the soci- ety, who “offer their services and advicein support of the institution’s goals and may alsobecriticalof the institution’s activities and in many instances [they] make financialcontributions to the institution”, 33 acting as “boardmembers in their capacity of individuals,not as official representatives of a specific‘stake- holder’groupor organisation”.34 Changes have takenplaceeither by internaldecisions of the institutions or due to externalimpositions.Inany caseexternalpressures seemed tohavehadanimpact on the governanceof the institutions.As wehavealready mentioned, universities, under pressurefrom the governments tobecome moremanagerialand moreentre- preneurial, started tolook for new management tools.According toTeichler: 35 On the one hand, thereis [was]a wide criticism that the traditionalmanagerial modes of a relatively weak rector,alimited number of administrative staff,and a strong academic staff in decision-making at universities is [was]no longer appro- priatein times of increased importanceofinstitutionalpolicies.On the other hand, the US model of institutionalmanagement is [was]frequently criticised for subor- dinating academics and their rationale toamanagerialclass …

Some results of thesenew changes are reported by Clark 36 in his workabout the creation of entrepreneurial universities.It is interesting tonote that in all the examples he describes, the changes took placeinternally and not as a result of externalimposition. Thesefindings, somehow, seem tobeincontradiction to the tendency of the governments toimposenew forms of institutionalgovernance. Nevertheless it is happening,or it has already happened,in some countries, with results that are still tobe seen. ______32.It must benoticed that,even before the development of thesenew trends, some HE institutions might havedecided to strengthen the centraladministration as ameans to survive. The researchby Clark (1998)36 on entrepreneurial universities may lead us to that conclusion. 33.El-Khawas,E,“GovernanceinUS Institutions”,in Governing higher education:Nationalperspec- tives on institutionalgovernance ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Amsterdam, 2002: 263. 34. Fisher,1991,cited in reference 32. 35. Teichler,U.,“The challenge of lifelong learning for the university”, AUE: Informationsdienst, Hochschule, und Weiterbildung, 2,1990:12. 36.Clark,B.R., Creating entrepreneurial universities:Organisationalpathways of transformation, Pergamon Press,Oxford,1998.

53 Higher education governance

It is still early todraw conclusions from theselatter changes and how universities areadapting or reacting (when and if they are!) to the new situation. Thereare reports suggesting that “internal stakeholders”arenot very willing toco-operate with thesenew developments but,at the same time,others suggest that the strength- ening of the centraladministration is providing good results in the performanceof the institutions.Inmany cases thereare reports of tensions between the centralman- agement and the faculties or the departments.New “alliances”are tobeexpected and this will alsohaveanimpact on governance. It is still too early to see how the paradigm of the “entrepreneurial university”as defined by Clark, together with the changes in governance,canbe sustainable,especially concerning the “stimulation of the academicheartland” and the “integrated entrepreneurialculture”,if the imposed government tools receivealot of opposition from the Academia .

Maassen, 37 based on works of severalauthors, suggests that one canconsider five strategies todeal withoutside pressure:acquiescence,compromise,avoidance, defianceand manipulation. Every institution in eachcountry will undoubtedly develop its own strategy.From our ownpersonalexperience weknow examples of applying severalof those strategies.However,all of them will haveanimpact on governance. And,notwithstanding the different reactions,one important aspect we should look at is how institutions haveadapted (or areadapting) to the new circumstances and how successful they havebeen (or arebeing). Additionally,it is alsoimportant toaddress the (few?) cases where resistanceis still prevailing and how,despite this resistance, some institutions are responding successfully to the societalchanges.As regards this latter case, wehaveall heardofcases where the externalactors simply do not have the time to sparefor the activities they should perform, while “internal stakeholders”are resisting changes in every pos- sible way in spiteof their usuallackofparticipation (a very telling caseis the University of Cambridge and the attitudes of its Regent House). However, these institutions not only do survivebut arealso very activein the new environment! The resistanceofacademics tochanges in organisation of higher education insti- tutions should not beignored or minimised. DeBoer mentions that reforms intending todecrease the power of academics need tobebased on trust and states that “if we want tohaveabetter understanding of ‘good governance’, the concept of trust deserves moreattention”38 but also warns that externally enforced reforms “tend toincrease resistance tochange even further,especially when they go against the wishes of those undergoing the reform”.39 The introduction of NPM as anideology tobefollowed by all HE institutions is inducing resistanceamong many academics and may provenot tobe the right option. Moreover therearealso good examples of institutions that deal with the challenges of the market and with low statefunding successfully without accepting NPM, although some internal ______37.Maassen,P.,“Organisational strategies and governance structures”in Governing higher education: Nationalperspectives on institutionalgovernance ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Amsterdam, 2002: 26. 38. DeBoer,H.,“Trust, the essenceofgovernance?” in Governing higher education:Nationalperspec- tives on institutionalgovernance ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Amsterdam, 2002:43. 39. DeBoer,H.,“Who’s afraid of red, yellow and blue?” in The higher education managerial revolution?, Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Amsterdam, 2003:89.

54 (In the) Context of change changes in the balanceofpower had tobeintroduced. Maassen40 writes that “it is not assumed that all new governancemodels with respect tohigher education are market models,nor that all management developments in higher education insti- tutions concern variations on NPM or ‘new managerialism’ ”. More researchin this field is necessary.

3.New challenges The situation,as it is now,poses some questions resulting from the new attitudes of society and of publicauthorities towards universities. The increasing importanceof the market will haveanimpact on the traditional missions and values of higher education:creating knowledge (research) and transmitting it (teaching),being places of free debateand critical thinking,inde- pendencefrom outside interests,educating students to respect ideas and their free expression (Amaraland Magalhães).41 Weneed toaskourselves what the placeof those values will bein this new situ- ation and how the internalorganisation and the regulation of academic work will beaffected. 3.1. Democraticcitizenship Universities havebeen,for centuries,places where staff and students not only interact in the processes of teaching and through research,but also where the free exchange of ideas is praised and put intopractice. Moreover the traditionalforms of decision making include the participation of the different members of the insti- tutions in this process. The fundamentalchallenges consist of balancing and promoting the different strands of the mission of higher education. In the executive summary of the final report of the project “Universities as sites of citizenship and civic responsibility” 42 launched by the Council of Europe, this is described in the following terms (p. 4): The challenge of advancing universities as sites of citizenship comes from the tension between the fundamentalmission of developing expertiseand humancapital while attempting todevote time and resources to the development of attitudes,dispositions, and functionality of democraticcitizenship. Theseeducationalaims areoften treated as something mutually exclusiveor conceived in zero-sum terms in decisions pertain- ing to the allocation of resources and in the reward structures of universities.Small wonder that students leave universities conditioned to treat their personal welfare, career endeavours and financial success as something apart from their perception of their placein society as acitizen. Wecanpush universities tocreatenew courses or to ______40.Maassen,P.,”Shifts in governancearrangements:Aninterpretation of the introduction of new man- agement structures in higher education” in The higher education managerial revolution?,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht, 2003: 31. 41. Amaral,A.&Magalhães,A.,“The emergent role of external stakeholders in Europeanhigher edu- cation governance”,in Governing higher education:Nationalperspectives on institutionalgovernance , Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Amsterdam, 2002. 42.“Universities as sites of citizenship and civic responsibility –executive summary of the final report”, CD-ESR, Council of Europe,Strasbourg, 2002: 7-9.

55 Higher education governance

formalizedemocraticeducation,but suchchanges will remain nominaland in fact increasepoliticalcynicismand apathy if therearenochanges in institutionaland edu- cationalprocesses as well. A university that is a siteofcitizenship will beaplace where all individuals that interact in the context of its environment will have their interactions structured by processes that arecharacterized by the democraticattributes of openness, accountability, transparency,communication and feedback,critiqueand debate,dis- pute resolution,and the absenceofidiosyncrasy,arbitrariness,and privilege.

Later,in that same executive summary, 42 anumber of conclusions arepresented whichexpress in some detail the conflicting elements present in the different views of higher education as well as in the day-to-day life of higher education institutions: •civicengagement versus “useful” education; •formalprovisions versus actualpractice; • structures and arrangements versus generating motivation and facilitating participation; •resistance tochange and lackof resources. Higher education governanceneeds to take all theseintoaccount,providing a structuralframeworkfor democraticprocesses to take place. However, the same document (p. 10)also reflects on the salienceof the issue,on the perceived pri- orities of students leading topassivity or disinterest despiteformalprovisions for democraticparticipation. Wecan see, thereis alot of work tobedone in the institutions to strengthen their role of disseminating the values of democracy and democraticparticipation,beit connected to students’and teachers’behaviours or to their internalgovernance. Under the present conditions does it make sense toinsist that universities contin- ue tobe sites whereeducation for democraticcitizenship is part of their mission? Is that compatible withamarket-driven organisation? Should they give up these functions?Or will the new paradigm,despiteits main basic, market-oriented assumptions, take democracy and democraticparticipation on board? It is legitimate tohave some doubts. 3.2.Researchand academicfreedom – the issueofintellectualproperty Independent and free researchhas always been one of the main assets of the aca- demic staff.Their workhas been for along time considered as disinterested, their mission being toproduceknowledge tobe used by society.The subordination of university research to the impositions of the market poses some questions deserv- ing our specialattention. IheardGiovanni Agnelli in 1988 during the celebrations of the 900thanniversary of the University of Bologna(twoor three days before we signed the MagnaChartaUniversitatum ). Although wemust not forget that he was aninvited speaker, who could be trying tobepolite tohis host,he was clear when he declared at acertain point: 43 ______43.Agnelli,G.,“Industry’s expectations of the university”, CRE-Action 3,1988.

56 (In the) Context of change

…from their very beginning universities werefree institutions,even in societies ruled by despots; they weredisinterested,for their task was not imposed on them from outside,but chosen by themselves,and that task was the pursuit of knowledge. And from the first they wereinternationalin spirit.Even in the most intolerant and difficult [of] times they held that knowledge should befree and universal. At the time therehadalready been decisions in some countries that werenot in conformity with these words.For instance, the government of Mrs Thatcher was already trying tochange this tradition. Robert Cowen44 has described the situa- tion, taking account of the main “accusations” towards higher education: univer- sities ought tocontribute to the economy, students weremerely looking for jobs at the end of their studies and the disciplinary basis of universities wereincreas- ingly irrelevant –by saying that: …Government has takendirect policy action toalter the basis of university fund- ing,in order tomake universities moreentrepreneurial. … the socialpressure that is currently developing is not merely that the university should try tolink itself more tightly withindustry and business.The centralcoreof the present process is that the university itself should become abusiness,and it is in this sense that we now think of the English university as ‘entrepreneurial’. In spiteof such reactions, the “example” of the UK was followed by severalother countries. The impositions of the market, with the approvalof some governments,may change the attitude of academic staff not willing togive up their “academicfree- dom” or even toaccept that their research should mainly bedriven by market “needs”. Aboveall,freedom of researchhas always been a sourceofprogress for society.The newly imposed conditions areintroducing constraints as to“what you should workfor”and restricting one of the basicprinciples of university research:freedom of publication of the research results.As amatter of fact when researchis controlled by industry some of the results may be,necessarily, with- held from publicknowledge under certain circumstances.But how far can those restrictions go? Should academics abdicate their right topublish their research work? This may beacaseof violation of the beliefs and rights of academics under any new terms of any new governance. It is aquestion of intellectualproperty and ownership. Who owns the rights of research results: the researchgroup, the uni- versity or the contracting companies? This raises another set of questions:how can“universities provide a researchbase vitalfor the solution of problems of publicconcern,even wheremarkets for the solutions do not [yet]exist”and how can“Governments offer incentives tocon- duct free and fundamental research”,as recommended by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe recommendation (R(2000)8)? Certainly the internalmechanisms of higher education institutions will have todeal with these contradictions.How?Will the “academicheartland” be willing togive up their tra- ditionalacademicfreedom to subordinate their actions to the “dictatorship” of the ______44. Cowen,R.,“The management and evaluation of the entrepreneurial university: the caseofEngland”, Higher Education Policy 4,1995: 3.

57 Higher education governance

“market regulation”? AreReed et al.45 right when they say that “universities may be regarded as the prototypical‘knowledge intensiveorganisations’and university academics may belikewisebe treated as the prototypical‘knowledge workers’”? 3.3.Autonomy and the concept of higher education as a“publicgood” The paradigms being imposed on universities may raiseanother question of utmost importance to the present discussion. Some governments havea strong belief in the virtues of the market.This “belief ”may leadinstitutions to search for externalfunding mainly based on contracts with the private sector,leaving aside the main traditionalmissions of the universities.The “finalproduct”may be richinstitutions, withanimportant role in the so-called “development of the economy of the country”,but without any clear mission regarding their role as “publicgood” or the production of “agood of publicinterest”.46 It is not at all obvious that a“market-driven” approachcanfulfil apublic service, since the pri- vate sector has, withlegitimacy, the right to workfor profit.If that same private sector has adecisive weight on the mission of universities,by having adecisive role in the important decisions,it is alsolegitimate tohavedoubts about the pub- lic usefulness of suchhigher education.

At this point it is worthmentioning anexcellent paper byWilliamMassy47 in which,at acertain point,he states that: Internal subsidisation is what distinguishes non-profit from for-profit enterprises. Non-profits recycle surpluses toboost mission attainment, whereas for-profits dis- tribute the money to shareholders.Most universities rely on positivemargins from popular programmes toboost discretionary spending capacity, whichin turnallows them toexpress their values through internal subsidies. and later stresses that: Universities buck the market by injecting their own values intodecision making. This means support of things the market does not careabout, which requires discretionary spending. Institutions without spending discretion cannot assert their values.They must respond to supply and demand and only supply and demand. For example, the aforementioned literatureprogramme[ 48]might well bedownsized if the university suffered amajor financial setback. For-profit universities do not emphasiseliteratureprogrammes becauseof the subject’s weakdemand,just as they do not support muchfaculty scholarships. The author alsoquotes his colleagueBobZemsky:“Universities should bemis- sion centered as well as market smart.” How are these statements compatible with the present tendencies of relying entirely on the market?Although the author sug- gests some solutions like“performance-based steering”, the answer should come ______45. Reed,M.I.,Meek,V.L.and Jones,G.A.,“Introduction”,in Governing higher education:National perspectives on institutionalgovernance ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Amsterdam, 2002. 46.Inour view even for-profit HE institutions should only beallowed tofunction if they pursue the goalofproviding a“good of publicinterest”. 47.Massy,W.F.,“Markets in higher education:do they promoteinternalefficiency?” in Markets in higher education,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Amsterdam, 2004. 48. This is anexample given earlier in the paper by the author referring toa specificprogramme “that a school would like toexpand but cannot becauseof weakdemand”.

58 (In the) Context of change from publicauthorities in charge of higher education, taking intoaccount the pub- licinterest of non-profit higher education institutions. Being driven by the need tolook for huge externalfunds, some of whichare tobe used only for specificobjectives,how can universities befully autonomous and free from externalinterference? Under thesecircumstances,is higher education still a publicgood (as the Europeanministers in charge of education stated in Prague)49 to beprotected and where society should invest for its ownbenefit,or is it aprivate good withall the consequences especially with regard toits socialfunction? Whatever the answers to the previous questions, there remains one more tobe answered. Civil society, represented by the governments or by any other formof organisation (for example,NGOs),is alsoa stakeholder tobe takenintoaccount beit through contracts or funding arrangements.How does that civil society look at universities and their roles?Do they consider them as simple places of “knowl- edge production” or do they think of universities as places to turn tofor their activities whichcanbeof use to that same society?Theseattitudes may not be easy todistinguish,but they may make animportant difference. 3.4. Transnationaleducation and GATS The “explosion” of new providers of higher education some years ago has created anew business branch. New ways to sell higher education degrees through what is now called “transnationaleducation” haveemerged and areincompetition with traditionalhigher education institutions.This trade develops,in many cases, without the intervention of publicauthorities (neither in the countries of origin nor in the receiving countries)and, therefore, without any submission to the usual quality assuranceprocedures.Marchese, 50 following a study about American higher education,characterises the main trends as follows: •many of the existing universities and colleges aredeveloping remote-site strategies,provoking anexplosion of branchcampuses; •agrowing percentage of institutions areoffering distanceeducation courses; •big conglomerates of universities arecreating powerful virtual universities to act as brokers for their distancelearning courses; •for-profit networks,including universities,areattracting big investments from Wall Street for the provision of post-secondary education and training in amarket considered tobe“huge and ripe for the picking”; •for-profit universities, well capitalised and national/internationalinambition, are rapidly expanding; •ahost of new providers “hope tobe the brokers of choicefor the flood of coursewarehitting the Web”; ______49. “Towards the EuropeanHigher Education Area”,Communiquéof the Meeting of European Ministers in Charge of Higher Education,Prague, 2001. 50.Marchese,T.,“Not-so-distant competitors:How new providers are remaking the postsecondary marketplace”, AmericanAssociation for Higher Education Bulletin,May 1998.

59 Higher education governance

•industry groups combine toproduce their owneducation enterprises, with the aim tolessen their dependenceonexisting campuses due todissatisfaction with traditionalhigher education. All these trends of transnationalhigher education,and combinations thereof,can befound in many countries –inEurope and beyond. Santos 51 gives anoverview of the situation in Europe,pointing to the very high number of students involved and of programmes delivered. It doesn’t come as a surprise tolearn that the number of non-recognised institutions offering programmes at transnationallevel is too high tobeignored. One of the reasons for the existenceof thesenew providers is the imbalance between supply and demand. Transnationalhigher education as such would not be amatter of concernif some important issues suchas quality assuranceand con- sumer protection werenot at stake.Wearefacing abig problem if nothing is done toforce theseproviders to submit to the quality assuranceprocedures of their own country or of the receiving country.The Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee,awareof this situation,issued a recommendation52 on the rules tobe applied to transnationalhigher education. If this recommendation were tobefol- lowed by all the countries we would havemuchless reason tobeconcerned. The searchfor privatefunding is leading some universities tolook for students elsewhereeither by “importing them” or by creating branches abroad(the extreme casebeing, very likely,Australia)or even by launching distancelearning programmes.Acting likeprivateproviders in other countries, these universities may bejeopardising their prestige by competing withnon-scrupulous providers that do not careabout any socialfunction,do not see higher education as a“pub- licgood” or not even as a“good of publicinterest”,and only careabout profit regardless of the quality and validity of their services.Transnationaleducation, especially in the context of GATS, following the trends imposed by the existing notion of globalisation, sees higher education as a“privategood”. How can these contradictions beaddressed? There will indeed benecessary internalconse- quences and implications for the governanceofhigher education institutions.And wecanalready see some of thosein some universities. 3.5. The Lisbon strategy Alot has been said and written about the Lisbon strategy and this is not the place todiscuss what has happened since 2000.Nevertheless one cannot ignore the effects of the Lisbon agendaand its consequences on the behaviour of the uni- versities and it is particularly important to reflect on how this affects higher edu- cation governance. ______51. Santos,S.M.,“Introduction to the Theme of TransnationalEducation”,communication to the meet- ing of Directors Generaland Presidents of the EU Rectors Conferences,Aveiro,Portugal,April 2000; Santos,S.M.,“Regulation and Quality AssuranceinTransnationalEducation”,Tertiary Education and Management ,8,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Amsterdam, 2002:97-112. 52.“Code of Good Practicein the Provision of TransnationalEducation”,adopted by the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee,Riga, 6 June 2001.

60 (In the) Context of change

The EuropeanCouncil in Lisbon (2000)decided to set the aim of Europe becom- ing “the most dynamicknowledge-based economy in the world,capable of sus- tainable economicgrowth withmoreand better jobs and greater socialcohesion”. To reach theseobjectives universities areclearly needed. Anumber of issues, identified by the EuropeanCommission, suchas continued democratisation of access tohigher education,new access conditions,in particular the recognition of past professionalexperience, setting upoflifelong learning schemes,increaseof funding diversification,co-operation withindustry,EU researchfunding mainly directed tonetworks of excellence,increasing interdisciplinarity,intellectual property rights and many others areon the table of the decision makers of the EU as part of their duties toaccomplish the aims of the agreed strategy. 53 Some of theseissues will force Academies to think about their ownorganisation and deci- sion-makingprocesses.And,indeed, they will have to think how to restructure their owngovernance. But I underline again that they should not beforced todo so: they will meet the externaldemands in their own way.Europe is not going very fast.The recent “no” votes to the so-called EuropeanConstitution (and one’s position is irrelevant to the debatehere) show that universities cannot beblamed for the failures and delays of the EU and, therefore, should have the necessary time toadapt,although, wemust recognise, that they could movefaster.

It must be said that very recently the EuropeanCommission issued apaper 54 whereit says that morefunding is necessary, so that universities canfulfil their “mission” as defined by the EuropeanCouncil; it does this very “carefully”how- ever,in that it states that this funding should beprivate! The tasks universities have toperform under the Lisbon strategy arenot new but it is important to take theseconcerns intoaccount: the need todefine long-term strategies seems tobeaparticularly important and usefulone. New governance arrangements areexpected tobeone of the results,and,as already mentioned, suchchanges shall beat the initiativeof the universities.However, what is dis- turbing is that the paper indicates how thesechanges should happen. Despitea very carefully chosen discourse, theremay benodoubt that one particular approachis favoured: the participation of external stakeholders in the decision- making bodies of the institutions.As Imentioned before, this may not bea wise decision,although it should not bediscarded either,but caremust beexercised.40 The necessary development of Europeanhigher education will certainly lead to changes in governancebut,as the paper recognises, the differences between coun- tries do not allow for advising institutions tofollow aparticular pattern. The BolognaProcess will haveamoreimportant role with regard togovernance issues than universities expect.However,despite the efforts of the Commission to “harmonise” (introduce uniformmethods of governance?),diversity will prevail and that is one of the strong points of Europeanhigher education. When trying to ______53.“The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge”, Communication from the Commission, COM(2003)59 final,Brussels, 2003. 54. “Mobilising the brainpower of Europe:enabling universities tomake their full contribution to the Lisbon strategy”, Communication from the Commission,COM (2005) 152 final,Brussels, 2005.

61 Higher education governance

“copy” the US system, the Commission should take intoaccount the diversifica- tion of that same system. The remaining question is:how will higher education institutions cope with the necessary transformations tomeet the aims of the Lisbon strategy and of the BolognaProcess?Something will have tochange with regard togovernance beyond the point of no return. Old methods of participation will have tochange, somehow.How?Do weneed a uniformpatternof what could becalled “good governance” bearing in mind the different points of departure? Wemight,just for the sake of fairness,compare,for example, the UK system with the French sys- tem. Is one of them better than the other for the purposes of the Lisbon strategy? If the answer is “yes”, whichis the better and “why”? In spiteofour personalcon- clusions wemust not forget that,at least in this particular matter, the Commission does not take a side,although one canhavea suspicion about its preferences. Moreover,it would beimportant todiscuss how far the Lisbon strategy has influ- enced,or is influencing, the BolognaProcess.Is the latter autonomous and is it being considered as anindependent process by the decision makers at the Commission level? Either way, the answer is of great importanceand conse- quences.The BolognaProcess and the Lisbon strategy,although necessarily linked,are supposed tobeautonomous but tocomplement eachother at alater stage. Is this still the case? Sometimes one has the feeling that the former is being subordinated to the latter.I wonder if wearefaced withade facto strategy tomix the twoprocesses and “force” the BolognaProcess tobecome aby-product of the Lisbon strategy, with some important negativeconsequences in terms of gover- nanceand other issues. Suchconsiderations deservea thorough discussion from our side,from academ- ics and non-academics.

4. Noconclusion! The questions raised aboveareonly part of the changes in different paradigms that will haveaneffect on governanceand on what one canexpect from the high- er education institutions in future,either as a reaction or as anadaptation to those changes.Will their mission and values change,or can they “circumvent the obsta- cles”? Thereis no doubt that the university, seen as anivory tower, will have to change and that may not necessarily beadisaster.Perhaps it is agood develop- ment.But,as Amaraland Magalhães 41 justly write, this “ivory tower”model is now challenged by “the new ‘Babel tower’model,in whichnationalinterest is supposed tobeprotected and enhanced by representatives of the outside world acting within the academicinstitutions themselves”and that may be,and already is,amatter of concern. As wehavejust seen therearechallenges and threats.Will universities,as we understand them, survive? How,and at what cost?

62 European university governancein urgent need of change LucWeber

1. Preliminary remarks In this contribution based on the opening address at the conferenceas vice-chair of the Steering Committee for Higher Education and Research(CDESR), 55 I want tofocus upon what seems tomeone,if not the,most important challenge for the futureofEuropeanhigher education and research,and hencefor European universities: the urgent need for change in university governance. The topicof the conference“Higher education governancebetween democraticculture,academic aspirations and market forces”is obviously broader than that as it raises also important questions like the role of education in promoting ademocraticculture or the choiceofadecision mechanismputting the humanbeing at the centre. However, theseessential values,particularly cherished in Europe and in most uni- versities all over the world,arepowerfulonly if the system of higher education and research,as well as eachinstitution,cankeep up with the increasingly rapid- ly changing world so that knowledge creation and dissemination become the driv- ing forces of the Europeaneconomy and society. I shall briefly: •convey afew messages about the consequences of the rapidly changing world for the governanceofhigher education institutions,and •suggest afew ways for institutions tomeet the challenges. Before, twopreliminary remarks arenecessary.First, tome, the term“gover- nance”, whichhas recently emerged as the buzzword àlamode, refers to the sys- tem by whichdecisions are taken(or not taken) at system and/or institutionallev- els, whichcovers the bodies concerned, their composition and competences,and the formalas well as actualdecision-making processes.Secondly,I shall mainly refer in this chapter tohigher education institutions,although the issueofgover- nanceapplies toboth the institutions and the system.

2.The rapidly changing world is challenging the universities and the system Origins of the changing environment The origins of the changing environment for Europeanhigher education institu- tions are threefold: ______55. Elected chair by the steering committee on 29September 2005.

63 Higher education governance

• Globalisation,as well as scientificand technologicalprogress: thesephe- nomena which strongly impact on our society and economy havebeen wide- ly described and analysed elsewhere(see Friedman, 2005); • The voluntary policies launched in Europe: the initiative takenin1998 at La Sorbonne by the ministers of education of France,Germany,Italy and the United Kingdom tocreateaEuropeanHigher Education Area(EHEA) with- out border, which was then confirmed a year later by 29ministers meeting in Bologna, is without any doubt amassive shake-upof the higher education sector in Europe. Not only are45countries now participating in the process, but the initialobjectives havebeen broadened toinclude crucialquestions likedoctorate studies,quality assuranceand the social well-being of students. Even if the participating countries and their higher education institutions are implementing “Bologna”at unequal rhythms and witha rather high degree of interpretation of the agreed rules and principles, the whole process already appears tobeamassive shake-upof the system,creating great opportunities for improvement,but alsocontaining many unknowns. The second set of deliberatepolicies is known under the heading “Lisbon agenda”. The Lisbon agendais a set of initiatives takenat the level of the EuropeanUnion since 2000,aiming at reinforcing the European research place thanks toabetter integration of nationaland EuropeanUnion research efforts, toahigher priority given to researchat EU level and to the creation of new instruments like the EuropeanResearchCouncil,afunding body which should be set upat the EuropeanUnion level to support researchproj- ects on acompetitivebasis,and to the idea, still tobedeveloped, tocreatea EuropeanInstituteofScienceand Technology,on the model of MIT or anoth- er model toimagine (see Weber &Zgaga, 2004; Weber, 2006; Bolognaand Council of Europe websites). • Challenges inherent to the development of the higher education and research sector: the sector is facing many other challenges (see The Economist, 2005; Weber, 2006),in particular:(a)ifmany countries must still respond toan increasing participation rate, some will soon enter intoapost-massification stage,due to the strong decreaseof the fertility rateinEurope since the seventies; (b)institutions havea realchallenge recruiting academic staff to replace the great number who were recruited in the 1970s and 1980s to respond to the need of the demographicbaby boom of the 1960s and the simultaneous increased participation rate; (c) the variety and the pressureof demands addressed tohigher education institutions is increasing with the need todevelop continuous education, set upmore specialised training and degrees and multiply researchpartnerships; (d) the cost of doing researchis increasing rapidly due to the increasing sophistication of scientificequipment, the demand for equipment of scientists who traditionally were working withpaper and pencil and the increasing cost of recruiting and installing new researchers; (e) the cost of teaching and learning is alsoincreasing with the multiplication of master degrees, the increasing personalisation of the teaching-learning processes with tutorials and action-learning and the cost of developing

64 (In the) Context of change

e-courseware; (f) last but not least,publicauthorities –and this is particularly truefor Europe withits rapidly ageing population –,are strongly under pressure toincrease their budgetary appropriation to the sectors of health, assistance to the underprivileged and elderly,and security; (g) finally,even if Europe seems for the time being relatively preserved from the waveofnew types of higher education providers which rolls over developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, this commercialisation of the higher education sector is bound toalsohaveanimpact on Europeanhigher education.

3.The consequences for universities are realand serious Peter Drucker, the well knownauthor of numerous books on business issues, said in aninterview given to the magazine Forbes in 1997:“Thirty years from now the big university campuses will be relics.Universities won’t survive. It’s as large a change as when wefirst got the printed book.”Even if very few university lead- ers believein suchagloomy statement,it is true that higher education institutions have toadapt faster.Better still,it has become anobligation for them tolead the change,and not simply undergo it as is presently the casein too many institutions. The twomain trends are: the accommodation of increasing competition and the obligation tocollaborate. •The changing environment is disrupting the monopoly position that most higher education institutions wereenjoying ( The Economist, 2005),in par- ticular in continentalEurope, where they weremerely attracting regional staff and students.The competition develops first within traditionalinstitutions, whicharecompeting more thanever for funding,faculty and even students. The increasing scarcity of public resources forces institutions tocompetefor other sources of funding,like students’fees,donations and contractual research. The necessity tobebetter than the others creates alsoaclimateof increasing competition for higher education institutions whichmore than ever have tocompetefor the best professors-researchers,as it has become crucialfor them toattract researchfunding and good students.Secondly, competition is arising from other types of higher education institutions (pri- vate universities, subsidiaries from off-shore well-knownor less well-known institutions,corporate universities,mediaor publishers’universities,as well as degree mills)or new ways to transfer knowledge (open universities,dis- tancelearning,developers of e-courseware,like the open coursewareinitia- tivefrom MIT (Vest, 2006)). Even if it does not seem that thesenew devel- opments arehaving agreat impact in continentalEurope yet, they arecom- ing and will influence the scene. •One of the paradoxes of the present developments is also that higher educa- tion institutions are,even if they areentering ahighly competitiveenviron- ment,obliged tocollaborate withother higher education institutions,busi- nesses and government.Inparticular, they have tonetwork to reacha suffi- cient criticalmass todevelop specialised teaching programmes, toengage in important researchprojects and even in re-engineering themselves tofocus on what they arebest at, whichmeans alsoclosing departments or transferring

65 Higher education governance

them toother universities.Europe is characterised by too many too small institutions; universities will eventually have tomerge togain acriticalmass and thereforegain in efficiency (Weber &Duderstadt, 2004).

4. The specificchallengefor Europe Europe is rightly proudofits democratic values,culturaldiversity and high sense of socialequity and should thereforedoeverything it can tomaintain theseor even improveon them. The senseofhigh accomplishment linked withit should not pre- vent Europeancountries and governmentalorganisations from seeing that their world has entered intoafiercecompetition withcountries like the USA, which haveovertakenit in matters of scienceand innovation,or withthe new developing countries, whichcancount on an unlimited reservoir of young people eager to learnand ready to workhardand alsoable tomake and implement important polit- icaland business decisions.This is why, rightly, the Europeanheads of statedecid- ed in 2000 in Lisbon that Europe should become the most competitiveand dynam- ic world economy based on the knowledge society (Lisbon EuropeanCouncil, 2000). Inother words,developing the knowledge society is the only chancefor Europe tokeep its envied standardofliving and relatively good socialcohesion. Although it took time for the fact that Europe needs strong universities tobe recog- nised at the EuropeanCommission level,it is still not recognised by many gov- ernments.This is why “Strong Universities” was the topicof the convention organ- ised by the EuropeanUniversity Association in March 2005, which was honoured by a speechof the president of the EuropeanCommission (EUA, 2005,Barroso, 2005). Probably,higher education and researchhavenever been sohigh in the agendaof the EuropeanCommission. Another proof is the recently published Communication on the role of universities (2005a). Inanalysing thesepositions, one has tokeep in mind that the trend following Lisbon 2000 was not at all in con- formity with the objectives for 2010; this is why the Commission is presently try- ing togiveanew start to the Lisbon agenda(2005b). Europe seems tobe trapped in a vicious circle: without afaster economicgrowth,it is impossible toinvest suf- ficiently in higher education and researchand without theseinvestments,it will not bepossible to stimulate the economicgrowthand thus secure the publicand financialmeans to sustain the comfortable labour conditions and generous social security system. Europe is at a turning point.

5. The challengeofleading the change Anyone who has been in discussion with university leaders or faculty members or has been advising universities knows perfectly well that most of the rhetoric turns around the question whether the glass is “half full” or “half empty”? Obviously every university continuously adapts to the changing teaching and researchenvi- ronment,in particular to the arrivalofnew knowledge,new researchmethodologies or approaches, thanks to the spontaneous capacity of adaptation of their academic staff (teachers and/or researchers)or on the occasion of the recruitment of new staff.The realquestion is how fast?If thereareneither incentives nor sanctions, whatever the reason, weakleadership,organisationalparalysis or lackofexternal

66 (In the) Context of change competition, the effectiveadaptation process will obviously be slower than the changing environment requires.And more than that,initiatives takenat department or faculty level will depend on their own relativedynamism,but will not necessar- ily beinaccordance with what seems tobebest for the futureof the institution. In view of the deep transformation whichis taking place,my senseis that uni- versities –and this is also truefor the university system –arenot adapting fast enough and that it no longer suffices tocount on individualdepartments or fac- ulties tolead the change. Today,in order tobecome stronger and toimprove, the whole institution needs todefine and implement along-term strategy on the basis of its strengths and weaknesses,as well as its opportunities and threats (SWOT analysis)(Weber &Duderstadt, 2004). Moreover,my strong belief is that small- and medium-sized,as well as decen- tralised comprehensive research universities – typicalfor the European universi- ty of the previous centuries –arenolonger a viable option. Obviously,any insti- tution is bound tobegood if the new entering students are well prepared,if the staff, the facilities and equipment aregood and if funding is generous.However, today’s challenges require that eachinstitution becomes better; this holds truefor good institutions as well as for mediocreones.Ibet that the types of university which will succeed in the future will belarger,in terms of academic staff,and morecentralised,in terms of strategicdecision making,comprehensiveor spe- cialised in afew interconnected disciplines; moreover, they will be strategically led at institutionallevel.

6.Ways to take up the challenge:strong universities Now that some of the challenges havebeen described,Iamproposing below five key conditions which should allow universities toaddress thesechallenges suc- cessfully.Iffour of them apply, tomy mind, toall types of higher education insti- tutions,Iamaware that the first one related to university autonomy should prob- ably be varied according to the type of institution. a.Universities should beautonomous Probably my strongest message is that universities,in particular research univer- sities, should be very autonomous.Tomea very autonomous university should in particular befree toorganiseitself as it sees fit (system of governanceand selec- tion of leaders,internal structure), tochoose the disciplines taught and the degrees delivered, tochooseits academic, technicaland administrative staff and fix their remuneration and finally, tochooseits students. The reasons in favour of suchalarge autonomy are twofold: •Firstly,history teaches us that each time the sovereign (church,emperor,dic- tator or political regime) restricted the autonomy or took control of universi- ties therefollowed aperiod of intellectualand social stagnation or decadence. Society needs universities to researchfreely, withahigh level of scholarship and the most appropriate scientificmethods possible and todevelop new knowledge. Any tentative to“regulate” this process of creativedestruction is

67 Higher education governance

bound tofail or at least be reductivebecause the regulator does not benefit from the same spaceoffreedom of inquiry and expression and will in most cases not have the same level of scholarship. Moreover, the politicians who fix the regulatory rules and control their implementation arecondemned by the democratic system tohavemainly short-termobjectives, whereas univer- sities best serve the community if they pursuemid- and long-termgoals. •Secondly,all the recent university ranking exercises show that,by far, those universities considered as the best are very autonomous institutions. Certainly, therealsoexist excellent universities withlittle autonomy in coun- tries likeRussiaor China; thereare two reasons for that:(i) they benefit from far moregenerous funding by the government than the other institutions in the country whicharenot considered tobeflagship institutions; (ii) they have a strong top-downdecision-making process whichallows them tofix clear priorities,contrary tomost universities in the western world. Autonomous universities arebetter because they canbemoreproactiveand entre- preneurialinpositioning themselves in the competitiveenvironment; in other words, they areinabetter position tolead the change than simply adapt toit.It is extremely important here to understand that too much regulation,often bad reg- ulation,as well as too many short-termand often cyclicaloutside pressures or incentives arehampering the willingness to take initiativeand –and this is most preoccupying –invitemore regulation and even politicalmicromanagement becauseinstitutions areperceived as too passive. Too many and bad regulations or pressures contribute to weakening –insteadof reinforcing –institutions.This is aclear caseofa vicious circle! Some will argue that if universities arelargely independent from government,it should stop funding them. This is a very dangerous argument for acountry as it derives from the wrong understanding that education expenses areconsumption expenses.Ifone correctly understands that funding universities is ahigh returncol- lectiveinvestment (whichadds to the private returnfor the students),it is obvious that publicauthorities must financially support universities in a substantial way. After this reminder,it is alsoobvious that agovernment should haveahigher edu- cation and researchpolicy, whichimplies the fixation of priorities and their con- cretisation through the grants appropriated for the different priorities.At the level of aninstitution, this canbedone in different ways.Let me just mention twoof them:(i) by acontractualagreement between the government and the institutions; (ii) by adapting the grants appropriated togroups of disciplines and/or to research versus teaching over time according to the priority attributed to them. Thereis obviously a riskhere that agovernment chooses to restrict the institu- tions’autonomy by way of financialinsteadoflegaland administrative regula- tions.Therefore,it is alsocrucial that the implementation of agovernmentalpol- icy based on financialincentives and disincentives should only bedone witha high level of bundling the appropriations for different activities,and universities should have the possibility tofix their ownpriorities within the blockgrant they receiveand in particular tofinanceby other means the activities whicharenot a

68 (In the) Context of change governmentalpriority,but their own strategicpriority.Obviously, the borderline is blurred and only acorrect perception of the justification of university autono- my for the good of society will allow universities topursue their own strategy. Inaddition tofixing broadfinancialpriorities,governments should make sure that eachinstitution –publicand private–has a sufficient level of quality.But this regulatory role of governments should respect the subsidiarity principle. This means that universities should spontaneously develop a rigorous quality culture. Inother words, universities should be the key players and the owners of the sys- tem (Weber, 2005) and the publicauthorities should audit thesepractices tomake sure that universities take it seriously and do it well. Let me conclude by saying that if a very broadautonomy is essentialfor the per- formanceof research universities, the situation is slightly different for other types of higher education institutions (professionalcolleges, teaching universities and community colleges), wherea stronger publicguidanceand supervision is prob- ably advisable. b.Universities should beproactive,transparent and accountable Securing the frameworkconditions for proactive universities should mainly be the concernof the publicauthorities (government,ministry and parliament), which arechallenged to trust universities,as well as,but probably toalesser degree, other higher education institutions,and to refrain from politically interfering and micromanaging the institutions.As weknow by observation,most governments in Europe havea restrictive view of institutionalautonomy and/or fall into the trap of believing –or behaving as if they believed – that they know better what should bedone than their leaders at the different levels of their organisation. Obviously, granting alarge autonomy to universities enters intoconflict with the sovereign- ty of the stateover publicor publicly funded institutions.However,history as well as today’s ranking of universities shows unambiguously that granting a realauton- omy to universities is anessential step in higher education policy. However,obviously, the trust which should begranted to universities is by no means ablank chequegiven to them todoanything or nothing. It assumes that universities areproactiveand “aggressively”make the necessary effort to improveand even searchfor excellencein teaching and research,as well as to take their great and numerous responsibilities towards society very seriously.This means among others that universities should not be satisfied with simply adapt- ing to the changing environment,but should lead the change. This implies in par- ticular the following for universities: • Good understanding of their environment: universities should monitor and analyse the changing environment tobeawareof the changes whichare tak- ing placeand areabout tocome in order toperceive the consequences these will haveon their activities and organisation. • Good knowledgeof their portfolio: the output of aEuropean university is essentially the fruit of history, whichis of a succession of microdecisions takendecade after decade. Ina rapidly changing world, universities should

69 Higher education governance

analysecritically their portfolio of teaching and researchprogrammes,as well as services to society,on the basis of afair SWOT analysis.Too many activi- ties arepursued simply because they havealways been done and becauseno serious analyses havebeen made which would have shown they areless important thanothers whichcannot bedeveloped becauseof that.Moreover, too many opportunities are wasted because they havenot been identified early enough or not at all and possible threats aregenerally recognised too late. • Fixing missions and elaborating the strategy accordingly: the SWOT analysis should alsohelp to refine or revise the institution’s missions.Drafting amis- sion statement is more thananexercisein rhetoricand communication; the mission statement of aninstitution should reflect where the institution really wants toposition itself and serves as the main foundation of its strategicplan. • Set upa system of governancefavourable todecisions: the immensemajori- ty of European universities arenot able to take decisions other than with small incremental steps.The decision processes are too cumbersome and clearly biased in favour of the status quo. The only competenceof the insti- tution’s leaders is toconvince; leaders can rarely impose their views. • Being accountable and transparent: the more universities areautonomous, the more they have tobeaccountable to their founders and stakeholders.This means first of all that institutions should be transparent, that is to say,give fair information about their activities, recruitment procedures and accounts, and secondly should beaccountable, that is,able tojustify to their stake- holders that their activities areinaccordance with their missions,adequate and cost-efficient. • Develop a rigorous quality culture: in addition tobeing transparent and accountable,institutions should bequality conscious,among others by set- ting upand developing a rigorous internalinstitutionalquality enhancement system focused on the capacity of the institution tochange. The system should bearticulated around self-assessment, the visit of peers and a rigor- ous phaseoffollow-up. The ownership of the quality enhancement proce- dures is anecessary condition toguarantee that the institution looks at itself in acriticalmanner.The more the quality assuranceprocess is external, the moreit turns intoabeauty contest. c.Universities should have the right degree of (de)centralisation Another delicatequestion is the structuralorganisation of aninstitution. Many university rectors or presidents are testifying that the biggest impediment to change comes from the too large autonomy of faculties and/or departments.This is certainly true. On the other hand, universities,more thanany other institutions should secureagreat degree of decentralisation. Thereexists no other institution with somuchknowledge at the basis of the “virtual” hierarchicalpyramid. Therefore,it is essential toguarantee that professors, researchers and advanced students canfully realise their potentialand have the possibility to take initiatives.

70 (In the) Context of change

Ihaveargued elsewhere that universities should somehow beorganised likeafed- eralcountry (Weber, 2001). Basically, the organisation should respect the subsidiarity principle, which signi- fies that decisions should be takenat the lowest level possible. Inother words, decisions should bemade at ahigh hierarchicallevel only if it is not adequate to make them at alower hierarchicallevel. This principle prescribes that many deci- sions should be takenat department or faculty levels,as they arebest placed to make informed decisions.However, thereare three important limitations to that general rule: • Existenceofgood or badexternalities: if for example adepartment or facul- ty is weakand has abad reputation, the reputation of the whole institution is affected: the leadership of the institution should thereforebecompetent to take the necessary measures.The oppositecaseis also true:if adepartment is excellent, the leadership of the institution should beinaposition to take the necessary measures todevelop it even more. Ina situation of rapid change,numerous opportunities and threats and scarce resources,it is crucial that the institution’s leaders areinaposition tomodify the relativeimpor- tanceofadepartment or of faculties according to the strategicobjectives of the whole institution. The specific units which would loseout in the change will obviously oppose the change withall the means at their disposal; how- ever, the university authorities should have the power to take thesedecisions becausean unsatisfactory situation at department or faculty level reflects badly on the entireinstitution. Therearemany other situations whereit would beadvisable to reallocate resources according topriorities and posteriorities. • Searchfor economies of scale: in a time of scarce resources and increasing costs,it has become moreimportant to recognise that the unit cost of anactiv- ity depends on its size, whichdepends generally on the level at which the activity is done. As anexample,let us just consider the management of libraries:it is obvious that the implementation of acomprehensiveelectron- iccataloguing and management system should bedone at the highest level possible. Today’s tendency is clearly to runmany activities at ahigher level in order togain in efficiency. • High preferencefor equal treatment of equals: the level of centralisation or decentralisation depends finally on the degree of preferencefor equal treat- ment of equals.Aninstitution whichis not very sensitive to that aspect can make most decisions at department or faculty levels whereas aninstitution whichis very sensitive toit has no other way than taking decisions at the top of the institution toensure that the same rules and interpretation apply toall. This is,for example, the case regarding the admission of students. d. University decision making should beimproved Inorder toimprove the governanceofhigher education institutions,it is alsonec- essary toimprovedecision making. I shall raisehereonly twoaspects of the prob- lem:

71 Higher education governance

• Increase the decision power of the leaders: even if the formaldecision struc- tures and processes may giveadifferent impression,most university leaders (rectors,presidents)arehardly in aposition tomake repeated important deci- sions.Compared withprivatefirms, this situation certainly reflects the special natureof universities as described above. However,in a rapidly changing world,it is problematicif university leaders arenot in aposition tomake the necessary decisions tobetter adapt their institutions to the new environment. This situation contributes to the widely spreadimage in publicopinion and political spheres that universities are unable tochange, whichexplains public interference. The difficulty is that the solution to that problem lies morein the decision process thanin the decision-making competences given to the leader. • Simplify the decision process: one of the main weaknesses is that thereare too many bodies, some being redundant,and that the exact role and compe- tences of eachof them arenot clearly defined. The effort should go towards adecreaseof the number of bodies,aclarification of their competences and anincreasein the decision power of the leaders.It is alsonecessary tochoose amode of selection of the leaders,at university as well as faculty and/or department levels, whichis favourable todecisions.However, with regard to the very natureofa university (high competenceat the baseof the hierarchy and many stakeholders),it is also very important toguarantee anextensive and trueconsultation of all thoseconcerned by adecision (including students for issues whichconcern them). e. Professionalise the decision mechanisms and the administration Too many universities havean“amateurish” system of management with regard to strategy setting,decision making and management.It is particularly desirable that: •the leaders havemanagement skills in addition toacademicones.This implies that they should at least have the opportunity toget serious training in university management and possibly also that they benefit from some coaching during their first years in office; •the decisions arebased on evidenceinparticular due toa rigorous account- ing and controlling system, toanextensive statisticaldatabaseand adequate performanceindicators and,finally, to the systematicanalysis of important questions.

7.By way of conclusion The purposeof this introductory chapter drawnfrom my introductory statement at the forum was mainly to send amessage of warning. Without a significant change in the governance system and leadership of its higher education institu- tions,Europe will not succeed in increasing the number of strong universities or networkof universities ( The Economist, 2005; Weber, 2006). Hopefully,Ihaveidentified where–and somehow alsohow –action should take place. Iam very well aware that this contribution raises many questions and does not solve them all,or even that some of the ways proposed arecontroversial.

72 (In the) Context of change

Hopefully, the forumorganised by the Steering Committee for Higher Education and Researchof the Council of Europe and this publication will not only initiate abroader awareness of the urgency of the question,but will identify some com- mon views on how tomake universities capable of faster change.

73 Higher education governance

References Barroso,J.M., Strong universities for Europe, speechat the Convention of the EuropeanUniversity Association,Glasgow, 2 April 2005. BolognaProcess website:http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bologna/ Commission of the EuropeanCommunities,(2000),Communication from the Commission to the Council, the EuropeanParliament, the Economicand Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, TowardaEuropean researcharea (COM(2000) 6 final: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2000/com2000_0006en01.pdf Commission of the EuropeanCommunities (2005a),Communication from the commission, Mobilising the brainpower of Europe:enabling universities tomake their full contribution to the Lisbon strategy ,(COM(2005) 152 final. Commission of the EuropeanCommunities,(2005b),Communication to the spring EuropeanCouncil, Working together for growthand jobs,anew start for the Lisbon strategy ,COM(2005) 24,Brussels. Council of Europe Steering Committee for Higher Education and Research web- site:http://www.coe.int/T/DG4/HigherEducation/Default_EN.asp Drucker,P.F.,Interview:“Seeing things as they really are.” Forbes ,159,1997: 122-28. EuropeanUniversity Association, Glasgow Declaration:Strong universities for a strong Europe,EUA,Brussels, 2005. Friedman,T.L., The world is flat,Abrief history of the twenty-first century,Farrar, Straus and Giroux,New York, 2005. Lisbon EuropeanCouncil, Presidency conclusions , 23-24March, 2000: http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/ec/00100-r1.en0.htm The Economist,“The brain business,A survey of higher education”,10 September 2005. Vest,C.M.,“Best practiceinknowledge transfer”,in Weber L.E.&Duderstadt J.J.(eds.) Universities and business:Partnering for the knowledge society, Economica, Paris, 2006,Chapter 23. Weber,L.,“Critical university decisions and their appropriatemakers:Some les- sons from the economic theory of federalism” in HirschL.E.&Weber L.E.(eds.), Governanceinhigher education; The university in a stateofflux,Economica, Paris, 2001,Chapter 6. Weber L.E.,“European strategy topromote the knowledge society as a sourceof renewed economicdynamismand socialcohesion”,in Weber L.E.&Duderstadt J.J. (eds.), Universities and business:Partnering for the knowledge society, Economica, Paris, 2006,Chapter 1.

74 (In the) Context of change

Weber,L.E.,“Natureand scope of the public responsibility for higher education and research” in Weber L.E.&BerganS.(eds.), The public responsibility for higher education and research ,Council of Europe higher education series,No. 2, Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2005,Chapter 2. Weber L.E.&Duderstadt,J.J.,“Challenges and possible strategies for research universities in Europe and the United States”,in Weber L.E.&Duderstadt J.J. (eds.), Reinventing the research university,Economica, Paris, 2004,Chapter 17, 237-254. Weber,L.E.&Zgaga, P.,“Reinventing the Europeanhigher education and research sector:The challenge for research universities”,in Weber L.E.&Dudestadt J.J. (eds.), Reinventing the research university,Economica, Paris, 2004,Chapter 3.

75

Concepts

Higher education governanceinEurope: autonomy,ownership and accountability – A review of the literature Jochen Fried

1. Introduction For along time, the discussion about higher education governanceissues has been confined to the circles of policy makers and reseachers.The termitself was not much used,let alone well understood outside of the English-speaking countries, in part perhaps becausemost languages seem tolacka straightforwardequivalent and are thus importing the word‘governance’ intolocalparlance,often witha certain senseof uneasiness.This has changed quite radically during the past decade or sofollowing the sweeping transformation of higher education systems in many Europeancountries in the post-1989 period as well as far-reaching revi- sions and adjustments regarding the structureof university organisation in numer- ous other countries.Governancehas not always been the label under which the discussionsabout thesechanges havebeen taking place,but it has been at the heart of most of thesedebates. With the proliferation of governanceliteratureinmore recent years, the meaning of the termhas become moreexpansiveand, unavoidably so,morediffuse. Even apassing glanceat the literatureon this topic reveals that governanceis a trendy subject among scholars of a surprisingly broad scope of subjects which range from politicalphilosophy toorganisationalpsychology.Thereis ageneralcon- sensus among researchers that governanceis a relatively recently coined termfor anage-old phenomenon. Conceptually,governanceexists for as long as ships are crossing the sea whichcreated the need for ‘steering’. The anglophone word‘gov- ernance’ canbe traced to the classicalLatin and ancient Greek words for ‘steer- ing the boats’(Jessop 1998: 30). This observation is not entirely trivialbecausein the literatureabout ‘governance’ it is often noted that metaphors and especially the connotations of words suchas ‘steering’,‘leadership’,‘stakeholder’,‘owner- ship’,etc.play acertain role in the governancedebate. Another common denominator in the literature that is of some significanceis the widespreadcomplaint about the indistinctness of the concept of ‘governance’ due tooveruse,as the following quoteindicates:“The generaldebateongovernance takes placeina very large and creative researchfield – toput it in anoptimistic way.The apparent disadvantage of this ‘fruitfulness’is that many different uses and analyses of governancehaveemerged. It has thus become almost a tradition for researchers in the field to start anarticle or abook by deploring the many uses of the wordgovernance, saying for example ‘that thereareperhaps as many

79 Higher education governance different views about governanceas thereare scholars interested in the subject’ (Pierre&Peters, 2000: 28)” (Lond, 2003: 3). This uncertainty is not a result of sloppy thinking,on the contrary,it reflects the ambiguity of a situation in which some of the stable distinctions of the past (in the caseofhigher education,for instance,between publicand private,autonomy and interdependence,power and legitimacy)havebecome blurred and the concept of governance steps in to reassert coherence whereit is in question. It is one of the underlying premises of this review that the emergenceof the governancediscourseis a symptom of the searchfor anew balanceof societalforces,actors and structures whichnolonger follow the given rules and patterns.Therefore,governanceis seen as adynamic concept. The following text is intended toprovide acommon frameworkfor amorein- depthdiscussion,initiated by the Council of Europe,of the evolution of gover- nancemodes and models in Europeanhigher education over the past couple of decades or so. This discussion is,at least in part,motivated by the conviction that a stronger emphasis on good governancecould help foster amoreholistic approach to the various reformagendas that the higher education sector is under- going,notably those reforms that areinduced by the BolognaProcess.Whether spelled withacapitalor a small letter, this is by no means a uniformprocess,and alsonot aprocess aiming at uniformity.It should thus be stated at the outset of this review that a single Europeanmodel of higher education governancedoes not (yet?) exist.Instead, thereis abroad variety of governance regimes in the differ- ent Europeancountries, reflecting the specifichistories and socio-economicas well as politicalforces that have shaped their respectivehigher education systems. All attempts toprovide abroad transnationaloverview are, therefore,inevitably liable toacertain degree of generalisation and approximation. Accordingly, the present report does not attempt tooffer anencyclopedic survey of governance schemes and arrangements in Europe; instead the discussion focuses on patterns and actors, thus trying toidentify acertain convergenceor common trends that characterise the evolution of governance structures in Europeanhigher education. In the interest of providing abroad supranational frameworkfor this discussion, some of the more specific thematicareas and aspects that would deserveamore thorough consideration aredeliberately de- emphasised. Inparticular, the report does not explicitly address the question of various types of institutions whichcontribute to the diversity and complexity of higher education in Europe. It assumes a relatively coherent tertiary sector with the traditional university as its leadinstitution,obviously at the priceofpaying only passing attention to the non-university segment (for example,polytechnics in their different nationalmanifestations,institutions of further education and other types of institutions)but alsoprivateor non-governmental universities. However,by analysing the scope and the configuration of governance structures of the former,it is hoped that this will also shed some light on the relevant devel- opments of the latter. The review focuses on some of the typicalfault lines in the governancedebate, for example, the one that runs between governanceon the one hand,and autono-

80 Concepts my and academicfreedom on the other; another fault line lies between the uni- versity understood as aloosely coupled system and a streamlined approach to forcing all units under the same ‘new publicmanagement’rules; yet another one demarcates the time-honoured principles and procedures of academic self- government vis-à-vis a stakeholder model of university governance. Thereare many morecontentious issues that arediscussed in the literature under the general heading of ‘governance’, though the one that perhaps is stirring up the most vehe- ment reactions is the thorny question of how governanceand management are related toone another.Not surprisingly, thereis no authoritativeanswer to this question based on the literature. According toone’s own viewpoint,persuasive arguments canbeextracted for either of the competing positions: that governance and management areopposed toeachother,implying different understandings of purposes of higher education; or,on the contrary, that they areofacomplemen- tary natureand that it is in fact the interlinkage of governanceand management whichenables agiven institution topursueits owngoals and be self-reliant. However, regardless of one’s ownposition in these sometimes heated debates, the review of the relevant literaturealso strongly suggests that governanceis not just adetached set of formulas and rules whichdefine the process and mechanismof collectivedecision making; instead,it is always situated and contingent upon con- text and environment.UlrikeFelt,in her essay on University autonomy in Europe: Changing paradigms in higher education policy (Bologna, 2003),convincingly argues that the advent of the knowledge society makes it imperative to renegoti- ate the socialcontract under which universities wereoperating since the 1970s (14, see alsoChapter 2.1). It seems important to underline the term‘negotiation’ in this statement sinceit evokes anactive role and participation of the citizens of the university in the shaping of this new contract – whereas the critics of the ‘managerial revolution’ in higher education in the 1990s depict the academic community as the moreor less passiveobject and victim of what they see as a top- downand unfriendly takeover of the university by its own senior management.It would behealthy for the debateabout governanceissues if there was less institu- tionalnavel-gazing and morecontext awareness guiding the discussions. The concept of governanceemerged within the context of the more recent devo- lution of stateauthority,decentralisation and non-intervention as a result of the growing complexity of the sociopoliticaland economicenvironment which requires new approaches to the steering of the public sector.Governanceinits contemporary understanding implies a re-orientation of the universities away from aninward-looking perspectiveofa self-contained autonomous space to emphasise the ‘embeddedness’ofhigher education and research. Good governance strives topreserve the integrity of the academic value system while at the same time it positions the university vis-à-vis the larger environment tomake it receptiveand answerable toexternalmessages,demands and expecta- tions.In this respect,governancebecomes the conduit for expanding the mission of the university by including adimension whichis captured in the notion of serv- iceas the thirdkey component of academic worknext to teaching and research. It therefore seems expedient tocombine the discussion about good governance

81 Higher education governance with the question:Who are we serving as higher education institutions? Governanceitself is only ameans toanend,and unless wehaveaclear under- standing of the purposeofhigher education, welack the criteria todistinguish between good and badgovernance. Inother words: the purposeofhigher educa- tion must precede the decisions about the means topursue these. It is precisely for this reason that governanceis the “juncture where the distinc- tive socialand culturalidentity of eachinstitution is formed” (Marginson & Considine, 2000:8).

2.Governance:concept,dimensions,procedures and functions 2.1. The emergenceofaconcept In the past twodecades or so, the term‘governance’ has hada remarkable career within higher education (HE)circles (and beyond) throughout Europe. The follow- ing study, while primarily providing anoverview of some of the most essentialliter- atureon this topic, canalsobe readas anattempt to uncover the reasons for the appreciation and recognition which this termnow enjoys and whichis by no means self-explanatory.On the contrary,it is in some respects adifficult and even anawk- ward term that defies a straightforward understanding as numerous authors confirm. Peter Scott writes that ‘governance’ is “a relatively novel derivation from the root word‘govern’ –or,moreprecisely,it has acquired anew currency and meaning… to denoteamuchbroader account of the governing process going beyond the actions of ‘governors’and ‘governments’. ‘Governance’ embraces a wider set of actors,it ranges beyond the territory of stateinstitutions into the privateand voluntary sectors; and,consequently,it is amoreambiguous and volatile process”(Scott, 2001:125). Accordingly,‘governance’ encompasses many areas and is used in abroad vari- ety of contexts,for example,as corporategovernance,governanceas New Public Management,good governance,globalgovernance,economicgovernance,par- ticipatory governance,governanceas “institutionalmanagement/steering”,etc. Equally diverseare the definitions of this notion though they all emphasise three main characteristics: a.governancemeans regulation, steerage and control ( Steuerung or Regelung in German) within the context of agiven (social,political,economic, insti- tutional) order; b.it canbedescribed and analysed as “a set of practices whereby independent politicaland/or economicactors coordinateand/or hierarchically control their activities and interactions…Governance structures are thereforefor- maland informalinstitutionaldevices through whichpoliticaland econom- icactors organizeand manage their interdependencies”(Hirst &Thompson, 1997: 362); c. these structures ultimately serve toenhanceor promote the legitimacy and efficiency of the social system by way of organising negotiation processes, setting standards,performing allocation functions,monitoring compliance, reducing conflict,and resolving disputes (ibid.).

82 Concepts

A usefulexample toillustrate this complex concept is the emergenceof the term ‘good governance’ in the publicdomain:“Since the early 1990s, the notion of ‘good governance’ as anecessary prerequisitefor sustainable development and poverty reduction has gained widespreadcurrency,especially among international organisations.…The World Bank was the first major donor institution toadopt the concept of good governanceas acondition for lending todeveloping countries” (Simonis, 2004; 2f). In this case the “set of practices” that this concept refers tois of course the interaction and interdependencebetween donors and recipients.It indicates certain expectations and stipulates amoreor less clearly defined code of conduct:good governance relates todemocracy, the rule of law,human rights, decentralisation, transparency,accountability,and reducing corruption toensure maximumeffectiveness of internationaldevelopment programmes.It is alsoobvi- ous that in this example the term‘governance’ carries a normative connotation by making universalisticassumptions regarding the applicability of the principles of what merits being called ‘good governance’. (This is further confirmed by the fact that ‘good governance’ has been included as one of the targets of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)of the UN whicharenormativeby nature.) Theseassumptions concerning shared values,however,arefirst of all postulated by those who have the defining power; they are the values within apredominant- ly donor-driven discourseabout suitable policies tomanage and implement devel- opment projects according toacceptable rules.Nodoubt that apart from the donors thereareother stakeholders that also subscribe to those values (for exam- ple,NGOs in the given recipient countries that might blame their governments for certain ‘leakages’inprocessing donor funds). But for the broader purposes of this study it is important tokeep in mind that along withits descriptiveand analytical meaning ‘governance’ has animplicit or explicit normativedimension whichis not always acknowledged. The example alsoprovides ahint toone of the principalinfluences and underly- ing rationales that gave rise to the prominenceof the notion of governance. In the internationaldonor discourse,insisting on good governance is aconsequenceof the experienceofdealing withbad(inept,incompetent,incapable or immoral) or weak governments.But alsoin the industrialised countries, the changing role of the statefrom the early 1980s onwards instigated a searchfor anenhanced under- standing and new models of how publicaffairs canbe runmoreeffectively and efficiently.Prompted by the general waning of trust in the stateas the curator and executor of the volontégénérale as well as the provider and/or guarantor of pub- lic welfare, the governanceapproachpresented itself as a remedy both to re- conceptualiseand tooverhaul those tasks that had traditionally fallen under the authority of the state. Inother words:it is the classicgovernment function in pub- licaffairs that is challenged by the more recent concept of governance. This jux- taposition is very clearly being expressed in the title of a seminalbook called Governance without government:Order and changein world politics edited by James Rosenau and Ernst-OttoCzempiel (1992). Whether it is being seen as a sign of an unfortunateatrophy of the stateor as a deliberatedevolution of governmentalauthority, the growing importanceof

83 Higher education governance governanceis in many aspects closely linked to the neo-liberal reshaping of the public sphereineconomy, society and politics.“(…) classicforms of welfare statehavebeen superseded by neo-liberaland entrepreneurialforms, whichhave required a shift from straightforwardnotions of democratic‘government’tomore sinuous notions of stakeholder ‘governance’” (Scott, 2001:126). New networks, forms of co-operation and partnerships aredeveloping at different politicallevels between the three sectors: state,business and civil society.Traditionalforms of (hierarchical) “government”arelosing significance; new forms of (horizontal) political regulation areemerging. The notion of governance refers precisely toadecentralised constitution of the socialorder withanemphasis on the way in whichpower and authority relations are structured in different institutions and contexts.As far as publicinstitutions areconcerned,governancefocuses on the rules and mechanisms by which vari- ous stakeholders caninfluencedecisions and hold thoseinpower accountable. In the private sector, the concept of corporategovernanceis challenging non- transparency and non-accountability not only towards shareholders but the wider public.As for multilateralorganisations suchas the IMF, the World Bank or the United Nations, they aredeeply involved in discussions about globalgovernance prompted,among other reasons,by the demand of greater responsiveness of these organisations towards civil society in its broadest sense. Universities everywherehavenot been exempt from this development.At the heart of the governancedebate“are the notions of autonomy and academicfree- dom,i.e., the new forms of responsibility towards society and of accountability towards stakeholders.(…) Ina way, the contract negotiated between universities and society, under particular conditions in the 1970s and based on acertain set of values,is now being renegotiated in the context of wider societalchanges”(Felt, 2003:14). The dominant characteristics of thesechanges is the well-knowncom- bination of the increased student demand for higher education, the relative decreaseofpublicexpenditurefor higher education institutions,diversification of financial resources,agrowing nationaland internationalcompetitiveness among universities, the introduction of quality assurance regimes and performance- based allocation of funds,new demands of employers and students towards uni- versity education (caused,for example,by the advent of the ‘knowledge econo- my’) or the shortened cycles of innovation in scienceand technology, toname just the most prominent factors.Thesechanges areaffecting universities throughout Europe and beyond in similar ways though the manner in whichindividualcoun- tries are reacting to them canbe rather diverse reflecting different and deeply- rooted histories,politicalcultures and state/university relationships. Against this background of rapid changes bothin terms of internaldemands and externalexpectations, the increased emphasis on the concept of governancemust be seen as anindication of abroader need to rethink and redesign the way uni- versities go about doing their business.As a response toacrisis of legitimacy and capacity to(re)act whichis similar to that of the nation-stategovernments, the wider ideaof university governance“has begunnot only toembracebut also to replace the traditionalnotions of academic self-government”(Scott, 2001:126).

84 Concepts

2.2.Governancedimensions In the most elementary sense,governanceis “the formaland informalexerciseof authority under laws,policies and rules that articulate the rights and responsibil- ities of various actors,including the rules by which they interact, soas tohelp achieve the institution’s academicobjectives”(Hirsch&Weber, 2001: viii). In other words,governanceis stating the answers to the fundamentalquestion: who is in charge,how are the rules applied,and what are the sources of legitimacy for executivedecision making by different actors? The current changes in governance regimes of higher education systems and institutions (the ‘renegotiation of the contract between university and society’) are often described as a shift from the traditionalmode of academic self-government toanew model of managerial self-governance that attempts to re-arrange the internalorganisation of the university around the ideaof amodern service enterprise withits emphasis on moreaccountability towards stakeholders,flexi- bility and responsiveness tomarket needs and acapacity for developing strategic goals that areattuned to the people that universities are serving. Muchof the lit- eratureon this topicfocuses on the consequences of the introduction of manage- rial self-governancefor teaching and research,often by comparing countries whichhavealready made moreprogress on the way from anover-regulated cen- traladministration toaperformance-driven and externally guided model of uni- versity governance. What emerges from theseanalyses arefiveprincipalmecha- nisms of co-ordination or collectivecontrol relevant for the steering of the uni- versity sector (cf. Clark,1979; Braun&Merrien,1999; Schimank,Kehm & Enders,1999): • External regulation refers to the authority of the state tolay down the rules under which universities areallowed tooperate. It typically consists of a set of strict and binding orders prescribing the institutionalbehaviour and course of action under given circumstances.Therearecertain mechanisms of con- trol whichmonitor adherence to these rules (inspectorates,abureaucratic apparatus,certification procedures,conditionalapprovalfor certain activities and,last but not least,financialincentives or disincentives). Thus, this gov- ernancedimension is characterised by the traditional top-downapproachof governing publicinstitutions through aformalised set of legal rules and spe- cific regulations. • Externalguidance canbegiven by the relevant stateauthorities (ministry)or bedelegated by the state toother actors/stakeholder representatives,for example tomembers of the university boards.The mode of exercising steer- ing power and co-ordinated action is not by formaldetermination but by negotiation and goal-setting (performancecontracts areanexample of spec- ifying the goals tobe reached without prescribing the ways and means of achieving thesegoals). • Academic self-governance relates to the processes and procedures of build- ing consensus within and among the ‘academic tribes’as to the courseof action tobe taken. The steering,co-ordination and control of university agendas

85 Higher education governance

is largely left to the collegialdecision making in committees or peer groups which subscribe to the values of egalitarianismand academicmeritocracy as their operating principles. • Managerial self-governance emphasises the hierarchicalposition of the sen- ior leadership and management of aninstitution (rector/president,deans)in terms of goal-setting and executivedecision making. Their authority is con- trolled by a system of intra-institutionalchecks and balances bothin the form of written regulations (for example, the statuteof the university)or of pub- licly stated strategicgoals which serveas a yardstickof success,or lack thereo. • Competition has become agovernancedimension as the underlying rationale for the co-ordination of priorities and decision making in higher education on institutionalas well as system level. It is the logicof the market whichdeter- mines action and thereby establishes order.The allocation of scarce resources (financial, staff,infrastructure) is nowadays mostly done on the basis of some formofcompetitivemechanism whichintroduces a strong layer of manage- rialisminto the governancediscourse. Obviously, thesedifferent governancedimensions areabstractions whichdonot exist in an undiluted or puremanifestation. They areanalyticalcategories to describe what is basically a‘fuzzy’reality of different and overlapping gover- nancedimensions that haveemerged under specificlocaland historicalcondi- tions.But as analytical tools thesedimensions canbehelpful tocut through the mazeand identify trends and developments concerning the evolution of gover- nancepatterns from anationaland transnationalperspective. Ina recent (and yet unpublished) article56 de Boer,Enders and Schimank presented what they call “the governanceequalizer”as “aheuristic tool for the internationalcomparison of highly ambiguous concepts”(the latter referring to their contention that the concepts of governance,New PublicManagement and managerialism“haveno clear or agreed definition of what they areor should be”). The fivedimensions described above represent the different ‘frequencies’that arebeing internally adjusted by the equalizer,adevice to reducedistortion in a(sound) system. The model implies that the input into the system,i.e., the different governancedimen- sions,canbe scaled along the levels of low and high and that governance regimes in generalarealways mixtures or specificcombinations of all fiveprincipal mechanisms of co-ordination and collectivecontrol. “All fivedimensions co- exist, though in acertain period one or moredimensions may predominate,or may be seen as the striking featureofanepoch. Thus, weassume that amode of governanceis made upof severaldimensions that arecombined in empirical situations.” Toillustrate this tool,hereis the example of the traditionalmodes of governance as depicted by the governanceequalizer as well as the ‘entrepreneurial’ type: ______56.DeBoer,Enders &Schimank,“Orchestrating creativeminds.The governanceofhigher education and researchinfour countries compared, 2005,5(unpublished).

86 Concepts

Figure1:Example of the governanceequalizer

TRADITIONAL ENTREPRENEURIAL

SR =State regulation,ASR =Academic self-governance,SG=Stakeholder guidance,MSR =Managerial self-governance,C=Competition

From:de Boer,Enders and Schimank (2005),Orchestrating creativeminds

The discernible advantage of this model is that it avoids simplification by pre- senting governancearrangements as multi-dimensionalconfigurations of con- tributing voices, tones and reverberations (and maybe sometimes alsochatter and burbles) rather thanaone-dimensional‘either/or’. For example, the muchdebat- ed shift from a statecontrol system toa state supervised system of higher educa- tion in most west Europeancountries during the past twodecades or so(in the ter- minology of the equalizer model:from “state regulation” to“stakeholder guid- ance”) is not necessarily equivalent toa‘withdrawalof the state’ but canalsobe readand described as achange of emphasis in the way that anactor pursues the goalofoptimising the governanceprovisions (of exercising authority); in this caseby attenuating the power of command from the top (becauseincreasingly complex systems suchas universities cannot efficiently be ruled top-down) and amplifying the forces of co-ordination,negotiation and ruling from adistance. This also responds toanobvious objection against the equalizer model,namely that it suggests an‘invisible hand’ whichoperates/manipulates this device topro- ducea sound governance system. The authors of the model avow themselves toa “state-centricapproach” in the sense“that the composition of the dimensions of the equalizer always reflect a substantialcontribution of the state” (p. 7). They exemplify their view by pointing to the ‘audit culture’ whichhas entered the scene of higher education governanceconcurrently with the new and supposedly dereg- ulated mode of operation. The rhetoricis one of greater efficiency,increased autonomy,ownership and accountability.However, the execution of the audit and evaluation systems is moreoften thannot meticulously prescribed by national governments or their subsidiary agencies whichin the equalizer model would count as ‘state regulation’ under the guiseofexternalguidance.

87 Higher education governance

The discussion of this model will be taken uplater again when we will be review- ing different modes and patterns of higher education governance(Section 3). For now, the exploration of the constituting elements of governance systems will turn to the various actors and their structural roles in ensuring co-ordination and par- ticipation in the steering of a university. 2.3.Actors in the context of governance On the one hand, the actors could be seen as afactor of contingency in the gov- ernanceequation. It is amatter of personality and attitude how they interpret and play their role in the handling of institutionalaffairs.But the notion of actors as it is referred toherehighlights the moreobjectified or typified understanding of the different functions that areinvolved in the co-ordination of action within a university.It is,of course,conceded that this is only possible by passing over many of the particular features that characterise theseactors in different countries under vastly diversehistoricaland legalcircumstances.But in sofar as thereis a common structure that lies beneath the university systems at least in Europe this generalisation may beadmissible. Thus, the framework structure that shapes, opens and limits the actors’radius of operation are:a. the universities as organi- sational units and their intra-organisational relations; b. the academicdisciplines as professionalcommunities; c.in the caseofpublicinstitutions (on which we will confine ourselves in this review), the stateauthority to set the formal rules for governing and managing the higher education sector. The key players portrayed hereare: •government; •governing boards (boardof trustees); •the rector (or vice-chancellor/president); •academic staff; •centraladministration; •students; •stakeholder representation. Consonant withits self-image as a(academic)community, thesedifferent con- stituencies come together in aco-operativeeffort togovern the given higher edu- cation institution (HEI). Based on this assertion, we will in the following try to summarise very briefly some of the structuralcharacteristics that specify the role of the key actors in institutionalgovernance without even attempting togointo details concerning national specificities. 2.3.1. Government In the early 1990s, the authors of acomprehensivemulti-country study on gov- ernmentalpolicies in higher education (Goedegebuureet al.,1993)came to the conclusion that in continentalEuropean systems the reforms of the past two decades haveled toagradual replacement of the earlier statecontrol model (with

88 Concepts tight regulations and almost all-inclusivepublic/federalalimentation) by a state supervising model whichgives more room for manoeuvre to the individualinsti- tutions in terms of decision making in academic, financial,entrepreneurial,per- sonnel and other matters while the relevant government actors steer the system ‘from adistance’ (cf. Sporn,1999). This finding corresponds to the overall pat- ternofadevolution of stateauthority,decentralisation and non-intervention as a result of agrowing complexity and dynamics of the sociopoliticaland economic environment which requires new approaches to the steering of the public sector (the concept,or ideology,of New PublicManagement (NPM) which will bedis- cussed later,came out tobe seen as akind of panacea to the ills and problems of this sector). It does not,however,necessarily mean that the government is disap- pearing from the stage of higher education governance. Instead,it reflects an increasing awareness of the limitations of the traditionalpubliccommand-and- control as agoverning mechanismand anopenness on behalf of governments to different and moreadequateapproaches in response to societaldevelopments whichcall for new solutions (Kooiman, 2004). It is, therefore,not contradictory that in the publicperception (and in the eyes of HEIs) the government still seems toplay adominant role in the higher education arena: “IncontinentalEurope,it is agenerally held view that it is the core respon- sibility of governments toensure the availability and adequate supply,as well as the quality of and access tohigher education. (…) Whatever has changed in the financiallevels and the governance systems, thereis no indication whatsoever that this conviction has changed in recent years”(vanGinkel, 2001:158). The (d)evolution of stateauthority with respect tohigher education institutions since the late1960s has been of a typicaldualnature reflecting the “fundamental changes in the constitution of public(and private) authority”(Scott, 2001) during this period. On the one hand,it gave way to the generalmoveof societies in west- ernEurope,and since1989 alsoin the rest of Europe, towards moredemocracy and autonomy,and anemphasis on the politics of self-responsibility; on the other hand,in exchange for moreindependence,it brought about new laws and/or fund- ing arrangements whichaim at improving the transparency of university policies and the accountability of university management vis-à-vis the government and the public(steering by economy/finances insteadof steering by law). The ‘audit culture’ – some prefer tocall it anaudit menace– whichhas already been alluded toand whichhas assumed suchaprominent placeinhigher education,has its rationale exactly in this dual tendency: the abandoning of micromanagement and interferenceinacademicpolicies by governmentalactors in favour of new mecha- nisms, tools and incentives toensuremacro-efficiency.This formula was further ‘enhanced’ by the well-knownfactors of transformation that areexternal to the university,most prominently the relativedecreaseofpublicexpenditurefor high- er education; the stress on economic rationality in the planning and delivery of public services,including higher education; the growing influence/interventions of stakeholders in matters that traditionally were regarded as internal to universi- ties; the proliferationofexpectations and demands mounted on universities tobe the universalproblem-solvers for the various troubles and concerns that have

89 Higher education governance befallen society (as,for example,described by Clark,1998). Toput it pointedly, the meaning of decentralisation of responsibilities to the universities, then,is to do more withless (moreindependence,flexibility, responsiveness,demands, expectations or universities; less direct intervention,bureaucracy, restrictions, routine workloadon the part of the government). Obviously,all of this combined necessitates anoverhaulofgoverning activities and structures on all levels. 2.3.2.Governing board(boardof trustees) Different from the Anglo-Saxon tradition,continentalEuropeanhigher education systems had until recently not muchexperience withlay participation in gover- nancematters.The institution of lay trusteeship is in particular characteristicof private universities and colleges in the United States whicharegenuine products of the civil society rather thanentities of the state(Scott, 2001) whichaccounts for amorecommunitariannotion of higher education governancein the US com- pared to the predominantly state-centric understanding in Europe where universi- ties wereone of the key pillars in the process of nation/statebuilding. The main purposeof these trustees is topreserveand protect the institutionalintegrity against undueoutside interference,beit political, sectarianor otherwise,and to serveas the top decision-making body within the governancechain of the insti- tution. With regard tointernalgovernance, the tasks and responsibilities of the boardof trustees are toalarge degree of fiduciary nature:approving (or disap- proving) annualbudgets and financial reports,endorsing the strategicplan,delib- erating major capitalinvestments,etc.It is not considered tobe the business of boardmembers tomeddle withinternalaffairs likeadmissions,curriculumor academicappointments withone notable exception:it is the sole prerogativeof the board toappoint the president of the college or university.Inother words, “(t)he jobis toconserve,not toinnovate(…) institutionaldevelopment is regard- ed as the responsibility of the president and administration. The successful president who enjoys the confidenceofhis/her trustees is in apowerfulposition” (ibid.,136). A variation of the abovein the US is the boardof regents (or similar bodies)of state-wide public university systems (for example, the University of California system consisting of ten campuses withmore than 200 000 students,160 000 fac- ulty and staff and anannualbudget of close to$12 billion). The modes of becom- ing member of thesecontrol bodies vary.In some cases the governor appoints the members,in other cases the candidates get elected by the generalpublicor are being nominated by the legislature. This system obviously introduces acertain degree of politisation (or,moreprecarious still,anideologicalbias)into the gov- ernanceofAmericanpublichigher education. But in general,it is fair to say that politics is kept out of the board room. InEurope,more recent legislativechanges in anumber of countries led to the cre- ation of boards of trustees.In the publicdiscussions accompanying the introduc- tion of thesenew governanceactors, the advocates mainly quoted two sources as the models: the US higher education system and the boards of directors of big corporations; the first paying tribute to what is moreor less undisputedly (though

90 Concepts not always uncritically)being seen as the world’s most successfulhigher educa- tion system; the second as aclear rejection of the ‘old’ civil servicementality at HEIs as anobstacle of reformand innovation within the inherited system of the given country. The formal rights and responsibilities of theseboards of trustees, while they may slightly differ in emphasis according tonationallegislations,are very muchlike their US counterparts.In terms of internal governance, they performa supervi- sory function over the top executivemanagement of the university.In this role, they act as an“intermediatelayer between the government and the individual institution (…) and create the adequatedistancebetween the ministry and the uni- versity”(vanGinkel, 2001), thus strengthening the notion of institutionalauton- omy and reducing direct (governmental) interference. With regard to the external environment, the boards areintended tolink the university better to‘the outside world’ in anon-political,broad senseby involving suitably qualified and dedi- cated representatives of society in the process of defining and refining the insti- tution’s present and futuregoals and objectives.It almost goes without saying that apart from other,more task-related qualifications and agenuine interest in the advancement of higher education,boardmembers should not otherwisebelinked toor personally havea stake in particular activities of the institution in any way (for example,by profiting from research results)and it is often stipulated that they should not hold aposition in government or parliament. The introduction of boardof trustees into the governance structures of HEIs in severalEuropeancountries is certainly not an uncontested change and has been met with some scepticismfrom the ‘academicheartland’ which sees it as afur- ther move towards a‘corporatisation’ of the university and a threat to the notion and the practiceofacademic self-government.Given that in most of thesecoun- tries the boards of trustees havebeen established relatively recently, the jury is still out as tohow they will amalgamate with the traditionalmodes of governance. 2.3.3.Rector (or vice-chancellor/president) The placeof the rector within the formalgovernance structureofa typical(con- tinental?) EuropeanHEI is in many aspects ahighly demarcated and circum- scribed place,moulded by centuries of traditions and (institutional, social) expec- tations.For the longest time,he (and in very rarecases,“she”) was seen as the primus inter pares of the scholarly oligarchy, the latest incarnation in along suc- cession of bearers and keepers of the insigniaof academic self-rule and sover- eignty.The fact that until quite recently the role of the rector was in some sense amatter of emulation and repertoiremay be the reason for the somewhat surpris- ing observation that thereis actually not too muchliteratureon the topicof the rectorialposition on the market that goes beyond the personalmemoirs and reflections whichis in starkcontrast to the US withits burgeoning publications on the nature,joys and perils of effective“presidentialleadership”. The standard requirements for a rector at aEuropean university were: seniority, reputation, sometimes politicalpatronage,and the ability to rally support on election day. Accordingly, the criteria specifying the professionalqualifications for the position

91 Higher education governance werenot very well defined,and there was the prevailing assumption that ‘learning by doing’ is all that counts for the job(though therehavebeen training seminars for aspiring or newly appointed rectors for quite some time offered by university associations on anationalas well as aEuropeanlevel). These traditions and assumptions may not hold muchlonger.For it is one of the centralelements of the ongoing reforms in higher education systems in many Europeancountries,and of the accompanying changes at institutionallevel regard- less under whichlabel they arebeing proposed (for example,entrepreneurial, responsive,adaptive,Mode 2,etc., university) to re-assess and upgrade the uni- versity leadership and role of the “chief executive”,alsoknownas the rector (Bargh,Bocock,Scott &Smith, 2000; see alsoHanft, 2001). Basically, the rectorateis the epicentreofboth the hopes and the discontent con- cerning thesegovernance reforms –anambivalence whichappropriately reflects their contrapuntalnature. For thoseapplauding the changes,a‘strong centre’ is the only way to sustain and develop institutionalidentity in anincreasingly dis- persed and volatile political, socialand economicenvironment whichhas long entered the HEIs and which, unless it is being acknowledged,embraced and man- aged, will seriously hamper the universities as the foremost locus for knowledge production,distributionand preservation. Those,on the other hand, who raisea warning voice see at risk the very foundation on which the success and the resilienceof the university is being built,namely “… the principle of academic collegiality that appears increasingly at odds with the drive towards the concen- tration of executive responsibilities around key individuals and key posts which is the essenceofcontemporary reformin the governanceofEurope’s universities” (Neave, 2001: 64). Looking back to the struggles of the late1960s and 1970s when the reformers were revolutionaries who wanted to stage aninstitutional insurrection toabolish the old “ Ordinarienuniversität ”(the University of the Senior Professors),Neavecomments:“It is from suchacontext that the thesis of a‘confiscated revolution’ has drawninspiration. Simply stated, this view interprets enhanced institutionalautonomy as advancing less the autonomy of the academic estate somuchas the power of its administrativecounterpart”, resulting in an uneasy “de factoco-existenceof twoconflicting interpretations of self-regulation, one operating in the institution at centrallevel based on executiveauthority, backedby the weight of law, the other,collegialand representative,based on established practice” (ibid.). Inother words,legislativeenactment to strengthen the senior management’s decision- making power is one thing; dealing with the different “tribes and territories” (Becher &Trowler, 2001) on campus tomove“from collegialacademy toaca- demicenterprise” (McNay,1995) might beanentirely different matter. Universities arenot known tobeplaces where the mereinsistenceofacting on one’s ownexecutiveauthority conferred by the law would go down well with staff or students.On the contrary, universities areby definition,principle,intellectual passion and history anexemplary locus for deliberation,communication,interac- tion and searching for truthor intersubjectiveconsensus.In theory,aCEO-like position for the rector is designed soas to streamline the governance structure and

92 Concepts facilitatemore time-efficient and cost-effectiveprocedures of establishing and implementing common policies and objectives.However,executivepower per se does not constitutelegitimacy.The challenge for a strengthened senior manage- ment lies in the task toconvert structureintoprocess,i.e., tomobilise the best resources of a university for co-ordinated and consistent action that is consonant with the institution’s mission and potential. 2.3.4. Academic staff It would be wrong toassume that higher education governanceat the institution- allevel is merely the enactment of legal rules and formal regulations.The more one follows the pathways of decision making into the thickets of aninstitution, the moreit becomes obvious that the formaldimensions of the governancechain areintimately intertwined with,and sometimes redirected by,informalmecha- nisms of influence,arbitration and agreement.The internalgovernanceofa uni- versity is toalarge measure subject to the micropolitics of protecting spheres of self-interest, searching for consensus or negotiating compromises.Here, weare moving intoa territory whichis the genuine domain of the academic staff and its handling of institutionalmatters.From the perspectiveof the faculty, the mean- ing of self-governanceinhigher education very much rests on the possibility to exerciseits power on the day-to-day level of articulating its concerns and broker- ing arrangements as a way of balancing out individualpurposes and institution- wide goals. Inother words:“(G)overnancein universities is ahighly distributed function. (…) In universities, toagreater extent perhaps thaninany other type of institution, realauthority is exercised at the grass roots –by individualfaculty and (in amore limited fashion) administrative staff members.Faculties,Schools and Departments areintermediatearenas in which the formalauthority of the gov- erning body, senior management,administration and academicgovernancemust be reconciled with the informalinfluenceofacademicguilds”(Scott, 2001:127). For the general understanding of higher education governance this observation points toanimportant aspect whichis often neglected in the literature:gover- nanceis the product of a social relationship among the actors involved and as suchaformation based on discourse. The laws, rules and regulations provide the formalframeworkand define the structuralpositions for theseactors toengage in anongoing discussion about institutionalpolicies and priorities.They are the grammar of agovernancediscoursebut they arenot giving any answers to the practicalissues a university is facing. It is only in the articulation and interaction of the different parties that governancebecomes ameans toanend,aconsistent way of collectivedecision making combining multifarious voices and interests. In the 1960s and 1970s,following the call for moredemocracy in society general- ly,faculty enjoyed acomparatively large influenceininstitutionalgovernanceat west European universities.The emerging ‘mass university’whichnolonger served the (self-)reproduction of a small societalelitecalled for adifferent constitution that reflected its new role as “ Hochschule in der Demokratie”(“University within democ- racy”,by Nitschet al. the title of aninfluentialessay by the Socialist German

93 Higher education governance

Student Union in 1965). The immediateand obvious response to this quest for a stronger impact of universities in raising democraticawareness in society at large (often withanemphasis on radicalchange of the capitalist order) was topushfor a sweeping democratisation of university governanceat all levels, thus making high- er education institutions an‘avant-garde’ of social transformation. Having abol- ished the dominanceof the senior professorateinfavour of the ‘group university’, the power gravitated towards acomplex arrangement of committees and working parties whichmostly relied on the commitment of academic staff toinvest time and effort in matters of self-administration. Questions pertaining togovernancebecame the litmus test for reasserting a strong notion of university autonomy understood as a safeguard toprotect higher education institutions from unwanted externalinflu- ence,especially from interventions by stateauthorities and from corporateinterests. Large segments of the academic staff saw the university as aplaceof socialexper- imentation at whichanidealof self-governance through anopen discourse without hierarchicaldomination could beobserved and operationalised. The heydays of the group university were soon followed by the sobering realisa- tion that the translation of democracy as anoverarching politicalconcept into the organisational structureofaninstitution is a thorny and often imperfect one. The three major stumbling blocks were:(i) adiffusion of responsibility due to the anonymity of decision making in committees whosemembers often represent groupinterests at the expenseofoverall institutionalconcerns; (ii) aninward- looking perspective when it comes todefining the goals and objectives of the institution’s coreactivities (teaching,learning and research); (iii) alackoforgan- isationalefficiency in arriving at executivedecisions as a result of an unwieldly complex system of self-management.Toacertain extent, the burden on academ- ic staff tomanage the group university outweighed the gains in terms of self- determination whichhas its clear limits considering the (legal,economic, politi- cal) changes of the externalconditions that affect the development and sustain- ability of aninstitution. The changes in governance regimes that haveoccurred more recently did not so muchcome from inside the universities and werecertainly not pushed by the aca- demic staff.They areby and large the result of externalimperatives challenging the universities’capacity toadapt toanew environment of heightened competi- tion for scarce resources.The faculty for the most part reacted defensively to thesechanges seeing them as apotential threat to the identities of their institu- tions and a weakening of the autonomous space that universities havecarved out for themselves (but alsoa threat to the traditional role of professionalguilds as the legitimating factor in academic self-governance). For academic staff, the main arenaof exercising influenceoninstitutionalpolicies has shifted to the crucial intersection between centrallevel strategicmanagement (rectorate,governing boards where they exist)and the decentralised units (faculties,departments) wherepolicies must beput intooperation. The role of deans and heads of departments under governanceconditions which strengthen the central steering power of the university leadership deserves special attention (and will bediscussed in moredetail later in Section 3.2). Traditionally,

94 Concepts faculties havealways aspired to the greatest possible degree of autonomous deci- sion making, somuch so that from acertain standpoint it seems questionable whether ‘the’ university canindeed becalled upon as anorganisation in an emphatic senseof the wordor whether it is moreofalooseassociation of indi- vidual units that still have tolearn tobehaveand act as anorganisation (Pellert, 1999). In this situation, the deans areplaced at the precarious interfacebetween centralised and decentralised modes of steering and co-ordination. The current discussions in many countries as to whether deans ought tobemanagers appointed by the top leadership of the institution (likein the US),or whether they should continue tobe“equals among equals”,i.e.,elected speakers of their particular communities, reflect the dilemma.But this question cannot beanswered in a vacuum; it takes the whole pictureof the arrangements and the interplay between the state, the universities and their subunits tocome toa sensitiveconclusion.The dynamics of this interaction will be reviewed later in this report. 2.3.5. Centraladministration Historically, the centraladministration at public universities in Europe played an important role in that it constituted the link to the statebureaucracy and thus to the centreofpower and control. For along time, there was aco-existenceand division of labour between the top administrativepositions and the academic leadership of the university with the former being responsible for the stable and steady long-termorder of operations according to the given rules whereas the lat- ter provided the academiclegitimation and credibility of the institution though the termofoffice was usually short and the level of managerialproficiency therefore limited. Governance(in the emphaticmeaning of the word) at the institutional level played aminor role because the key decision-making powers stayed within the competenceof the state. This situation changed quite radically with the reconceptualisation of universities as integralparts of anemerging knowledge economy.The proliferation of new demands and expectations posed upon HEIs with the focus on efficiency,effec- tiveness and quality of serviceas well as the introduction of moreperformance- based indicators and output control tomeasure success instigated the emergence of anew layer within the centraladministration of the university,agroupofhigh- ly skilled and specialised professionals who brought with them adifferent approach tomanagerialissues whichcanbroadly be subsumed under the heading of NPM.We will come back to the impact of NPM on the overall management style of universities.For now, thereis only the generalobservation that the posi- tion of this group within the governance structureof the university was often not very well defined whichcaused at least initially some discomfort and concerns on the part of the academic staff warning against “the increased conflict and alienation amongst rank and file staff as institutions become morecorporate-like and managerialinorientation. The executiveappears tobeindanger of increas- ingly distancing itself from the collegialneeds and philosophicaloutlook of most academic staff while itself lacking confidencein the institution’s peakgoverning body”(Wood &Meek,1998).

95 Higher education governance

2.3.6.Students In 2002, the Council of Europe (on behalf of the NorwegianMinistry of Education and Research) undertook amajor survey on the issueof student par- ticipation in the governanceofhigher education. The survey was intended topro- vide aninput to the discussions surrounding this issue within the frameworkof the BolognaProcess whichat the ministerialmeeting in PragueinMay 2001had recognised students as “competent,activeand constructivepartners”in the estab- lishment and shaping of the EHEA affirming that “students arefull members of the higher education community”and thus “should participateinand influence the organisation and content of education at universities and other higher educa- tion institutions”. The findings of this survey revealed that in the vast majority of countries “the for- malprovision of student participation (…) is largely settled” (Bergan, 2004) in the sense that student representation on the governing bodies of institutions is legally guaranteed although more soon the institutionallevel of governance whereas such representation on the department,faculty as well as at the national level, varies considerably among the different countries.Also, the student repre- sentatives in some countries do not enjoy full voting rights as members of these bodies but are restricted toonly thoseissues whichareconsidered tobeofimme- diateconcern to the students.In thesecases, they areexcluded from voting power on issues concerning staff appointments,administrativeand budgetary decisions, the granting of doctoraldegrees and sometimes even from matters pertaining to curricula. Another bone of contention is the question of political student organisations (understood as ‘affiliated withapoliticalparty’). Therearecountries that ban such organisations from campus.Not surprisingly, thesecountries canmainly befound in centraland easternEurope wherenot solong ago “the party”and their watch- men kept tight reigns on student life. However, sanitising student involvement in university governancefrom student politics might in the longer termnot beafea- sible,or in fact adesirable answer to the question of how higher education institu- tions canbest prepare their students for alife as activecitizens in ademocratic society.For one thing,politicalpractices look for other channels through which they enter the stage of decision making at a university.But moreimportantly, despite the crisis of legitimacy that politicalparties arefacing in many parts of the world, they are still one of the main instruments of activeinvolvement in matters related to the polity.Banishing them from the university does not bode well for a futurecommitment of students topublicaffairs and in fact reinforces the percep- tion of politics as a somewhat shady business (as well as the image of the univer- sity as aplaceof seclusion and retreat)(see Bergan, 2004: 25f). The survey also showed the deplorable lackofinterest that most students have with regard toparticipation in university governance. The low voter turnout at stu- dent elections –onaverage no more thanone thirdof the student population – speaks volumes in this respect.Therehavebeen many attempts toexplain this apathy,but at least in the Europeancontext there still seems tobe the prevailing

96 Concepts perception amongst students that universities arenot ‘their’institutions but ‘belong’ to the stateand are ruled by the professors.“Ownership”,if it exists, focuses on the immediateenvironment (department)and on issues of direct con- cern. Ina 2004 survey amongst German students only 19% confirmed that they hadheardabout the BolognaDeclaration whereas 59% saw the pending intro- duction of tuition fees as the most serious topicof higher education reform. (Admittedly, the results would probably not bemuchdifferent if one would ask the general voting population about the relative relevanceof the EU Constitution compared to the next tax increase.) Thereis still along way togofrom the rhetor- icalaffirmation that students are the most important stakeholders in higher edu- cation to the reality of abroadand activeparticipation of students on all levels of governance(department,faculty,institution and national). Therearehopeful signs that the optimisticobserver would interpret as agrowing empowerment of students.In the larger politicalarena, wehave witnessed the remarkably courageous role that students played in the toppling of undemocratic regimes in Serbia, Georgiaand the Ukraine. On the level of current developments in Europeanhigher education,ESIB (the NationalUnions of Students in Europe) has established itself as a respected partner in the discussions and a strong voice of students across Europe. Within the institutions, students sit at the table when governing bodies discuss policies and strategies (in some instances,likeinSerbia, the leadership of a university even has the right toappoint a student vice-rector). The areas in which students seem tofeel least listened toare the departmentaland the nationalend of the governancechain,i.e. the domains of professorialauthor- ity and politicalpower.This may serveas anindication as to wheregovernance reforms whichaim at amoreparticipatory approachought toconcentrateif stu- dent involvement is the goal that it should be. 2.3.7.Stakeholder representation More recently, the concept of “stakeholders”has entered the discussion to describe the relationship between universities and the surrounding society. Stakeholders areindividuals or groups withadirect interest,involvement,or investment in the given cause,for example, the employees,customers and share- holders of acompany.In the caseof universities, the groups included in this notion are rather numerous and diverse,as it befits aninstitution withmultiple goals and purposes.Apart from the students and staff as the direct stakeholders, it comprises the state(government,ministries),business, the local/regionalcom- munity,privateindividuals, the churches,media, etc.Basically the termis used to breakdown the broadand indistinct notion of “the society”intomoredefiniteand clearly defined areas (following the originalmeaning of the word‘stake’,i.e. posts or other devices that markout,confine or fenceoff apieceofland around the boundary). Inits current usage in the higher education policy discourseit is takenover from the business world and conveys the ideaof a targeted,organised and competent approachindealing with the various internaland externalinterest groups whichareaffected by the activities of the university.

97 Higher education governance

The stakeholder concept is closely associated with the current changes in the gov- ernance structures.Alot of the accountability measures that used tobepart of the statecontrol over universities has in one way or the other devolved to stakehold- ers,partly in aformal senseby including stakeholder representatives in the gov- ernanceof the institution (boardof trustees),partly in amoreindirect senseby requiring universities todemonstrate their usefulness todifferent types of stake- holders.Ingeneral, this concept induced higher education institutions todevelop abroader understanding of the demands and expectation that various,present or potential,‘beneficiaries’might have with regard to the services that the universi- ty canprovide to them,and it alsointroduced new points of referencein terms of externalguidanceand strategicobjectives that the institution wants toachieve. Given the scarcity of financial resources,it is not surprising that universities more and moredefine and prioritise stakeholders in economic terms whichcanbeat odds with the publicmission of the university.Providing researchand develop- ment capacity toacorporate stakeholder canbeaprofitable undertaking for a university and it canalsohelp toimprove technologicalinnovation or even the employment rate. But canit bejustified that aprivatecompany reserves certain rights for the exploitation of research results (for example,patents)for itself in returnfor supporting a researchlaboratory at a university?The new knowledge economy poses many questions of this kind and it is through the prudent useof the available governanceinstruments that universities must protect their integrity while at the same time pursue their legitimate self-interests.

3.Modes and patterns of governance University governanceis commonly understood as a set of laws, regulations, structures,norms and practices that constitute the frameworkfor aninstitution to pursueits goals,objectives and policies in acoherent and co-ordinated manner. As the previous chapter has shown, today, under conditions of increased com- plexity and uncertainty,governanceis not somucha staticformula whichcould beapplied regardless of context and circumstances,but the product of aninter- relation among different actors who occupy certain (moreor less distinctly defined) structuralpositions that allow them toinfluencedecision making according to their notion of what serves best their legitimate self-interest as well as the broad- er institutionalpurposes.Inother words:governance,as opposed tomere(self-) administration,nowadays implies adynamicconcept of university autonomy –a concept that sees the meaning of autonomy in a stateofflux and as constantly being shaped and reshaped by adopting or declining the various options for insti- tutionaldevelopment put forwardby different constituencies and stakeholders. The following section reviews the main (economic, ideological,pragmatic) motives underlying the changes in governanceprovisions in recent years from the traditional state-centered arrangements toamoredecentralised and self-managed mode of planning and decision making. The focus is on the main interfaces of governanceinteraction where university autonomy is being articulated (ver- balised/asserted and jointed/fitted together).

98 Concepts

3.1. Government –University:ensuring legitimacy IncontinentalEurope, the state traditionally has a strong influenceonmatters related toeducation including higher education. The centralauthority of the state was manifested in the existenceof rather extensivelaws regulating and control- ling vitalaspects of university management likepersonnel,budget and finances, organisational structure,access tohigher education or number of students per unit (department,faculty,individual universities),and leaving little room for manoeuvre in terms of specificgovernancearrangements and independent decision making. The extent of this regulation was reflecting both the legal status of universities as a statutory body subject topubliclaw and their almost completedependenceon statefinancing. More recently, therehavebeen substantialchanges in the way governments aredis- charging their public sector services to the generalpopulation prompted by the need for moreefficiency and effectiveness in serviceprovisions.Inhigher educa- tion, the shift from statecontrol to state supervision whichhas been described ear- lier resulted in the devolution of authority into the hands of the top leadership of the university which was given enhanced responsibilities in particular regarding budget and personnel matters,for example,by the introductionofglobalor lump- sumbudgets and the delegation of supervisory authority over university employ- ees.However, the stateis not simply ‘giving up’ its privilege of controlling the sec- tor –inlegal terms universities in most cases remained a subordinatepart of the stateadministration –but rather is replacing the old centralised and input-oriented steering mechanisms by new modes of regulating and monitoring the sector with anemphasis on evaluation,accountability and indicator-based performance‘con- tracts’(ex-post insteadof ex-ante control) while leaving it to the university and its subunits how toaccomplish these stated objectives (Appendix 1 shows anexam- ple of aperformanceagreement between ministry and university). Despite the rhetoricor reality of NPM and other approaches toenhance the organ- isationaleffectiveness (and the undeniable advantages in terms of less bureau- cratic rule and amoredistributed decision-making structure), this arrangement does not solve,but rather re-articulates the principalgovernancedilemma between the prerogativeof the state todefine the generalgoals and policy frame- works of higher education and the specialinstitutionalcharacter of universities as autonomous actors.Governments canlegitimately expect from universities tolive up tocertain politicalobjectives,for example, toincrease the output of graduates and ensure their employability, tocontribute to the growthof the nationalecono- my or tocompeteonaninternational scale for the best students and scholars. Conversely, universities areequally right toemphasise that they areneither fol- lowing politicalorders,nor can they readily adopt the generalprinciples of the business sector (market,competition,profit orientation) becauseof the special natureofacademic work withits multiplicity of purposes (education,knowledge production,dissemination and preservation, serviceorientation) and acertain “open-endedness” whichis not compatible with the standardcriteriaof efficien- cy in the business world.

99 Higher education governance

This dilemmaat the interfacebetween governments and universities is afunc- tionalone whichmust beaddressed as apoliticalchallenge in order to stimulate the searchfor solutions and thus effect changes in the governance system of high- er education. The example of Austriaprovides a suitable illustration which attracts attention beyond the nationalboundaries and especially in the neighbour- ing countries of east and south-east Europe where the process of university reformhas slowed downand in some instances even has halted because the next step in the relations between stateand university has been deferred.57 In1993,anew University Organisation Act was passed in Austria replacing its predecessor of 1975 which was amodel caseof the “group university” type of governance. The new Act introduced elements of autonomy in matters of organi- sation and financeand laid the groundworks for the development of universities from tightly reigned stateinstitutions toindependently managed publicentities.It followed the familiar reformdiscourseat the time pointing out that the expansion of the sector as a whole and the growing complexity of the universities made an overhaulnecessary by which the individualinstitutions take more responsibility for their performance while in exchange the cumbersome decision-making struc- tures of the group university werecurtailed in favour of amoreprofessional approach to strategicmanagement involving all relevant constituencies of the uni- versity. About half-way into the ten year implementation period for this Act,in 1998, the ministry in charge of higher education presented adiscussion paper on anew law that would grant “full legalcapacity” to universities.The initiativefor this paper came mainly from the offices of rectors who thought that the 1993 Act fell short on acrucialelement of full autonomy: the right of a university toact entirely on its ownaccount and toallocateits budget without the existing legaland cameral- isticconstraints imposed by the ministry (while observing the customary proce- dures for publicentities ensuring transparency and accountability in all financial matters). This initiative was taken upby the new centre-right government which came intoofficein 2000 and which,at least verbally, was intent on afar-reaching reformof the public sector by privatising state-owned enterprises, reducing state bureaucracy,downsizing the number of civil servants,abolishing obsolete regu- lations –in short, the standardformulaof reforming the stateapparatus inspired by the recipes and ideologies of the “New Economy”. All the well-knowncatch- words of the latest reforms in public sector governance–increased efficiency, effectiveness and quality of service; decentralised management; the creation of competitiveenvironments and the useofmarket instruments within the public sector organisations; flexibility and accountability for results –canalsobefound in the statements of the Austriangovernment explaining why it is necessary toini- tiateanother reformprocess while the previous one has not yet been completed. ______57.The following is in part based on an unpublished draft paper by UteLanzendorfand Michael Dellwing (University of Kassel,Germany)on Changes in public researchgovernanceinAustria (2004) written within the frameworkofalarger researchproject on “Internationalcompetitiveness and innovation capacity of universities and researchorganisations:New forms of governance; Sub-project: Management and self-management of universities –comparison of decision-making processes and consequences for research”.

100 Concepts

Interestingly,a specialemphasis was put on the aspect of internationalcompeti- tiveness.The new government took pride to stress whenever possible that it is (or strives tobe) a‘model disciple’ ( Musterschüler ) within Europe (maybeas an overcompensation after the sanctions of the EU countries against the new gov- ernment),and the University Organisation and Studies Act which was passed by the education and scienceminister in 2002 was proclaimed todojust this: to advanceAustria to the top of governance reforms in higher education in Europe. The changes that this Act introduced merit indeed the term‘radical’:Apart from (and complementary to) full legalcapacity universities weregranted globalbudg- ets,organisationalautonomy,new employment regulations for academic staff (no civil service status any morefor newly employed staff)and clearancefor ade- bureaucratisation of the university administration. Inexchange for endowing the university leadership witha whole set of new governance tools and with the exec- utivepower to use them, universities wereexpected toagree toacorresponding set of accountability measures,namely performancecontracts over several years, regular evaluations, the definition of adistinct profile by each university,more competition among universities for publicfunds,and the introduction of boards of trustees (University Council/ Universitätsrat ). Inorder to underscoreits stern determination toopen anentirely new chapter in the history of Austrianhigher education,and tofill the strapped coffer of the education ministry withmoney to finance the reform, tuition fees of about € 725annually wereintroduced virtually overnight in late 2001. The transformation of Austrianhigher education which was heralded by the 2002 University Act seems like takenfrom a textbook of the NPM persuasion. Its two corner pillars are:on the one hand,decentralisation of tasks,decision-making power and responsibilities up to the point whereadministrative units arebeing outsourced and given anindependent legal status; on the other hand, retaining of steering capacity over the sector in the hands of those who arepolitically in charge by means of agreed-upon performanceindicators and output contracts. After all,even after the transformation it is still meant tobea public management and not a sellout of the state(cf. Zechlin, 2002). With regard to the government/university interfaceit is almost ironic that in the caseofAustria, acountry witha tradition of strong external regulation and state intervention into university governance, the deregulation is imposed ‘from above’,almost likea coupd’état , through strict state regulations (cf. de Boer, Enders &Schimank:13). This is another indication for the ambiguity that was described earlier:in higher education systems that undergo similar changes like in Austriaafter they havebeen moulded for generations by governmentalcontrol (whichis truefor most continentalEuropean systems including the countries that liberated themselves from communismonly some fifteen years ago) the meanings of autonomy are relativeand multifarious and it is often difficult todraw aclear line of distinction between politicalintervention, strategic steering and operative management (see Felt, 2003: 38ff). It would beagross simplification to under- stand governments only as the externalforceofcoercion whereas the universities arepopulated by the champions of autonomy.One is tempted toquoteFoucault:

101 Higher education governance

The contact point, where the individuals aredriven by others is tied to the way they conduct themselves,and this is what wecancall,I think,government.Governing people,in the broadmeaning of the word,is not a way toforcepeople todo what the governor wants; it is always a versatile equilibrium, withcomplementarity and conflicts between techniques whichassurecoercion and process through which the self is constructed or modified by himself (Foucault, 2004). For very good reasons, universities havebeen described as slowly developing sys- tems (see Daxner,1999). Rapid changes in the exterior environment can take long before they become part of the fabricof aninstitution whichis not always a sign for alackofadaptability but canalso reflect “how the different political traditions and histories haveanimpact on the way university-State relations are shaped” (Felt, 2003: 38). In the caseofAustria, the history and tradition is characterised by a very strong, even adominant role of the stateadministration on the one hand,and acertain laissez-faire(sometimes also referred toas “organised anarchy”) in terms of the internalgovernanceprocess on the other hand. The “contact point” where, according toFoucault,government manifests itself (and wherealso system-level governanceand institutional-level governanceintersect) was thus fairly loose because the organisationalgoals wereoften ambiguous or uncertain. This created the impression of the university as anautonomous spacealmost regardless of the very realdependences in terms of the legal status of the institution (whichin effect weredepartments of the ministry), the strict appointment and employment regulations,let alone the completeeconomic relianceon state support.For aca- demic staff, the meaning of autonomy was almost synonymous with“ahigh degree of discretion over the tasks they perform” (Scott, 2001:132)and the pos- sibility topursue their individualaspirations.The consequencefor governance (not only in Austria) was the “legitimization of adivision of labor”(ibid.) where- by state regulation and micromanagement in administrativematters was takenfor granted and the organisation of academicaffairs became the subject of negotia- tion and bargaining in committee or senatemeetings.The understanding of auton- omy and governanceon which this system was built was largely inward-looking, apoliticaland insular whichis probably why it enjoyed popularity under the most dissimilar political regimes including undemocraticones. Therefore, the extent of the transformation that the Austrianhigher education sys- tem experienced within a short time spanofonly abit more thanone decade can- not be underestimated. Onaformallevel, this is evidenced by the fact that all Austrian universities were required to undergo aprocess of legal reconstitution in order to start the implementation of the 2002 University Act (i.e., the regulations to deregulate the sector). Apart from anabundanceofchanges and adjustments in the internalorganisation of the university at all levels whichcame along with the new legal status as apublic(quasi-)corporation, the key transaction that took placeat the state/university interface was the introduction of anew ‘currency’toensure the legitimacy of university operations.Whereas in the past the stateas a sovereign power and legal‘owner’of the institution guaranteed dueprocess and quality, this responsibility has now been delegated toa variety of actors,notably to the boardof

102 Concepts trustees, the top leadership of the institution,but also toagencies and processes that serveas independent supervisory sources of accountability and thus legitimacy like nationalaccreditation agencies,quality assurancemechanisms,performancecon- tracts,funding councils,intermediary bodies (the newly established Austrian ScienceCouncil). Inother words:parallel to the diversification of revenue sources as ameans toensurefinancial viability, universities now alsohave tomaster the diversification of sources of legitimacy whichbecomes amain management task and requires acadreofhighly skilled specialists within the institutionaladministra- tion as well as the investment of anot inconsiderable amount of resources (time, money). Anew governanceequilibriumis on the horizon,certainly anew way of establishing “legitimacy through process”(Luhmann, 2001), though not necessari- ly aless intricateand bureaucraticone compared to the past,as is shownby the example in some countries like the UK which started this process earlier. Considering thesefar-reaching changes in Austria, one of the interesting ques- tions is: what happens to the stateas the former prime sourceoflegitimacy?Inan article by Lothar Zechlin (2002)provocatively titled“Nopublicmanagement. Austrianpolitics bows out of strategic steering of its universities” the author con- tends that the politicaland administrative ranks are utterly unprepared toassume their new role of providing sound and consistent guidanceand strategicorienta- tion regarding the longer-termgoals and directions in nationalhigher education and sciencepolicies.Instead, they seem toconcentrate their expectations regard- ing the positiveimpact of the reformon the “How”(the enhancement of effi- ciency and effectiveness by virtueofapplying anNPM approach) while leaving it to the newly established university councils to voice the demands and view- points of the externalenvironment as far as the “What”is concerned,i.e. the def- inition of the goals and objectives of agiven institution. This,however, shifts the responsibility for the publicpolicy dimension of governanceaway from the respectivegovernment branches whichareaccountable to the parliament,into the hands of the ‘externalexperts’in the university councils who perform the con- trolling and steering function and arenot accountable toanybody except their ownbest judgment (in Austria, half of the founding members of the councils were nominated by the senate, the other half by the federalministry). For Zechlin, this withdrawalof the statefrom the strategic steering of universities creates adangerous void whichis filled by private–in the senseofnot publicly answerable –interests.Ifone looks at the composition of the university councils his criticism seems warranted:from a totalof roughly 140 members of Austrian university councils close to40 % were recruited from the business sector and about 30%from the broader university sector; the rest mainly haveacivil service background whereas thereis only very scarce representation of socialinterest groups,culturalor religious areas (see Laske &Meister-Scheytt, 2004). There was also some debateabout politicalclientelismand patronage during the first round of appointments adding to the concerns of those who worry about a‘creep- ing privatisation’ of Austrian universities. Only time will tell whether theseconcerns arejustified. Countries whichhave moreexperienceininvolving lay participation in the governanceofaninstitution

103 Higher education governance canperhaps offer advicehow tomeet such uneasiness.The UK may again serve as anexample where recently acomprehensivecompendiumfor governors was published by the Committee of University Chairmen ( Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK.GovernanceCode of Practice and GeneralPrinciples , 2004) spelling out in unambiguous terms what are the written and unwritten rules of conduct for members of suchbodies. The caseofAustria shows that the interfacebetween government and universities remains acontested territory of higher education governance,especially in those countries wherea tradition of strong statecontrol intersects with the latest adop- tion of private sector management concepts topublic sector institutions.It would be too easy toaccuse universities of inertiain emulating theseconcepts more read- ily and in aproactivemanner.Unlikeother publicinstitutions it is aninherent char- acteristicof universities that they govern themselves for a very urgent purpose whichis directly related to the fundamentalmission of the institution:allowing the mind toexploreits limits,examining and critiquing the common wisdom and the inherited truths,accepting no other authority than the power of reasoning. The con- ditions under which universities carry out their mission havechanged quitedra- matically in recent times.But governments would be well advised not toquestion the valueof strong and inclusive self-governanceat public universities by pushing them toadopt means that are unfitting for their purpose.

3.2.Management –academic self-governance:negotiating effectiveness Inmany countries,legislativechanges during the past decade or sohaveled toa reorganisation of universities whichby and large follows the rhetoricand the pre- scription of the new Europeanparadigm of the ‘entrepreneurial university’(Clark, 1998) whichincludes:diversified funding base; strengthened steering core; expanded developmentalperiphery; stimulated academicheartland; and integrat- ed entrepreneurialculture. The first waveof thesechanges mainly affected the cen- trallevel of the institution and focused on the broadening and strengthening of the power and authority of top management.Within certain parameters,it was then left to the institutions themselves how toadapt their internalacademic structureand governance tolive up to this entrepreneurial spirit.Thus,the interfacebetween the centralnode of steering and the decentralised units has become the scene of live- ly encounter between different interpretations of the new governancemodel. InSweden,for example,acomprehensivederegulation was introduced some time ago and many tasks and responsibilities were turned over from the government to the universities (Nickel, 2004). Within the institution, this brought about a signifi- cant shift in the relation between centrallevel administration (rectorate,boardof trustees)and the decentral units (faculties,institutes, schools). “The spontaneous interpretation among the majority of academic staff members to the decentralisa- tion was that the devolution of authority to the institutions was tobefollowed by a similar devolution within the institutions”(Askling, 2003:166). As aconsequence, the faculties acquired moreindependence. Each unit got its ownadministration and deans occasionally took over tasks that traditionally fell under the authority of the rectorate. Parallel to the strengthening of the decentrallevel,however, the power of

104 Concepts the rectorateand the boardof trustees was alsoexpanded. The result was “afeder- almodel of institutionalgovernance” (Askling, 2003:167), though the balanceof power was very unstable and frictions in the relation between deans and rectorates grew:Who actually has a say about what,and who is tolisten? Another sticking point is the question of which sizeand composition of the sub- units is befitting toanentrepreneurial type of university.Some universities have drastically reduced the number of faculties and established larger conglomerates of departments arguing that this kind of pooling facilitates interdisciplinary or even transdisciplinary co-operation and creates synergies which will stimulate both the production of new knowledge and the adaptation of existing knowledge to solving practicalproblems.Other universities took the opposite view and expanded the number of units considerably explaining that smaller groups are morenimble and flexible,easier tomanage and control,and thereforemorelike- ly tomaximise their performance. Equally inconclusiveis the current debateabout the adequate role of the deans. Should they beelected or appointed ‘from above’ (by the rector as the CEO of the university)? Do they act as a temporary ‘first among equals’or are they faculty managers endowed withexecutivepower in the allocation of resources or in per- sonnel matters?Traditionally the deanhas been in aco-ordinating role representing the specificinterests of the faculty vis-à-vis the university community as a whole, a role whichoffers only limited room for manoeuvreofhis/her ownbecauseall decisions requireconsensualagreement by the faculty peers.New steering tools likeperformanceagreements between the rectorateand the faculties now enable the university centre todirectly influence the workprogramme and the resourcebaseof the organisational units and hold the deans accountable to the rector’s office which potentially erodes the collegial style of self-governanceat faculty level. Another example of adifficult relationship between centreand constituent units:in some countries in south-east Europe academicfaculties are still enjoying legalinde- pendenceas aninheritanceofanolder and in many respects outdated governance system. The universities areliterally aconfederation of sovereign entities governed by the principle of non-interferenceininternalaffairs,not unlikemost international organisations and alliances among nation states.Faculties have their ownbudget, income and bank account,enroll their own students,employ their own staff,design their own study programmes and curricula, and manage their ownmatters.In the countries that belonged to the former Yugoslavia, this arrangement was introduced as part of the generalpoliticaland constitutional system of worker self-administration in all spheres of socialand economiclife which some observers interpreted as a deliberate weakening of centralcontrol in favour of moredemocracy from below, whereas others saw it as a strategy of divide et impera from above. The legalindependenceoffaculties was alsoa transitory, though very indicative phenomenon in other countries of centraland easternEurope,likein the Czech Republicand in Slovakia, right after the collapseofcommunism when new high- er education laws werepassed that sought tofoster academicfreedom by freeing faculties from direct university control whichin the past was synonymous with

105 Higher education governance the firmgrip of statecentralisation. But it soon became apparent that the division of faculty and management hadadysfunctionaleffect on the development of the universities as a whole and caused serious disparities among the faculties. Needless to say that the power vacuumin the centrelimited the possibilities of rectors and their teams toinfluence,let alone steer the comprehensive reforms that wereneeded toadapt their institutions to the rapidly changing externalenvi- ronment.Their only tool was the power of words and of the better argument which moreoften thannot was met with scepticismand refusalby the groupof sover- eign deans protecting what they saw as being in the best interest of their faculties. It was the pressurefrom the outside that helped change the legalframeworkin some countries –governments keen toimprove the effectiveness of their higher education system,but also the BolognaProcess which requires amoreintegral approach toinstitutionalgovernance; other countries,however,are still struggling with the anomaly of the legalindependenceoffaculties. 58 The examples show that the nexus between centrallevel and subunits is crucial to the larger question of where the university is heading as aninstitution. It is here wheregovernanceas a set of formal rules and procedures encounters the differ- ent “governmentalities” whichareingrained in the academiccultures and which go together withcertain characteristichabits,attitudes and behaviours.The fol- lowing diagramgives a schematicoverview of the most common (historical, sys- tematic)approaches toacademic staff participation in the governanceprocess as they aredescribed in the relevant literature. They are,of course,anabstraction – university governanceis always multidimensionaland never just amonoculture.

______58. Moreas a side remarkit should bementioned that the twoleading universities in Europe,Oxford and Cambridge,alsoadhere toahighly decentralised governancemodel whichis rooted in the old col- lege system. Most observers think that these universities areable topreserve their world-class status not somuchbecause,but despite this traditionalmodel of institutionalgovernance. As a recent article in The Economist shows, this model is currently being challenged:“IfYOU were starting tobuild a world-class university from scratch, you probably would not chooseOxfordas your model. The uni- versity is essentially acollection of medievalmonasteries runlikea workers’co-operative. It includes 39colleges of wildly different size, wealthand quality.Eachoperates independently, sometimes extravagantly so. Most dons,as Oxfordand Cambridge academics arecalled,arepaid partly by col- leges and partly by the university.Colleges and academicdepartments workinparallel. Management is by committee. Ultimatepower rests withadons’parliament, the 3 552-member Congregation. Picturesque relics of Englishhistory aremorefun toobserve than to run,as John Hood, who took over in October as Oxford’s vice-chancellor,has discovered. Decision-making at Oxfordis piecemealand takes ages.Although some teaching and researchis awesomely good,quitealot isn’t.Some of the col- leges aremassively rich, some virtually bankrupt.Oxfordis still the fifth-best university in the world, according toone recent study,and the eighthaccording toanother,but Mr Hood believes that unless the way it is managed changes,it will slide down the rankings.The government has alsobeen urging Oxford(and Cambridge, whichhas a similar structure) tomodernise. Mr Hood’s twobig proposals haveeach sparkedbig rows.The first is tocentralisedecision making. Aboardofexternal trustees would set the university’s overall budget; under them would bea single management body in which the heads of colleges would beinaminority.The second is tochange the way in whichdons’workis man- aged. The colleges, whichdomost of the teaching,assess their dons one way.Departments, wheremost of the researchhappens,haveanother.Both systems areinformaland patchy.Good results rarely mean higher pay,nor do badones tend tohurt.Mr Hood wants tolink pay and performance. Outside Oxford, thesechanges might seem mild and sensible,but things look different from inside the university. Opposition toMr Hood’s first proposalhas been huge.”(“Britain’s oldest university wrestles with modernization”, The Economist,19 May 2005.)

106 Concepts

High Academic staff participation in management

Collegial Entrepreneurial Low High Bureaucratic Managerial Professional autonomy of academics Low

Models of university management (Farnham,1999:18) As the literaturealso shows, the managerial/entrepreneurial turninhigher educa- tion has divided the academiccommunity in twocamps whereby not surprising- ly the advocates often hold positions within the central unit of the university and the critics raise their concerns from the vantage point of the subunits.Both sides argueabout the desirable or undesirable impact that this turnhas on the organi- sational structureof the institution. But as anastuteanalyst of these structures remarks:“It is indeed difficult toaddress the university as anorganisation because strictly speaking the university does not exist; it rather is alooseassoci- ation of individualinstitutesand still has tolearn to recogniseitself as anorgan- isation” (Pellert,1999: 71–my translation,J.F.). Against the background of the time-honoured relativeautonomy of the decen- tralised units, the shift towards acentral steering authority at the top in the inter- est of the university as a whole (or “as anorganisation”) is prompting counter- reactions as one would expect in other types of organisations as well. However,in universities these reactions areofamorefundamentalnature since they raise the question as to what degree,if at all, scholarly production canbe subject to steer- ing,or whether it is,as has often been said, something that defies planning and calculation. While this may beamerely philosophicalquestion,it is true that at least as far as researchand development areconcerned,increases in productivity cannot simply beordered from above. The new steering instruments canhelp to createfavourable conditions but it is ultimately the individual scholar or the team of scholars who succeed or fail. And not only this:professors and other staff are alsoprotected against ‘outside interference’ in the content aspects of their teach- ing and researchby the legalguarantee of academicfreedom. All of this rela- tivises the notion of acentral steering authority. This may sound trivialbut it has implications for the new kind of executivepower of the top university leadership and its ‘will tomanage’. Sinceit is responsible for the overall performanceof the institution,it must strive toextend its influence into the subunits.The leverage of doing so,however,is limited because the char- acter and the quality of workinknowledge and expert organisations is toalarge

107 Higher education governance degree amatter of personalcommitment and self-interest on the part of the staff involved whichis why universities traditionally arecharacterised by flat hierar- chies, strong decentralised units (disciplines,departments and faculties)and a comparatively weak tip of the organisation (Nickel, 2004:95). Inanenvironment like this,it would beillusionary toassume that top-downmanagement models from the business sector canbe simply replicated. The formaldecision-making power of the university leadership will effect tolittle or nothing unless the facul- ties and departments ‘buy in’ and are won over by the strategies and policies that areput forwardfrom the top and that hold some realisticpromisefor apositive development of the institution or for financialincentives to the subunit. Knowledge-based and knowledge-producing companies areapopular object of study in organisation theory.They show some interesting characteristics with regard to their most productiveand valuable employees whichdistinguish them from conventionalenterprises.Theseemployees are what could becalled ‘Mode 2’knowledge workers who arehighly self-motivated,allergic toformalhierar- chies and control,independent thinkers, versatile team workers and adaptable to changing tasks and workpressures entailing flexible work time arrangements. Becauseof their hybrid profile as employees withanentrepreneurialmind-set and attitude they havebeen dubbed “intrapreneur”. As SigrunNickel(2004) aptly observes, this new type of knowledge worker is afamiliar presenceamong aca- demic staff –individuals who havechosen to workinacademiabecauseit not only suits their drivefor knowledge and their desirefor intellectualindependence, but who alsoareattracted to the institutionaland organisationalenvironment whichat least in principle is conducive toknowledge intrapreneurship for the publicgood. Through the centuries, universities developed anorganisationalmatrix which shows many features of what is today knownas networkorganisation: semi- autonomous and loosely coupled units withpermeable borders toallow for inter- action,exchange and cross-fertilisation,and withlaterallinks and connections likea rhizome. The growthand reconfiguration of these units is a result of the functionaldifferentiation of knowledge areas whichin turn reflects the enormous proliferation of knowledge itself that weexperienceas adefining quality of our societies.Networkorganisations provide spacefor complexity,i.e. for growthby way of differentiation, without the need to restructure the entirearchitectureof the system in order tocreate this space. The integration into the system follows the horizontallines of interlinking through discourse, shared professionalinter- ests and mutually beneficialco-operation,and not through vertical(hierarchical) addition toapredetermined order.The key advantage of loosely coupled systems (Weick,1976)for anorganisation suchas the university lies in its fault tolerance. The lackofadequateperformanceor the failureofone semi-independent unit does not debilitate the entire system. For the survivalofaninstitution whoseinner logicof knowledge expansion is built on the criterion of falsifiability,and which constantly must adapt its operations tochanging externalenvironments,fault tol- eranceand the provision of spacefor independent workis absolutely vital.

108 Concepts

Accordingly,governance structures at the interfacebetween university centreand subunits must be supportiveof the self-steering capacity of faculties,depart- ments, schools, researchgroups and projects.The challenges tonetworkgover- nanceareconsiderable,perhaps comparable to the art of conducting anorchestra playing a symphony in status nascendi.The new executivepower that is put into the hands of the top management of anentrepreneurial university must bepru- dently used tocreate the conditions and todefine the rules under whichnetwork units and intrapreneurs canexcel,and unproductiveor non-adaptable units can fail. Lateral steering which supports the evolution of transparent mechanisms of self-control and accountability is consistent with the dynamics of knowledge expansion whereas a top-downgovernanceapproach will inevitably increase the tension between centralisation and decentralisation.

3.3.University –civil society:demonstrating relevanceand responsiveness InEurope, the relationship between universities and the surrounding society has never been a smoothand easy one. Inpart, this has todo with the fact that for the longest time universities havebeen instruments for the self-reproduction of social elites and were thus somewhat distant to the broader concerns of society.Another reason is the traditionaldominanceof the stateas the custodian, sponsor and legal ‘owner’ofhigher education institutions including the power tomake useof uni- versities as vehicles of government determined priorities whicharenot necessar- ily congruent with thoseof society.Twoforces hadacounterbalancing effect: the advent of mass democracy and of steadily growing access tohigher education of less privileged segments of the population (‘massification’) on the one hand,and the more recent retreat of the statefrom direct control and intervention resulting in morefreedom for universities todetermine their futureand toestablish their ownpriorities on the other hand. Have thesedevelopments opened the door for universities in a way that they arenow more susceptible and responsive toengage with society insteadof serving stateor class interest? Questions like this one havefueled many ideologicaldebates in past years and decades.They are,by and large,of a theoreticalor normativenaturefor as long as they refer toanabstract model of the purposeofhigher education rather than to the policies and practices whichareguiding the actualactivities of universities with regard to teaching, researchand service to the community.If universities are tofoster the values of democraticcitizenship and the commitment to socialdevel- opment and justice, their first measureofachievement must behow they incor- porate thesegoals into the fabricof the institution. InEurope, the most common way of articulating engagement including active involvement in larger societalconcerns is through the participation of the various constituencies in university governance(whichis different from the USA where the notion and the practiceofdemocraticcitizenship on campus and outside is morebased on acommunitarian tradition – see the Council of Europe’s pilot proj- ect on “The university as siteofcitizenship” and especially the articles by Plantan 2004and Daxner 2005). The main focus hereis on participativemanagement ( Mitbestimmung)and on internaldemocratisation. The university is seen as

109 Higher education governance belonging to the public sphereand its ‘inhabitants’areasserting their rights as cit- izens by claiming their voices tobeheardincollectivedecision making. The modes and modalities by which the principle of participativemanagement is employed differ considerably from country tocountry. Germany,for example,has ahighly formalised system of involvement in decision making which still bears the marks of the group university and its rather intricate structures and procedures of shared governance. In this particular case the group university canbehistorically interpreted as a reaction against the anti-democratic stanceof the old oligarchic Ordinarienuniversität (‘university of the full- professors’) whichclaimed aHumboldtian type of institutionalautonomy for itself showing no intention of protecting the democracy of the Weimar Republic of the 1920s,or at least of mobilising more resistance,against the assault on polit- icaland academicfreedoms by the totalitarianNazi regime. The lessons that were drawnfrom this experiencein the late1960s indicateadeeply scepticalposition towards formalautonomy as anexcusefor politicalinactivity guised as ‘neutral- ity’,academic‘impartiality’or intellectual superiority over those who blindly fol- low deceitfulideologies.Therefore, the impetus for demanding participatory management in German universities was toahigh degree politically motivated as ameans of controlling institutionalpower and strengthening the democraticfoun- dations and vibrancy of the institution. This concernarticulated itself in three major objectives (Daxner, 2005): the demand togrant a“politicalmandate” to the university,i.e. to thoseinvolved in university governanceand representing the various groups within the institution (meaning that self-governanceis not strictly limited to self-management but implies afundamental responsibility topromote civicengagement at all levels of society); the legaland statutory inclusion of the student groupin university governance; and the hope and expectation tocon- tribute to the democraticadvancement of society by taking the criterion of ‘soci(et)al relevance’ as the ultimatemeasureofaccountability for what is taught and researched at universities (and what professors have to substantiate). The fateof the emphatically democratic reformmovement of the late1960s is well known:it got moreor less bogged downin the day-to-day routine of univer- sity administration and in struggling to solve the equation between constantly growing student numbers,and the relativedecline of financial resources to address this growth,i.e. the efficiency equation whichled to the moremarket- driven approach tohigher education including its definition of socio-economic relevanceand responsiveness. But the Germanexperienceoffers some interesting analogies to the post-1989 sit- uation in the countries of easternEurope after the fall of communism. On the whole, universities did not play a very prominent role in the toppling of the old political system although many of the activists of the peaceful revolutions belonged to the academiaand the first democratically elected governments includ- ed anextraordinary high proportion of scholars.It also seems fair to say that dur- ing the first fifteen years of transformation the universities in east and south-east Europe werenot seen as adriving forceofdemocratisation,or only in anindirect sensein that they educate the futuregeneration of managers,politicians or civil

110 Concepts servants who will beinpositions of responsibility.Beyond their immediatecon- cerns – teaching and research– universities weregenerally reluctant toadopt a moreproactive role in the publicarena 59 and preferred aposition of ‘neutrality’(for example,by barring political student organisations from campus, see Section 2.3.6). This is not todeny that these universities have undergone extensive reforms and demonstrated a remarkable degree of adaptability to the changing external (political,economic, social) conditions.But what seems missing,at least to the outside observer,is amorefundamentalconsideration of the socialand civic responsibilities of the university including adiscussion of the role that universities haveplayed in the past as anintegralpart of an undemocratic system –not somuch as a way of reckoning withindividualmisconduct or misuseofpower but as a reaf- firmation of academicintegrity after decades of ideologicalheteronomy.Failing to do socangive rise to the suspicion that universities are willing to servemany mas- ters –a suspicion that in fact was one of the factors that prompted the student movement of the mid- tolate1960s and that could at some point provokea simi- lar reaction in easternand south-easternEurope. The developments in Serbia, Georgiaand the Ukraine where students werein the frontline of the successful removalofoppressivepolitical regimes areapromising sign that universities are fertile grounds for strong and spirited democraticforces and for activecitizenship, even if as institutions they have remained under strict government control. Today, the debateabout the contribution of higher education and research to“soci- ety at large”,not only in Europe,focuses mainly on the stakeholder concept with a strong emphasis on the economy and industry.Thereareanumber of forceful steering devices that arepushing universities in this direction:collaboration between university and industry researchers is aprecondition for many of the EU- funded programmes,and the same is trueon the nationallevel; governments use the degree and the intensity of co-operation withindustry as anindicator for the evaluation of university activities (and as acriterion for the allocation of financial resources); privatecompanies areencouraged,for example, through tax incentives, toinvest in partnerships withhigher education institutions by setting upjoint units or institutes; along the same lines, university researchers canget specialfunds to establish start-upcompanies or tohavepatents registered that promiseprofit both for the researcher and the university; close ties to the business sector also serveas amotivation toattract the best or the most solvent students toa university. The economicparadigm combined with the forces of competition play anincreas- ingly dominant part in the steering of universities and in the way they areaccount- ing for their contribution to the advancement of the larger society.Sinceknowl- edge and knowledge-related technologies areanessentialasset in almost every areaof working-life, universities havebecome universally important and a“much larger groupof users is now making claims on them” (Marginson &Considine, 2000:8). For many, the “enterprise university”(ibid.) represents the future, whereas others perceive the ‘corporatisation’ and the commodification of knowledge ______59. With some notable exceptions like the Babes-BolyaiUniversity in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, withits study programmes in three languages which serves as aplaceofintegration of the three main ethnic groups in the region.

111 Higher education governance as a serious narrowing of the scope of interaction between the university and soci- ety and thus of the identity of the university.It is agenuine taskfor the gover- nanceofaninstitution toaddress theseconcerns becausegovernancemediates the expanding relationships between the ‘internal’ and the ‘external’ dimensions including those withbusiness and industry.By doing so,it also shapes and re- shapes the values that aninstitution is adhering toor that it chooses toembrace. These values havebeen put to the test by the stakeholder concept. Michael Daxner (2005) compares what he calls the “stakeholder ideology” with the broader and morecomprehensivenotion of “ownership” whichhas wide cur- rency especially in the United States tocharacterise the interrelation between uni- versities or colleges and the public.Ownership as ageneralprinciple in public policy matters has its roots in liberaland communitarian thoughts and theories and has adefinitedevolutionary and state-sceptical stance. Anownership society values responsibility,liberty,and property insteadofdependencefrom govern- ment handouts and tutelage by stateauthorities.Thus,making individuals ‘own- ers’means empowering them tobeincontrol of their ownlives and destinies.In the ownership society,patients control their ownhealthcare,parents control their ownchildren’s education,and workers control their retirement savings.It is obvi- ous that theseideas havefar-reaching implications for the governanceofpublic institutions including thoseinhigher education. According toDaxner,ownership is based on a reciprocal understanding of belonging:‘something belongs tome’ and ‘Ibelong to something’ areclosely interwoven. The participatory ownership rights that aregranted tomeby belong- ing toacommunity (for example,a university)and sharing its values and assets correspond tomy responsibilities to sustain and nourish this community or insti- tution through commitment and activeinvolvement.The reciprocity creates a socialbond whichconnects thoseinvolved and constitutes apublic space. In the caseof universities and colleges, this implies a strong osmosis and permeability of the institution and its environment as it is confirmed by the influenceoflay boards of trustees, the vigour of alumni organisations and the lifelong commit- ment of alumni to‘their’AlmaMater,but alsoby the emphasis on community serviceand servicelearning as anintegraland centralpart of the mission of the institution and the curricula. Ownership is thus closely related to the desire tobelong to something that is seen as undeniably important and has abroadpublicappeal. But it alsoentails the inten- tion of being actively involved in the shaping of the institution likean‘owner’, insteadofbeing just apassivepart of it.Universities are thus publicinstitutions in the sense that they are res publica –amatter that citizens take careofin their own capacity:adomain of republican rights and responsibilities (and this notion of ‘public’ofcoursealsoapplies toprivatehigher education institutions). With regard togovernanceissues,ownership stresses more the communalaspects (tobepart of a whole) and the character of the institution as afree association of equal-minded individuals who share similar values.Incontrast, the stakeholder concept that is soprevalent in Europeanhigher education,emphasises the func-

112 Concepts tionaldimension: stakeholders arelinked toa university in sofar as it serves their specificinterests whereby this link is not necessarily seen as acommitment to the values and the integrity of the institution but as anentitlement based on one’s own status as citizen and/or taxpayer of the respectivecountry.Under conditions of increased complexity and proliferation of tasks and demands,afunctional approach togovernanceand the ‘management of interests’whichareoften com- peting,or even conflicting, seems unavoidable. However, universities alsooccu- py a very distinct placein society by providing apublic spacefor free inquiry and the development of minds not only within their community of students and pro- fessors,but alsobeyond the campus.For amass democracy in which the partici- pation in publicaffairs is acriticalissueand the feeling of alienation from power is widely spread, the cultivation of a republican spirit of governance,of being a citoyen(ne) and ‘belonging to’ acommunity that shares equal values is of vital importance. Governanceis the coreaspect in the way universities relate to their environment and whether they want tohavea stake in democracy,or rather be efficient suppliers for the globalknowledge economy.Bothobjectives arenot mutually exclusive. But they alsoarenot easy tocombine.

4. Good governanceinhigher education One of the difficulties of writing about higher education governance that many authors attest lies in a tendency to take it as anall-encompassing notion,akind of master code that manifests itself in every aspect of university life. The follow- ing longer quotemay serveas anexample: Governanceoccupies the pivotalposition between the inner world (or worlds)of the university,and its larger environment.Not everything in higher education canbe explained by governance,or is contained in its practices,but when weare talking about institutions of higher education, then governanceis always present. Governanceis concerned with the determination of valueinside universities, their systems of decision-making and resourceallocation, their mission and purposes, the patterns of authority and hierarchy,and the relationships of universities as institu- tions to the different academic worlds within and the worlds of government,business and community without.It embraces “leadership”,“management”and “strategy”. Governanceaffects specialized administrativeactivities suchas fund-raising,finan- cialplanning or industrial relations (…). Governancedoes not contain in itself the sumof teaching and research,but it affects them. It provides the conditions which enable teaching and research to take place. (Marginson &Considine, 2000: 7) Not surprisingly, the authors reach the apex of their pan-institutionalgovernance perspectiveby locating the concept at the very heart of what defines agiven uni- versity:“Governanceis where the identity of each university as adistinctive socialand culturalinstitution is shaped” (ibid.,8f). Suchanall-pervasivenotion of governancemakes it difficult tobreakit downand examine the workings of the system in order to understand, re-arrange or fix it.If governanceis (the condition for or impacting) everything,how can something be said or done about it without taking anexternalpoint of reference? Inother words:from apurely functionalist point of view all governanceprovisions make

113 Higher education governance senseor canbejustified for as long as they establishaconsistent (regulatory, administrative,managerial, strategic)context of steering aninstitution. Thus, the same governancemodel can servedifferent purposes,norms and values,just like the same economicmodel caneither be said topromotemore welfarefor as many as possible,or moreprofit for a small minority.This does not deny that thereare certain governanceprinciples and arrangements whichlean towards amorepar- ticipatory cultureand abottom-upapproachindecision making within the indi- vidualinstitutionor the higher education system as a whole, whereas other organ- isationalarrangements may reinforceamoreheavy-handed executiveapproachor anautocraticleadership style. But it is the primacy of values over procedures that allows us todistinguishbetween “good governance” and its opposite. Our understanding of good governancecan thereforenot belimited to the mere- ly functionalaspects of ensuring the adequateinstitutionalconditions for efficient and effectivedecision making and problem solving. The qualitativeor normative dimension of governancelinks it to the values whichare the underpinning for higher education and research,as it has evolved historically,and which the actors are subscribing toas the defining characteristics of their work. Good governance translates these values intoa set of cohesiveinstitutional structures and practices. These values arefirst and foremost related to the integrity of the university as a placeofdisinterested scholarship,learning and intellectualinstruction,as they areembodied in the principles of academicfreedom and institutionalautonomy. They were traditionally conceived as the pillars supporting the academic system as “adiscrete sub-system of society, whichinimportant respects could bedistin- guished (and, therefore, was insulated) from other sub-systems,notably the mar- ket and politics.In this general sense, the university was regarded as an autonomous space, regardless of detailed constitutional,legaland administrative arrangements”(Scott, 2001:130). As has been discussed earlier,governancein its contemporary understanding is synonymous witha re-orientation of universi- ties away from aninward-looking perspectiveofa self-contained autonomous system toemphasise the ‘embeddedness’ofhigher education and researchintoits environments (social,political,economic, cultural). It thus becomes “the key bro- kerage mechanismbetween the university and its stake-holder,partners and rivals”(ibid.). Good governance strives topreserve the integrity of the academic value system while at the same time it ‘positions’the university vis-à-vis these competing spheres of interest tomake it receptive,and answerable, toexternal messages,demands and expectations. Accountability towards broader societalneeds and concerns whichis amajor issuein the present governancedebate underscores the growing importanceof engaging with the public rather thandefining university autonomy negatively as the absencefrom ‘outside interference’. In this respect governancebecomes the conduit for expanding the mission of the university by including moreintention- ally adimension which ranges prominently in US higher education and whichis captured in the notion of serviceas the thirdkey component of academic work next to teaching and research.

114 Concepts

In the Europeancontext, the term‘service’ may not beas popular as in the United States todescribe the contribution of higher education institutions tofurther larg- er concerns of the society (perhaps becausefor many academics it sounds some- what demeaning of the independent valueof scholarly work). But the pressureon universities todemonstrate their utility with regard to suchconcerns has of course been in existencefor many years,and the changes in governance structures were largely driven precisely by the aspiration tomake higher education more respon- siveand adaptable toexternalneeds and demands.InEurope, the predominant rhetoric refers to the economicaspects of knowledge production (jobcreation, employability,industrialinnovation, strengthening competitiveness of the local economy on the globalmarketplace,Lisbon Agenda, etc., toname but afew of the standardcatchwords) whereas in Americanhigher education the term‘serv- ice’ is moreoften connected to‘softer’issues,especially toparticipation in com- munity life and reaching out todiversecommunities that form the socialenvi- ronment of the institution. In what way do thesepoliticalagendas influencequestions of governanceand, morepointedly,of “good” governance? In reviewing the pertinent literatureon this topic, the answer becomes obvious:even when thereis almost unanimous agreement regarding the need for ongoing higher education reformbothat insti- tutionaland system level, views differ greatly when it comes togovernanceissues (irrespectiveof whether the termis used or not). Thereis agrowing disenchant- ment with what is seen as the self-referentialdiscourseofmanagerialismadvo- cating efficiency,excellence,cost reduction,output indicators,performance/qual- ity control,etc.,but being unable toexplain the rationale for streamlining the organisation in other thancrude economic terms.Thesemanagers are(mis?)per- ceived as having forgotten the fundamental truth that governanceis ameans toan end and that the discussion about the end(s),i.e. the purposeofhigher education, must precede the decisions about the means topursue these. Considering the multiplicity of conflicting objectives and the very realdilemmas that university leaderships arefacing in aiming at moving targets, suchmisgiv- ings might be undeserved. But they point toa shortcoming that apparently has its roots in anoveremphasis on the management of change in universities during the past ten tofifteen years at the expenseofamoreconsequentialdiscussion about different governancecultures and what it is that defines the quality of governance relative to the purpose(s)ofhigher education. In the light of this, the scepticism (and occasionally even resentment) that the moreoutspoken supporters of NPM arefacing at their campuses,might in fact not beabad thing. It could serveas a catalyst for a very timely and relevant discussion on the topicof new publicgov- ernance that takes account of the morefundamentalpoliticalquestions of what (higher)education in the publicdomain should be standing for (and what are the appropriateinstruments for converting value-based policies intocoherent institu- tionaloperations). This discussion has in fact already started as the Council of Europe’s program- maticfocus on the “EuropeanYear of Citizenship through Education” (EYCE)in 2005 shows.Muchof the literatureon this approach tohigher education gover-

115 Higher education governance nance still needs tobe written. Indoing so,it will beimportant tocombine the lessons learnt in being moreprofessionaland proactivein terms of institutional self-management with the emphasis on the qualitativenotion of (good) gover- nance. In this way, university governance would indeed be the juncture where the distinctive socialand culturalidentity of eachinstitution is shaped (Marginson & Considine, 2000:8f) as aresult of the complex interconnectedness with the com- munities that make up the university both within and beyond the boundaries of the institution.

116 Concepts

References Altbach,P.G.,Gumport,P.J.&Johnstone,D.B.(eds.), Indefenseofhigher edu- cation,The Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore, 2001. Amaral,A.,Jones,G.A.&Karseth,B.(eds.), Governing higher education: Nationalperspectives on institutionalgovernance ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dortrecht/Boston/London, 2002. Askling,B.,“Deanship in transition. Amateurismand professionalism,collegial- ity and managerialism,empowerment and marginalisation” in Mayer,E.,Daniel, H.-D.&Teichler,U.(eds.), Die neueVerantwortung der Hochschulen,Bonn, 2003:166-168. Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges,“Renewing the academicpresidency:Stronger leadership for tougher times”,Commission on the AcademicPresidency,Association of governing boards of universities and col- leges,Washington,DC, 1996. Baldridge,J.V.,“Introduction:Models of university governance–bureaucratic, collegial,and political” in Baldridge,J.V.(ed.), Academicgovernance:Research on institutionalpolitics and decision making,McCutchanPublishing,Berkeley, CA, 1971. Baldwin,R.&Leslie,D.,“Rethinking the structureof shared governance”, Peer Review , 3(3), 2001. Bargh,C.,Bocock,J.,Scott,P.&Smith,D., University leadership:The role of the chief executive ,SRHE/Open University Press,Buckingham, 2000. Bargh,C.,Scott,P.&Smith,D. Governing universities ,SRHE/Open University Press,1996. Barnett,R., Recovering anacademiccommunity,Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London,1994. Bauer,M.,Marton,S.,Askling,B.&Marton,F., Transforming universities: Changing patterns of governance, structureand learning in Swedishhigher edu- cation,Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London,1999. Becher,A.&Trowler,P.R., Academic tribes and territories ,SRHE/Open University Press,Buckingham, 2001. Bergan,S.(ed.), Universities as res publica. Higher education governance, stu- dent participation and the university as a siteofcitizenship,Council of Europe higher education series No. 1,Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2004. Birnbaum,R., How colleges work: the cybernetics of academicorganization and leadership,Jossey-Bass,SanFrancisco,1988. Birnbaum,R.,“Faculty in governance:The role of senates and joint committees in academicdecision making” in New Directions for Higher Education,18(3), Jossey-Bass,SanFranciso,1991.

117 Higher education governance

Birnbaum,R., Management fads in higher education:Where they come from, What they do,Why they fail,Jossey-Bass,SanFrancisco, 2000. Boyer,E., Scholarship reconsidered:Priorities of the professorate ,Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching,Princeton,NJ, 1990. Braun,D.&Merrien,F.-X.(eds.), Towards anew model of governancefor universi- ties?Acomparative view ,Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London/Philadelphia, 1999. Braun,D.&Schimank,U.,“Organisatorische Koexistenzen des Forschungssystems mit anderen gesellschaftlichen Teilsystemen:Die prekäreAutonomie wis- senschaftlicher Forschung” in Journalfür Sozialforschung 32,1992: 319-336. Campbell,C.&Rosznyai,C.,“Quality Assuranceand the Development of Course Programmes”,UNESCO-CEPES Papers on Higher Education,Bucharest, 2002. Cave,M.,Hanney,S.,Henkel,M.&Kogan,M., The useofperformanceindica- tors in higher education:The challengeof the quality movement ,Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London,1996. Christensen,T.&Lægreid,P.(eds.),New publicmanagement.The transformation of ideas and practice,Ashgate,Aldershot, 2001. Clark,B.R.,“The many pathways of academiccoordination” in Higher Education 8,Elsevier ScientificPublishing Company,1979: 251-267. Clark,B.R., The higher education system. Academicorganization in cross- nationalperspective ,University of CaliforniaPress,Berkeley,1983. Clark,B.R., Creating entrepreneurial universities:Organizationalpathways for transformation,Pergamon for IAUPress,Oxford,1998. Clark,B.R., Sustaining changein universities:Continuities in case studies and concepts,Open University Press, 2004. Cloete,N.&Maassen,P.,“The Limits of Policy”inCloete,N.et al. (eds.), Transformation in higher education. Globalpressures and local realities in South Africa, Juta&Co.,Landsowne,SA, 2002:447-491 Committee of University Chairmen (CUC), Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Boards in the UK.GovernanceCode of Practiceand GeneralPrinciples , 2004(http://www.shef.ac.uk/cuc/pubs.html). Currie,J.,DeAngelis,R.,de Boer,H.,Huisman,J.&Lacotte,C., Globalizing practices and university responses.Europeanand Anglo-Americandifferences , Praeger Publishers,Westport,CT, 2003. Davies,J.L.,“The entrepreneurialand adaptive university”, InternationalJournal of InstitutionalManagement in Higher Education, 2(1),1984. Davies,J.L., The dialogueof universities with their stakeholders:Comparisons between different regions of Europe,CRE (Association of EuropeanUniversities), 1998.

118 Concepts

Davies,J.L.,“The emergenceofentrepreneurialcultures in European universi- ties”, Higher Education Management ,13(2), 2001: 25-43. Davies,J.L.,“Culturalchange in universities in the context of strategicand qual- ity initiatives”(unpublished manuscript), 2004. Daxner,M.,“Entstaatlichung und Veroeffentlichung. Die Hochschule als repub- likanischer Ort”,in Daxner,M., Entstaatlichung und Veroeffentlichung?/Luethje, J.&Schrimpf,H., Eine neueHochschulpolitik,Cologne,1991. Daxner,M., Die blockierteUniversität.Warumdie Wissensgesellschaft eine andereHochschule braucht ,Campus Verlag,Frankfurt a.M/New York,1999. Daxner,M.,“Hochschulpolitik” in Hanft,A.(ed.), Grundbegriffe des Hochschulmanagements,Luchterhand,Neuwied, 2001:166-171. Daxner,M.,“Democraticcitizenship –Bürgerschaftlichkeit,Bürgergesellschaftliche Kompetenz als Ziel und Qualitätskriterium von Studiengängen” in Benz,W.,Kohler, J.&Landfried,K.(eds.),HandbuchQualität in Studium und Lehre ,RaabeVerlag, Berlin, 2004. Deem,R.,“New managerialisminhigher education:The management of per- formances and cultures in universities”, InternationalStudies in the Sociology of Education,8(1),1998:47-70. Delanty,G.D., Challenging knowledge. The university in the knowledge society, SRHE/Open University Press,Buckingham, 2001. Dinci,G.,“FinancialManagement and InstitutionalRelationships withCivil Society”,(Papers on Higher Education),UNESCO-CEPES, Bucharest, 2002. Drummond,M.&Reitsch,A.,“The relationship between shared academicgov- ernancemodels and faculty and administrator attitudes”in Journalfor Higher Education Management ,11(1),1995. Duderstadt,J.J., A university for the 21st century,The University of Michigan Press,Ann Arbor, 2001. Duke,C., The learning university:Towards aparadigm,SRHE/Open University Press,Buckingham,1992. Duryea, E.D.&Williams,D.(eds.), The academiccorporation:Ahistory of col- lege and university governing boards ,Falmer Press,New York, 2000. Eckel,P.D.,“The role of shared governanceininstitutionalharddecisions: Enabler or antagonist?”,The Review of Higher Education, 24(1), 2000. Eckel,P.,Green,M.&Hill,B., OnchangeV: Riding the waves of change: Insights from transforming institutions ,AmericanCouncil on Education, 2001. Ehrlich,T.(ed.), Civic responsibility and higher education,AmericanCouncil on Education and Oryx Press,Phoenix, 2000. Farrington,D.,“Governanceinhigher education:Issues arising from the workof the legislative reformprogramme for higher education and researchof the

119 Higher education governance

Council of Europe,Strasbourg” (DECS/LRP (98) 28), reproduced as Appendix 1 to the Final report of the LRP (CC-HER (2000)40). Felt,U.,“University autonomy in Europe:Abackground study”in Observatory for fundamental university values and rights,managing university autonomy. Collectivedecision making and human resourcepolicy ,BononiaUniversity Press,Bologna, 2003: 7-104. File,J.&Goedegebuure,L.(eds.), Real-time systems.Reflections on higher edu- cation in the CzechRepublic, Hungary,Poland and Slovenia ,CHEPS/VUTIUM, Twente/Brno, 2002. Flecker,J.,“Intrapreneure,Arbeitskraftunternehmer und andereZwitterwesen” in Kurswechsel 2,Sonderzahl-Verlag, 2000: 28-36. Foucault,M., Geschichteder Gouvernementalitaet I: Sicherheit,Territorium, Bevoelkerung,Frankfurt a.M.,Suhrkamp Verlag, 2004. Gibbons,M.et al., The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research ,Sage Publications,London,1994. Goedegebuure,L.,Kaiser,F.,Maassen,P.,Meek,L., vanVught,F.&DeWeert, E.(eds.), Hochschulpolitik im internationalen Vergleich ,Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh,1993. Gornitzka, A.&Maassen,P.,“Hybrid steering approaches with respect to Europeanhigher education” in Higher Education Policy ,13, 2000: 267-285. Green,M.F., Transforming higher education:Views from leaders around the world,Oryx Press,Phoenix,1997. Gumport,P.J.,“Academicgovernance:New light on old issues”,Occasional Paper No. 42,Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, September 2000. Gumport,P.J.,“Academic restructuring:Organizationalchange and institutional imperatives”in Higher Education, 39(1), 2000: 67-91. Hanft,A.(ed.), Grundbegriffe des Hochschulmanagements,Luchterhand, Neuwied, 2001. Hecht,Irene W.D.,Higgerson,M.,Gmelch,W.H.&Ticker,A., The department chair as academicleader ,AmericanCouncil on Education and Oryx Press, Phoenix,1999. Henkel,M., Academicidentitiesand policy changes in higher education,Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London, 2000. Henkel,M.&Little,B., Changing relationships between higher education and the state ,Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London,1998. Hines,C.,“The GovernanceofHigher Education” in Higher education: Handbook of theory and research ,4,Agathon Press,1990.

120 Concepts

Hirsch,W.Z.&Weber,L.(eds.), Governanceinhigher education. The university in a stateofflux,Economica, London, 2001. Hirst,P.&Thompson,G.,“Globalization in question:Internationaleconomic relations and forms of publicgovernance” in Hollingsworth,J.Rogers &Boyer, Robert (eds.), Contemporary capitalism. The embeddedness of institutions , Springer,Cambridge,1997: 337-360. Huefner,K.,“Governanceand funding of higher education in Germany”,in Higher education in Europe, 28(20),Routhledge Journals,Taylor &Francis, 2003:145-163. Huisman,J.,Maassen,P.&Neave,G.(eds.) Higher education and the nation state. The internationaldimension of higher education,Pergamon Press,Oxford, 2001. Jackson,R.,“The universities,government and society”,in Smith,D.&Langslow, A.K.(eds.), The ideaof a university,Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London,1999. Jessop,B.,“The riseofgovernanceand the risks of failure:The caseofeconom- icdevelopment”, InternationalSocialScienceJournal ,155,Blackwell Publishing,1998: 29-46. Jongbloed,B.,Maassen,P.&Neave,G.(eds.), From the eyeof the storm. Higher education’s changing institution,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht,1999. Kehm,B.,“Higher education in Germany –developments,problems,and per- spectives”, Monographs on Higher Education,Institutefor Higher Education Researchand UNESCO EuropeanCentrefor Higher Education,Wittenbergand Bucharest,1999. Knight,P.T.&Trowler,P.R., Departmentalleadership in higher education,Open University Press,Milton Keynes, 2001. Köhler,J.,“Ethicalframeworks of governancefor higher education and science”, paper presented at the conferenceon“Ethicaland moraldimensions for higher education and scienceinEurope”,UNESCO-CEPES, Bucharest, 2004. Kogan,M.&Hanney,S., Reforming higher education,Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London,1999. Kogan,M.,“Academicand administrativeinterface” in Henkel,M.&Little,B., Changing relationships between higher education and the state ,Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London,1998. Kooiman,J.,“Governance:A social-politicalperspective” in Grote,J.R.& Gbikpi,B.(eds.), Participatory governance. Politicaland societalimplications , Opladen, 2002: 71-96. Kooiman,J.,“Governing as governance”,paper presented at the conference “Governance-Forschung”,Wissenschaftszentrum,Berlin, 2004. Lanzendorf,U.&Dellwing,M.,“Changes in public researchgovernancein Austria(preliminary draft)”,Centrefor ResearchonHigher Education and Work (WZI),(unpublished manuscript),University of Kassel,Kassel, 2004.

121 Higher education governance

Laske,S.&Meister-Scheytt,C.,“Wer glaubt,dass Universitätsmanager Universitäten managen,der glaubt auch,dass Zitronenfalter Zitronen falten”,in Luethje,J.&Nickel,S.(eds.), Universitätsentwicklung.Strategien,Erfahrungen, Reflexionen,Frankfurt a.M., 2003. Lockwood,G.,Davies,J.&Nelson,L., Policy formation in universities:The man- agement challenge ,SRHE/NFER-Nelson,Windsor,1985. Lond,R.M.,“Governmentality, the Problem of ‘Steering’ and Public Administration”,Copenhagen Business School,Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy,LPF Working Papers, 2003. Luethje,J.&Nickel,S.(eds.), Universitätsentwicklung.Strategien,Erfahrungen, Reflexionen,Peter Lang Verlag,Frankfurt a.M, 2003. Maassen,P.& vanVught,F.,“Alternativemodels of governmental steering in higher education. Ananalysis of steering models and policy-instruments in five countries”inGoedegebuure,L.& vanVught,F.(eds.) Comparativepolicy stud- ies in higher education,LEMMA, Utrecht,1994: 35-65. Maassen,P., Government steering and the academicculture:The intangibility of the humanfactor in Durchand German universities ,DeTijdstroom,Maarsen,1996. Maassen,P.(ed.),“Higher education and the stakeholder society”in European JournalofEducation (SpecialIssue), 35(4),Blackwell Publishing, 2000: 377-475. Marga, A., Education in transition,Paideia, Bucharest, 2000. Marginson,S.&Considine,M., The enterprise university.Power,governanceand reinvention in Australia ,CUP,Cambridge, 2000. Marginson,S.&Rhoades,G.“Beyond national states,markets,and systems of higher education:Aglobalagency heuristic”in Higher Education,43:3, 2002. McDaniel,C.,“The Paradigms of GovernanceinHigher Education Systems”in Higher Education Policy ,9(2),Olof,1998. McNay,I.,“From collegialacademy toacademicenterprise:The changing cul- tures of university”inSchuller,T.(ed.), The Changing University,SRHE/Open University Press,Buckingham,1995. Meek,V.L.,“Changing patterns in modes of co-ordination in higher education” in Enders,J.&Fulton,O.(eds.) Higher Education in aGlobalising World. InternationalTrends and MutualObservations ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht, 2002:53-73. Meckling,J.,“Netzwerkgovernance. CorporateCitizenship und Global Governance”,WZB Discussion Papers,Berlin, 2003. Metzger,W.P.,“Academicgovernance:Anevolutionary perspective” in Schulster, J.(ed.), Governing tomorrow’s campus:Perspectives and agendas, MacMillan Press,New York,1989.

122 Concepts

Miller,M.T.(ed.), Responsiveacademicdecision-making:Involving faculty in higher education governance ,New Forums Press,Stillwater,UK, 1999. Ministry of Education,Finland, Management and steering of higher education in Finland,Publications of the Ministry of Education,Helsinki,Finland, 2004. Neave,G.& vanVught,F.A.(eds.), Prometheus bound:The changing relation- ship between government and higher education in westernEurope,Pergamon Press,Oxford,1991. Neave,G.,“The Europeandimension in higher education:Anexcursion into the modern useofhistoricalanalogues”inHuisman,J.,Maassen,P.&Neave,G.(eds.), Higher education and the nation state ,Pergamon Press,Oxford, 2001:13-75. Neave,G.,“The stakeholder perspectivehistorically explored” in Enders,J.& Fulton,O.(eds.), Higher education in aglobalising world. International trends and mutualobservations ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht, 2002:17-39. Nickel,S.,“DezentralisierteZentralisierung. Die Suche nachneuen Organisations – und Leitungsstrukturen fuer Fakultaeten und Fachbereiche”,in Die Hochschule 1, 2004. Nitsch,W.,Gerhardt,U.,Offe,C.&Preuss,U.K., Hochschule in der Demokratie, Luchterhand Verlag,Neuwied,1965. OECD (Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development), Governance in transition:Publicmanagement reforms in OECD countries ,OECD,Paris,1995. Pandza, D.&Kotlo,R.(eds.), Student rights in SEE.Regional research work / StudenttskaPrava.Regionalni Istrazivacki Projekat ,HumanRights Center in Mostar,Mostar, 2003. Pechar,H.,“In searchofanew profession:Transformation of academicmanage- ment in Austrian universities”inAmaral,A.,Meek,L.V.&Larsen,I.M.(eds.), The Higher Education ManagerialRevolution? (Higher Education Dynamics, 3), Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht/Boston/London, 2003:109-130. Pellert,A.&Welan,M.(eds.), Die formierteAnarchie.Die Herausforderung der Universitätsorganisation,WUV Universitätsverlag,Wien,1995. Pellert,A., Die Universität als Organisation,Vienna, Cologne,Graz (Böhlau),1999. Peterson,M.W.,Chaffee,E.E.&White,T.H.(eds.), Organization and academicgov- ernanceinhigher education,(4thed.),Ginn Press,NeedhamHeights,MA, 1991. Peterson,M.W.,Dill,D.&Mets,L., Planning and management for achanging environment ,Jossey-Bass,SanFrancisco,1997. Plantan,F.,“The university as siteofcitizenship” in Bergan,S.(ed.), Universities as res publica. Higher education governance, student participation and the uni- versity as siteofcitizenship,Council of Europe higher education series No.1, Council of Europe Publishing,Strasbourg, 2004:83-128.

123 Higher education governance

Pollitt,C.&Bouckaert,G., Publicmanagement reform:Acomparativeanalysis , OxfordUniversity Press,Oxford/New York, 2000. Pollitt,C., Managerialismand the public services.Cuts or culturalchangein the 1990s? (2nd ed.),Blackwell Publishing,Oxford,1993. Pusser,B.&Ordorika, I.,“Bringing political theory to university governance” in Higher education:Handbook of theory and research ,Springer, 2001:16. Readings,B., The university in ruins ,HarvardUniversity Press,Cambridge, Mass./London 1996. Rhoades,G.,“Rethinking and restructuring universities”, JournalofHigher Education Management ,10(2),1995. Rosenau,J.N.&Czempiel,E.-O., Governance without government:Order and changein world politics ,Cambridge University Press,1992. Rosenau,J.,“Governancein the twenty-first century”in Globalgovernance:A review of multilateralismand internationalorganizations ,Vol. 1,No. 1,1995:13-43. Rosenau,J.N.,“Governanceinanew globalorder”inHeld,D.&McGrew,A. (eds.), Governing globalization:Power,authority and globalgovernance ,Polity Press,Cambridge, 2002: 70-86. Rosovsky,H.,“Some thoughts about university governance” in Hirsch,W.& Weber,L.(eds.), Governanceinhigher education:The university in flux, Economica, London, 2001:94-104. Salmi,J.&Verspoor,A.M.(eds.), Revitalizing higher education,IAU Press, Oxford,1994. Salter,B.&Tapper,T.,“The politics of governanceinhigher education:The case of quality assurance” in PoliticalStudies ,48(1), 2000: 66-87. Schedler,K.&Proeller,I., New publicmanagement ,Bern/Stuttgart/Vienna, 2000. Schimank,U.,Kehm,B.&Enders,J.,“Institutionalmechanisms of problem pro- cessing of the German university system:Status quoand new developments”in Braun,D.&Merrien,F.-X.(eds.), Towards anew model of governancefor uni- versities?Acomparative view ,Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London/Philadelphia, 1999:179-194. Schneider,V.&Kenis,P.,“VerteilteKontrolle:Institutionelle Steuerung in mod- ernen Gesellschaften” in Kenis,P.&Schneider,V.(eds.), Organisation und Netzwerk. Institutionelle Steuerung in Wirtschaft und Politik,Campus Verlag, Frankfurt a.M.,1996:9-44. Scott,C.“Regulation in the age of governance:The riseof the post-regulatory state” in Jordana, J.&Levi-Faur,D.(eds.), The Politics of Regulation,Edward Elgar Publishing,Cheltenham, 2003.

124 Concepts

Scott,P.,“University governanceand management:Ananalysis of the system and institutionallevel changes in westernEurope” in Maassen,P.& vanVught,F. (eds.), Inside academia.New challenges for the academicprofession,Elsevier/De Tijdstroom,Utrecht,1996:113-133. Scott,P., Higher education re-formed,Falmer Press,London/New York, 2000. Scott,P.,“Universities as organizations and their governance” in Hirsch,W.Z.& Weber,L.(eds.), Governanceinhigher education. The university in a stateof flux,Economica, London, 2001:125-142. Simonis,U.E.,“Defining good governance–The conceptionalcompetition is on”,(WZB Discussion Papers),Berlin, 2004. Slaughter,S.&Leslie,L., Academiccapitalism:Politics,policies,and the entre- preneurial university,The Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore/London, 1997. Sporn,B., Adaptive university structures:Ananalysis of adaptation of socioeco- nomicenvironments of US and European universities ,Jessica Kingsley Publishers,London,1999. Stichweh,R., Wissenschaft,Universität,Profession –Soziologische Analysen, Suhrkamp,Frankfurt a.M, 1994. Taylor,J.&Miroiu,A.,“Policy-making, strategicplanning and management of high- er education”,UNESCO-CEPES (Papers on Higher Education),Bucharest, 2002. Tierney,W.G.,“Organizationalcultureinhigher education:Defining the essen- tials”in JournalofHigher Education 59(l),1988b: 2-21. Tierney,W.G.(ed.), The responsive university.Restructuring for high perform- ance ,The Johns Hopkins University Press,Baltimore/London,1998. Tierney,W.G.,“Why committees don’t work:Creating a structurefor change”,in Academe,87(3),AAUP(AmericanAssociation of University Professors), 2001. Titscher,S.,Winckler,G.&Biedermann,H., Universitäten im Wettbewerb–Zur Neustrukturierung österreichischer Universitäten,Rainer Hampp,München und Mering, 2000. Tomusk,V., The blinding darkness of the enlightenment.Towards the under- standing of post state-socialist higher education in east Europe,University of Turku Press, 2000. Trow,W., Managerialismand the academicprofession:Quality and control, Open University Quality Control Centre,London,1994. VanGinkel,H.,“Variety and impact:Differences that matter.Some thoughts on the variety of university governance systems and their impact on university policies and strategies”inHirsch,W.Z.&Weber,L.(eds.), Governanceinhigher education. The university in a stateofflux,Economica, London, 2001:155-166.

125 Higher education governance

VanKersbergen,K.& vanWaarden,F.(2004) “‘Governance’ as abridge between disciplines:Cross-disciplinary inspiration regarding shifts in governanceand problems of governability,accountability and legitimacy”, EuropeanJournalof PoliticalResearch 43, 2004:143-171. VanVught,F.A., vander Wende,M.&Westerheijden,D.,“Globalisation and internationalisation:Policy agendas compared” in Enders,J.&Fulton,O.(eds.), Higher education in aglobalising world. International trends and mutualobser- vations ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht, 2002:103-121. Vlasceanu,L.&Purser,L.,“From words toaction. Changing higher education governanceand management structures in certain south-easternEuropeancoun- tries/entities”,Papers on Higher Education,UNESCO-CEPES, Bucharest, 2002. Weick,K.E.,“Educationalorganizations as loosely coupled systems”in AdministrativeScienceQuarterly , 21,1976:1-19. Wolverton,M.&Gmelch,W.H., College Deans:Leading from within,American Council on Education and Oryx Press,Phoenix, 2002. Wood,M.&Meek,L.,“Higher education governanceand management: Australia”in Higher Education Research ,11( 2-3),1998. Zechlin,L.,“NoPublicManagement.Die österreichische Politik verabschiedet sich von der strategischen Steuerung ihrer Universitäten“,in Zeitschrift fuer Hochschulrecht,Hochschulmanagement und Hochschulpolitik Heft ,4,Springer, Graz-Vienna, 2002:139-143 Ziegele,F.,“Reformansätze und Perspektiven der Hochschulsteuerung in Deutschland”,in Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, 24(3), 2002:106-121.

126 Concepts

Appendix 1 Ministry of Education,Finland,Management and Steering of Higher Education in Finland,Publications of the Ministry of Education,Finland, 2004.

127 Higher education governance

128 Concepts

129 Higher education governance

130 Concepts

131 Higher education governance

132 Concepts

133

The governanceofhigher education institutions DijanaTipliˇc

1. Introduction Over the last three decades, the field of higher education researchhas developed significantly.However,it is seen as a rather young field where some of the fun- damentalquestions still beg for further investigation. One example is the question of the most effectiveinstitutionalgovernance structurefor higher education insti- tutions.Some argue that institutionalgovernancehas become aninternational issueinhigher education,and ought tobeaddressed through comparative researchby sharing researchfindings across national systems, whichin turn would lead towards identifying common themes and important differences (Reed, Meek &Jones, 2002: xv). That said,acentralquestion in higher education gov- ernance researchbecomes adilemmaon how we should treat the university:as a distinctiveinstitution withcoreauthority structures that survived over the cen- turies or as any other modernorganisation (Reed et al., 2002, xxvi). The point of departureinaddressing the issueofinstitutionalgovernanceinhigher education is seen in the changed relationship between higher education and the state. This changed relationship has frequently involved reforms of governancearrange- ments imposed by the state. Consequently,anumber of complex relationships between various stakeholder groups (for example,academics, students,other civicand commercialgroups)haveevolved. This paper attempts at better understanding how institutions of higher education aregoverned. In what follows,I will briefly review some of the models of higher education governance,as well as the corporate trends that tend tohaveanimpact on the internalmanagement of higher education institutions.Then I will shed some light on existing empiricalevidenceof the described trends with regard to both the Europeanand non-European situation. The subsequent section will pro- vide aninsight intoemerging issues in higher education governance. Finally, some concluding remarks will bepresented.

2.Codes of governanceinhigher education Depending on the level of analysis (for example,national,local,institutional,or subunit), wecandistinguishbetween various meanings of governanceinhigher education. Clark(1983: 205-206)draws our attention to three primary authority levels: the understructure(i.e. basicacademicor disciplinary units), the middle or enterprise structure(i.e. individualorganisations in their entirety),and the super- structure(i.e. government and other regulatory mechanisms that relateorganisa- tions toone another). All three levels must beconsidered when trying to under- stand what is happening within particular higher education institutions and sys-

135 Higher education governance tems (Meek, 2003: 3). At the same time, the interaction between levels,as well as the dynamics within eachlevel will bedetermined by the relevant context.The context,as argued by Clark, will depend on wherehigher education institutions areplaced within the triangle of governance/co-ordination constituted by the forces of academicoligarchy, stateauthority and the market. 60 The three forces are dynamicand ‘pull’ institutions and systems in different directions.Due toits robustness,Clark’s triangle has been widely applied by scholars in the field. a.Governanceat the system level With regard to the superstructurelevel,national systems differ substantially in the ways they haveorganised the governanceofhigher education. Inpractice, two broadand distinctivepressures canbeidentified: the EuropeanContinental 61 model and the Anglo-Saxon model. The former is characterised by government increasingly stepping backfrom the direct control of higher education institu- tions, resulting in strengthened institutionalautonomy; the latter,in contrast,is characterised by governments introducing various quality control and accounta- bility mechanisms tobetter define educationaloutputs (Meek, 2003). This in turn canbe seen as aloss of some institutionalautonomy.However,governments in Europe havealsobeen highly interested in the accountability issues,especially the quality assuranceissue(Meek, 2003: 3). Inmoregeneral terms, the ability of higher education institutions toexerciseini- tiativein the context of system- or nation-wide authority structures will depend on the type of higher education system that is in place. For instance,in the ‘bottom- heavy’type of system characterised by high institutionalautonomy,government policy will follow achange process initiated at the departmental,faculty or insti- tutionallevel. On the contrary,in the ‘top-down’ type of system,higher education institutions will act in order to respond to the policy initiatives that areenforced upon them by the power of state. Consequently,higher education institutions will tend to redefine themselves in relation to transformations in the control and co- ordination occurring in the externalenvironment.As Clark(2000: 36)puts it: The institutions have trajectories of their own; they havepolicies of their own,of whichgovernmentaldictates areonly apart.It is important analytically topursue the ways that higher education operates as a‘self-guiding society’as well as to see it as composed of institutions dependent on certain main patrons. It is seen as important tokeep this featureofhigher education as a self-guiding society when examining the responseand adaptation of higher education institu- tions to their respectiveincreasingly complex and turbulent environments.In so doing,our focus shifts towards the questions of governance and management at the institutionallevel. The two subsequent sections intend to shed morelight on theseissues. ______60.Aparallel canbedrawn to the title of the conference which resulted in the present publication: higher education governancebetween democraticculture,academicaspirations and market forces. 61. Empiricalevidence seen as collected mainly in the “western” Europeancountries.

136 Concepts b.Institutionalgovernanceinhigher education The literatureonhigher education provides anumber of different traditionalcon- ceptualmodels of governance:bureaucratic(Stroup,1966),political(Baldridge, 1971),organised anarchy (Cohen &March,1974),collegial(Millett,1978),and professional(Mintzberg,1979). The more recent literature,however, reveals other types, suchas the service university (Tjeldvoll,1997), the entrepreneurial uni- versity (Clark,1998),and the enterprise university (Marginson &Considine, 2000), toname but afew.It is beyond the scope of the present paper toprovide moredetail about eachof theseorganisational types.However,in order toprovide aclear cut comparison among some of the distinctive types of university organi- sation and governance,it is considered as useful tohaveacloser look at Olsen’s (2005) typology of four university visions:acommunity of scholars,aninstru- ment for nationalpurposes,a representativedemocracy,and a serviceenterprise embedded in competitivemarkets.This typology is seen as relevant sinceit encompasses both the traditionaland corporate trends of university organisation. Firstly , the author claims that the university as acommunity of scholars is organ- ised around the universalcriteriaof, inter alia ,free inquiry and intellectualfree- dom, rationality,intelligence,learning,academiccompetenceand expertise. The university’s identity originates from a shared commitment to searchfor the truth, rather than to searchfor politicalor economicbenefits.The essenceof this vision is seen in the university’s collegialorganisation and governance. Secondly , the university as aninstrument for nationalpurposes finds its rationale in imple- menting policies created by elected leaders.One of the key features of this per- spectiveis applicability of researchfor practicalproblem solving,and the univer- sity’s specialisation in order toachieveexcellence(Olsen, 2005). Thirdly , the uni- versity as a representativedemocracy,as argued by the author,is agovernance model focused on internal stakeholders (i.e. employees and students), whereas the university’s performanceis improved by empowering administrativeand techni- cal staff. Fourthly , the university as a serviceenterpriseembedded in competitive markets operates as anenterprise within regionalor globalmarkets withamain objective tobecompetitiveand profitable, whereby researchand higher educa- tion are treated as commodities.The university is deliberated from the stateand politicalauthorities,and government’s role is toprovide incentivemechanisms. University leaders become entrepreneurs within a wider environment (Olsen, 2005). HenceNew PublicManagement (NPM) 62 ideas prevail in this perspective. Inlight of the ideas mentioned above,it is important tokeep in mind that the var- ious models and conceptualisations of higher education governance should be treated mainly as ‘ideal types’. Some scholars see the university moving towards corporateenterprise, where the challenges facing it are“broadly similar to those of a range of public serviceagencies in the late twentiethcentury”(Askling & Henkel, 2000:113). Others arenot quiteconvinced in what direction these‘new’ movements in the university’s organisation and governanceareheading. As Reed et al. (2002: xxvii) put it: ______62.NPM rests on neo-liberalideology,emphasises efficiency,downsizing and decentralisation,excel- lenceand serviceorientation,and introduces quasimarkets into the public sector.

137 Higher education governance

While muchof the current writing on higher education assumes amovement away from traditionalmodels of governance(themselves varied and complex), the direc- tion of this movement is far from clear and varies considerably in bothcontent and intensity from country tocountry and over time. This is supported by some empirical research, whichpoints to the resilienceof higher education institutions and questions whether the present changes tend to be the codification of existing practices (de Boer,Goedegebuure&Meek,1998). Tobring the issueofinstitutionalgovernancea step further, thereis an underly- ing assumption that government introduces the regulatory,policy and funding frameworks within which the higher education institutions areexpected toadapt or strengthen their management structure(Maassen, 2003:49). According to the author,management structures in higher education institutions havebeen identi- fied as specificgovernancearrangements that canbeinfluenced by external actors suchas governments. c.Institutionalmanagement in higher education Over centuries,a widely accepted mythhas developed that academics areable to manage their ownaffairs.As lateas the 1980s, this model of collegialorganisa- tion and governancecame under attack through requests for moreefficiency and, not least,profitability.Thesenew concepts,introduced along with the notions of managerialism,havecreated a tension with the former long-lasting academic values, suchas scientificexcellenceand academicfreedom. Prior toengaging in further discussion about managerialism,it is important to distinguishbetween the terms of ‘governance’ and ‘management’that areoften used interchangeably,and yet, thereareimportant distinctions between them (Middlehurst,1999: 311-312): In simplistic terms,leadership and governanceareconcerned withoverall direction and strategy within aframeworkdetermined by regulatory requirements on the one hand and purpose, values,culture,history and mission on the other.Management and administration involveprocesses of implementation,control and co-ordination with particular emphasis on resourceframeworks and structures:human(individuals and groups),physicaland technologicalinfrastructures,finance,materials and time. When it comes to the notion of managerialism, the key question becomes: what happens toinstitutionaldynamics when management thinking and practicepene- tratehigher education? Or in other words, what are the effects of management and managerialismon the basicinstitutionalfunctions of higher education teaching, research, relations with students,generation of knowledge,and relationships with external stakeholders?Answers to theseand similar questions vary across the var- ious contexts, yet thereare some common trends and issues that may bediscerned (Meek, 2003: 2). Hereour focus shifts towards the issues of institutionalautono- my,academicfreedom,‘de-professionalisation’,academicloyalty,and leader- ship. The following account will briefly reflect upon theseimportant issues. Taking Europe as anexample, wecannote that the ‘rolling’ backofpublicauthori- ties in many Europeancountries from direct control and detailed regulation has

138 Concepts created a vacuum to whichinstitutions havebeen forced to respond. As already men- tioned, this trend is generally linked toa shift in focus from input tooutput in gov- ernmental steering of higher education. Consequently,anincreased but morecondi- tionalinstitutionalautonomy emerged. This said,academicfreedom and institution- alautonomy arefrequently confused witheachother; however, they are twoquite distinct concepts (Ashby,1966: 293). Indeed,academicfreedom is defined as an individual scholar’s freedom topursue truthin teaching and research wherever it seems tolead, without fear of punishment or termination of employment for having offended some political, religious or socialorthodoxy (Ashby:1966). On the other hand, the ingredients of institutionalautonomy,as analysed byAshby (1966: 293- 296)have the following dimensions:(i) freedom to recruit staff; (ii) freedom to select students; (iii) freedom to set standards; (iv)freedom todecide to whom toaward degrees; (v)freedom todesign curricula; and (vi) freedom todecide how toallocate income. Henceanaturalquestion arises as to what extent institutionalautonomy and academicfreedom areinterrelated. Assuming that this question is of high interest for all thoseinvolved in higher education, this relationship and its implications are seen as important empiricalissues.One researchpathmay be to study theseissues with respect to the different degrees of importanceattached to the contextualfactors such as academicaspirations,market forces,and democraticcultures. Another tension brought about by processes of massification,changes in the natureand valueofknowledge and,not least,new management processes,is a tension between academics and administrators.This dualismina university’s organisational structurehas along history.It is ageneral trend that the academic profession, which used toenjoy prestige and indulgency,has come under strong attack. Inextreme cases, this trend resulted in the perceived de-professionalisation of academics.Leicht and Fenell (2001) described the present situation by claiming that “elitemanagers arebecoming the ‘new professionals’, while professionals arebeing captured by organisational stakeholders that consume and pay for pro- fessional services”(cited in Reed, 2002:179). Or in other words,academics have become ‘managed professionals’and administrators havebecome ‘professional managers’. Inaddition, the loyalty of academics started tobequestioned. For centuries academics used tobedisciplined,loyaland professionally oriented. That kind of loyalty has been challenged, sincedemands upon loyalty to the institution scorehigh on the managerialagenda(Meek, 2003). Needless to say,all these issues areempiricalissues and beg for further investigation. Finally,akey element in the emerging models of institutionalgovernanceis the strengthening of institutionalleadership. Indeed, the increaseininstitutional responsibilities calls for measures to strengthen the centralexecutivecapacity.As Middlehurst (1999: 326-327)puts it: The function of leadership is toassist the institution (and particular parts of the insti- tution) toidentify and evaluateemerging realities, toassess the options available and toprepare strategies for moving towards one or more scenarios…The kind of lead- ership called for is beyond the scope of one individual,however visionary; it requires the creativeand expert input of many individuals both toidentify futuredirections and to take forward the organizational transformation that will benecessary.

139 Higher education governance

To sum up,in some countries the above-mentioned processes havebeen relative- ly gradualand,by now, rather well established. Inothers, the decision-making apparatus at the institutionallevel has been historically weak. Thus neither their structurenor cultures appear tohavebeen prepared for the change. Comparative work, which will analyseinstitutional responses to the new expectations, should reveal whether it makes sense todraw generalconclusions about the emergence of managerialismacross nationalborders (Amaral,Jones &Karseth, 2002: 296). The account that follows will shed light on some of the existing empiricalevi- dence that is seen tobe relevant to this discussion.

3.Management reform:empiricalevidence Empiricalevidenceon the impact of managerialism within higher education insti- tutionalgovernance varies in different national settings.For instance,at one end of the continuumarecountries suchas Portugaland France. Namely,Amaral, Magalhaes and Santiago (2003)did not find empiricalevidenceabout the emer- genceofmanagerialisminPortuguesehigher education, whereas de Boer (2003) claims that in the caseofFrance,many of his respondents perceived collegiality as the main feature. Some countries, suchas Norway, tend tobeplaced some- whereinbetween the twopoles of the continuum, since,according todeBoer (2003), the majority of respondents claimed that “there remains a strong culture of democracy and collegiality”,although anumber of respondents perceived a shift towards managerialism. On the other end of the continuum, therearecoun- tries suchas Finland, the Netherlands,and the UK.The UK caseis anexample wheremanagerialismhas emerged in its strongest form(Fulton, 2003). The Dutchcaseis another example of penetration of managerialisminto university governance(de Boer, 2003). Not least, the Finnishcase,according toSalminen (2003),is anexample of relatively successfulimplementation of managerial reforms.Ofnon-Europeancountries,Australiais the one in whichmanagerialism seems tohavemade a remarkable impact.Moving toLatin America, some of the recent empiricalevidence(Leite, 2003)points towards the emergenceofpolicies of ‘good’ administration aimed at increased efficiency and effectiveness.Last,but not least, thereis the caseof the US, withits long tradition of strong central administration and control by ‘boards of trustees’,and lackofa strong tradition of the university as a self-governing community of academics and students. Ingeneral terms, the abovementioned empiricalevidenceimplies that some sim- ilarities and differences among the different governancemodels can still be drawn. For instance,it seems that the academicauthority structures of European Continental universities,on the one hand,and Anglo-Saxon universities,on the other,do not differ toahigh degree. Namely, thereis a similar hierarchy of com- mittee decision making flow between departments,faculty academicboards,and university senates.However, the question of appointing or electing academic staff is the one that brings about the main difference. Taking Australiaand the UK as examples, the vice-chancellor, who is the equivalent of the rector, tends tobe appointed by the institution and has greater executiveauthority.Needless to say, theremay be some exceptions to this tendency.

140 Concepts

4. University’s governance:current and emerging issues? The dilemmaof the futureofhigher education,as outlined at the outset of this paper, still remains.This dilemmais related toaquestion of whether the tradi- tional university has been replaced by entirely new organisational types or whether it is still traditionalat its core,albeit though some modifications and mutations have takenplace. The former has been addressed earlier in this paper; the latter is, toacertain extent,elaborated in the workofBargh,Scott and Smith (1996) with reference to the UK higher education institutions.The account that follows will provide abrief look into the Bargh et al. (1996)approach. With regard tothe futureofhigher education,Scott (1995) distinguishes between the ‘core’ and the ‘distributed’ university.The ‘core’ university,according to the author,is the equivalent to the traditional university,implying that it consists of the activities determined by the university’s traditionalmission. The ‘distributed’ university,on the other hand,is mainly preoccupied by the role of higher educa- tion in the domains of lifelong education,distancelearning,and industrialcol- laboration. Institutions of higher education arenot expected tobe split on the basis of these twoelements,coreand distributed,but will rather encompass both of them. This would in turnimply the increased significanceof the governing bodies, whosekey role is anticipated as threefold:firstly,as “gate-keepers polic- ing the flow between coreand distributed activities”; secondly,as “both-ways interpreters between the university and its stakeholders”; and thirdly,as “guardians of institutionalintegrity”(Bargh et al.,1996:178). These three func- tions,according to the authors,cannot beperformed merely by senior manage- ment or by the academicguild,implying that the governanceofhigher education institutions will become acentralconcernfor the twenty-first century university. Here, the three key changes arediscerned (Bargh et al.,1996:179):(a)governing bodies should bemore representativeofboth their civicand commercial stake- holders; (b) university governance’s democracy deficit must beaddressed by,for instance, requiring vacancies for independent members on governing bodies tobe publicly advertised; and (c) the principle of open government should beapplied. Thereis little doubt that the last account leads toquestions of democraticculture, academicaspirations and market forces in higher education. It raises the impor- tant issueofinstitutionalgovernanceinhigher education with regard to these three dimensions.The challenge for higher education institutionalgovernancein the twenty-first century is seen in ‘deliberativepartnerships’(Kennedy, 2003), whereby thereis aneed for defining the decision-making structures that will allow the academicguild, the ‘new’managers and governing bodies, to workas partners committed tocommunication,debateand publicinterest.

5. Concluding remarks Inlight of the above,drawing some strong conclusions is considered tobe rather difficult.The field and existing empiricalevidenceappear as rather chaotic.For the purposeofillustration, twoparadoxes follow.

141 Higher education governance

As lateas 1962, some claimed that universities “haveapparently chronicand irre- mediable problems of internalorganisation, yet they manage tobein some impor- tant ways extremely efficient in accomplishing their tasks; and in spiteof the con- stant flow of criticismdirected against them, thereis ageneralbelief in their necessity even among their critics”(Ben-David &Zloczower,1962:46). In sim- ilar vein,Birnbaum(1988: 3) with reference to the US situation put forward provocatively that “colleges and universities arepoorly runbut highly effective”. If weassume that this is true,at least twoconclusions may beallowed:(a)lead- ership or management and institutionalperformancearenot closely related; and (b) they are successfulbecause they arepoorly led or managed. In summation, what canbe said withcertainty is that the empiricalevidence tends to show a variety of ways todistributeauthority within institutions across nation- al systems and between higher education sectors.One hypothesis may be that the increased externalcomplexity will lead toincreased internalcomplexity.Another hypothesis may be that managerialismprobably makes less difference thancom- monly presumed. Apoint hereis that all theseand interrelated issues become empiricalissues.Therefore, what weneed is far more researchon the questions of the governanceand management of suchacomplex socialorganisation as a university.

142 Concepts

References Amaral,A.,Jones,G.A.&B.Karseth,“Governing higher education:Comparing nationalperspectives”inAmaral,A.,Jones,G.A.&Karseth,B.(eds.), Governing higher education:Nationalperspectives on institutionalgovernance ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht, 2002, 279-298. Amaral,A.,Magalhaes,A.&R.Santiago. 2003,“The riseofacademicmanagerialism in Portugal” in Amaral,A.,Meek,V.L.&Larsen,I.M.(eds.), The Higher Education ManagerialRevolution?, Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht, 2003,131-154. Ashby,E., Universities:British,Indianand African ,HarvardUniversity Press, Massachusetts,1966. Askling,B.&Henkel,M.,“Higher education institutions”inKogan,M.,Bauer, M.,Bleiklie,I.&Henkel,M.(eds.), Transforming higher education:Acompara- tive study .London:Jessica Kingsley Publishers , 2000:109-127. Baldridge,J.V., Power and conflict in the university,John Wiley and Sons,Inc., New York,1971. Bargh,C.,Scott,P.&Smith,D., Governing universities:Changing the culture? Buckingham:SRHE/Open University Press,Buckingham,1996. Ben-David,J.&Zloczower,A.,“Universities and academic systems in modern societies”, Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 3(1),1962:45-76. Birnbaum,R., How colleges work:The cybernetics of academicorganisation and leadership,Jossey-Bass,SanFrancisco,1988. Clark,B.R., The higher education system:Academicorganisation in cross- nationalperspective ,University of CaliforniaPress,Los Angeles,1983. Clark,B.R., Creating entrepreneurial universities:Organisationalpathways of transformation,Pergamon Press,Guildford,1998. Clark,B.R.,“Developing acareer in the study of higher education” in Smart,J. (ed.) Higher education:Handbook of Theory and Research. Vol. XV,Agathon Press,New York, 2000: 36-38. Cohen,M.D.&March,J.G., Leadership and ambiguity,McGraw-Hill,New York, 1974. DeBoer,H.,Goedegebuure,L.&Meek,V.L.(eds.),“New perspectives on gov- ernance”, SpecialissueofHigher Education Policy ,11( 2/3),1998:103-235. DeBoer,H.,“Who’s afraid of red, yellow and blue? The colourful world of manage- ment reforms”inAmaral,A.,Meek,V.L.&Larsen,I.M.(eds.), The Higher Education ManagerialRevolution? Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht, 2003:89-108. Fulton,O.,“ManagerialisminUK universities:Unstable hybridity and the com- plications of implementation” in Amaral,A.,Meek,V.L.&Larsen,I.M.(eds.), The Higher Education ManagerialRevolution? Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht, 2003:155-178.

143 Higher education governance

Kennedy,K.,“Higher education governanceas akey policy issuein the 21st cen- tury”, Educational researchfor policy and practice , 2, 2003:55-70. Leicht,K.&Fenell,M., Professional work:A sociologicalapproach ,Blackwell Publishing,London, 2001. Leite,D.,“Institutionalevaluation,management practices and capitalist redesign of the university:Acase study”inAmaral,A.,Meek,V.L.&Larsen,I.M.(eds.), The Higher Education ManagerialRevolution?,Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht, 2003: 253-274. Maasen,P.,“Shifts in governancearrangements:Aninterpretation of the intro- duction of new management structures in higher education” in Amaral,A.,Meek, V.L.&Larsen,I.M.(eds.), The Higher Education ManagerialRevolution?, Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht, 2003: 31-54. Marginson,S.&Considine,M., The enterprise university,Cambridge University Press,Melbourne, 2000. Meek,V.L.,“Introduction” in Amaral,A.,Meek,V.L.&Larsen,I.M.(eds.), The Higher Education ManagerialRevolution?,Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht, 2003:1-30. Middlehurst,R.,“New realities for leadership and governanceinhigher educa- tion?”, Tertiary education and management, 5,1999: 307-329. Millett,J.D., New structures of campus power:Success and failureofemerging forms of institutionalgovernance ,Jossey-Bass,SanFrancisco,1978. Mintzberg,H., The structuring of organisations ,PrenticeHall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ,1979. Olsen,J.P.,“The institutionaldynamics of the (European) university”,Working paper No. 15,University of Oslo,Centrefor EuropeanStudies (ARENA),Oslo, 2005. Reed,M.I.,Meek,V.L.&Jones,G.A.,“Introduction” in Amaral,A.,Jones,G.A. &Karseth,B.(eds.), Governing higher education:Nationalperspectives on insti- tutionalgovernance ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers, 2002: xv-xxxi. Reed,M.I.,“New managerialism,professionalpower and organisationalgover- nanceinUK universities:A review and assessment”inAmaral,A.,Jones,G.A. &Karseth,B.(eds.), Governing higher education:Nationalperspectives on insti- tutionalgovernance ,Kluwer AcademicPublishers,Dordrecht, 2002:163-186. Salminen,A.,“New publicmanagement and Finnishpublic sector organisations: The caseof universities”inAmaral,A.,Meek,V.L.&Larsen,I.M.(eds.), The Higher Education ManagerialRevolution?,Kluwer AcademicPublishers, Dordrecht, 2003:55-70. Scott,P., The meanings of mass higher education,Open University Press, Buckingham,1995. Stroup,H., Bureaucracy in higher education,The Free Press,New York,1966. Tjeldvoll,A., A service university in Scandinavia? ,University of Oslo,Institute for EducationalResearch,Oslo,1997.

144 The actors in higher education governance Robin Farquhar Inprinciple, the range of actors who could play roles in the governanceofhigh- er education is virtually limitless (particularly for publicinstitutions). The num- ber of people who areboth willing and able todo so,however,is considerably smaller.Some would like toparticipatebut havelittle of value tocontribute, while others could make worthwhile contributions but do not want tobecome involved; and those who are both willing and able include some for whom no opportunities areavailable and others who arenot awareof the opportunities that do exist.An important challenge in university policy and management, then,is toidentify per- sons who will contribute well togovernance,convince them toact in this capac- ity,provide them withmeaningfulopportunities todo so,and enable them toplay the role effectively.Inconfronting this challenge, severalissues arise whichmust beaddressed –and it is the purposeof this paper todiscuss some of them. Becausehigher education governanceis situation-dependent,it is important to recognise the writer’s context sincemy comments derivenecessarily from my ownexperienceas president of twoCanadian universities.Our institutions in NorthAmerica havebeen characterised by quitedemocraticforms of governance for many decades,enhanced by considerable autonomy from government author- ities (even in the caseofpublic universities). But higher education in Canadais distinct from that in the US and Europe in certain respects that are relevant to this discussion; for example: 1. we share withour Americancounterparts a“communitarian” conception of “ownership” (wherein participants haveacommon commitment to the insti- tution,for which they feel primarily responsible),as distinct from the “stake- holder”approachfound in some parts of Europe (wherein participants’prin- cipal role is to represent the interests of their respectiveconstituencies [some of them quitepolitical], to which they feel primarily responsible); but 2.our Canadian universities (all of whichare“state” institutions)aremorelike the privateAmerican universities than the publicones in terms of freedom from government intervention,enjoying considerably moreautonomy. Thesedistinctions inevitably shape the natureofhigher education governance with whichIamfamiliar,and so they must beacknowledged as contributory to what follows. In this paper it is assumed that the potential“actors in higher education gover- nance” havealready been identified as comprising the various internaland exter- nalconstituencies outlined in Jochen Fried’s comprehensive review (with the addition of support staff). Soattention here will focus on certain of the issues involved in engaging their participation,as encountered in my ownexperience:

145 Higher education governance consideration will begiven first tohow their different forms of participation can be structured; some approaches to stimulating their effectiveinvolvement will then beexplored; and finally, various operationalmatters that must bemanaged in order toenable actors’contributions togood governance will benoted. The main contextual reference,given my experience, will be to the institutional(rather than the systemicor suprastate) level.

Organisation At the most authoritativelevel,higher education governance whereIcome from features a“bi-cameral” structurein which university policy formulation and deci- sion making are shared between two statutory bodies:(1) a senate(or academic council) whichis comprised mainly of internalconstituency representatives like faculty, students, staff and administrators,and is responsible for policies and deci- sions of anacademicnaturelikeadmission requirements,programme curricula, graduation standards and quality assurance; and (2)aboardofgovernors (or trustees) whichconsists mainly of external representatives likecommunity lead- ers from the business and professional sectors,alumni representatives and gov- ernment appointees,and is responsible for policies and decisions of acorporate naturelikelegalcontracts,personnel practices,financialaffairs and property management.Thereis obviously apossibility of conflict between these twobod- ies; for example, the senatemay approvecreating anew academicprogramme but the boardmay not have(or be unwilling toallocate) the resources and facilities necessary toimplement that programme. Thus,mechanisms must beinplace to reduceor eliminate suchconflicts –and thereare typically three means of doing this:(1) cross-membership through which the boardincludes some members appointed toit from the senate,and vice versa; (2)joint committees on which rep- resentatives from bothbodies work through common issues together; and (3) the president (or rector) who often serves as bothchair of the senateand executive officer of the board. Such“bridging” provisions areessential toeffective univer- sity governanceand,if they fail toproduce the necessary resolution of differ- ences, theremust beaclearly recognised finalarbiter withjurisdiction over all university affairs (in Canada this power is sometimes lodged withanexternalper- sonage – suchas adistinguished senior judge –but more usually it resides with the boarditself as the ultimateinstitutionalauthority). Caremust be takenas well,of course, toclearly delineate the relationships among these statutory governing bodies, the stateor nationalgovernment,and the rector or president; ultimately, the crucialquestion is who canappoint and/or terminate whom – whichboils down to whichpowers the government has ceded and where it has lodged them. InCanadaour provincialgovernments (whichhaveconstitu- tionalauthority for education) have vested “ownership” of the universities in their governing boards,and only the latter canappoint or terminateapresident.A sub- sequent issue that must be resolved is who speaks publicly for the university – the board’s chair or the institution’s president.Weoften shareit, withacrude division giving primarily policy-related subjects to the former and management-oriented statements to the latter.

146 Concepts

The participation of various actors in higher education governance,however,need not be restricted to the exerciseofauthority through statutory bodies (and their various committees). Indeed,governance tends tobemoreparticipatory, substan- tial,and influential when it is channelled through a variety of less formal struc- tures whosemandateis advisory rather thandeterminative. Typicalexamples from my experienceinclude: 1. curriculumdevelopment committees comprised of faculty, student,employ- er and professional representatives convened to review academicpro- gramme content in their areas of expertiseand propose revisions in it; 2.Faculty advisory boards (especially for professional schools) through which adeancan solicit the counsel of distinguished practitioners in the field con- cerned on matters related to the school’s mission,priorities,and programme policy; 3.presidentialadvisory councils,like weestablished in adozen cities across Canada(withlocalprofessionaland community leaders as members) tomeet semi-annually and provide me with thoughtfulcommentary on major institu- tionalpolicy and management decisions that werepending on my desk; and 4. various other established bodies that canplay a role in “steering” certain ele- ments of the organisation’s operation (for example,alumni associations, women’s auxiliaries,athletic“booster”clubs,etc.). Inaddition to thesefairly regularised avenues for input,numerous adhocoppor- tunities arisecontinually for engaging “stakeholders”inhelping to“steer”a uni- versity.Theseinclude taskforces and focus groups on various topics,consulta- tions associated with strategicplanning and quality assurance, well-organised socialand ceremonialevents,etc. My main point hereis that the actors in higher education governancecanpartic- ipateinmany different ways with varying degrees of authority, responsibility, accountability, scope,expertise,and effort.University leaders need toorganise “menus”of suchopportunities so that people in different circumstances can select those that suit them best –and theseopportunities must then bemade known to the constituencies that one wants toengage.

Motivation Once the structures for engaging in higher education governanceareinplace, attention turns naturally topeople’s reasons for participating. This is important both toencouraging the involvement of those whoseexpertiseand support are wanted,and todiscouraging those who may wish tobecome involved for unhelp- fulpurposes.Inmy experience, the typical reasons for whichone seeks topartic- ipateinhigher education governanceinclude: toadvanceaparticular cause, to pursuea specialinterest, toperformacivicduty, to satisfy apersonalcuriosity, to nurtureone’s owncareer, todo somebody afavour –or tohelp aninstitution one cares for.Obviously, some of these(especially the last)hold morepotentialfor constructivecontribution to the university’s advancement thanothers; but it is

147 Higher education governance essential to recognise that thesedifferent motivations exist, to try and identify the primary motive(s)ofeachindividualconcerned,and tokeep that in mind when deciding whom toinvolveand how toengage them. Ibelieve thereare twomain criteria that should beapplied in recruiting the actors in higher education governance:(1) representation –inorder toensure that the views of those who havealegitimateinterest in acategory of decisions arecon- sidered in making them; and (2)competence–inorder toensure that the kinds of knowledge required for sound decisions in aparticular areaareavailable in mak- ing them. Transcending thesecriteria, however,is the desirability of finding (or “training”) participants whoseprimary loyalty is to the progress of the institution (or programme) in whosegovernanceone is engaged. Whether appointed by an authority (for example, the ministry),elected by aconstituency (for example, the students)or designated by the governing body itself (in a self-perpetuating arrangement),all thoseinvolved in aparticular governanceendeavour must share aprincipalcommitment to the object of their mutualefforts –and thereneed to beclearly articulated and fully understood guidelines in place to resolveany con- flicts of interest in this regard. Having determined whom aninstitution wishes toattract and retain as actors in higher education governance, the issueofincentives tofoster this arises. Participation in the leadership of university affairs has certain inherent attractions for many people –including the opportunities it provides for networking with sig- nificant fellow participants,for adding a respectable line toone’s curriculum vitae,and for contributing todeliberations that aregenerally deemed tobeimpor- tant and possibly interesting. But greater inducements may becalled for.At the very least, the contribution of one’s time and talent to university governanceactiv- ities should not result in out-of-pocket costs to that person; direct expenses incurred in the “line of duty”(suchas for parking,entertainment, travel,etc.) should be reimbursed. However,one should not befinancially compensated for doing the job; todo so would beinappropriateinanon-profit organisation,it might lead toawkwardconflicts of interest,and it could add another reason to the list of unhelpfulpurposes for whichpeople serve that Ioutlined previously. Thereare somemorepositiveincentives that a university canoffer togovernance actors.Beyond ensuring that one’s participation is not an uncomfortable experi- ence(through attention to room temperatureand lighting, refreshment [free]and bathroom breaks, seating and other furnishings,etc.), the institution could pro- vide such rewards as access toits library and fitness facilities, reduced rates for purchases at its book storeand cafeteria, invitations tomajor athleticand cultur- alperformances as well as to special socialand ceremonialevents,and the like. Also, the simple act of publicly acknowledging anactor’s governance serviceand expressing appreciation for it on the part of senior management cangoalong way toward stimulating participation. Ultimately,however, the strongest motivator is one’s genuine affection and con- cernfor higher education in generaland for agiven university in particular.This inducement canbeengendered and strengthened through generating a senseof

148 Concepts shared commitment(or esprit de corps )among governanceparticipants,and there are severalcommon approaches to stimulating this.Withgoverning boards,for example, they include suchactivities as: 1. day-long orientation workshops for new members each year at whichques- tions are raised and answered and information is provided about the institu- tion’s history,mission,functions,priorities,plans,problems (current and anticipated),financial status,organisational structure,academicpro- grammes,campus facilities (sometimes including a tour),distinctivefea- tures,key personnel,etc.–and at which the role, responsibilities,organisa- tion and procedures of the boarditself (as well as the expectations and duties of individualmembers)areexplained; 2.annual“retreats”at whichboardmembers gather (typically at some off- campus location) for aday of discussions on such subjects as updated infor- mation about finances,enrolment and other management data, present plans and pending problems, recent trends withpolicy implications,and contem- porary success stories that can serveas “talking points”for promoting the university publicly; these sessions canalsoengage governanceparticipants in the strategicplanning process,and they often include some “state-of-the- board” deliberations toassess and improve the functioning of the governing body itself; and 3. socialevents toencourage “bonding” among governanceparticipants – some intended for boardmembers only (fostering a“club”mentality)and others for significant non-participant “stakeholders”at whichboardmembers represent the institution’s governing authority (fostering an“ownership” mentality). Anintended result of suchactivities is increased solidarity,comfort and pride in the participation of higher education governanceactors, which should strengthen their motivation to serve.

Facilitation Good governanceinhigher education requires more thanorganisational struc- tures toaccommodateit and people who areable and willing toconduct it. Certain operationalnorms and procedures areneeded tofacilitateits successful practiceby the actors involved. Among them are the following: 1. Relevant,accurate,and full information is essential to wisedecision making (whether advisory or determinative) by the participants in university gover- nance. Managers must not only compile suchinformation and make it accessible in as palatable aformas possible,but they alsoneed to“train” the governanceactors to seek and study it. 2.Included with the information that participants need toknow is aclear indi- cation of their obligations and liabilities in performing their governance roles.This is especially important for those serving a stewardship function on statutory governing bodies: they haveafiduciary duty that requires them to act honestly, withgood faithand in the best interests of the organisation; and

149 Higher education governance

they havealegal responsibility toensure that the institution complies withall applicable laws and legislation,regulations and collectiveagreements.Those who fail in the discharge of theseobligations could beheld liable for dam- ages,and they need toknow this from the outset of their engagement. 3.Governanceactors should understand that their workentails transmitting information as well as receiving it.Inparticular, those whoseparticipation is by virtueof representing agiven groupof“stakeholders”(for example, stu- dents)must ensure that they inform their fellow actors of the predominant views of their constituency on the issueat hand –and no less importantly, they should make every effort tocommunicateback to their constituency about the governancedeliberations and decisions in which they areengaged. 4. The most fundamentaldistinguishing valueinhigher education is academ- icfreedom, soit is natural toexpect that thoseengaged in its governance will conduct their workinademocraticfashion, welcoming legitimatedif- ferences of opinion and spirited open debate,in order that all relevant and sincerealternativepositions areheardfully before reaching adecision. Meetings should beopen tointerested observers except in clearly confiden- tialcases (as with sensitivepersonnel or contractualissues),and the deci- sions should bedetermined democratically –either by consensus (which works well withadvisory bodies)or by simple majority vote(probably desirable when exercising statutory powers)– with secret ballots being rare. 5. Suchdeliberations should becarried out according tocertain accepted norms of civil behaviour –most notably mutualcourtesy, tolerance,and fairness.It is alsolegitimate toexpect that participants will take their work seriously, will prepareinadvancefor governancemeetings and then show upand par- ticipategenuinely in the debates,and will not publicly complain about or crit- icisedecisions whicharearrived at democratically but with which they per- sonally disagree (as long as therehas been a reasonable opportunity for their contrary views tobeheardduring the deliberativeprocess). 6.Participation in higher education governance should not beapermanent engagement.While a reasonable amount of continuity among actors is desir- able, thereneed tobeclearly understood provisions – suchas specified terms of office– toenable turnover among participants; this is important toexpand opportunities for participation and toinject fresh views intodeliberations – and it alsoprovides gracefulmeans toend the engagement of less productive actors.Moreover,explicit conditions should beestablished to terminate the participation of those whoseperformanceis demonstrably unsatisfactory. Operational understandings and arrangements suchas the abovehaveproven to beconstructively instrumentalinfacilitating the engagement of actors in higher education governance. The foregoing exposition draws on the writer’s ownexperience to suggest some ways in whichopportunities canbe structured toextend the range and amount of participation by various actors in higher education governance, some approaches

150 Concepts to rendering suchparticipation attractive so that actors withdesirable attributes will bemotivated tobecome engaged,and certain operationalarrangements that canfacilitate the effectiveness of their engagement.Underlying all of this is an assumption whichIhavenot questioned: that it is in a university’s best interest to include in its governanceas many of its “stakeholders”as it is possible toinvolve meaningfully,constructively,and productively.This assumption reflects the Canadiancontext from whichIcome,and its validity has been confirmed in that setting over many years. However,my workduring the past decade with the SalzburgSeminar and the EuropeanUniversity Association has led me to the observation that therearecer- tainly jurisdictions in Europe whicharenot ready for Canada’s approach to uni- versity governanceand it would beinappropriateand unwise to urge them in that direction. I stated at the beginning of this paper that higher education governance is situation-specific, and the situation in muchofEurope is not suitable to the importation of aNorthAmericanmodel. Eachjurisdiction (and to some extent, every institution) needs todetermine the governancearrangement that is most compatible withits own traditions and aspirations.There seems tobea trend across Europe towardexpanded participation by various actors in higher educa- tion governance; Ifind this commendable,and Ihope that our Canadianexperi- encemay beof some valueas this development progresses.But Ilook forward to the emergenceofadistinctively “made in Europe” approach,from which wein Canada will beable tolearnmuch that is worthwhile.

151

What does it really mean? – The language of governance Josef Huber “If you desire to see,learn toact!” Heinz von Foerster 63

Migrating concepts Dictionaries usually give the following definition of aconcept:“aconcept is an abstract or generalideainferred or derived from specificinstances”. As suchit is ahumanconstruct and cannot beconceived of as independent of the cultural, socialand economiccontext from whichit originates.This is particularly true when aconcept or aleadideais transported by means of a simple phraseor even just acatchword. However,concepts havealways travelled from one place to another, whether exported or imported,and the necessary culturalinformation for understanding them is neither always readily available nor consciously sought. Wemay adopt concepts because they seem better fit to support us in our quest to maintain or tochange a status quo, wemay adopt them almost osmosis-likefrom culturalactivities/phenomena surrounding us or because they seem to represent modernity.They may,however,alsobeforced upon us by the presenceand dis- courseofaneconomically and politically stronger power. Concepts change,mix with the cultures that they meet,and finally might end up representing something fairly different from the originalmeaning they transported. Ina world of increasing internationaland interculturalexchange weareled to use them,discuss them,argueagainst and for them, take apoliticalposition for or against,negotiate their meaning, yet there will always remain adoubt whether we are talking about the same thing. This opens upanother dimension:can we really say that aconcept belongs toapar- ticular language and cultureor agroupoflanguages and cultures?At first sight one would be tempted togiveapositiveanswer to this question, thinking of the many examples whichoften defy straightforward translation and may be used in other languages in their originalform,likeGerman“Gemütlichkeit ”or “ Leitmotif”, French“savoir vivre ”,English“pub”or “soapopera”. Or toput it differently,does English“public service” evoke the same connotations as French“servicepublique ”or German“öffentlicher Dienst”? And does every- one outside the English speaking countries fully grasp the differencebetween “public service” and “service to the public”? Do the terms “Ilove you”,“ Ichhab ______63.Foerster,H. von,“Onconstructing a reality”,in Preiser,F.E.(ed.), EnvironmentalDesign and Research , 2,Dowden Hutchinson and Ross,Stroudsburg,1973: 35-46.

153 Higher education governance dichgern ”,“ Je t’aime”,“ tequiero ”evoke the same paletteoffeelings?And what about complex terms like“human rights”and “democracy”? This is not the place toattempt finding ananswer to thesequestions,but rather to indicate their complexity.At second sight, weprobably alsohave toconsider the possibility that same or similar concepts and states of affairs might beexpressed in different ways but still carry the same meaning. And translators will have togo beyond the nearest or most similar wordin searchfor the most appropriateand fitting concept in the target language and cultureif they want toavoid the criti- cismimplied in the expression “ traduttore– traditore ”. One obvious example of a term that has almost entirely lost its originalmeaning and has acquired anentirely new one is “gay”, whichhas gone from describing a stateofmind or mood todenoting sexualorientation. The English wordhas then migrated and been adopted in many languages in its new meaning,even where other,morenative sounding words areavailable (cf. Spanish, whichhas the neu- tral“homosexual” and the pejorative“maricón”). We will come back to the issueof translatability later on.

Governanceofhigher education The Council of Europe forumon the governanceofhigher education presented anexcellent opportunity todiscuss and toclarify the concept itself and its impli- cations for higher education systems,institutions and the different actors involved. The diversity of participants from over 40 countries coming from dif- ferent backgrounds –ministerial,academic, transnationalinstitutions,non- governmentalorganisations –alsoentails adiversity of cultures,contexts, world views and positions. Together with the complexity of the concept, this gave rise toquestions of mean- ing,in particular, to the question whether the term“governance” has anequivalent in the different languages represented at the forum, whether the termis used as a loan wordor whether it canbe translated. Thesequestions initiated anon-the-spot collection of possible translations/ transpositions in alarge number of languages. Weareaware that the translations thus collected do not constitutea valid body of data: they aremoreofananecdotalnature. However, they canbe seen as afirst approach to the language of governance,and could serveas a starting point for reflection. Inaddition they could point towards the potentialoffuture research into the implications of the migration of concepts,in particular but not only, concepts of governance,and their implications for successfulinternational co-operation. In this context “successful” would tentatively have tobedefined bothas reaching the aims it sets out todoand as being accepted by all concerned. Globalisation leads toincreased contacts between different ways of doing things and going about one’s business, thereareculturaldifferences and therearelan- guage differences.Acommon way to show one’s departurefrom the respective traditionalcodes and ways of thinking and acting lies in the adoption of anew ter- minology,often from “outside”,from abroad,from adifferent language. Given

154 Concepts the fact that language useand language change also reflect relativepower gradi- ents, these will often be takenfrom the language of adominant player,in our present days very often from English. Another factor influencing the formation and transformation of concepts and thus language change canbelocated in international treaties,conventions,agree- ments,declarations and similar documents whichare the basis of international co-operation. It would beinteresting to study the effect of officialcommuniqués likefor example the communiqués of the successive summits of ministers of edu- cation in the frameworkof the BolognaProcess on the languages, the discourse and by extension the realities of the countries participating in the process. Sucha study/research would further have toaddress: •the relativeinfluenceofnew terminology not only on the language (through loaning and/adaptation) but alsoonconceptual thinking,cultureand realities; •the reciprocalinfluencei.e. how existing concepts in one language act upon the newly introduced concepts from outside and change their meaning (at least in a given area)and how important thesedepartures from the originalcanbecome; •the extent to whichconcepts used in internationaldiscourse transport (openly or masked) ideologicalbias; •what the impact of concepts on realities really is; • the differences between the specialist’s useofaconcept and the (mis)useof it by the wider publicand politicians. Furthermore, thereis the question of how all thesefactors determine the exporta- bility/importability of concepts whichby definition consist of adiversity of con- stituent factors and canonly ‘work’ when all the key constituents are united. If, for example,concept Ais made upoffiveconstituent factors,and after migration only four of them arepresent,it would be reasonable toassume that either the concept will not ‘work’ in the new context or that it will ‘work’ but as something whichdoesn’t necessarily bear any major resemblance to the original. A thorough analysis of the socioculturalframeworkand set of interrelated factors is necessary toanswer this question.

Governanceinmany languages Let us now haveabrief look at the translations offered in the frameworkof the conference. Participants of the conference wereasked toindicate the language,offer one or several translations or equivalents of the termgovernanceand also toindicate briefly the connotations which the translated termcarries in their country on the basis of their personalimpression.64 ______64. The full list of terms and comments canbeconsulted in the webpages of the Council of Europe’s Higher Education and ResearchDivision at: www.coe.int/higher-education

155 Higher education governance

Karavarum,kiravanne, upravljanje, upravlenie, upravljanje, rrˇ ízení,proces rozhodova’ní, rozhodovacíproces, vedení, vla’d nutí,management,bestuur/bestu- urskunde,governance,gouvernance,mmartvelova, Steuerung, strategische Führung,Kunst der Leitung,Regelung,Organisation,Lenkung/Steuerung, Leitung,Aufsicht,diakinvernisi,kivernisi,dioikisi,diikisi,igesia, ira’nyíta’s,kor- ma’nyza’s, vezete’s,governo,gestione,direzione,administrazione,guida, gover- nanza, governo allongato,governo dell’ universita’,párvaldíba, valdymas, upravuvanje, rakovodenje, vladeenje, tmexxija, styring,ledelse, styring, zarzad, zanie,kierowanie, reprezentowanie,governanca, governo,governança, guvernação,guvernare,administrare,conducere, upravlenije, upravljanje, upravkjanje, usmerjanje,krmarjenje,gobierno,¿gobernanza?,ledning, yönetis, im, upravlinnje,pravlinnje,kerivnitstvo Inlooking at these terms weneed tokeep in mind that these sample data werecol- lected in a random fashion i.e. the participants’profile was relevant to the con- ferenceonhigher education governanceand not necessarily toalinguistic survey, and that the instructions werenot very detailed. Some respondents offered just one term withor without anexplanation of the connotations of the termor how this termfits into the semanticfield surrounding different approaches togovern- ing higher education, while others replied quiteextensively commenting on a number of terms and their different connotations. It is certainly true that thereexists anoverlapbetween the different connotations and that it is never easy toclearly separate the meaning of each. However,it canbe noted that at agenerallevel amajority of the connotations revolvearound notions of government,control and regulation,quiteoften alsointerchangeable withman- agement,implying top-downoften alsocentralised processes of governance.

Language Translation Connotations/comments

Polish ZARZADZANIE, All are synonyms of RZADZENIE, KIEROWANIE (RZAD, =government) REPREZENTOWANIE

Macedonian UPRAVUVANJE No realdifferenceofmeaning between the first RAKOVODENJE two terms:management and governance; VLADEENJE governing in the senseofgovernment

Belarusian KIRAVA NNE General term(subsumes management and control)

Romanian GUVERNARE Restricted to use withcentral/nationalgovernment

Spanish GOBIERNO Government,no specific termfor “governance” Hungarian IRA’NYÍTA’S Command,control,direction

A second set takes up the ideaof ‘steering’ whichis nearer to the meaning of the wordofGreek origin ‘ kybernaein’(to steer a vessel),as Pavel Zgagaexplains in his article (p. 33),but does not necessarily point towards any specificformof steering beit centralised or decentralised, top-downor bottom-up.

156 Concepts

Language Translation Connotations/comments

Norwegian STYRING Steering,but not only

Croatian UPRAVLJANJE Tocontrol direction, tonavigate, tomake steps withamplified effects; the same word would be used for management

Slovenian UPRAVLJANJE “prav”= right; give right course,direction

Swedish LEDNING Steering65

Ukrainian UPRAVLINNJE Polysemic term: steering,direction

German STEUERUNG Technocratic/managerial LENKUNG/ Both with the “steering wheel” STEUERUNG connotation of the term“governance” LEITUNG

Dutch BESTUUR/ Related with steering BESTUURSKUNDE

Thereis a third set that refers more to‘leadership’ or ‘taking the lead’ thus put- ting the accents moreon the actors thanon structures and processes.

Language Translation Connotations/comments

Norwegian LEDELSE Leadership,management

German STRATEGISCHE Task-oriented FÜHRUNG

Hungarian VEZETE’S Lead,control

Italian GUIDA Steering

Greek IGESIA Leadership

Thereareanumber of examples whichdeserve specialattention beit by their brevity, the imagery implied or by the comprehensiveness of the explanation given. The ‘process of decision-making’inCzech will becalled ‘ proces rozhodova’ní’, while in Georgian‘mmartvelova ’implies ‘ ruling’(withconnotations of “driving” acar for example). The Englishdefinition of governanceoffered goes well beyond the processes and includes the relationship of theseprocesses toagreed values and preferences by stating “the processes and institutions by which revealed values and preferences translateintocollectiveactions that enhance the security,prosperity and moraldevelopment of agroupand its individualmembership”. ______65. Norwegianand Danish“ledelse” would be the same,but all three haveelements of governing, leading, setting the coursefor others tofollow.Swedishand Danishhave“styrelse ”, whichis the same wordas Norwegian“styring”,but may be used more todenotebodies thanaction.

157 Higher education governance

The Maltese term‘tmexxija ’(pronounced ‘tmeshiya’) seems toput the focus on purposefulaction aimed at advancing ‘ mexa = to walk; mexxa = tomake/ cause to walk or proceed; tmexxija =anabstract nounimplying leadership and admin- istration’,although,due to the fact that Englishis anofficiallanguage in Malta, the English termgovernanceis mainly used in the higher education community even when speaking Maltese. Greek offers anexample of ongoing language change. Anew term,‘ diakin- vernisi ’,has recently appeared to take its dueplaceamidst words referring togov- ernment,leadership, steering and control. It expresses ‘the way one governs, the system of parameters affecting the act of governing, the results of governing’. Dionyssis Kladis offered amoreextensiveexplanation whichI would like to quoteinits entirety: THE TERM “GOVERNANCE”IN THE GREEK LANGUAGE Ingeneral, the term“GOVERNANCE”is used as the nounderived from the verb “TO GOVERN”. Until recently in Greece, the term“GOVERNANCE”had the same meaning with the terms “MANAGEMENT”and “GOVERNMENT”. Even now, the confusion still exists and,in many cases the term“GOVERNANCE”is still used with the same meaning. However recently,anew Greek termhas appeared, aiming at expressing the meaning of the term“GOVERNANCE”. This is the word “ Δ IAKYBEPNH∑ H”(“DIAKIVERNISI”) and has the following meanings: 1. The act of governing itself. 2.The results that arederived from governing. 3.The principles and values that affect the act of governing. 4. The manners used in governing or the way in whichone governs. As wecan see from this brief glanceat the collected sample datafrom different linguistic, culturaland sociopoliticalcontexts, the semanticand lexicalfield sur- rounding the concept of governance spans a wide array of connotations which would deservefurther study and research. The results of sucha research,based on distinctivefeatures analysis,could offer what could becalled aninterculturalmind mapof the meaning of governance highlighting distinctiveas well as shared features along centralmarkers suchas control,centralisation, top-down,autonomy,accountability, transparency,inclu- siveness,efficiency,legitimacy ,etc.,indicating their presenceor absenceand scaling their relativeimportance. Sucha study would not only beaninteresting contribution tocomparative seman- tics and semiotics,but it would alsocontribute tointercultural understanding and allow anappreciationofpotentialobstacles and resistances.

From buzzwords to shared understanding of actions Between the dictionary meaning, withor without recourse toetymology, the acquired meaning in agiven context and the particular and very diversemeanings individuals may attach toaconcept, theremight bea world of difference.

158 Concepts

Perhaps,for understanding’s sake wehave to turn toanother alternativeand this is the point tocome back to the quotation at the beginning of this article “If you desire to see,learn toact”. This ‘imperativeoflearning’,as Heinz von Foerster calls it,canbe understood as implying that the meaning of aconcept canonly be seen and understood through the actions that follow and exemplify it.It is in the nature,orientation,content and impact of the actions that weenact our under- standing of the concept and thus bring it tolife. Focusing on the concreteactions has the added advantage of facilitating a shared understanding of the meaning and of being easier to translate. The current publication may well bea step towards suchanaction-oriented approach to the definition of governanceand help tofind acommon language. In the end it may proveless important what wecall it than what weactually do, whether wearedoing the right things and whether wearedoing these things right.

159

Case studies

Educational reforms in Georgia–Acase study Aleksander Lomaia “Good policy begins with sound diagnosis” Aoki et al., 2002

1. Introduction For about 70 years,Georgiaas a republicof the Soviet Union was seldom asso- ciated witha separatecountry and the internationalcommunity on the opposite side of the Iron Curtain knew almost nothing about its long-standing history and culture. Awareness of and interest in Georgia was particularly intensified since the RoseRevolution in November 2003.After this peaceful revolution the reform process was introduced and the new government with the incumbent president, Mikheil Saakashvili,embarkedonalarge-scale project of radical restructuring, encompassing every sphereofpublicactivity,including political,economic, socialand culturalareas.The strategy of contemporary Georgiais clear-cut and straightforwardi.e. smoother integration withEurope.

2.Educational reformsin post-Soviet Georgia1990-2003 Reforms in the educational system of Georgia werelaunched immediately after gaining independencein1991. It was self-evident that with the arrivalof the new regime freshpolicies had tobeimplemented. Policies are usually implemented by the decision makers whilst the aftermathof the Soviet Union was markedand marred by the extreme dearthofqualified professionals.Even though the Europeanexperience was takenas a role model, still there wereneither human nor financial resources toimplement the policies effectively and efficiently. The soviet regime was notorious for its extreme centralismand ideologically driv- en policies that weredictated from above. The whole machinery was designed according to the pyramid principle, where the top was the Kremlin and the republics wereacting likemarionettes i.e. they wereextremely vulnerable with- out instructions from above. Education and sciencepolicy was one of the major instruments maintaining the status quo. Ahigh rateofemployment was ensured by a stiffemployment policy elaborated well in advance. The private sector was non-existent and economic stagnation was artificially preserved. The learning process was extremely teacher-centred and academicachievement was associated with the mechanicalmemorisation of texts without questioning or challenging their content or volume. Inmost cases the taught subjects weredivorced from reality and they were useless on the labour market.Even though the generaledu- cation was free and mandatory and the literacy rate was quitehigh,access to the advanced knowledge was still elitist and it was open only to the highest strataof

163 Higher education governance society.The borders of the Soviet Union wereclosed and access toany informa- tion was strongly controlled. All information was first filtered and then chan- nelled to specificlayers of society.In suchcircumstances gaining independence was like sunstroke,paralysing the whole country.The people did not haveade- quate skills,knowledge and experiencein taking independent decisions and thus mismanagement problems cropped upinevery field. Despite the myriadofproblems in education alot of changes haveoccurred since 1991,for example: •in 1991 by decree of the Supreme Council aprivate sector was introduced; •in 1992 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted adecree on granting alimited autonomy tohigher education institutions; •in 1993 the two-cycle degree system based on 4+2 formulae was formally established; • tuition fees werealsointroduced for some sectors of stateinstitutions. Despite thesenovelties,in reality these shifts werequite superficial. Insteadof resourceoptimisation and cost-effectiveness of operations,institutionalautonomy entailed anarchy and professionalincompetence. It became common practice to open new degree programmes without any approvalby professionalgroups.The shadow economy was flourishing and was provoking rampant corruption.In1995- 2000 the average salary of a university teacher possessing advanced scientific degrees constituted around € 20 (equivalent in Georgianlaris (GEL)),10 times less thanit was in 1990.Paradoxically, the officialincome of aprofessor was less than that of a watchmanor anofficecleaner.Besides,public universities still used the Soviet system of remuneration, which was based on anindividual’s formalquali- fications and lengthof service rather thanonperformanceand achievement, thus providing few incentives for improved performanceand professionalgrowth. Moreover,frequently the salaries were frozen for months and people werenot paid at all. Thus the system itself was the prime instigator of corruption and society was implicitly or explicitly forced toengage in illegalactivities. In terms of corruption, the worst cases weredetectable at the admission exams whereeven the least-qualified candidates could easily gain entry tohigher edu- cation institutions using backdoor means, suchas bribery,politicalor personal connections and influence. According to some estimates most slots at publicinsti- tutions were sold outright toprospective students.Only 15% to 20%of the students who entered the TbilisiStateUniversity,did so without paying bribes.According toa survey published by the TransnationalCrime and Corruption Centre(TRAC- CC)based at the AmericanUniversity in Washington,DC, students applying to TbilisiStateUniversity faced fees from US$5 000 toUS$15 000 for entrance exampreparation classes taught by the same professors administering the tests. According toa survey conducted by the Georgiangovernment in 2001,families spent at least GEL12 million (approx.US$6 700 000)every year on so-called pri- vate tutors for university entranceexams.But in addition to the millions spent on tutors, the government found that another GEL6.4 million (approx.US$3 600 000)

164 Case studies was being paid every year directly as bribes.Thesefigures alone total18.4 mil- lion,a sumgreater than the 2004budgets of Georgia’s fiveleading universities. As for the private sector , the Ministry of Education was authorised toissue licences and over about three years 294 higher educationalinstitutions were licensed. The privateinstitutions acted likediplomamills without paying due attention toquality and academicexcellence. As a result, the number of higher education diplomaholders was skyrocketing whereas the statecould not provide jobs even tohalf of them. The problem was particularly exacerbated becauseof the so-called prestigious professions.The majority of people obtained diplomas in medicine and law whereas the country did not need somany doctors and lawyers.For example,each year, the system of medical schools granted medical diplomas toabout 3 000 youths, whereas the Georgianmedical system needs no more than 300 new young medicaldoctors per year. 66 Deteriorating educational quality,mushrooming higher education institutions,overproduction of diploma holders all together provoked analarming situation on the locallabour market. Another problem was related tointroduction of the two-cycle degree system. The majority of higher education institutions in Georgiamoved to this system without first adjusting the management system,content of the programmes as well as the material-technicalbasis.Tobemore specific, in most cases the Soviet-type one- cycle study programmes weremerely split into twocycles and the methodology, curriculumand the reading literature remained the same.

The hidden crisis 67 was first and foremost predetermined by the decreasing share of education in the budget of the country.Besides in 1997-2003 the statedebt, to ministry staff only, reached GEL22 500 879.68 In the early 1990s there were severalattempts tointroducean accreditation sys- tem in Georgia that was also reflected in the N435decree of the parliament adopted in March1994. InJanuary 1995 the Cabinet of Ministers established the first nationalcouncil of accreditation the so-called “Attestation and Accreditation Commission of Non-stateHigher Education Institutions”. However, the commis- sion ceased its workin1995. The first attempts of accreditation weredesigned for the medicalprogrammes.On the basis of the N379Order of the president on the Complementary Measures for the Improvement of Higher MedicalEducation of Georgia, and by the joint Order (402/387)of the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of HealthCarein1996, the StateCommission of Attestation and ______66.UNDP, 2000. 67.According toBarnett and Cnobloch(2003)“the crisis among CIS-7 countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan,Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Tajikistanand Uzbekistan) is hidden for three rea- sons.First,[...] the education systems continue tofunction and havenot collapsed. Second, the crisis has been somewhat maskedby more successful reformefforts in transition countries withhigher per capitaincomes, suchas those seeking EuropeanUnion accession. Third, the hidden crisis has not pro- voked any visible humanor fiscalcrises,as has happened withattempts to shore updeteriorating healthand socialprotection programs.The medium- and long-termeffects of the hidden crises in edu- cation among the CIS-7 countries arelikely tobe very serious indeed,however,if deep reforms arenot urgently undertaken. Fortunately it is not too late,and thereare some encouraging signs of agrowing realization that reformis necessary”. 68. Todate the exchange ratebetween the euroand the Georgianlariis approx.1:2.25.

165 Higher education governance

Accreditation was set up. The commission elaborated a self-evaluation question- naireand started anaccreditation process that consisted of twophases –internal evaluation and peer review.The commission elaborated a recommendation about the integration of medicalinstitutions; however, the number of privatemedical institutes did not diminish. There were severaladditionalattempts aimed at devel- oping the accreditation system in the following years,but the comprehensive accreditation process was not organised until this year. Despite the abovementioned shortcomings there were severalimportant meas- ures that significantly contributed to the harmonisation of the Georgianeducation system withEuropean standards.For example,Georgiahadalready joined the ENIC networkin1994 and in 1997,it signed the Lisbon Recognition Convention that was ratified by Parliament in 1999. Besides,Georgiahadbeen involved in the Council of Europe project “Education for DemocraticCitizenship” (EDC) sinceit was launched in 1997.Georgia was alsoactively involved in the UNESCO project “Education for All” and. the Tempus-Tacis projects,etc.In 1997,Georgia signed the “Partnership and Cooperation Agreement” with the EU of whichArticles 53-54 dealt withissues of co-operation in science, technology, education and training respectively.

3.Educational restructuring since the RoseRevolution After the RoseRevolution,educational restructuring became one of the major pri- orities of the present government.The strategy for change is comprehensiveand multifaceted; it envisages all levels and forms of formaland informaleducation suchas pre-primary,primary, secondary, vocationaland higher.The courseof change is explicitly Europeanbut localneeds, strengths and peculiarities are takenintoconsideration to the maximum. More specifically the educational reforms envisaged introducing novelties in the following areas: •governance •legislation •financing formulae •civicintegration •curriculaand textbooks •teachers’professionaldevelopment •child care The first steps taken were the complete reorganisation of the Ministry of Education including human resources and its structure. InMarch 2004,by Decree No. 81 of the president, the ministry was renamed and it became the Ministry of Education and ScienceofGeorgia.The reorganisation included recruitment of new staff through open competition whereeveryone meeting the minimumqual- ification requirements could participate. Consequently, the number of ministry

166 Case studies staff dropped from 289 to155 (65% women, 35% men), their average age also decreased from 51 to 38and the minimum salary increased from GEL37 toat least GEL115.69 At present the mission of the Ministry of Education and ScienceofGeorgiais to: •assuregrowing welfareand well-being of citizens via the reforms in educa- tion and science; •createa solid basis for developing aknowledge-based society; •assureequalaccess toeducation; •foster lifelong and life-wide learning opportunities; •initiatecivicintegration processes and implement the officiallanguage policy; •facilitatefreedom of choiceineducation; •safeguardcreativity,innovation,academicfreedom and institutionalautonomy; •develop aneducation system that meets the localand internationallabour market demands,etc. Inaddition, the aims and objectives of the ongoing reforms include: •todemocratiseand decentralise the education and scienceadministration system; •tointroduceaneeds-and performance-based financing system. Joining the BolognaProcess was the top priority from the very beginning of edu- cational restructuring and thereforeit was essential tomeet the minimuminter- national requirements in a very limited period of time. The BolognaProcess is an attractiveinitiativefor Georgia since: •it is a voluntary initiativeand not legally binding; •it focuses on quality and excellence; •it advocates co-operation versus competition; •it encourages public-privatepartnership; •it envisages wider socialengagement and publicaccountability of universities; •it combats unemployment viacompetence-building,internationalisation, recognition,etc. Tomeet the minimum requirements for joining the BolognaProcess three major reformdirections wereidentified: •harmonisation of the legislativebasis withEuropean standards; •elimination of corruption at the systemiclevel; •introduction of anew model of financing; •introduction of the up-to-date study programmes curricula, syllabiat HEIs; •introduction of ECTS and the three cycle degree system,etc. ______69. Recently, the minimum salary increased toGEL250.

167 Higher education governance

Todate, substantialmeasures in all the directions havealready been taken. On 21 December 2004, the Parliament of Georgiaadopted the Law of Georgiaon Higher Education.70 Workon the law commenced in 2004and around 12 000 peo- ple participated in the discussions at a series of meetings throughout the country. The law fundamentally alters the existing system of higher education and is com- patible with the contemporary international requirements.Specifically, the law regulates the structureofhigher education institutions,its management,financ- ing,licensing,accreditation, the rules of student admission,etc.It also responds toall the major action lines set forthat the ministerialconferences of the Bologna Process suchas quality assurance,publicaccountability,and self-governanceby elected bodies.More specifically it includes: •adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees through the standardised diploma supplement issued in one of the internationally spoken languages and free of charge (Chapter I, Article 2,Point “p” also the Order N149 of the Minister of Education and Science); •adoption of the EuropeanCredit Transfer and Accumulation System (Chapter XV,Point 8); •awardof stategrants to students with the highest scores at the Unified NationalUniversity Entry Examinations (Chapter XIII, Article 80); •reservation of a thirdof the seats for students in the representativebodies knownas the senates at state universities (Chapter IV,Article 17,Point 4); •provisions for the autonomy of and academicfreedom at higher education institutions (Chapter IV); •assuranceofquality through the accreditation procedures (Chapter X); •assuranceof synergy between higher education and research(Chapter VII); •adoption of a three-cycle degree system (Chapter VII, Article 46,Point 2, Subpoints “a”,“b”,“c”):

✔ Bachelor’s Degree (at least 3 years) 71 ✔ Master’s Degree (at least 2 years) ✔ DoctoralDegree (at least 3 years)(Chapter VII),etc. Inaddition to the law,according to the N13 Decree of the Government of Georgia released on 25January 2005, 250 grants are tobeallocated from a spe- cialfund to socially or economically vulnerable students,internally displaced persons and ethnicminorities for the academic year 2005-06. According to the N470 Order of the President of Georgia released on 24October 2004, the Accreditation Council of Higher Education Institutions was set upand institutionalaccreditation was conducted in January 2005. The following criteria ______70.The law canbedownloaded from the Ministry of Education and Science webpage at: www.mes.gov.ge or from the BolognaSecretariat webpage at: www.dfes.gov.uk/bologna/ 71. Duration of the programmes will soon be substituted by the number of credits.

168 Case studies were used during the accreditation process:(1) the percentage of professors with scientific/academicdegrees; (2) student/class size ratio; (3)access tobooks in libraries; (4) number of personalcomputers; (5) number of foreign students,and (6) the existenceofa webpage. Th einstitutionalaccreditation was completed in February 2005. Consequently,out of 237 higher education institutions applying for accreditation less thanhalf of them (48%) wereaccredited. Non-accredited higher education institutions werenot allowed toadmit students this year,as the state would not recognise the diplomas of such students.Thosehigher education institutions that could not gain accreditation this year areallowed to reapply dur- ing the following two years. Another major reformpriority was toeliminatecorruption in higher education especially at admission exams.The challenge was taken up with the introduction of acompletely new model of admission exams.According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education (Article 89,p.4),in 2005-06 Unified NationalUniversity Entry Examinations wereheld throughout Georgia starting on 11 July and fin- ishing on 22 July 2005. This system implies that all the citizens of Georgia who wish toadvance their studies at ahigher level will have topass this centralised formof test-based admission exams.This model of exams was elaborated by the NationalAssessment and Examination Centre(NAEC). The Unified National University Entry Examinations’tests werebased on the secondary school study programme. The aim of the Unified NationalUniversity Entry Examinations is to assess knowledge and skills of entrants objectively,fairly and in a unified man- ner, toassuremaximum transparency and to reveal the best and the brightest.The examination scores werecalculated according to the method of scaling that is well established in psychometrics.This method enables evaluators tocompare the scores received in different subjects with scientificprecision. The admission exams wereheld simultaneously in all the major cities of Georgia within the 14 admission centres.Up to 76 registration points hadbeen open since February 2005and served as information and registration centres.Inorder tobet- ter disseminate the information about dates,procedures, rules and the methodol- ogy of the exams,alarge mediacampaign hadbeen launched including radio,TV and printing media.Interested persons could alsoget updated information on the webpages of the NAEC and the Ministry of Education and ScienceofGeorgia. Besides, specialmanuals and guidelines werepublished and distributed in all the secondary schools of Georgia.The exams wereheld in the following subjects: •Georgianlanguage and literature; •foreign language (English,French,Germanor Russian); •generalaptitudes; •mathematics. At least twoand at most three assessors scored each test independently from each other.This mechanism was elaborated in order toensuremaximumimpartiality and fairness.Out of 31171 registered entrants,16 507 wereadmitted and 4198 of them received stategrants that fully cover tuition costs at state-runHEIs. Accordingly, the number of admitted students has been significantly diminished from 35 000 to16 507 as compared with 2004.

169 Higher education governance

This new model of admission exams is innovativebecauseofanumber of rea- sons: 1. The entrants had the possibility tochoose up tofive specialties according to their preferenceat the same or various higher education institutions; thus the chance togain entranceat least toone of the HEIs was increased. 2.Exams in generalaptitudes wereincluded tocheck the critical-analytical reasoning skills of entrants. 3.The top-scoring entrants received stategrants ranging from GEL1 000 to GEL1500.This new “money follows the student”formula radically changes the former lump sumallocation model of financing education. 4. Students receiving the highest marks on the entranceexams received agrant they could redeem as tuition at any stateinstitution or accredited privatecol- lege of their ownchoosing,meaning that insteadof throngs of students com- peting for one university,numerous universities werecompeting for students. The previous system restricted students by forcing them to take an all-or- nothing approach. That is,every university hadits owndistinct entrance examand with testing periods overlapping,it was logistically unfeasible for students toapply tomore thanone institute. Inorder toavoid any falsification of results,all the tests wereprinted in England at the Cambridge University Printing House. Hundreds of test versions were sent electronically to the printing houseand with the help of special softwarepro- grammes only randomly selected tests wereprinted. The safely sealed tests were sent back toGeorgia under tight security guidanceand the sealed packages were opened in front of the entrants.To secureanonymity of entrants uniquebar codes hadbeen attached to the tests and thus the assessors could not know the identity of entrants.The assessors were selected from all around the country based on their merit and competence. Video cameras wereinstalled at all the examination centres and everybody could watch the examination process from screens fixed outside the examination buildings.The recorded tapes of all the exams werekept in a special safe. The examination processes weremonitored by specially trained observers, who did not know in advance to whichcentre they would beassigned. For example, 30 observers from Transparency InternationalGeorgiaattended the 14 examination centres during all four sessions and at eachcentre there were two insiders observing the process of the examination and twooutsiders observing the exams from outside. The representatives of the organisation interviewed 973 entrants, 764parents and 340 examination administrators.About 91% of entrants,80%ofparents and 93%of the examination administrators evaluated the new admission system highly positively. 72 The president of Georgiacommented that the new model of Unified National University Entry Examinations is the beginning of anew era wherecorruption is no longer possible and whereone has to work very hardinorder to succeed. It is ______72.Afull report of the first Unified NationalUniversity Entry Examinations held in Georgiacanbe downloaded from the NAEC webpage at: www.naec.ge

170 Case studies expected that through the new system of admission exams the vicious circle of systemiccorruption will be transformed into the virtuous circle of meritocracy and anew generation of students who truly earn their places at the higher educa- tion institutions of Georgia will turnintoconstructivepartners and consumers of knowledge and services offered at the modernised higher education institutions.

4. Final remarks The radical reforms in Georgiaentailed the following substantialchanges: •NationalAims of GeneralEducation wereapproved by the Government (Decree N84; 18 October 2004); •the Law on Higher Education was adopted (21December 2004); •the Law on GeneralEducation was adopted (8 April 2005); •university and school teachers’salary and stipend arrears comprising GEL49 million werepaid; •the first institutionalaccreditation of higher education institutions werecom- pleted (10 February 2005); •Georgiajoined the BolognaProcess (19 May 2005); •the Concept on VocationalEducation of Georgiahas been approved by the Government (Decree N150; 31August 2005) and the draft law will be sub- mitted to the Parliament in 2006. The following projects are still tobeimplemented: •the concept on teachers professionaldevelopment is being prepared; •the programme “Deer Leap” of completecomputerisation and internet con- nection of schools absorbing GEL3.3 m(approx.US$1.8m) from the budget for the year 2005and GEL8m(approx.US$4.4m) in 200673 was launched. The criteriafor assessing the outcome of the reforms arebased on the indicators elaborated by the Organisation for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD), suchas: •quality of education and science; •accessibility of education; •student achievements in internationalassessment systems; •increasing the volume of financing including the financialnormativecalcu- lated per student and the salaries of scientists, researchers and teachers; •approximating the material-technicalbasis tointernational standards; •contemporary IT policy (coefficient –acomputer per student); •international recognition of higher education, scienceand research; ______73.Inaddition to the budget allocations,US$2.8 mis allocated by the BritishPetroleumCoplc(BP).

171 Higher education governance

•enhanced inflow of foreign students; •compatibility of student achievements with the benchmarks of the educa- tionalprogramme; •reduced number of children and adolescents left behind in the study processes; •increased enrolment ratio of students at vocationalinstitutions; •reduced brain drain in scienceand research; •lower average age of scientificpersonnel; •increased employability of graduates. Despite the tangible results, the education reforminGeorgiais still at the incep- tion phase. The real success canbecelebrated once the adopted laws areeffec- tively established within the education system of Georgia, and their efficiency is positively reflected in the daily life of the people of Georgia.

5. Suggestions for recommendations •In the contemporary market-driven environment whereacademicaspirations and market forces areclosely interconnected and education is increasingly considered as a serviceindustry in international trade agreements, students are viewed as consumers and customers.Students expect that the time and money spent at aninstitution is aninvestment in their capacities and compe- tences.In this senseHEIs areexpected tooffer aproduct that will beprof- itable bothindividually and socially. •In the rapidly changing environment, thereis no time for gradual transition; radicaldecisions and actions are tobe taken,causing dissatisfaction,public distrust and fear.One has tobeprepared from the very beginning that reforms arenot there tobeloved by the whole society and sometimes you have to take some very painful steps.But it’s likecuring people – you may have toinflict some pain tocure the patient. •Tomeet the societalexpectations and market demands HEIs should haveade- quatehuman,materialand financial resources and efficient strategicpolicies envisaging continuous fund-raising through liaising with the business sector and networking withinternationalpartners. •The majority of HEIs now lack the necessary human resources suchas qual- ified managers and specialists in social restructuring. In such situations the optimal solution is tomake anin-depth study of the existing human,materi- aland financial resources and initiatemobility schemes for students and staff.Assistancefrom the public sector as well as internationalorganisations canplay a vital role. •The prerequisitefor successful reforms is the incrementalfinancialprovision bothfrom publicand private sources.Scarcefinancial resources may become the reason for failureof the reform. The reformimplementation is alsocon-

172 Case studies

nected with the readiness of higher education institutions toimplement the changes envisaged by the process.Success significantly depends on the posi- tion of the governing bodies and on activepublicengagement in the process of reformimplementation. •The issueofcorruption is not only about the system but alsoabout the per- ception. Transition from the centralised,ideologically-driven,bureaucratic system towards the democratic, decentralised model is a radical shift and entails anumber of factors obstructing the smoothflow of the process.The principalbottleneckis the cynicismand distrust of society and a vehement opposition of the proponents of the old system. The reformprocess envisages that academiccouncils composed of university faculty will still retain power over academicissues but withmore students involved in administrativeand financialoversight, thus universities will become increasingly effectiveand decreasingly corrupt.Besides,it is very important that universities are autonomous and at the same time accountable to the public, it allows public universities tobedemocratically governed from inside.

173 Higher education governance

References Aoki,A.et al.,“Education” (Chapter 19,draft 22 July 2002)inThe World Bank Group,Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan,Vol. 2, Macroeconomicand Sectoral Approaches ,The World Bank Group,Washington,DC, 2002. Barnett,N.&Cnobloch,R., Public spending on education in the CIS-7 Countries: The hidden crisis , the paper prepared for the Lucerne Conferenceof the CIS-7 ini- tiative, 2003.Retrieved from http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/eca/cis7.nsf/ECADocByUnid/85256C370063EBBE 85256C14005956DF/$FILE/Burnett%20-%20Education%20-E-%2022DEC-I.pdf Beradze,T.,&Sanadze,M., Saqartvelos Istoria ,Book I, Saqartvelos Matsne,Tbilisi, 2003. Botkin,J., Towarda wisdom society:Aninterview withJames Botkin by V.Miller &M.Jain, 2003.Retrieved from http://.newhorizons.org/trans/botkin.htm Noah,H.J.&Eckstein,M.A., Doing comparativeeducation:Three decades of collaboration,ComparativeEducation ResearchCentre,Hong Kong,The University of Hong Kong,1998,Chapters 1-3. Janashia, N., Fighting Corruption in Georgia’s Universities , 2004. Retrieved from http//www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/News34/text006.htm Peuch,J.C.,“Georgia: Education Minister Determined toProceed with ControversialReforms”,Radio Free Europe, 2004. United Nations,“Towards aKnowledge Based Economy.Georgia”, Country Readiness Assessment Report,United Nations,Geneva, 2002.Retrieved 4April 2003,from http://www.unece.org/operact/enterp/documents/coverpaggeorgia.pdf United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),United Nations Human Development Report (2000),“Dimensions of HumanDevelopment”,Chapter 4. Retrieved 25March 2002,from http:www.undp.org.ge/nhdr2000/chpt4.htm

174 The governanceofhigher education systems – Lessons from Estonia JaakAaviksoo

The university (or universities)as suchhas (have) proven tobeone of the most viable organisations of moderncivilisation – the history of whichgoes back to the late11thor early 12thcentury at the start of the Middle Ages.Even individual institutions,in spiteof temporary setbacks,have survived through many social, economicand culturalchanges.Ingeneral, universities arebelieved tobe very conservativeorganisations and this fits well withboth their long history as well as the personalexperienceofmost people that things do not change at too fast a pacein universities.At the same time, the merefact of surviving all thesechanges indicates that universities have tobe very adaptable organisations.They may well becalled the most experienced learning organisations in the world. In recent years,increasingly morepeople and different stakeholders are,howev- er, raising and emphasising the need tomoderniseand reform the universities so as tobetter serve the stakeholders and respond to the changing needs of society. Usually people meanby this that the changes have to take placefirst and foremost in the universities themselves.Universities have to start moving (at last!). Why is it then that theseorganisations of learning do not respond adequately and fast enough to the changing environment?Although Ido not believe that universities should react hastily toevery externalchange,however important,it is right to pose this question. Inmodern societies, universities (hereafter all higher educa- tion institutions)donot function as independent players in amoreor less regu- lated market but as elements of (national) higher education systems, which toa large extent defines their mission, rules and modus vivendi and even, sometimes, identity.It is my deep conviction that most of the problems whichour nations’dif- ferent higher education institutions facearemuchmorelinked to the bottlenecks in the system rather thanat the institutionallevel. It follows bothfrom horizontal or internationalcomparisons as well as from the historicalperspective. Higher education has been under growing pressureover the last ten tofifteen years and it has yet toattain equilibriumdespiteall the changes that havealready been undertakenand are taking place. But in contrast to the last major change in high- er education, the expansion of the late1960s and 1970s when it was possible to respond (to the growing demand for higher education and need for ahighly qual- ified workforce) at the nationallevel,modernpressures areessentially global. What the universities face,governments follow and society grasps at large – increasing competition,more turbulent dynamics of economicand social vari- ables,controversialand even conflicting signals from the stakeholders, unpre- dictability of the expectations of outcomes,increasing risks of all sorts and relat- ed fears and,last but not least,irrationalfinancing patterns –is not due tonational

175 Higher education governance developments but more the indirect result of globalisation. HereI use the trifle hackneyed termofglobalisation todenote the globaldimension of the increas- ingly free movement of goods,capital, services,information and people (labour). Nationalhigher education systems wereestablished tofunction within national limits in times when nationalarmies controlled the borders,national steel and coalcompanies supplied them todo soand self-sufficient sovereign states used nationalflagship airlines tofly tobilateral trade meetings toagree on protection- ist taxes, tariffs and quotas.These times arelong gone but nationalhigher educa- tion systems still surviveand most probably they will alsooutlivenationalener- gy and other utility monopolies now yielding topressure. Education is a sensitive topic–it touches and is believed to shape the coreofevery individualand col- lectiveidentity.Since the 12thcentury (when the BolognaUniversity was estab- lished) universities werefounded by giving them anidentity or aname and priv- ileges related to them by the Pope,aking (or sometimes aduke)and later (nation- al) governments.In return, they wereexpected tocommit themselves to their mis- sion – to serve the good causeof their founders by increasing their prestige. Alexander von Humboldt reformed the university by exhorting them to serve the Truthand granting them the academicfreedom todo so,but the system was already in place. The system (level) was further strengthened after the emergence of the nation stateand especially when (European) governments took tofunding students’tuition fees.The (nationalhigher education) systems stand strong today and it is most interesting tofollow one of the most remarkable developments – the BolognaProcess – whichposes afundamentaldilemmabetween aEuropean vision of globalappeal– the EuropeanHigher Education Area(EHEA)–and the national systems. I turn tomy country/nation Estonia.Ours is a small country witha“long histo- ry”–converted toChristianity by the Germans and the Danes in the early 13th century, the Estonians haveexperienced the rule of the Germans, the Swedes, the Poles and the Russians.Our first university – the University of Tartu – was found- ed by the SwedishKing Gustav II Adolf in 1632.In1802 it became aRussian ImperialUniversity teaching in Germanfor almost acentury.The Russianhigh- er education system,largely thanks toTartu University, was based on the German (Humboldtian) model as was the casealmost everywhereineasternand central Europe. There was anacademiccontinuity,despiteall politicalchanges, which lasted until the time to which the Estonians refer toas ‘the singing revolution’ of 1988-91. In1988 wehadaSoviet higher education system,based on the German model, whichcombines the academicideas of von Humboldt with the systemat- icobjectivelogicof Hegel and the statesmanship of Bismarck. The Soviets added the totalitarian-bureaucraticorganisation under aMinistry of Higher Education (one of more than120 ministries, whichfunctioned as statemonopolies in their respectiveareas of responsibility). This may be styled ahigher education system par excellence. Therefollowed the years 1988-95 and until 2003 when it was replaced by anEstonian system largely built on grass-roots ideas about “amar- ket-oriented democratic westernhigher education system”. Nobody really knew

176 Case studies what this meant but it posed no problem. Today to some of the participants of the revolution,myself included, this does not unduly worry us. Why is this interesting to understand and analyse? Primarily becauseof the extent of the socio-economicchange, which was enormous.Inall former changes in Estonia(and therehavebeen very many)most legal, socialand even economic institutions wereleft in place,at least for long periods.In this case,all the laws and other rules and regulations wereat least questioned if not at first ignored then later replaced. This was largely the caseinall former Soviet dominated countries but the Baltic states had to recreate their statehood from the beginning and the Estonians wereprobably the most radically minded in doing everything differ- ently and as fast as possible. So wehavea uniquecaseof replacing acarefully planned higher education system by anew one,built from scratchfrom grass- roots ideas under a strongly market-oriented,democraticand very open public sentiment.Even knowing that the terms describing the context differ from their established meaning in moredeveloped Europeancountries,it surely indicates in whichdirection theseideas push the established system when given achance. The first reformideas (in the years 1988 to1992) werebottom-upand rather rev- olutionary or at least did not comply withany rules previously in force. In1988, after the deathof the rector,appointed by the Communist Party,and who had managed the university for seventeen years, the University of Tartu itself decided toelect the new rector and formed anElectoralAssembly composed of universi- ty members including students.The authorities,after some very serious consulta- tions, surrendered and recognised the new rector.The next step was to revise the rigid Soviet study programmes by cancelling anumber of disciplines,first of all thoseconnected withmilitary training and communist ideology.At the same time the first private universities emerged,although without formal recognition by the Estonian rather reform-minded regionalgovernment let alone with the consent of the centralgovernment in Moscow.A sufficient number of people trusted the enthusiasticeducationalentrepreneurs and some of both the entrepreneurs and students arenow among the ruling eliteofEstonia today.It may sound strange, but technically-speaking most of the private university graduates of the first years still do not haveofficially recognised diplomas,although this causes no problems in practice. It is alsonoteworthy that all the founders of the first private universi- ties had some Americanacademicexperienceand that they started toawardbach- elor and master degrees from the very beginning when thesedegrees hadnooffi- cial status in the Soviet system which was still in place. In these years, the Senateof the then so-named Tartu StateUniversity decided to restoreits former name Tartu University.Other higher educationalinstitutions like the Tallinn PolytechnicInstituteand the Tallinn Teacher Training Institute “upgraded” themselves into universities.Next,a semi-officialdecision was taken by the Estoniangovernment – they gave universities (note:all institutions which called themselves universities) the right toawardacademicdegrees (until that point only the Higher Attestation Committee in Moscow had the right todo so). Let me summarise. What did people (it was very important tohave wide public support for these revolutionary steps,otherwise the authorities would surely have

177 Higher education governance intervened by legalmeans)and academicinstitutions consider as important in theseinitial times of change? Firstly,institutionalautonomy or rather the legal right toact on our ownbehalf (or todecide our owndestiny). Secondly, the right toestablishour identity.Thirdly, the understanding that higher education has to beafree (from outside interference) trade. Lastly, the understanding that aca- demicprogrammes,including their objectives and outcomes,and not only the ways toachieve these,areaninstitutional responsibility.Theseideas arefunda- mental to the present debateabout the possible ways aheadinhigher education in anumber of countries worldwide and especially in Europe. This is also the rea- son why the development of theseideas in Estoniaand the lessons, which wehave sometimes painfully learnt,may be useful. In1992,four months before the EstonianParliament adopted the new constitu- tion, the Act on Education became law, which,although being very declarativein general,fixed the basic“democratic”principles of higher education. This law is still in forcedespite several recent efforts to replaceit witha“constitutionallaw”. It has become evident that the broadalthough superficialconsensus on several educationalissues that allowed us toadopt the first liberalframeworklaw has, to some extent,disappeared. The radicalideas of the Law on Education werefurther developed in the Law on Universities passed in 1995. The most important ideas may bedivided intofive categories:firstly,legal status and economicand related financial rights of uni- versities; secondly,academicautonomy; thirdly, the status of the academic staff; fourthly, the structureof the higher education organisation,and lastly,financing of the universities.Let us analyse theseideas separately.

Legal status and economicand financial rights of universities The public universities wereconstituted as independent publiclegalentities (muchlike the chartered institutions in the Anglo-Saxon tradition) withfar-reaching financialand economic rights including owning their real-estateand other property, the right tobuy and sell their property as they felt fit, the right to take loans from the bank, the right toestablishprofit and non-profit making compa- nies.One of the most important rights of the public universities is the right to admit,in addition to the fixed number of students whicharefunded by the gov- ernment,fee-paying students on the same terms as the private universities (including the right to set fees). Ina way, this law made publicand private(both for-profit and non-profit) universities equalinlegaland economic terms and paved the way for realcompetition, which was alsoone of the main considera- tions in the politicaldebate that took placeinparliament.It was well understood that this legalautonomy, whichalsoentails great risks of mis-and mal-management by the largely self-governing publicinstitutions,and experienceover the last ten years,has shown that indeed the institutions havehad very different practices (mixed results). Let it be said that the larger, stronger,and most visionary institu- tions with strong leadership havelargely profited from thesefreedoms todecide their futureand shape their identity whereas others havebeen less successful.

178 Case studies

Inorder tobetter understand the Estoniancontext,let me offer some statistics.In 1988 there was one state university and five statepolytechnics in Estonia.In 2003, there weremore than50(!) higher education institutions – 6 public univer- sities, 7 private universities, 23 polytechnics and some 15 vocationaleducational institutions offering short-term tertiary programs.Despitealarge number of pri- vate universities and polytechnics, some 60%ofall students still study at the 6 public universities.It is true that most people (including policy-makers)believe that therearefar too many higher education institutions (the smallest having only 23 students)but most of them are reluctant to solve the problem by administra- tivemeans.It seems that publicand political reaction to thesedevelopments is still positiveand even in the caseofdifficulties (including potentialbankruptcy), self-regulatory mechanisms arepreferred toadministrativeinterference. It must benoted that therehas been only one caseofbankruptcy and anumber of forced mergers and liquidations among private universities.Some private universities havealsobeen absorbed intopublicinstitutions. Wecanconclude that the liberalisation of the higher education market and open- ing upofpublic universities tocompetition has been accepted by society.It has brought about extremely strong differentiation and diversification between the institutions and,indeed,a wide differentialinquality of the courses (not neces- sarily in favour of the publicinstitutions). It has alsobecome clear that market mechanisms function in a very complicated manner and usually very slowly and that quality issues area very serious problem in some cases.On the other hand, liberalisation of the market has solved the problem of meeting the increasing demand (the totalnumber of students in Estoniahas grown twoand ahalf times in ten years)in spiteofonly amodest increaseinpublicfunding. One important, if not the most important conclusion,is that public universities havebeen very effectiveand flexible in reacting to thesechanging conditions.This ability,how- ever,is fundamentally linked to their extensivelegaland financialautonomy, whichhas made it possible to rearrange institutional structures and resources to respond to the new challenges.

Academicautonomy The most important right is the right to select our students and staff.Selection rights,coupled with the right freely tonegotiate salaries of staff,enable universi- ties tobuild their specificacademicprofiles.As a result, some of the universities strive tobecome more researchorientated, some try tocater for the specificneeds of more vocationally orientated students.Some define themselves as internation- ally visible,others address first and foremost localneeds.Thereareextremely few formal requirements in the Law on Universities, the only one being that potential students must have secondary education,and that docents and profes- sors must hold aPhD.The same flexibility holds truefor academicprogrammes. The one and only physics diplomaprogramme, standardised for the entireSoviet Union,has been replaced by four to six physics programmes of different orienta- tion for Estonia.They all havemerit and it may be that all of them arenot viable in the long run,but on the whole, they most probably respond better to the

179 Higher education governance different needs of the labour market and to the individualpreferences of the students compared with the standardised Soviet model. The law stipulates,however, that the government shall establish the general requirements for any higher education programme category in adocument called “the higher education standard” and that all programmes shall correspond toits requirements.This approachis very close to the ideaof establishing ageneralEuropean referenceframework–agen- eralframeworkofqualifications (for higher education). InEstoniaone conflict has become apparent and has yet tobe resolved. If universities aregiven exten- sive rights (and through competition also the need) todevelop (flexible) academ- icprogrammes, the dualnatureof the higher education structure,namely the aca- demicand vocational split,may not beadequateinmany cases.This causes us to modify artificially the programme structureinorder tomeet the formal require- ments of the higher education standard. This is increasingly evident in the caseof regionalcolleges of public universities (former state-runpolytechnichigher edu- cation institutions), whichcanonly function in closeco-operation withlocal employers with their specialneeds and requirements.

Employment of academic staff In the early days of higher education reform there was a strong belief that uni- versities and other academicinstitutions were too closed and stagnant institutions withmeagrecareer opportunities for younger staff.The dominating idea was that academicpositions would only befilled on acompetitivebasis (or by open com- petitions after the posts wereadvertised) and on temporary three tofive year con- tracts.This is still the legal situation. Inaddition,acompulsory retirement age (65) was introduced byTartu University.It is true that in Soviet days the average age of the academic staff was high and there was too little mobility between and within institutions.The new rules increased academicmobility and lowered the average age. This resulted alsoinaconsiderable increaseofproductivity but the positive trend soon stopped. Ina small country withhigh language barriers there are simply not enough candidates tofill the vacant positions every three tofive years and in reality this rule of temporary contracts only has caused ‘inflexibili- ty’and unnecessary instability in anumber of cases.This policy is currently under review.Amuchmorepositive step was togive the universities the right to set salary levels and staff numbers.It has allowed us toenhance staff motivation and avoided,or at least alleviated, the otherwise serious problem present in anumber of developing countries with under-funded universities –“moonlighting” tocover one’s living costs.The right todetermine the number of academic staff, with rather lax rules for academicappointments (depending very muchoninstitution- alpolicy)has considerably increased the number of professors in Estoniabring- ing withit aclear devaluation of the joband its social status.At the same time, the reputation of aprofessor depends very muchon the university and hencealso on the individual. Ibelieve that formal titles play less of a role whereas the repu- tation of the institution and the individualmatter muchmorenow thanin the old system. It is alsonoteworthy, that people who complain most about thesechanges are the academics themselves,many of whom havelost the security of tenureand now have toprove themselves constantly bothinside and outside academia.

180 Case studies

Organisation of higher education Ihaveemphasised already that the Soviet university system was essentially mod- elled on the Germanmodel,involving along diplomacycle,followed by acan- didateof sciences study (aspirantura) and finally the habilitation or the Doctor of Sciences degree. In1995 this structure was replaced by what was thought tobe “the democratic westernmodel” consisting of abachelor-master-PhD sequence. It took universities seven years toadapt to this new “theoretical” structureand as a result weended upnot witha“western” but withanincompatible Estonian sys- tem that wearenow replacing with the Bolognamodel. The lesson learned from this reform was that it is not very productive to try tointroduceartificial(and rigid) structures intohigher education but rather to try tofollow the internallogic of both the academiaand the labour market.This,in turn,is only possible if the legalframeworks are sufficiently flexible. The situation is similar to the academ- ic/vocational split as is the casein some other countries.It seems that all the dif- ferent formalclassifications of the body of higher education, whichmight have made life easier for bothemployers and students in the industrialera, aregradu- ally becoming obsolete since they do not allow for the necessary flexibility required by moderndynamiceconomies. Last but not least let us analyse the newly introduced financing patterns of uni- versities.The most fundamentalchange is conceptual– the Estonianpublic uni- versities arenot funded by the statein the usualmeaning of the termfunding. Instead, the government, through the Ministry of Education and Research(but including other ministries),purchases certain educational services from the uni- versity on acontractualbasis.In simple terms –a university (beit publicor pri- vate) receives,for example,1million kroons from the stateand in returnoffers five student-years of medical training (or,in amodified version,has toaward three degrees in medicine tonon-fee-paying students). Inaddition toeducational services, the government alsopurchases other services from the university.There areat least twoimportant aspects of this conceptualchange – the priceof the services is not directly cost-related but rather a result of negotiations and if the university does not deliver what is agreed upon direct financial sanctions shall follow. Let us conclude. My main statement is that the pressureon universities tochange may haveonly limited,and even counterproductive results,if wedonot loosen the grip of the national systems, whichlargely belong toapast era.Secondly,don’t beafraid of your universities provided they trust their students – young people deserve tobe trusted and good universities aregood enough to understand it. Thirdly,don’t beafraid of drawbacks –bepatient in observing the balanceof interests toemerge. Fourthly, take time and think about the price. Estonianliberal radicalismhas showna way aheadbut also warned of the overshooting phenomena, whichhaveheavy price tags on them. And last but not least –if you really wish tocontribute,insist on quality and promotequality culture. Be wary of starting at the systems level and moving downwards in agood dialogue withall stakeholders.

181

Universities in Serbia RadmilaMarinkovic-` Neduˇc in

1. Initial remarks –defining the starting-point for reforms With the positive socialand politicalchanges in our country since 2000,new energy for change has appeared in the universities,but still under aburden of additionalcircumstantialfactors.Ten years of internationalisolation hadcaused the deterioration of academic structures and standards.Being formally autonomous and independent institutions, universities werenevertheless under strong politicalpressures,but the majority of the academiccommunity (profes- sors and students) retained their integrity and contributed toaconsiderable extent to the articulation of democraticnotions in the country during this extremely dif- ficult time. The University Law passed in 1998 cancelled the autonomy of the university and brought universities under full politicalcontrol, whichcaused the suspension of Serbian universities from the CRE (EuropeanRectors’ Conferences,now EUA). After politicalchanges in October 2000 and the election of ademocraticgovernment in 2001,aconsensus was reached between universi- ties and the government (Ministry of Education and Sports) that universities could practicedifferent forms of democraticprocedures in the election of their governing bodies as well as the election of their professors.This enabled univer- sities to re-establish the principles of basicautonomy even before the official changes of the legal system and the University Law. From this point on,Serbian universities face the serious challenges of the Europeanisation (BolognaProcess,1999) and globalisation of the Higher Education Area(EHEA),provoking the need for serious reforms,bothof the higher education system and of university practices and standards.The re- establishment of internationaland regionalco-operation,and incorporation of Serbian universities in international/Europeanassociations were recognised as top priorities.The politicalcontext of the planned transformation of the universi- ty system was and still is turbulent,due topolitical,economicand social transi- tion,coupled with the exhausted economy of the country and limited financial support available for the renovation of the university infrastructure(equipment, laboratories,etc.). The university structureis characterised by a weakconfederation of highly autonomous faculties,eachhaving its ownindependent institutionaldevelopment and policies,building its owneducational, researchand administrativeinfra- structure. The fragmented management emerging from sucha structureplaces considerable constraints on strategicplanning of the university as anautonomous institution,offering only a very limited possibility for rapid and successful changes in line with the objectives of the BolognaProcess. 74

______74. InstitutionalEvaluation of Universities in Serbia 2001/2002,EuropeanUniversity Association (EUA).

183 Higher education governance

2.Reform strategy Being awareof the gapbetween current university practiceinSerbiaand thoseof the modernEuropean universities,in 2001 the Serbianacademiccommunity started todevelop its reform strategy.At that point the perception of the existing gap,based on the initialknowledge of the processes in Europe, was quitefuzzy and the main issues werenot well defined and understood,but left no doubt that “something has tobedone”. Self-evaluation of the Serbian universities was performed for the first time based on common Europeanprocedures (EUA, 2001),giving afirst insight into the overall performances of universities and highlighting some criticalissues neces- sary in defining the starting point for the reforms.Low efficiency,overloaded curricula, lackofquality management systems were recognised as general weak points in university practice, while showing aconsiderable potential,based on the overall results in both teaching and research,for further development in line with Europeanand global trends in the higher education area.Many additionalques- tions emerged suchas university management and structure, the relation between autonomous universities and the state,and the influenceof stakeholders on uni- versity policies. Additionalknowledge,gained through intensified internationalco-operation and through participation in various programmes and projects,has contributed toan awareness of the necessity tofollow the current trends in and the goals of the EHEA.The first conferenceon the major aspects of the BolognaProcess “Serbian higher education on the road toEurope”,organised in March 2001by the Council of Europe,CRE, SerbianMinistry of Education and the AlternativeAcademic EducationalNetwork(AAEN), was followed by anumber of seminars and con- ferences with the help of the Council of Europe and the following organisations: EUA, HRK, DAAD and KonradAdenauer Stiftung. The Student Union of Serbia organised a series of seminars and workshops on the BolognaProcess and student participation (2002-05). The universities of NoviSadand Nis˘ took part,as pilot institutions,in the “RegionalUniversity NetworkonGovernanceand Management of Higher Education in Albania, Bosniaand Herzegovina, Croatia, FYROM and FRY”financed by the EC and co-ordinated by UNESCO-CEPES (2002-04). The externalevaluation of Serbian universities by EUA(2002),in addition toprevi- ously mentioned activities,helped considerably in initiating the reformprocesses on different levels (universities,faculties,departments,pilot projects)even before Serbiajoined the BolognaProcess (2003). The Ministry of Education and Sports of Serbiaprepared the analysis “Higher Education in Serbiaand BolognaProcess” (2003),outlining the state strategy in the reforms. Indefining the strategy of change and adopting the standards of the EHEA, uni- versities in Serbiahavefaced three major challenges : 75 1. how to organise and manage universities tobecome equalpartners for other European universities on all playing fields; ______75. University of NoviSad,Self-Evaluation Report, 2002.

184 Case studies

2.how todevelop a quality management system that matches European trends; 3.how tocope with wider socialand political reforms in our country, specifi- cally with the movefrom predominant but insufficient statefunding of uni- versities toamoremarket-orientated system whichprovides more financial freedom,but alsolowers revenues from the state . The current management and governance structureof state universities –having a weakand mainly administrative role of university and fully autonomous facul- ties as independentlegalentities, restrains the efforts for reforms.Internalinte- gration of the university could beconsidered as a top priority in establishing a university according toEuropean standards.Only integrated universities, which speak withone voice will beable todevelop their own strategy and policies and take the responsibility towards the stateand society for their owndevelopment.

3.The process of reforms January 2002 activities started on anationallevel with the analysis of the EuropeanHE systems, the analysis of the current stateof the SerbianHE and con- sequently, with the outline of the reform strategy of the SerbianHE system. The strategy outlined the legalcontext for reforms together with the issues tobe addressed at the institutional/university level. The provisionalUniversity Law,approved in May 2002 and considered as tem- porary and transitionallegislation, restored university autonomy including provi- sions for: •autonomy in defining curricula(approved at university level); •autonomy toappoint professors (approved at university level); •governanceand management autonomy (17%of university/faculty council to beappointed by government); •financialautonomy, to some extent,(bulk sumof salaries and operating costs distributed tofaculties,ownership of acquisitions gained from faculty’s income). This provisionalUniversity Law established the NationalHE Council in charge of the evaluation and accreditation procedures and strategicissues related toHE.The NationalHE Council appointed the Accreditation Committee in January 2003.In this way the initialformofquality control system was established at nationallevel as animportant focalpoint for the development of afuturequality management system as anew approach withnoequivalent in former university practice. The provisionallaw did not change the basic university structureofautonomous faculties (legalentities,almost highly specialised “universities”in themselves), but introduced acertain level of supervision over the faculties (promotion of pro- fessors,PhD thesis). The faculties have their own statutes,governing and execu- tivebodies,educationaland employment policies and budgets (accountable directly to the ministry).

185 Higher education governance

Thereis still amisbalancebetween the authority of the rector (mostly honorary) and the dean(executive), with very limited spacefor strategicplanning at uni- versity level. The relationship between the honorary-academicfunction of the key personnel and the actualinstitutionalmanagement is still not clarified. Thereare no common funds at university level, the rector’s office(representing “the uni- versity”) being state-financed withalimited number of administrative staff.The Educational/ResearchCouncil (all academics),in charge of curricula, promo- tions,elections,institutionaldevelopment and policy,has the major role in man- agement at university/faculty level. The status of the student is strictly faculty-ori- entated in all relevant aspects, withconsecutivedifficulties in organising multi- disciplinary and interdisciplinary studies and research.

The externalevaluation of Serbian universities 76 underlined university integration processes as the priority in reaching current European standards,based on the fact that “the sumof the faculties”developing behind closed doors is very muchin contrast toanefficient university able tomanage its overall potential. The mobil- ity of students and staff within universities is restricted in sucha structure,limit- ing the flexibility of the curriculaand interdisciplinary approach tobotheduca- tion and research. Information flow between “units”is very limited,common services arehard toorganiseand administrative staff areinefficiently used (with duplicated “units”at all the faculties). Even if the provisionalUniversity Law did nothing toencourage university inte- gration,it did not forbid it either.It provided some “free” space whichcould be used toadapt university statutes accordingly if there was enough motivation and energy behind this. 77 For example, the University of NoviSadhas used the “free space” toinitiateits integration processes (StatuteofUNS, July 2002)by introducing various univer- sity bodies and by promoting common standards,procedures and services.The internalquality management system was outlined, together with the draft strate- gicplan, whichdefined objectives,ongoing strategies and anaction plan. The agreement on some common funds was reached, witha small but still promising budget for some common activities.Although some results areobvious,particu- larly in implementing new approaches tocurricula reforms,ECTS and teaching quality standards, thereare still many obstacles for establishing the university management in the full senseof the word; not tomention the lackof university funds and an undeveloped information system, whichlimits information flow within the institution. Furthermore, the need for trained and professionaladmin- istrators capable of providing the core university functions is evident. Alot of energy has tobe spent in order to reachaconsensus about integration processes even though awareness of the need tochange is high in the academic community.Thereis still strong opposition from faculties as this not only affects faculty administration but alsoincome channelling. As aheritage of self- ______76.EUAevaluation report,University of NoviSad, 2003. 77.The University report on the SalzburgSeminar visiting advisory programme,University of Novi Sad, 2004.

186 Case studies management systems, whichexisted for along time in our political system,one has toconvince the majority about the advantages of anintegrated system,being aware that the small “kingdoms”ondifferent levels mainly do not see beyond their owninterest within quitenarrow limits.Bringing to the forefront the “broad- er picture” and developing a vision of the institution as the whole is still agreat challenge for university managements. The conference“Higher education in Serbiaon the road toEurope –four years later” 78 held in Belgrade in September 2004,gaveanoverview of the reform processes at the universities in Serbia.Examples of good practicefrom all the state universities werepresented, together withananalysis of the overall process presented by the former rectors and anoutline of the strategy stated by newly elected rectors.Besides curricula reforms,being the focus of most of the presen- tations, the development of aquality management system,bothnationaland insti- tutional,and anew approach to the university governanceand managerial struc- tures wereoutlined among the priorities.It was underlined that anew legalframe- work was aprerequisitefor further coherent development of the whole higher education system.

4. Development of anew legalframework At the beginning of 2003, the NationalHE Council appointed acommittee topre- pare the concept of the new HE Law, which was finished and accepted in July 2003.The concept offered integration of the university as aprerequisiteand a frameworkfor aninsight intofurther institutionaldevelopment.The new HE Law was drafted in September 2003,initiating broaddiscussion in the academic sec- tor,especially concerning the degree of integration, the relation between univer- sity and faculties, the level of organisationaland managerialindependenceoffac- ulties, the status of students and professors within the university, the financialflow at university level and financialindependenceoffaculties.Gradualfunctional integration of universities was finally envisioned as a sustainable solution,leaving enough space within the legalframeworkfor individual university management structures for each university.Integrativefunctions weredefined concerning quality assurance, strategicplanning,employment and enrolment policy,final decision on curricula, internationalco-operation,common standards for services, information systems,and capitalinvestments. The proposalof the HE Law was passed to the NationalAssembly in May 2005, but then postponed for the later session (more than100 amendments were sub- mitted) and adopted in September 2005. The basicconcept remained,even with some changes brought about by the amendments.The HE Law is generally in accordance withEuropeandevelopments and the intentions of the Bologna Process,as aframeworkfor the whole HE system (stateand privateinstitutions; academicand applied studies)introducing: •the three-tier study system based on ECTS; ______78. “Higher education in Serbiaon the road toEurope –four years later”,UNESCO Chair for University Management,AAEN and Association of SerbianUniversities,Belgrade, 2005(digest in English).

187 Higher education governance

•quality assuranceand accreditation on anationallevel (independent Accreditation Committee); •a nationalHE expert institution (NationalCouncil for HE)developing the overall HE policy and quality standards; •a student parliament as student representativebody and student participation in decision making. The new approach to the governanceand management of universities is promoted by integrativefunctions of the universities defined by the law,as mentioned before, but still keeping legalentities for the faculties.Financing of the public university sector is only generally outlined (based on publicfunds and a university’s/faculty’s ownfunds derived from revenues from both teaching and research). The HE Law,defining the overall frameworkof the system,opens the spacefor internal regulations within the University Statuteinmany aspects,offering the possibility for eachinstitution (within the broad spectraof HE institutions differ- ing in size, stage of development and structure) todefine its own strategy and searchfor the optimal specific solutions.The detailed regulations concerning uni- versity organisation and internal structure, the institutionalgovernanceand the managerialbodies, the study system, the internalquality management standards and procedures,promotion standards and procedures areexpected tobedeter- mined by the University Statute. The University Statuteis defined as aframework for the whole institution, the faculties being obliged toadopt their own regula- tions/statutes in accordance with the solutions agreed upon at university level. The comprehensive workonanew University Statutehas tobefinished within the year, sincea two-year period has been defined for the overall transformation of the HE system.

5. The University of NoviSad– some initiatives and experiences The University of NoviSad, searching for the optimalorganisationaland manage- ment profile through learning from good practiceand experiences,initiated the TEMPUS project “Integration through internalagreement”. Inco-operation with Serbian state universities, the project is orientated towards shaping the institutional profile, structureand processes, within the new legalframework, towards amodern and efficient scientific-educationalframework within and across the fields.The proposalofanoverall organisationaland managerial structureof the institution is expected tobeone of the project outcomes,leaving the moredetailed regulations to the university statutes according to the specificneeds of eachinstitution. The University of NoviSad,at the level of the Autonomous ProvinceofVojvodina and its government,alsoinitiated workona strategicpaper concerning higher education development.The shift from a state-controlled toa state-supervised model of university is seen as one of the possibilities in establishing amodern, efficient,accountable and probably moreentrepreneurial university. 79 ______79. Initial report on the higher education performances/basis for strategicpolicy,Government of Autonomous ProvinceofVojvodina, 2004.

188 Case studies

Therearemany serious policy challenges to the University of NoviSad which simply cannot bedealt withadequately without some purposiveintegration of key elements of the university; these werementioned by externaladvisers: 77 •coherent response to the BolognaProcess; •common approaches toquality assuranceand accreditation; •lifelong learning; •responding to society’s needs for R&D, services connected to regionaldevel- opment,etc.; •providing support for both weakand strong academicareas in a strategic framework. The wider objectiveofintegration is to support university reforms as a result of aninternalagreement in order to strengthen the ideaof the university as aninte- gralacademicplaceand tolink them witheconomicand socialprocesses.It includes restoration and permanent maintenanceofquality of communication between constituent units,prevention of parallel tracks of evolution and amulti- plicity of disciplinary sectionalinterests and identities,development of the uni- versity databaseand the university management information system,develop- ment of acultureofintegration and integration of student organisations. 77 The University of NoviSadand its leadership attempt todealcreatively with many of the issues mentioned. Results cannot beguaranteed,but sofar the devel- opments arepromising. The workon the new University Statutehas started with the initialconsensus tobroaden the spacefor decision making at university level, identifying the areas in which thereis high agreement of all the constitutive units/faculties for integration:internalquality standards in both teaching and research,introduction of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary curriculaand researchprojects,capitalinvestments in researchinfrastructure,information sys- tem,internationalco-operation and mobility.

189

The actors in higher education governance– The caseofUludag˘ University ErdalEmel

1. Introduction The case study of Uludag˘University (UU) starts withanew rector’s first termin officebeginning in August 2000 in a 25-year-old, rather young and mainly a teaching-focused university withalow profile in research,dispersed institutional goals and poor community relations. On the eveofanew millennium, when the expectations of anation towards its institutions tocarry it forwardintoanew competitiveeraare well above what thoseinstitutions canpresently offer,naturally the institutions’managers felt the pressure tomake every rationalmove tochange their institutions to respond to the needs of a rapidly changing society. But,how does one change a university with2 000 academic staff and 40 000 stu- dents in just afour-year management term,achieving enough progress toensure that change for the better will beinstitutionalised? Thanks to the new rector, answers wereprovided long beforehis termcommenced and after his appoint- ment by the President of the Republicit was time for action. His appointment was not down tomereluck,but was a rewardfollowing a well-designed campaign for selection by academic staff withanoverwhelming number of votes.His campaign focused upon the need for UU tochange and he askedfor the support of staff to respond to this need. Later,in critical senatemeetings,he would recall this campaign focus and the votes he received,in order to smoothly pass the bylaws for the most demanding quality improvement measures at UU.Afew months intohis office, the new rec- tor’s style of management showed itself tobeof the leadership type, sincehe undertook the change process in a reformist way.By 2001, the terminology of educationaland research reforms was introduced tointernaland externalcon- stituents at various meetings.Later,educational reformwas split into two: under- graduate(first-tier)degree programmes and graduate(second- and third-tier) degree programmes.On the other hand, research reform was by no coincidence tobeintensified in a second stage of educational reforms of graduatedegrees. As the first step of the conceptualbasis for UU’s self-evaluation and improvement efforts,institutionaland departmental vision and mission statements,objectives and outcomes had tobedefined. The UU’s mission statement has been the most important factor for the crystallisation of the following structure representing a philosophy of continuous improvement.

191 Higher education governance

Figure1–Conceptualbasis of UU activities How do the “quality culture” and “improvement initiatives”pillars support the building in Figure1? •The structurehas abaseon whichall academicand administrative routine activities take placeand without which the building cannot stand up. These activities haveexisted since the establishment of UU. •Above the base, the building consists of twofloors.The first floor is made up of activities whichfall within the scope of educational reform . •The second floor is whereactivities regarding the research reform take place. The research reform is placed on top of educational reform due to the prior- ities set in the mission of UU. •Both educational and research reforms canonly be supported by a quality culture environment and capability improvement initiatives within the uni- versity.Both thesecolumns of activities need tobecontinued with strong emphasis as long as the reforms areongoing. •The common goalfor all the university’s programme activities,in finalising their reformefforts,consists of reaching the level of one of the best univer- sities in Turkey as the minimum satisfactory level. This will beproved toall internaland externalconstituents through the available accreditation proce- dures at the time. •The accreditation stage will befollowed by ongoing work, tocontinuously improveall activities of UU in order toachievealevel set by the new visions of the university.

192 Case studies

In this paper, the main pillar of reformist efforts,namely the quality culture set- ting will bediscussed,but from the perspectives of those who are the actors in these reforms.For the sake of clarity, the actors in UU reforms aredefined first and then their actions are related as achronology of events.

2.Definition of actors a.Governing bodies The Higher Education Council (HEC)is anautonomous body withjuristicper- sonality whichgoverns all higher education and directs the activities of the insti- tutions of higher education. The members of the Council arenominated by the government and the Inter-university Council and finally selected and approved by the President of the Republic. The Inter-university Council consists of the university rectors and one professor from each university selected by their senates.The Minister of National Education and the President of the Council of Higher Education may preside at the Board’s meetings if they deem it necessary; otherwise, the rectors act as the chairperson of the Inter-university Boardin turnand consecutively for a termof one year. b.University senior leadership

Empowered by the Higher Education Act 80 (HEA)of1981 as the representative of the juristicpersonality of the university,a rector is invested with the final authority on all financialand human resource related matters.Rectors are appointed for up to twofour-year terms by the President of the Republicfrom among the professor candidates proposed by the HEC after a selection by the aca- demic staff of the university. As set out in the HEA, three vice-rectors are selected and commissioned by the rector from among the university’s salaried professors for five-year terms. Without being determined by the HEA, the rectors canfurther select and appoint rector’s counsellors from among the university’s salaried professors in order to easeoff the workloadof vice-rectors. The dean, who is directly responsible to the rector for the rational utilisation and improvement of the first-tier educationalpotentialofafaculty and its units,is appointed by the HEC from among three professors nominated by the rector.The deancan servefor a three-year term. When his/her termofofficeexpires adean may be re-appointed. Graduate school directors who aredirectly appointed by the rector for a three-year term withapossibility for re-appointment,are responsible for regulating the sec- ond- and third-tier degree studies runby the departments usually located under faculties. ______80.http://www.uludag.edu.tr/english/Q1.htm#_Toc39392096

193 Higher education governance

Under the chairmanship of the rector, the senateconsists of the vice-rectors, the deans of eachfaculty,amember of the teaching staff elected for a termof three years by the respectivefaculty boardand the directors of graduate schools and vocational schools attached to the officeof the rector.The senateis the universi- ty’s highest organ responsible for academicactivities and for issuing bylaws. The university has administrativeboards of various capacities at the university, faculty and school levels mainly toadminister the implementation of the HEA and bylaws of the university. c.Committees Compared to the legalframework set forthby the HEA for the previously defined actors, senior leadership may need the involvement of moreacademic staff into the processes of academicplanning and regulation tobetter utilise the intellectu- al resources of a university.Based on this reasoning, the following groups have been established at UU as from the year 2000:Deans Council,University Accreditation Committee (UAC) withaffiliated accreditation subcommittees at faculty and department levels,University StrategicPlanning Committee (USPC) withaffiliated strategicplanning taskcommittees at faculty or department levels, Student Affairs ExecutiveCommittee,Uludag˘University-EuropeanUniversity Association Relations Committee (UU-EUARC),GraduateStudies Restructuring Committee (GSRC),etc. d. Academic staff Assistant professors,associateprofessors and professors are teaching staff who carry out education and practical studies at three-tier levels in universities in line with the purposeand objectives of the HEA.They also undertake scientificand scholarly researchfor publication. Instructors and lecturers arealso teaching staff but limited tofirst-tier studies. Researchassistants and specialists areancillary staff members who assist with research, studies,and experiments in higher education institutions,as well as car- rying out other duties assigned by authorised bodies. e. Students Higher education,for whichafee is charged,is organised in accordance with the HEA as a three-tier system:beginning witha two-year pre-baccalaureateand/or four-year baccalaureate with some exceptions (for example,medical schools). Students areadmitted toinstitutions of higher education by means of anation- wide examination prepared in accordance withprovisions specified by the HEC. Post-baccalaureate/post-graduateor second- and third-tier degree students are selected by examinations conducted individually by higher education institutions from among those university graduates who wish to study for amaster’s or doc- toratedegree,or for a specialisation in afield of medicine,according toprinci- ples determined by the Inter-university Board.

194 Case studies f. Externalconstituents (alumni,employers) As part of the requirement for continuous programme improvement and the understanding of quality management of UU,although not required by the HEA, external(alumni/employers)advisory committees at faculty and/or departmental level wereestablished. The aim of thesecommittees is toevaluate the targets and the outputs of the three-tier educationalprogrammes that the faculty/department runs and toimprove the quality of education.

3.Actors in the reforms a.Stage 1ofeducational reforms:undergraduateeducation The principle structureestablished tomanage and support the quality framework at UU is based around UAC, USPC, UU-EUARC and GSRC, all of which work closely with the senate. The enormous taskofdeveloping and maintaining aqual- ity cultureenvironment together withaneffectivequality management system has totally occupied the agendaof the UU since 2001. The greatest strengthofUU in this regardis its determined senior leadership joined withenthusiasticacademic staff members who are willing tocontribute to the quality improvement of education. As afirst stage towards the establishment of aquality management system and the creation of quality consciousness within the university, the rector has first con- ducted anacademic staff survey.The views and comments of staff on academic quality at UU werecollected. Since the results of the survey revealed ahigh level of support for the implementation of aquality management system at UU, the rec- tor then established a steering committee (UAC)inApril 2001 todesign and facil- itate the quality frameworkas well as tocreateanawareness of quality culture throughout the institution. UACprepared the UU Accreditation Handbook as a first taskand the rector introduced the requirements contained in the handbook to all academic staff at meetings organised in eachfaculty.Simultaneously,faculty and department accreditation subcommittees wereestablished as standing pro- gramme committees whichare responsible for the yearly improvement of the teaching programmes in co-ordination withUAC.Accreditation subcommittees alsofulfil the need for aninternalfeedbackchannel toensure two-way communi- cation between UACand all academic staff within the faculties and departments, and thus involving all the members within the institution into the quality manage- ment processes.Furthermore,concerning discussions on some demanding or con- troversialimplementation issues, the rector was invited toUACmeetings toarrive at afinaldecision. Suchdecisions by the UAC, withanattached covering letter from the rector, were welcomed by the academic staff. Usually, the academic staff responded to the demands of the UAC with respect, knowing that the burden of the change process was evenly distributed and that it was for agood cause,namely the improvement of UU.Yet, the senior leadership never forced the staff blindfold beyond the limits of their time and effort.The fol- lowing steps werepart of the overall change process:

195 Higher education governance

•benchmarking Bachelor and Masters programmes at UU withnationally and internationally acknowledged programmes (November 2000-June 2001); •the introduction of anECTS-compatible accumulativecredit system for all of its undergraduateand graduatecurricula(July 2001); •dualdegrees and options areavailable between programmes (July 2001); •the introduction of Englishcourses in some programmes (September 2001); •the introduction of aT-scorebased RelativeStudent Assessment Method (September 2001); •the systematicdocumentation including curriculum,coursecontents and ECTS credits in all the departments with undergraduateprogrammes (March 2002); •the preparations necessary for providing the diploma supplement for each programme (March 2002); •the definition of objectives and outcomes for all the programmes and cours- es,prepared coursefiles including examples of student portfolios and criti- cal reviews of lectures with suggestions for their improvement (March 2003). UU believes that student feedbackis akey,and increasingly important,aspect of the steps taken. Therefore,preparation of Student CourseEvaluation Questionnaires wereamong the first efforts of UAC.A student evaluation process was initiated centrally in 2002 and is regularly applied at the end of each semes- ter in all first-tier educationalprogrammes since then. The qualitativedata derived from thesequestionnaires arecirculated toall courseorganisers with the intention that courseorganisers canmake appropriatechanges to their courses and make thesechanges known to the students so that they canappreciate the valueof this feedbackprocess.However, right from the beginning, this process was not fully functionaldue to the senior leadership’s looseattitude based on the fact that the results of student surveys many times revealed that students’action may bebiased. UU has seriously discussed other alternatives for feedback such as using student representatives or holding class meetings toidentify issues of great concern to students,or request eachclass to submit reports delineating their problems in aprocess of continuous quality improvement, together with the involvement of student representatives in the senateafter the recent decree of HEC.Student coursecounselling provided by academic staff is considered tobe afurther sourceoffeedbackfor decisions related tocurriculumimprovement. UU endeavours tokeep in contact withits alumni and representatives of trade, industry,NGOs and ministries as they area useful sourceof support and feed- back. In this regard,UUhas established “externaladvisory boards”consisting of employers for all of its programmes.Moreover,“alumni boards” wereestablished withaframeworkofguidelines prepared by UAC that would promote the effi- ciency of this mutual relationship,and around 500 representatives on two types of boards meet together withacademic staff twicea year tocontribute to the con- tinuous improvement of undergraduateand graduateprogrammes.

196 Case studies

The second stage of the quality management system focused on strategicplan- ning toall university units and functions,including a top-downand bottom-up approach. Vision,mission,SWOTanalysis,objectives,priorities,action plans needed tobeprepared for UU as a single institution and alsofor every academic unit in relation to the university.Tohandle this multifaceted taskUSPC was established with 60 members and with subcommittees of at least three members in eachacademic unit.It was intended that the USPC should act as devil’s advo- cateas well as think-tank for the development of a vision for the university.The proposals formulated by this committee were subject to senateapproval. Inclose connection withUACand its subcommittees in academic units,almost half the totalacademic staff of UU was involved in the process.As afirst taskUSPC issued aStrategicPlanning Handbook tobefollowed during the whole process. During the years 2002 to 2003, the institutionalplanning process took upabout six months during whichUSPC hadmeetings almost non-stop for days.The meetings werebroadcast liveonintranet TV in order toget the involvement of all internalconstituents.Also, the interim reports, surveys for staff and students were published and distributed for feedback. During the strategicplanning process, the senior management used the EUA InstitutionalEvaluation Programme and Quality CultureProject as a tool tomoti- vateall constituents to workfor a strong institutionalimage. The rector used many occasions toconvey this message toacademiccouncils in a very effective way by alsopromising his dedication toalong-termprioritised development plan. Therefore,as amember of this institution,it was inevitable that everyone should participatein this process as part of their personal responsibility. Round Iof the EUAQuality CultureProject included UU as aparticipating institu- tion on a specific theme:“Network4:Implementing Bologna reforms”(EUA, 2002-03). As apart of the project UU established a special taskforce,UU-EUARC, toguide and represent the university in the project meetings and also topreparefor the EUAInstitutionalReview Programme (launched in 1994) .During the course of theseEUA-related activities,a young dynamicacademic teamoffive UU-EUARC members provided agreat impetus for senior leadership (primarily for the rector) regarding the elaboration of institutional self-evaluation (EUA, 2003a). In the spring of 2003,educational reform-related activities reached apeakcoin- ciding with visits by the EUAInstitutionalReview Programme and the finalnet- work4 report of the EUAQuality CultureProject promoting UU as agood exam- ple of the implementation of Bologna reforms.It was amemorable series of actions concerning not only staff and students but alsoall the externalcon- stituents, since the requirements of the quality management system forced every- body tobecome knowledgeable about it and tobeactive so that a realchange could take place. Senior management organised numerous seminars and meetings of all constituents during which the seeds of quality culture were sown. Stage 1ofeducational reformcame toanend with the oral report of the findings of the EUAReview TeaminJune 2003 (EUA, 2003b). Presented beforeanaudience of 300 UU academic staff members, the Review Teamleader announced that among

197 Higher education governance the 80 universities all over Europe whichhadparticipated over the past ten years in the InstitutionalReview Programme,comparing the universities with regard tohow strong their capacity for change was, the answer for UU was that “thereis really a strong performanceof this university tobe seen in operating this process of change” and the review team would rank the UU in first place,if it werecourageous enough. The audienceburst into tears of pride; this announcement was a well-deserved prize for all the efforts made by all academic staff over the past three years. b.Stage 2 of educational reform(graduateeducation) and research reform Stage 1ofeducational reformcame toanend by the summer of 2003, since staff needed abreakfrom the ongoing demands of senior management.Also the rec- tor felt that it was about the right time for staff toabsorb the ongoing changes.So, almost a year would pass without any new changes in the educationaland research-based activities of the university until the rector’s second termofoffice. Meanwhile, the review report of the EUAInstitutionalReview Programme and the final report of the EUAQuality CultureProject wereprinted and distributed widely,not only in UU but alsoin the country.Localmediacovered the positive reviews regarding the university; on severaloccasions senior leadership used the opportunities to speakonlocaland nationwide TV channels.All of thesehada great impact on other universities in the country.The rector gavepresentations at the Higher Education Council and the Inter-university Boardand suddenly requests for quality management counselling from other universities werepour- ing into the senior leadership of UU.UU has responded positively many times to these requests considering the fact that it hadalready been declared agood exam- ple to young universities of Europe anyway. From summer 2003 to summer 2004,UU shared the pride of thesedevelopments withall constituents.Certainly, thesebrought more responsibility for UU staff to sincerely adapt toalready implemented reforms.Meanwhile, student question- naires,externaladvisory boardmeetings,and educationalprogramme improve- ments werebeing effectively administered by UAC. By the summer of 2004, the rector’s term was over and the academic staff had to nominateanew rector.After all the high impact profile activities and deeply felt reformprocesses,academic staff nominated the same rector for a second term witha recordnumber of votes even in this country.The President of the Republic hadnodifficulty re-appointing him for a second term. It was already known that the second term would emphasise the reforms in researchand graduateprogrammes.Soby September 2004,aGraduateStudies Restructuring Committee consisting of 50 members was established to review the masters level and doctoratelevel educationalprogrammes.Entry and exit condi- tions and requirements for supervising diploma theses would be redefined. The rector was very cautious knowing from his first term that UU professors are very sensitive to theseissues, sincegraduate students are the coreof their research activities.Any restrictions on graduate studies would beconsidered tobeadirect threat to their interests.

198 Case studies

However,for twomain reasons the rector decided toimposeanimprovement process at this stage:firstly,acriticismof the defects of amasters level pro- gramme was brought upby aUU student at anationalquality congress, right at the moment when the rector was presenting UU’s case; secondly,based on the fact that at the beginning of the research reform, when UU senior leadership had increased ten-fold the internal resources for researchfunding,it was expected that scientificpublication performance would alsoincrease. But it is known that for any researchactivity,it is the quality of the researchers (graduate student and pro- fessors) whichcontributes more toperformance than the funding. From 2004 to 2005, the by-laws of graduate studies,academic staff appointment and graduate supervision rules werechanged by the GSRC and approved by the senate. Performance-based appointments wereemphasised in every decision made. Certainly, thesedecisions werehardonmany academic staff,involving assistants,and may often havehadpersonalimplications. Animportant part of UU’s understanding of quality control is the monitoring and improvement of individualfaculty members.Quality monitoring and assessment is carried out at three different points in time. Firstly, when he/she is recruited; secondly when he/she is promoted toanassociateprofessorialposition; and third- ly when he/she is upfor promotion tobeafull professor.Different sets of crite- riaare tobe used at each step. Common tomany universities, thereappears tobea strong senseof‘academic freedom’ and ‘individualism’ in the concept of teaching at UU, whichmakes it difficult todevelop among the academic staff the type of communication,co-ordi- nation,and co-operation required toimprove the curricula, teaching methods,and ultimately student learning. The rapid growthofacademicknowledge,increased specialisation,and growing competition in research,haveinevitably contributed to the making of this academic‘individualism’ in teaching. Anacademicquality assurancemechanismmust thereforebedesigned toprovide a starting point that would overcome this predicament and improve the transparency of teaching and research without necessarily undervaluing the academicfreedom of teaching staff. The rector was keen to respect the legitimatedemands for minor changes to the by-laws,but many times responded withfirmdecisiveness topersonalinterests in the name of institutionalinterests.It is obvious that the second stage of reforms has created hardships and the positive results of thesechanges have yet tobe seen. The rector considers that hardships canbedissolved during the courseofhis term. As part of the periodic review process, the implications of thesechanges will be evaluated in 2007; if the performanceindicators arenot as expected, thereis still one more year tocounteract this before the end of his termin 2008. Rectors canonly servefor two terms due to the provisions of the HEA.UU has yet to see its new rector candidates and their campaign slogan. Thereareonly two options available for UU for the next governance termbeginning in 2008: the first one is todecisively continue with the reforms,institutionalise the quality man- agement system and stabilise the quality culture; however, the second one would beanenvironment of uncertainty probably focused on self or groupinterests. The futureis yet tobe resolved.

199 Higher education governance

References “EUAReport on the Quality CultureProject,Round I(2002-2003):Developing anInternalQuality CultureinEuropeanUniversities,”at: www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/QC1_full.1111487662479.pdf. Last accessed:11 November 2005. “EUAInstitutionalEvaluation Programme”,at: www.eua.be/eua/en/member- ship_evaluation.jspx.Last accessed:11 November 2005. “EUAInstitutionalEvaluation Programme:Self Evaluation Report of Uludag˘ University”, 2003a, at:http://intoffice.uludag.edu.tr/irp_eng.htm. Last accessed: 11 November 2005. “EUAInstitutionalEvaluation Programme:Review TeamReport for Uludag˘ University”, 2003b, at:http://intoffice.uludag.edu.tr/irp_rtr_eng.htm. Last accessed:11 November 2005.

200 Conclusions and outlook

General report MartinaVukasovic `

1. Introduction It seems that welivein the age of aglobalquest for better governance. Whether it is the preparation for apossible birdflu pandemic, allocation of resources toa nation’s education budget, steering alocalcompany or repairing a street in the town–it is understood that these tasks need tobedone in the most efficient and effective way, that decisions need tobelegitimateand reached in ademocratic and transparent manner.Some would argue that our particular age is markedby the New-Public-Management-speak, while others,less faithful to the managerial approach, would demand a‘New PublicService’. On the other hand, wemight not bedoing anything new.It could beargued that, throughout history,mankind has always been, toone extent or the other, troubled by the searchfor moreefficient and moredemocraticmodes of governance,even though the understanding of the terms “efficiency”and “democracy”is continu- ously developing, together with the understanding of “governance”. Whatever the casemay be–higher education cannot escape this trend. Institutions themselves,as well as various actors in higher education governance arediscussing whether or not their present modes of higher education governance are suitable for what they are trying toachieveand whether they areanadequate response to the changing conditions in whichhigher education operates and indeed,if they need tobemoreproactive. Furthermore,it would behard tofind acountry in the world in whicheveryone is completely satisfied as tohow high- er education is steered at system level. Therearechanges being planned or imple- mented in certain parts of the system almost everywherein the world. Some countries areon the verge or in the midst of major system restructuring. However, the issueofgovernanceinhigher education has not yet been fully dis- cussed at internationallevel. The topicof governanceis usually present as a shad- ow in the discussions of other changes taking place, suchas curriculumdevelop- ment, student mobility,quality assurance,etc.Hereit would be relevant to stress that this refers primarily to the so-called politicalhigher education community,or, toput this in other terms, stakeholders in higher education (however they are defined in different nationalcontexts). Educational researchhas offered some academicinsight into the topic, whichis presented bothin the literature survey and in some of the other contributions to the conference. However, the goalhere is not tobeeither extremely politicaland interest orientated or extremely aca- demicand theory orientated. The goalis to try tomapout at least apart of the intricatefabricof the governancedebate, to try to understand how the governance

203 Higher education governance of higher education is related to the changing conditions for higher education and changes in the overall society and to try toagree on some of the basicprinciples of good governance. Therefore, we should bebothacademicand political toacer- tain extent and try tomerge the better of the two worlds and discard the interest focus of one and sometimes a very disinterested view of the other. It also seems that it is aparticularly good time todiscuss suchanissue under the roof of the Council of Europe. The year 2005is proclaimed “EuropeanYear of Citizenship through Education” (EYCE), whichprovides more visibility to the discussion on higher education governanceand puts the topicin the larger con- text of societaldevelopment.One should look intohow education as a whole con- tributes to the establishment of democratic structures,but even moreimportantly, democraticculture–bothin the wider society,as well as within our institutions involved in education. Therefore, the discussion around higher education gover- nance should alsobear thesequestions in mind:What is the role of education in contributing to the development of citizens who take pride in their activities in the civic society and who cherish the values of democracy,human rights and the rule of law?What is the role of higher education in the same endeavour? Furthermore,it also seems that wehave reached apoint in the process of the cre- ation of the EuropeanHigher Education Area(EHEA)in whichit seems that there is afairly clear idea what changes arenecessary toachieve the goals of the BolognaProcess.Whether they will beachieved or not in the designated time- frame and in the planned way remains tobe seen,but that is yet another aspect of governanceofhigher education, this time on intergovernmental, supranational and internationallevels,depending whether the focus is on the role of national ministries,Europeaninstitutions or internationalco-operation between higher education institutions.Inmost cases,although this may differ depending on the depthof the analysis, the planning phaseis over.The question no longer is “what” but “how”. And this is where the issueofgovernancecomes to the forefront.

2.Complexity of the topic The topicof governanceofhigher education is highly complex.The working party of the Council of Europe was faced with this complexity as it tried toestab- lish some borders around the topicand some grid within the topic tofacilitate the discussion and ensure the relevanceand usefulness of the conferenceand the con- clusions,as well as the recommendations of the project as a whole. It was quite aninteresting journey in making the fluffy,intangible and somewhat intimidating topicof higher education governanceinto something that canbeaddressed in a short time by numerous participants withdiverseprofessionalbackgrounds and nationalcontexts. This complexity is reflected in at least two ways. The obvious one relates to the termofgovernanceitself. The results of the trans- lation exerciseof the termgovernancein the various languages and cultures reflect this more vividly thancould beexplained in this report.However,it would be worthpointing out that:

204 Conclusions and outlook

•thereareas many as eight different possibilities for translation of the term “governance” in some languages; •in most languages the translations areclosely related to the terms “steering”, “management”,“government”or “decision making”; •in all theselanguages it is implicit that the translation does not fully grasp the content of the English term“governance”; and •it would beinteresting toanalyse the culturaland societal roots of some of the translations,especially in languages whereonly one understanding is offered (as is the casein,for example,ex-Yugoslav languages where“governance” is understood as “management”or “steering” and not somuchas “democratic decision making”). Even though we will not take the Englishexplanation of governanceas the only trueone, the exerciseof translating the terminto the nationallanguages and indeed nationalcontexts showed very clearly that thereis aninherent danger of misinterpretation, superfluous or misleading understanding of concepts and we have tobeawareof thosein the discussions.While acertain ambiguity of termi- nology may bepolitically justifiable,as all would beable tointerpret it in the way that best suits their needs, too muchfreedom in interpretation will lead toincon- sistencies and incompatibility, whichmay prove tobedetrimentalfor other aspects of internationalco-operation in higher education. Wecannot offer a simple, understandable definition of higher education gover- nance, which would beconstructed in sucha way as tocapturedifferent cultural understandings of the notions suchas “participation”,“democracy”,“legitima- cy”,“transparency”,etc.Professor Kohler in his paper offers adefinition of the term. But he alsomakes anoteofcaution himself by offering “anapproximate definition” and using such words as “may bedefined as”. And the definition is far from simple,it does encompass the various facets of the term,but,as the essenceof the concept is not simple, the definition is far from simple. So,is it realistically possible tograsp suchacomplex topicand present it in one sentence? Is it possible tomake sure that this one sentence will be understood properly by actors coming from different fields,different culturalbackgrounds and different sources of interest in the topic?The answer seems tobe“No”. However,it may be wise todwell alittle on what governanceis not and tackle some of the frequent misconceptions of the concept of governanceofhigher edu- cation, whichare used and sometimes abused by various stakeholders. First of all,it is important to stress that governancedoes not equalmanagement. Thereare various attempts to reducegovernance toonly management,and toneg- lect the fact that management is yet but apart of the governanceprocess,and,in a way,afinal stage of amorecomplex activity.Governance should be understood as aprocess of setting long-termgoals and establishing strategies for reaching thesegoals.Management refers to the process of implementation of thesedeci- sions, the day-to-day activities (not only limited todecision making) ensuring the achievement of the aforementioned strategies and goals.The distinction is

205 Higher education governance illustrated alsoin the request voiced at the conferencefor adivision of tasks of governanceand management between the competent and legitimategovernance bodies on the one side and aprofessionaladministration on the other. It is alsoimportant to underscore that we should beextracareful tokeep in mind that wearenot discussing governanceper se. Wehave to remember that weare discussing governanceofhigher education. And that this means that the gover- nanceofhigher education should reflect the complexity and multiplicity of pur- poses and missions of higher education. The multiplicity of purposes:preparation for the labour market,preparation for activecitizenship,personaldevelopment and advancement of knowledge,is coupled with the multiplicity of values.We havehearddifferent stakeholders focusing on different aspects of higher educa- tion and attributing slightly different priorities to the values of: •competence, •equality (achieving socialcohesion), •liberty (autonomy and even more soacademicfreedom –freedom to teach, freedom tolearnand freedom to research) and •what in the literatureis sometimes referred toas loyalty –but whichincludes the demand from higher education tobemore responsive to the needs of the society. Now,having in mind the complexity of purposes and the complexity of values related tohigher education,as well as the different nationalcontexts and circum- stances in whichhigher education institutions operate,Ibelieve that Burton Clark in his famous book The higher education system:Academicorganisation in a cross-nationalperspective whichis also referred toin the literature survey, was right topoint out that: Any sensible administrator asked toconfront directly and to reconcile these… orientations would undoubtedly seek other employment. This does not of coursemean that most of the people reading the proceedings from the conference should “go seek other employment”. This serves to reiterateanoth- er point –governanceofhigher education must take intoaccount the complexity of the tasks of higher education,it must take intoaccount the diversity of contexts in whichhigher education takes placeand it must take intoaccount the diversity of actors in higher education and stakeholders who haveaninterest in it.This may well be the most important reason for saying that thereis no “one-size-fits-all” model of governance,neither at the system nor at the institutionallevel. The prac- ticeofcopy-pasting solutions from other countries will not workinhigher educa- tion,if it actually works anywhereelse. Furthermore,copy-pasting from one time toanother may not be the best strategy either.Any discussion of higher education governanceand policy development connected to this has to take intoaccount “the outer world” – the context in whichhigher education exists.On the basis of that, the best one candois tooffer some basicprinciples of good governance.

206 Conclusions and outlook

3.Changing context for higher education and impact on governance Most of the researchinhigher education stresses that change is seldom fast and linear.Higher education is moreanorganism that evolves than something inclined towards revolutionary changes.Inaddition, when change is planned,it very rarely turns out exactly as it was planned. Thereareinterpretations of goals and objectives and thereare too many actors toallow for a straightforwardimple- mentation. Furthermore, the present higher education institutions bear bothold and new marks and it seems that, under the modern structureand terminology lies muchof the old traditions,attitudes and understandings.In this respect, some of the presenters and participants in the panel debate were right topoint out that the present modes of governancedonot reflect entirely the present context of higher education,but are rather a remnant of a time in whichhigher education was less massive,less diverseand further removed from society.As higher education moves from being aprivilege, through being a right, tobecoming anecessity for successfullife and employment, the spectrumof thoseinterested in how higher education actually operates becomes wider.Therearenew stakes in higher edu- cation and thus new stakeholders.They need new models of learning and new methods of teaching. New patterns of researcharebeing established and likewise new balances between pureand applied,new partnerships between higher educa- tion institutions and industry forged. Therearenew and stronger demands for higher education tobecome moreinvolved in solving societalproblems, whether they refer toindustrialdevelopment,ecologicalissues or reconciliation between different ethnicor religious groups.Thereis,on the other hand,aninterest (which may stem from anecessity for additional resources)on the side of higher educa- tion institutions toopen their doors to society muchmore, sometimes even more thanis necessary or desirable. All thesechanges then imply discussions on both who should governhigher education,and how,as well as on the notions of auton- omy,legitimacy,participation and democracy. When it comes to the new stakeholders in higher education – they haveemerged together with the new demands from higher education. The demand for higher education tobemore responsive to the needs of the outside world means that, apart from the internal stakeholders (that is, the usual suspects suchas students, teachers,other staff and sometimes the government as afounder and owner of publicinstitutions), thereis aneed toinclude external stakeholders in the gover- nanceofhigher education,including,but not limited to, representatives of the business and civic sector,localand/or regionalauthorities,etc.Thus,adequate mechanisms of involvement of theseexternal stakeholders,bothat the level of the institution and at the level of the whole system, should beput in place. However, the creation of adequatemodels depends on the contexts,cultures and the ration- ale of involving the external stakeholders and again therecanbeno“one-size- fits-all” model. With the advent of mass higher education and in some countries almost universal higher education, thereis anincreasing number of thoseparticipating in higher education,increasing diversity of their backgrounds and increasing diversity of the ways that the tasks of teaching and researcharebeing conducted in higher

207 Higher education governance education, whichis also somewhat changing the roles of those who teachand those who research. The fact that wenow haveahigh number of students from non-traditionalbackgrounds,non-traditionalinage,in origin as well as in educa- tion prior tohigher education,imposes new challenges on governance structures. The demand for flexible learning paths in itself,clearly stated in the Bergen Communiqué,includes ademand for structures and procedures which will sup- port flexibility in learning. New actors in higher education may alsodemand a change in admission requirements and procedures,achange in recognition pro- cedures,especially recognition of prior learning,achange in student assessment procedures and internalquality assuranceprocedures.On the system level,new actors in higher education imply that therearenew criteriaon which the evalua- tion of the success of the institutions should bebased,new funding mechanisms and new legislativeframeworks.It is no longer sufficient,if it ever was, tofocus only on researchperformanceofinstitutions.Different institutions may cater for different needs of society and of economy and it could be that their added value is amore suitable starting point for the evaluation of success. Given this diversity of both the stakeholders and the actors in higher education,it is important to stress, that, while recognising the necessity for governance to include different stakeholders and take intoaccount the different actors in higher education, thoseinvolved in higher education governance should seek to strikea good balancebetween representing their respectiveconstituencies and working towards achieving the long-termoverall purposeofhigher education. While it would benaïve to suggest that those representing various stakeholder groups could forget their owninterests (if they do, what then is the purposeofhaving the diversity of stakeholders anyway?),it would alsobenaïveof the stakeholders to expect that they would not sometimes have tonegotiate their owngoals and objectives for agreater and morelasting good for all thosebenefiting from high- er education. This brings us to the basicprinciples of good governance, whicharemore suc- cinctly presented in the “Considerations and recommendations”of the conference.

4. Basicprinciples of good governance Governancecannot be reduced to the decision-making process only or to the organisational structures in the sense that thereis more togovernance than the skeleton described in the system legislation or statutes of the institution and there is more togovernance than the muscles on the skeleton whichinclude additional descriptions of procedures, records of decisions takenand minutes of meetings. One aspect is that we should not beafraid toadmit that in the present situation thereis afront stage of governanceand alsoabackstage of governance. Many of thoseinvolved in higher education governance refer to the need for “realpartici- pation” and participation not in numbers and sizebut in essence. This seems to bea silent confession that thereis more togovernance than skeleton and muscles described above.

208 Conclusions and outlook

It may beimpossible tobring all of the events to the front stage of governance, but what is essentialis todiminish the impact of backstage,hidden agendas and power plays as muchas possible. This canonly bedone if one other dimension of governanceis added,a sort of mind and soulfor the skeleton and the muscles we already have. This is the specificgovernanceculture, values and attitudes under- stood and shared by thoseinvolved in governance, their aspirations towards the respect and development of the basicprinciples of good governance. The basic principles of good governance would include: •the demand for transparency of structures and procedures (basically as little backstage as possible); •the demand for effectivemechanisms of accountability of thoseinvolved in governanceon various levels; •the ability to reachdecisions and ensure their legitimacy; •the commitment towards implementing thesedecisions. This governanceculturealsomeans that the atmospherein whichgovernance takes place should alsoensure that the decisions oncemade,if,and only if, they weremade in the spirit of good governance,are tobe respected even by those who do not agree with them, understanding that it is moreimportant toensure“aday in court”for all of the relevant stakeholders than toalways haveone’s own way. Hereit should be underlined that this is trueonly if the decision was indeed taken in the spirit of good governance,meaning withfull respect of the set procedures and withappropriatemethods of discussion over problematicissues.If this is not the case, then thereis substantialjustification for the expression of discontent in various ways.And indeed, wecanfind examples,bothat institutionaland at nationallevel, that, when full ownership of the decisions was not achieved, reac- tions ranged from quiet disgruntled murmurs in the far corners of the room,over silent sabotage and impersonation of conformity toopen rebellion. And in most of thesecases,both the murmurs and the open rebellion arejustifiable. It has tobe understood that the principle of legitimacy and the principle of effi- ciency arenot in conflict –cana swift decision reached with seemingly unani- mous support belabelled as truly efficient if those to whom the decision is relat- ed todonot agree withit and may,as I said, sabotage the implementation? Is a decision efficient if it is not effective,if it does not contribute to the fulfilment of the goals of higher education,in long-termperspectiveand having in mind the big pictureand not immediatenarrow interests?We should understand the demand for efficiency as anintegralpart of the demand for legitimacy of the decision making, sooften voiced in the request for full participation and owner- ship. Wecan see here that the basicprinciples of good governanceactually entail what was referred toas “the democraticculture” by the 3rdSummit of the Heads of States and Government of the Council of Europe. In the action planadopted at the summit it is stated:

209 Higher education governance

The tasks of building aknowledge-based society and promoting ademocraticculture among our citizens requireincreased efforts of the Council of Europe in the field of education aimed at ensuring access toeducation for all young people across Europe, improving its quality and promoting, inter alia ,comprehensivehuman rights education.

5. Governanceon the institutional,system and internationallevel With respect togovernanceofhigher education at various levels,it is important to stress that governanceofhigher education should not be understood only as governanceofHEI or even less only as management of HEI.It should be under- stood that the basicprinciples of good governanceapply toboth the institutional and system level,but also to the internationallevel. However, thereare some specificcharacteristics of eachof theselevels. a.Institutionallevel The first issue worthmentioning hereis the demand for strengthening the institu- tionalidentity,or, toput it moreexplicitly, strengthening the institutionallevel of governance. This issueis particularly relevant for some of the regions in Europe, most notably south-east Europe,as the universities 81 theredonot exist in the real senseof the term; the rector moreoften thannot has only aceremonial role and the realfocus of power lies at the level of the individualfaculties.Recognising the differences between the faculties,it is necessary to strengthen the institutional level of governance, toensurecommon sets of standards, toprovide for sound and sustainable overall development plans,moreeffective useof resources and also greater strengthfor confronting the unduepressures from the outside. This includes both the strengthening of governancein the wider senseon the institu- tionallevel,but also the strengthening of centraladministration,bearing in mind the distinction between management and governanceof the institution. The demand for moreintegration at the level of institution should not be understood as acall for micromanagement and, toanswer the very colourfulexample of some of the deans who are trying tohang on to their present kingdoms –no, this does not mean that the rector shall decide on how much toilet paper the Department of Astrophysics at the Faculty of Mathematics at aparticular university needs. The second important issueis the quest for autonomy.First of all,it should be noted that moreautonomy means moreaccountability and the fact that there seems tobea steady process of deregulation of the authority of the state,as an answer to that there seems also tobea steady process of self-regulation by insti- tutions.The whole discussion on codes of conduct and the role that bothnation- alassociations of HEI as well as their Europeancounterparts,EUA and EURASHE, areplaying is agood illustration of this process.However,it would be worthnoting that the disappearanceofbureaucracy on one level would,and often does,lead to the appearanceofbureaucracy on another,lower,level. Self- regulation should not turnintomere shifting of bureaucracy from the system to the institutionallevel. ______81. This refers to universities alone. It does not include other types of higher education institutions.

210 Conclusions and outlook

It is alsonecessary tofurther analyse the content and the scope of institutional autonomy with respect to the changed societalcontexts.This may beapossible topicof futureinternationalhigher education fora.Does autonomy refer only to autonomy from the stateor is there someone elseinstitutions should be autonomous from? And, what does the demand of autonomy entail –is it only legalautonomy,financialautonomy –and how canthesedemands bemade oper- ationaland protected at the level of the system? b.System level Concerning the system level,publicauthorities should seek toprovide anade- quatelegislativeframeworknecessary for the functioning of higher education. This framework should refer both to the privateand publichigher education insti- tutions whichis also reflected in the “Considerations and recommendations”of the conference. Furthermore,it has tobenoted that this frameworkmust not bepre- scriptive,but that it should allow for flexibility in developing concrete solutions to specificproblems and situations.It must not suffocatecreativity and innova- tion. Flexibility in the legislativeframeworkis alsoimportant toallow for change to take place without the delays caused by preparations of anew or amended legislation and by passing it through the appropriategovernmentaland parlia- mentary structures. Inaddition to this,it should alsobe stressed that we should try to see the system level involving not only the government in the narrow senseof the word,present- ed through the ministries responsible for higher education, researchand finance. Therearea variety of publicauthorities whichalsooperateon the system level, suchas the judiciary system,quality assuranceand accreditation agencies and even buffer structures suchas the nationalcouncils of (higher)education,all of whichareanintegralelement of the governanceofhigher education systems. c.Internationallevel In terms of the internationallevel the basicprinciples of governance(transparen- cy,legitimacy,flexibility,efficiency and effectiveness)arealso valid here. The increased frequency of cross-border and transnationalhigher education, through transnationalinstitutions,joint programmes,mobility of students and staff, the GATS negotiations under the WTO, as well as the commitment towards establishing the EHEA and ERA, provide clear proof of the existenceofanother level of governanceinhigher education,and alsoanother level wheregood gov- ernanceis needed. The success of the ongoing internationalprocesses,primarily the BolognaProcess,could be seriously jeopardised if they arenot steered in such a way as toensureadequateparticipation of the relevant stakeholders. It should benoted that the internationalactors in higher education should also take upon themselves tofacilitate the dialogueand the dissemination of good practice, recognising again that, while wecannot copy models from eachother – wecanlearnfrom eachothers’experiences.

211 Higher education governance

6.By way of conclusion Professor Pavel Zgagabegins his introduction to the issueofgovernanceofhigh- er education by shedding some light on the origin of the word“governance” – navigation – the old art of ascertaining the position and directing one’s courseat sea.Therefore,if governanceis navigation,good governancemay include: •an understanding that wearenot only sailing the seas and oceans,but also calm rivers as well as turbulent creeks; and •an understanding that more thanone type of vessel is fit tocross the sea, but that each vessel should have sails, ropes and ahelm todirect the vessel; oth- erwiseit cannot becalled a vessel and sooner or later it will sink. Wealsoneed tohave: •updated maps, reliable compasses and good calculation of the course to take; •skilled captains and first officers, whoseauthority is legitimateand based on competence; •skilled crews, who will keep the decks clean,make sure ropes arenot tangled and holes in the sails are repaired,and who,especially during storms and in troubled waters, will not bump intoeachother or workagainst eachother,but who will complement eachother’s efforts in bringing the vessel safely toport. And finally, weneed an understanding shared by those who steer the vessel, those who areon the vessel as passengers and those who wait for the vessel in the var- ious ports tomake useof the goods the vessel is carrying – that eachport is but a stop and that the voyage does not really haveafinaldestination.

212 Considerations and recommendations

Incontributing to the EuropeanYear of Citizenship through Education and cele- brating the 50thanniversary of the EuropeanCulturalConvention, we, the par- ticipants in the Council of Europe ForumonHigher Education Governance,con- firm the key role of higher education in the development of modern society based on democracy,human rights and the rule of law.The issueofgood governancein higher education is crucialnot only in the promotion of democraticculture with- in the higher education community but alsoin society at large; it is alsoindis- pensable to undertaking the profound reforms needed for creating the European Higher Education Areaby 2010. a.Considerations i. We see higher education governanceas fundamental toachieving the full range of purposes of higher education: •preparation for the labour market; •preparation for life as activecitizens in ademocratic society; •personaldevelopment; •maintenanceand development of abroad,advanced knowledge base. The range of relevant actors in higher education governance should reflect the multiplicity of purposes of higher education. ii. It is important toensurequality in higher education and research. Wecon- sider governance tobeacrucialelement of the quality cultureofboth sys- tems and institutions of higher education. It would not bepossible to achievequality higher education without good governance. iii. We underline the importanceofgood governanceinpromoting socialcohe- sion and in affording equalopportunity tohigher education for all those qualified. iv.Wefurther understand good governance toimply,on the one hand, steering the process towards the development of valid objectives and,on the other hand, the development of the instruments needed toachieve theseobjec- tives – the “fitness of purpose” as well as the “fitness for purpose”. v.Weconsider legitimacy tobeone of the basicprinciples of good gover- nance–it should be understood as the heart of the efficiency of gover- nance,and not as its opposite. vi. Within the basicprinciples of good governanceinhigher education it is important toallow sufficient flexibility to take account of the specificcon- texts and traditions of given higher education institutions or given systems.

213 Higher education governance

vii. Good governanceis not guaranteed by established structures and proce- dures alone. It is necessary for the actors in governanceofhigher educa- tion topromotedemocraticcultureas another building blockofgover- nanceand as abasicprinciple of good governance. viii. Given the role higher education has for the overall societaland economic development, we see the necessity toensure the responsiveness of higher education to the changing needs and expectations of society.In this respect,it is important toensureparticipation of externalactors in the governanceofhigher education and toallow for flexibility toaccommo- date the continuous change of the aforementioned needs and expectations. b.Recommendations i. The governanceof systems and institutions of higher education should bebased on the adequateinclusion of all relevant stakeholders.Toensure successful attainment of the agreed set of goals,it should befounded on the principles of: • transparency in procedures and tasks; •effectivemechanisms of accountability of thoseinvolved in governance; • the ability to reach, win acceptancefor and implement decisions; •participation and the rule of law. ii. Higher education serves toaccommodate the expectations and needs of dif- ferent groups within society.Those serving on higher education governance bodies, regardless of the capacity in which they serve, should seek toact in accordance with their understanding of the best interest of the higher edu- cation system and institutions for which they are responsible, while also paying appropriateattention to the concerns of the constituency from which they originate. iii. Institutionalautonomy is essentialfor ensuring academicfreedom, which constitutes one of the core values of higher education. Publicauthorities should establishand maintain anappropriatelegislativeframework that ensures institutionalautonomy and provides for adaptability of structures and flexibility of methods within the basicprinciples of good higher edu- cation governance. The legalframeworkconcerning governance should apply equally tobothpublicand privateinstitutions. iv.It is important tomake adistinction between the process of setting long- termgoals and developing appropriate strategies for achieving them,and implementing these strategies on aday-to-day basis.The legitimacy and competenceof the governing bodies should becomplemented with the pro- fessionalismof the administration. v.While avoiding unduemicromanagement and leaving reasonable scope for innovation and flexibility,higher education governance systems and prac- tices should facilitate the elaboration and implementation of coherent insti- tutionalpolicies.

214 Conclusions and outlook

vi. Internationalorganisations and networks activeinhigher education should consider promoting good higher education governanceby disseminating examples of good governanceand fostering dialoguebetween different systems and institutions on the further elaboration of the basicprinciples of good governance. vii. The BolognaFollow-upGroup should giveexplicit consideration to the role of governancein reaching the goalofproviding high quality education and mobility of students and staff throughout Europe. c.Issues for further consideration We suggest that it is necessary toelaborateon what the autonomy of higher edu- cation institutions in the modern society includes,in terms of content (legal, financial,etc.) as well as in terms of bodies and actors.Furthermore,it would be necessary todetermine,at bothnationaland institutionallevel, the sectors of gov- ernanceofhigher education wherechanges aremost needed.

215

List of contributors

Series editor Sjur Bergan Sjur Berganis Headof the Council of Europe’s Department of Higher Education and History Teaching,Secretary toits Steering Committee for Higher Education and Researchand amember of the BolognaFollow-upGroupand Board. Heis a frequent contributor to the debateonhigher education policies in Europe, the author of many articles and editor of The Heritage of European universities (with NuriaSanz, 2002), Recognition issues in the BolognaProcess (2003), The uni- versity as res publica:Higher education governance, student participation and the university as a siteofcitizenship (2004) and The public responsibility for higher education and research (2005).

Editors JürgenKohler Jürgen Kohler is professor of privatelaw and privatelitigation at Greifswald University,Germany.He was one of the founders of the re-established faculty of law and business management of Greifswald University after German reunifica- tion in 1990.He was rector of Greifswald University between 1994 and 2000. Since then he has represented the Germaninstitutions of higher education in the CDESR of the Council of Europe and has been amember of its bureau since 2002.Heis activein the InstitutionalEvaluation Programme of the European University Association,both serving in peer-based evaluations across Europe and in its steering committee. Hechairs the GermanAccreditation Council.

Josef Huber Josef Huber is administrator at the Division for Higher Education and Researchof the Council of Europe and Secretary to the Working Party on Higher Education Governance. From 1998 to 2004,as HeadofProgrammes and Deputy Executive Director of the EuropeanCentrefor ModernLanguages –anenlarged partialagree- ment of the Council of Europe –he was, inter alia , responsible for the centre’s pub- lications series that dealt witha wide range of topics in the areaof language learn- ing and teaching,interculturalcommunication and language education policy.

Authors Pavel Zgaga Pavel Zgagais aprofessor at the University of Ljubljanaand Director of the Centrefor EducationalPolicy Studies at the Faculty of Education. His researchis primarily focused on the philosophy of education and on educationalpolicy,par- ticularly in contemporary issues of internationalisation of higher education. Heis former Vice-Minister and Minister of Education of Sloveniaand a signee at the BolognaDeclaration. He was general rapporteur at the Berlin Conferenceof the BolognaProcess.

217 Higher education governance

Virgílio MeiraSoares Full professor at the University of Lisbon, since1979. Former Secretary of Statefor Higher Education,former Rector of the University of Lisbon,former Vice- President of the PortugueseRectors’Conference,and presently member of the Bureau of the CDESR of the Council of Europe,Co-ordinator of the Co-operation of PortugueseHE withEast Timor,President of the Evaluation Council of the PortuguesePublicUniversities and Chairmanof the Commission for Access to Higher Education in Portugal. Member of the pool of evaluators of the Institutional Evaluation Programme of the EuropeanUniversity Association, sinceits beginning, and many times expert of the Council of Europe in advisory missions tocentraland easternEuropeancountries.Present interests:HEpolicies,member of the Directive BoardofCIPES, (Centrefor Higher Education and ResearchPolicies,Portugal).

LucWeber Educated in the fields of economics and political science,LucWeber has been Professor of PublicEconomics at the University of Geneva since1975. As an economist,he serves as anadviser toSwitzerland’s federalgovernment,as well as tocantonalgovernments,and has been amember of the Swiss Council of EconomicAdvisers for three years.Since1982,Professor Weber has been deeply involved in university management and higher education policy,first as Vice- Rector, then as Rector of the University of Geneva, as well as Chairmanand, sub- sequently,Consulfor internationalaffairs of the Swiss Rectors’Conference. He is also the co-founder, withWerner Hirsch,of the Glion Colloquiumand afound- ing boardmember of the EuropeanUniversity Association (EUA). At present he is Chair of the Steering Committee for Higher Education and Researchof the Council of Europe and Vice-President of the InternationalAssociation of Universities (IAU). He was recently awarded anhonorary doctoratedegree by the CatholicUniversity of Louvain-la-Neuvefor his contribution tohigher education.

Jochen Fried Jochen Fried is the director of education initiatives and academicdirector of the InternationalStudy Programat the SalzburgSeminar.Heis the former director of the Universities Project of the SalzburgSeminar.Prior tojoining the Seminar in 1998,he workedas headofprogrammes at the Institutefor HumanSciences in Vienna, and as senior officer in the secretariat of the GermanScienceCouncil in Cologne,Germany.After receiving adoctorateinGermanliteraturefrom DüsseldorfUniversity,Germany in 1984,he was lecturer at Cambridge University,United Kingdom,and at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, under the auspices of the GermanAcademicExchange Service. Dr.Fried’s main areaof professionalinterest is higher education and researchpolicy.He serves as an expert for a variety of nationaland internationalinstitutions and agencies (AustrianFederalMinistry for Education,Scienceand Culture, the European Commission,Council of Europe, the Open Society Institute,among others)and is amember of the editorialboardof the UNESCO-CEPES quarterly review Higher Education in Europe.

218 List of contributors

DijanaTipliˇc DijanaTipliˇc has studied Business Administration and IT Management in Sandvika(BI NorwegianSchool of Management)and Comparativeand InternationalEducation in Oslo (University of Oslo). She holds anMSc in organ- isationalmanagement (2003)(title of thesis:Anissueofperceived uncertainty:A caseofBosnia-Herzegovinahigher education institutions). She is currently affil- iated to the Centrefor Education Management Research(www.bi.no/cem) writ- ing her PhD thesis on organisationalchange in higher education institutions.Her main researchinterests are within the field of organisation studies and higher education research.

Robin Farquhar Robin Farquhar,former President of Carleton University and the University of Winnipeg,is now Professor Emeritus of PublicPolicy and Administration at Carleton. Currently aninternationalconsultant on higher education management, he is working with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the EuropeanUniversity Association’s InstitutionalEvaluation Programme,and the SalzburgSeminar.Helives in Ottawa.

Aleksander Lomaia Aleksander Lomaiais currently the Minister of Education and ScienceofGeorgia. Heobtained his PhDfrom the Moscow Construction Engineering Institutein 1992.From 1989 until 1991 he workedas Vice-Chairmanof the Governing Board at the NGO “GeorgianCommunity”inMoscow,Russia wherehedeveloped working contacts among NGOs,democraticmovements,civicactivists,human rights groups,and ethniccommunities tomobilisepublic support for the inde- pendenceofGeorgiaand other Soviet republics.In1991,he was the Acting Ambassador of the Republicof Georgia toRussia, followed by aposition as Secretary Generalof the ChristianDemocraticUnion of Georgia whereheman- aged the institutionaland internationalactivities of the ChristianDemocraticpar- liamentary politicalmovement, whichled to the admission of CDU Georgiaas a full member of ChristianDemocraticInternational– the first member among the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. In1995,he was the director and editor at the InternationalAffairs Department of the newspaper Argumenti .From 1995 to 2000,he acted as aProgramOfficer, PublicAdministration/Civil Society at the EurasiaFoundation in Tbilisi, where his duties included developing strategicobjectives for the Foundation’s regional development; working closely with the three-country Synergy Programdesigned topromotegrass-roots co-operation among the three countries of the South Caucasus.During 1998 he served as amember of the EurasiaFoundation StrategicPlanning Committee,participating in development of the Foundation’s mission and definition of its priorities.In 2000-02,he was the Country Director of the EurasiaFoundation in Tbilisi,Georgiafollowed by aposition as Regional Director for the former Soviet Union at the Democracy Coalition Project in

219 Higher education governance

Tbilisi. The project facilitated the creation of aninternationalfederation of nationalcoalitions whichcollectively pursued for democratic reforms on the international stage. Subsequently,in 2003-04,he was ExecutiveDirector of the Open Society GeorgiaFoundation (Soros Foundation) in Tbilisi. Dr.Aleksander Lomaia’s name is included in Who’s Who in Georgia 2001-2002,published by the GeorgianBiographicalCenter.

JaakAaviksoo JaakAaviksoo has been Rector at the University of Tartu since1998 and the Chairmanof the BoardofEstonianRectors’Conference since 2004. He was Minister of Education of Estonia1995-1997,before that Vice-Rector of the University of Tartu.Heis aphysicist,professor of optics and spectroscopy at the University of Tartu.Hehas been a visiting professor and scholar in Russia, Germany,France,Japan. Heis amember of the EstonianAcademy of Sciences, AcademicCouncil of the President of Estoniaand the Boardof the European University Association.

RadmilaMarinkovic-` Neduˇc in RadmilaMarinkovic`-Neduˇc in is full professor,Faculty of Technology,Physical Chemistry and Catalysis and currently Rector of the University of NoviSad, Serbiaand Montenegro. Previously,member of the Commission for the new law on higher education of Republicof Serbia, member of BolognaFollow-upGroupof the Ministry of Education of the Republicof Serbiaand Vice-President and President of the Republic Council on High Education Policy in the period 2003-04/2004 respectively. Her recent activities in the field of educationalpolicy areas follows:author of Nationalguide toECTS (published by AlternativeAcademicNetwork,Belgrade, 2002),co-author of the chapter “Infrastructure/Public researchand development in programofeconomicaldevelopment of the ProvinceofVojvodina”(Executive Council of Autonomous ProvinceofVojvodina, NoviSad, 2003),co-author of the “Analysis of current stateof the development of study programand credit system within the program regional university networkongovernanceand management of higher education”,UNESCO-CEPES, 2003. In the positions held at the University of NoviSadand the RepublicCouncil on Higher Education Policy,Professor RadmilaMarinkovic`-Neduˇc in has participat- ed in alarge number of domesticand internationalconferencess,debates and workshops and hadacrucial role in the process of drafting the new Law on Higher Education in Serbia.

ErdalEmel Currently the Vice-Rector and the HeadofIndustrialEngineering Department at Uludag˘University.Previously, the rector’s counsellor and the AssociateDeanof Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureofUludag˘University.Graduateof

220 List of contributors

IstanbulTechnicalUniversity (BSc 1981) and University of Michigan,Ann Arbor (MSc 1983,PhD1987) withall degrees in mechanicalengineering. Areas of interest range from quality management in higher education to technology and production management in manufacturing industries,in addition to vehicle noise and vibration research.

MartinaVukasovic ` MartinaVukasovic` is currently enrolled in the EuropeanMasters Programme on Higher Education,organised jointly by the University of Oslo,University of Tampereand University of Aveiro. She workedin the Council of Europe’s Division for Higher Education and Researchin 2004, was a student representa- tiveinSerbiaand at Europeanlevel through ESIB –The NationalUnions of Students in Europe and,before starting the masters’studies, workedas aproject officer in the AlternativeAcademicEducationalNetwork–anorganisation sup- porting and promoting the reformofhigher education in Serbia.

221

Sales agents for publications of the Council of Europe Agents de ventedes publications du Conseil de l’Europe

BELGIUM/BELGIQUE GREECE/GRÈCE SPAIN/ESPAGNE La Librairie européenne Librairie Kauffmann Mundi-PrensaLibros SA Ruedel’Orme 1 Mavrokordatou 9 Castelló 37 B-1040 BRUXELLES GR-ATHINAI 106 78 E-28001MADRID Tel.:(32) 2 231 04 35 Tel.:(30)1 38 29 283 Tel.:(34) 914 36 37 00 Fax:(32) 2 735 08 60 Fax:(30)1 38 33 967 Fax:(34) 915 75 3998 E-mail:[email protected] E-mail:[email protected] E-mail:[email protected] http://www.libeurop.be http://www.mundiprensa.com HUNGARY/HONGRIE JeandeLannoy EuroInfo Service SWITZERLAND/SUISSE 202,avenuedu Roi Hungexpo EuropaKozpont ter 1 Adeco–VanDiermen B-1190 BRUXELLES H-1101BUDAPEST Chemin du Lacuez 41 Tel.:(32) 2 5384308 Tel.:(361) 2648270 CH-1807 BLONAY Fax:(32) 2 538 0841 Fax:(361) 2648271 Tel.:(41) 21943 26 73 E-mail:[email protected] E-mail:[email protected] Fax:(41) 21943 36 05 http://www.jean-de-lannoy.be http://www.euroinfo.hu E-mail:[email protected]

CANADA ITALY/ITALIE UNITED KINGDOM/ RenoufPublishing Company Limited LibreriaCommissionariaSansoni ROYAUME-UNI 1-5369Canotek Road ViaDuca di Calabria1/1,CP552 TSO (formerly HMSO) OTTAWA,Ontario,K1J9J3,Canada I-50125FIRENZE 51 Nine Elms Lane Tel.:(1) 613 745 2665 Tel.:(39) 556 4831 GB-LONDON SW85DR Fax:(1) 613 745 7660 Fax:(39) 556 41257 Tel.:(44) 207 873 8372 Fax:(44) 207 873 8200 E-mail:[email protected] E-mail:[email protected] E-mail:[email protected] http://www.renoufbooks.com http://www.licosa.com http://www.the-stationery-office.co.uk http://www.itsofficial.net CZECH REP./RÉP.TCHÈQUE NETHERLANDS/PAYS-BAS SuwecoCz Dovoz Tisku Praha DeLindeboom Internationale UNITED STATES and CANADA/ Ceskomoravska 21 Publicaties b.v. ÉTATS-UNIS et CANADA CZ-18021PRAHA 9 M.A.deRuyterstraat 20 A ManhattanPublishing Company Tel.:(420) 2 660 35 364 NL-7482 BZ HAAKSBERGEN 468Albany Post Road,POBox 850 Fax:(420) 2 683 30 42 Tel.:(31) 53 574 0004 CROTON-ON-HUDSON, E-mail:[email protected] Fax:(31) 53 572 9296 NY 10520,USA E-mail:[email protected] Tel.:(1) 914 2715194 DENMARK/DANEMARK http://www.delindeboom.com Fax:(1) 914 2715856 GAD Direct E-mail:[email protected] Fiolståede 31-33 NORWAY/NORVÈGE http://www.manhattanpublishing.com DK-1171KOBENHAVN K AkademikaA/SUniversitetsbokhandel Tel.:(45) 33 13 72 33 PO Box 84,Blindern Fax:(45) 33 12 54 94 N-0314 OSLO E-mail:[email protected] Tel.:(47) 22 85 30 30 Fax:(47) 23 12 24 20 FINLAND/FINLANDE ______Akateeminen Kirjakauppa POLAND/POLOGNE ⁄ Keskuskatu 1,POBox 218 Gl ownaKsieg, arniaNaukowa FRANCE FIN-00381 HELSINKI im. B.Prusa La Documentation française Tel.:(358) 912141 Krakowskie Przedmiescie 7 (Diffusion/VenteFranceentière) Fax:(358) 91214450 PL-00-068WARSZAWA 124 rueH.Barbusse E-mail:[email protected] Tel.:(48) 29 22 66 93308Aubervilliers Cedex http://www.akatilaus.akateeminen.com Fax:(48) 22 26 6449 Tel.:+33 (0)1 40 15 70 00 E-mail:[email protected] Fax:+33 (0)1 40 15 68 00 GERMANY/ALLEMAGNE http://www.internews.com.pl E-mail: AUSTRIA/AUTRICHE [email protected] UNO Verlag PORTUGAL http://www.ladocfrancaise.gouv.fr August Bebel Allee 6 LivrariaPortugal D-53175BONN Ruado Carmo, 70 Librairie Kléber (VenteStrasbourg) Tel.:(49) 2 289490 20 P-1200 LISBOA Palais de l’Europe Fax:(49) 2 289490 222 Tel.:(351) 13 47 49 82 F-67075StrasbourgCedex E-mail:[email protected] Fax:(351) 13 47 02 64 Fax:+33 (0)3 88 52 91 21 http://www.uno-verlag.de E-mail:[email protected] E-mail:[email protected]

Council of Europe Publishing/Editions du Conseil de l’Europe F-67075StrasbourgCedex Tel.:(33) 03 88 41 2581–Fax:(33) 03 88 41 3910 –E-mail:[email protected] –Website:http://book.coe.int