European University Association Institutional Evaluation Programme
UNIVERSITY OF MOSTAR
Bosnia & Herzegovina
EVALUATION REPORT
July 2009
Team:
Tove Bull, chair Johann Gerlach Richard Lewis Milica Popovic Tia Loukkola, team coordinator Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
Contents
1. Introduction ...... 3
2. Background to the Recommendations ...... 7
3. Leadership, Governance and Management ...... 9
4. Teaching ...... 19
5. Research...... 22
6. Service to Society ...... 24
7. Conclusions ...... 25
8. Annexes ...... 27
2 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
1. Introduction
This report is the result of the evaluation process of the University of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was carried out during the academic year 2008 – 2009 at the request of the University. A similar exercise took place in 2004 and even though these evaluations are completely separate processes, the evaluation team was provided with the final report of the earlier evaluation and it will be referred to a few times in this report.
1.1 Institutional Evaluation Programme
The Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) is an independent membership service of the European University Association (EUA) that offers evaluations to support the participating institutions in the continuing development of their strategic management and internal quality culture.
The distinctive features of the Institutional Evaluation Programme are: A strong emphasis on the self-evaluation phase A European and international perspective A peer-review approach A support to improvement
The focus of the IEP is the institution as a whole and not the individual study programmes or units. It focuses upon: Decision-making processes and institutional structures and effectiveness of strategic management Relevance of internal quality processes and the degree to which their outcomes are used in decision making and strategic planning, as well as perceived gaps in these internal mechanisms.
The evaluation is guided by four key questions, which are based on a ‘fitness for (and of) purpose’ approach: What is the institution trying to do? How is the institution trying to do it? How does it know it works?
3 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
How does the institution change in order to improve?
1.2 University of Mostar and the National Context
The University of Mostar (Sveuciliste u Mostaru) consists of nine faculties and one Academy of Fine Arts. Major funders of the University of Mostar are the cantons with the Croatian majority in Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Herzegovina-Neretva, West-Herzegovina, Central Bosnia, Posavina and West Bosnia. In addition to the city of Mostar, the University has centers in each of the major cities of the funders: Vitez, Kiseljak, Orašje, Livno and Žepče.
Today, over 15000 students study at the University of Mostar and education is offered in more than 60 study programmes at undergraduate and graduate and 10 groups at postgraduate level. Teaching is conducted by 965 teachers and associates.
As mentioned in the self-evaluation report of the University, to be able to understand authorities and institutions in the area of higher education in the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), one has to know the basic structure of BiH as a state. In 1995 the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was decentralised and divided in two entities by the Dayton Agreement: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Republika Srpska, in addition to District Brčko which has a special status.
Jurisdiction for higher education in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is at the cantonal level, in Republika Srpska at the entity level and in Brčko District at the district level. There is a Ministry of Education and Science at the level of Federation of BiH, but it only has a coordinating role. In practice, this means that every canton can, and does, have its own laws on higher education. There exists, however, a framework law at the level of the confederation.
Bosnia and Herzegovina – as a state in transition - has shown its willingness to reform higher education, e.g. by signing the Bologna Declaration in 2003. However, the law at the state level, which enabled the implementation of the Bologna process at BH Universities, was only passed in the form of a framework law in the middle of August 2007. The framework law prescribed,
4 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
but without any sanctions, that cantonal laws should be harmonised with the Framework Law within the period of six months, that the Council of Ministers of BiH should appoint management boards and acting directors of the CIP (Centre for Informing and Recognition of Documents) and of the Agency for Development of Higher Education and Quality Assurance within the period of six month after this Law became effective.
At the time of finishing this evaluation (May, 2009), the majority of cantonal Ministries of Education (which include the 5 cantons with Croatian majority) have neither harmonised the existing laws with the Framework Law on Higher Education nor enacted the accompanying legal regulations. However, during the site-visits, representatives of the University informed the evaluation team that they were expecting new cantonal laws to be adopted by the end of 2009. The evaluation team is also acquainted with international initiatives and endeavours to see this being carried through.
1.3 The Self Evaluation Process
The self-evaluation process of the University of Mostar was undertaken by an institutional self-evaluation team which included the following members:
- Prof. Dražena Tomić, Ph.D. – Vice-Rector for science and international relations - Prof. Snježana Rezić, Ph.D. – Quality assurance coordinator at the University of Mostar - Prof. Milenko Obad, Ph.D. – Dean of the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Computing - Prof. Zoran Primorac, Ph.D. - Dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Education - Zrinka Knezović, Ph.D. – Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture - Mirna Brkić, Ph.D. – Quality assurance coordinator at the Faculty of Philosophy - Gordana Maslov – Chief Accountant of the University - Ivana Zovko – International relations coordinator and translator - Marko Bokšić – Student representative - Žana Pehar – Student representative
5 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
The self-evaluation team met as needed, usually every 2-3 weeks. The work of the team was preceded by internal analyses of the members, i.e. faculties and academy. Besides the self-evaluation team, all the Senate members (Rector, Vice-Rectors, Deans), all the members of the Student Association Presidency, Vice-Deans at the Faculties have indirectly participated in the process by filling in a specially made questionnaire.
1.4 The Evaluation Team (later Team)
The self-evaluation report of the University of Mostar along with the appendices was sent to the review team in January 2009. The visits of the evaluation team to Mostar took place from 22 - 25 February and 12 - 15 May 2009. In between the visits the University provided the evaluation team with some additional documentation as requested by the Team.
The evaluation team consisted of:
Professor Tove Bull, Chair of the Team, former rector University of Tromsø, Norway Professor Johann Gerlach, former rector Freie Universität Berlin, Germany Professor Richard Lewis, former pro vice-chancellor, Open University, UK Ms. Milica Popovic, student representative, University of Belgrade, Serbia Ms. Tia Loukkola, team coordinator, Senior Programme Manager at EUA.
The Team found the self-evaluation report on the University to be a good basis for discussions, setting out in substantial and forthright detail its various strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. In addition, the discussions during both visits confirmed that the internal community of the University had indeed been fully involved in the process through faculty level self-evaluation processes which had preceded the work of the University level self- evaluation.
The Team thanks the University of Mostar, its staff, the local external colleagues and its students for their openness and willingness to debate their institutional self-reflections and, last but not least, for the very warm welcome offered during the two visits.
6 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
2. Background for the Recommendations
The national and historical environment that the University of Mostar operates in is truly a unique and challenging context in many senses. Although the war ended over a decade ago, its legacy is still very much present in the city of Mostar; there are war-torn buildings and the division of the city can also be sensed.
The Dayton agreement, which ended the war, also impacts the daily life of the University through an unstable legal and political environment. As the cantons are not obliged to follow-up state-level decisions, this results in an uncertainty of the legal framework and creates challenges for a stable development of the University. In practice, one of the outcomes of this unstable environment is the fact that six years after BiH as a country signed the Bologna declaration the new legislation allowing the University to implement the changes still has not been adopted.
Furthermore, the financial situation of the country clearly impacts on the economic situation of the University. This became more than apparent to the IEP Team during the visits. Financial constraints and particularly the instability of the situation add to the challenges faced by the University which aims to develop its activities.
As the “vision of the University of Mostar is to become modern, authoritative and higher education institution number one in the region (Herzegovina, South Dalmatia, Central Bosnia), included in the joint European higher education area”, the Team felt it necessary to define some key characteristics of a modern European university – as they are seen by the Team. These key characteristics include:
- Strategic planning - Control over its budget - Academic autonomy - Teaching informed by research - Certain common services - Quality assurance system
During the evaluation process the Team learnt that the University of Mostar does, in fact, possess quite a number of these features, but in some respects
7 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009 some work still remains to be done. The following recommendations should be considered in the light of these characteristics.
The University of Mostar was evaluated by the IEP previously in 2004 and even though these evaluations are completely separate processes, the evaluation team was provided with the final report of the earlier evaluation. Throughout the site visit interviews and the internal discussions of the Team, it became evident that, although the University has made remarkable progress in some respects, most of the recommendations made by the IEP Team in 2004 are still very relevant. Therefore, the first recommendation for the University is to revisit and reconsider the recommendations of the earlier IEP evaluation in 2004.
8 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
3. Leadership, Governance and Management
In addition to the legacy of the past and the war, the legacy of the Eastern European type university is also still very present at the University of Mostar. In the self-evaluation report (SER) the current situation was described as follows:
“The Faculties of the University are still legal entities, although the Framework Law on Higher Education of BiH abolished the legal entities. Since the cantonal laws on higher education and other accompanying acts have not been passed in any of five cantons founders of the University, the University still works by the University Law which allows faculties to be legal entities.”
This decentralisation has many consequences which will be discussed further in the following chapters, but most of all, according to the interviews of the institutional and faculty leadership, it does create difficulties for the leadership to develop an institutional strategy with clear priorities and then implement this strategy. In practice, the university level decisions are made in the meetings between the Deans of the Faculties and decision making processes rely heavily on consensus. The team was, for instance, told that the model for the distribution of funds has not been changed for five years, even though there does seem to be some pressure to do so, simply because the Deans have not been able to agree on the new model.
As discussed earlier, the Team feels that a modern European University should have the abilities and decision making structures which facilitate a efficient strategic planning, implementation and monitoring. After examining the current governance structures and responsibilities of the various governing bodies, the Team is forced to conclude that, even though the University of Mostar does have strategic plans, it does not seem to have any means or structures in place at institutional level to ensure the implementation of the plans. As the SER notes; “the problem is the fact that in the current structure there are no mechanisms which would guarantee implementation of the Senate decisions at the faculties”. In other words, the implementation relies on the willingness of the Deans to commit to any decision of the Senate by allocating some means for the purposes in question. Therefore the Team repeats a recommendation made also at the
9 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009 end of the first IEP evaluation process of moving from a semi-integrated to a fully integrated university and of being proactive in this respect.
The team is well aware that although the institutional leadership of the University and most of the Deans seem to be in favour of this development, there is some resistance towards these changes as well as no agreement on what it means to be an integrated university, but the Team still urges the institutional leadership to go ahead with the reforms needed as it feels that this is the only way to reach the goal the University has set for itself of being “higher education institution number one in the region”. Reaching this goal requires that the University is more than a sum of its faculties and is able to respond to the external demands as an institution.
It is natural that there are concerns at the faculty level of losing autonomy and control over certain issues and these concerns need to be addressed. The IEP Team discussed some of these concerns and possible solutions in its report in 2004, and therefore we will not go into detail this time. Regarding what it means to be an integrated university, the Team believes that the characteristics of a modern university mentioned above and the recommendations given in this report partly answer the question.
During the site-visits several people, including the rector, mentioned that the University believes in reaching integration through a step-by-step process. The Team shares this ideology, but wishes to propose that, if and as soon as it is possible according to the legislation, the University should take the first steps of integration. In this respect, we would encourage the University to be proactive. Being proactive means to be ahead and the team would like to point out that there is nothing in the current legislation that prevents the university from implementing and practicing more integrated decision making procedures. Too strong reliance on consensus is, however, counterproductive if one wishes to be ahead of other universities.
During the site visits the Team was told that the University, in fact, has already prepared the first draft statutes of the new integrated university, and will be ready to adopt them within a couple weeks of the day cantonal laws change. Because it still seems to be uncertain when these laws will, indeed, change, the Team encourages the University to start discussing now the draft statutes among the university community in order to facilitate their adoption
10 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009 when the time comes and also to consider which changes can already be implemented while operating under the current legislation.
When revising the internal statutes, the University should also pay attention to the decision making structures it has in place. These structures should be designed to be transparent, with a clear distribution of responsibilities and tasks. The structures should facilitate efficient decision making, including the more controversial issues, and therefore not rely solely on consensus. It is important to avoid over-bureaucratisation and burdensome processes, while, at the same time, ensuring the participation of the University community in decision making processes and thus promoting the sense of ownership. This is a challenging task, but even so, the IEP Team recommends that the University moves to a more professionally managed institution developing a clear sense of vision shared within the university community.
As part of the development towards a more professionally managed institution, the University should also address the issue it brings up in the SER:
“The fact which is worrying is that there is no staff who do the management activity exclusively. Usually that work is done by the teaching staff or secretaries of the Faculties who often do not have competences and/or time to commit themselves to creation and organization of the modern management system.”
Through integration, the administrative staff of the University can be partly centralised – and thus synergy benefits can be found – and as part of this process the University should carefully consider which tasks should be handled by management professionals, because there clearly are those tasks which demand specialisation. This would also allow the academic staff to concentrate on their primary tasks and interests: teaching and research.
One means to ensure that the University will become more than the sum of its faculties is to find ways to promote interdisciplinary teaching and research as well as institutional co-operation. Based on the documentation provided, and the discussions with the staff members and Deans, the IEP Team was left under the impression that currently the faculties work quite independently of each other and do not seem to have much interest or incentive to co-
11 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
operate at operational level. Therefore, the Team encourages the University to provide incentives to the faculties to facilitate interdisciplinary work and institutional cooperation.
3.1 Financial Resources
This leads us to the idea, mentioned earlier in this report, that a university should have control over its budget. The Team strongly believes in this idea and feels that it should be a core value of the new integrated University. This would also offer the University a means to implement strategically important projects and prioritise such activities as discussed above.
As mentioned in the SER, at the moment “decentralisation means for instance Faculties are independent actors in collecting other than cantonal funding (i.e. tuition fees from students, donations and external research project funding) “. In addition, currently the cantonal funds are distributed to the Faculties on the basis of a consensus agreement among the Deans; this does not leave a lot of latitude to the institutional leadership to implement university strategy.
Therefore, the Team has included in the characteristics of a modern university the fact that the university should have a control over its budget; this is a key precondition for being able to implement the decisions made. Furthermore, the Team recommends that once the university has control over its entire budget, it should carefully reconsider the formula for distribution of funds to the faculties.
Through the discussions during the site-visits, the Team learnt that the current formula for distribution has remained the same for some years and is based on consensus among the Deans. The team was also told that the financial situation of the faculties varies enormously, which has some consequences that will be discussed later in the report. As the cantonal funds are dramatically insufficient, the capability of a faculty to generate external funding is a key factor for its financial situation. And currently the external funding consists for the most parts of tuition fees. The 2004 IEP evaluation team discussed the problems with the current tuition fee system in length and all it says in its report is still accurate. The present IEP team therefore will not get into detail about this at this point, but does wish to underline that this
12 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009 structure of tuition fees combined with the fact that, at the University level, there is no way of balancing the accounts is clearly a threat to the University. Consequently, the Team wishes to express its support to the recommendation made by the earlier IEP evaluation team which stated that “tuition fees should be organised, collected and distributed at university-level” and “project money should continue to be directed to the faculty (or faculties) that earn it – but with an overhead going to the university”.
One consequence of the current decentralised finance management is that the University does not seem to have a comprehensive apprehension of the financial accounts. The SER states that
“The University of Mostar is funded through grants of the cantons, its founders, student fees, research projects, donations. In the current structure of the University incomes around 39,6% of funds comes from cantonal budgets (grants), while 60,4% of funds is realized through scientific-research projects, donations, fees and cooperation with economy from the region.”
However, when asked, the University was not able to provide the Team with complete financial statements (income and expenditure) categorised by the Faculty. As the University presumably will search for new sources of funding in the coming years, it is also likely that these funders (for instance European Union Programmes) will expect more accurate financial data, and the University will have to be able to meet these expectations. These demands of increased accountability and full-cost counting, as well as of overall transparency of the expenditure, are a true challenge to all European Universities, the University of Mostar included. In this context, the Team feels that it is truly worrying that the University seems to be able to keep track only of the cantonal funding.
Another consequence of the decentralised finance management and great variety of in the financial situation of the faculties is differentials of staff salaries; the rules of defining the salaries seem to be very different from one faculty to another and they do not seem to be very transparent. The Team therefore encourages the University to develop further the existing proposal that the rules for determining the level of salaries will be the same irrespective of faculties. This does not necessarily mean that the
13 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
salaries will be the same, but the University as an employer should implement the same rule of determining the salaries to all its employees, and if these rules are transparent, it might increase the attractiveness of the University as an employer in the long term.
None of the measures explained above change the fact that insufficient financial resources are a major challenge faced by the University on daily basis. However, the Team feels that integration might well yield positive benefits that will alleviate many of the problems faced by the University. The removal of multiple administrative work – some of the work currently done at the faculty level by several people may be done more efficiently by one person at university level – and more efficient use of existing funds through an up-to-date distribution formula may help the University make some progress. Furthermore, later in this report some other means of financing will be discussed.
3.2 Human Resources
In addition to the question of salaries, the difficulties in recruiting new qualified academic staff were brought up in the SER as well as in various discussions.
“Age structure of teachers and associates is unsatisfactory. The problem is insufficient number of teachers, especially those in middle ages, but also insufficient number of assistants in relation to the number of students. The reason for this state is a bad financial situation which significantly influences admission of new staff. The second reason is young people’s lack of motivation for working at the University because of low salaries and impossibility of doing the scientific- research work, what is a condition for being promoted with higher title.”
This is a challenge that the University shares with other universities around the world. During the site visits the Team was told that the faculties have also faced many problems with teachers who come from elsewhere and are often in Mostar only on part-time basis. The students reported, for instance, that in some cases it is even quite common that the teachers do not show up for the classes or are unavailable for extracurricular consultations which are important for the teaching process and the success of learners.
14 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
The University has addressed both these challenges by aiming at attracting and recruiting its most talented and able students. The best students of a cohort start as part-time assistants already during their studies and continue on full-time basis right after graduation. It is with this aim that the University has also started some new post-graduate programmes. The Team also learnt of the arrangements at the faculty of medicine, through which the young researchers are sent abroad for a certain time to gain experience and qualify, after which they return to the University to continue their career.
The Team fully understands the reasons for these arrangements, was impressed by them and hopes that the University can continue on this path and disseminate good practices that exist within the University. However, it also feels that a word of warning is necessary. While encouraging its most talented students on the path of becoming researchers, the University should be careful not to fall into a trap of endogamy (“inbreeding”). This phenomenon is something that many European universities are currently struggling with. It has been proved through many studies that mobility of researchers which usually feeds innovation and critical thinking is most profitable for creating new knowledge in research. Therefore, it is most importance also to encourage and attract talented outsiders to enter the university.
According to the information the Team received, there is no-one responsible for the human resources management or staff development at the University. Faculties are responsible for recruiting and employing the staff, and at the University level there is only the recommendation of the senate to recruit the best students as staff members. As far as staff development is concerned, some faculties have some arrangements to support the young academics in their research work, but this is not very systematic. For a university as an expert organisation, the development of its staff members – both academic and non-academic – is a key success factor and therefore the Team recommends that the University implement the current plans for staff development including pedagogical training, which it learnt are under preparation.
In the light of the challenges the University faces in the field of human resources, the Team concludes this chapter by urging the University to streamline and reinforce its human resource management. Currently
15 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
there is no-one at the University level responsible for human resources management and all activities are implemented at the Faculty level. The Team feels that the University should have a common human resources policy which addresses the key challenges, and staff responsible for implementing and ensuring the implementation of this policy in co-operation with the Faculty level actors.
3.3 Quality Assurance
In the report of the earlier IEP team, the development of a quality culture was discussed in detail. During this evaluation process, the Team was positively impressed by the progress the University has made on this front. Quality enhancement has been defined as a core value of the University and, since 2004, the University has progressed very systematically through a step-by- step approach in establishing an institutional quality assurance (QA) system. In 2009, the documentation and the interviews conducted proved that the University had established a system with clearly defined policy statements, actors, and roles for them as well as procedures, which have been documented in a Reference Book for Quality Assurance of the University of Mostar and a Rulebook on Organisation and Functioning of System for Quality Assurance and Improvement at the University of Mostar.
The Team hopes that the University continues with this work and will seek to develop further the existing quality assurance system with a focus on ensuring the effectiveness and impact of the feedback collected. Experience in other European universities has shown that, if those who participate in providing feedback and otherwise contributing to the functioning of the quality assurance system do not see any impact of their contribution, their level of motivation will decrease, and for instance in the case of student questionnaires, the level of participation drops. As a result, Universities need to be careful that their QA systems do not deteriorate into a series of administrative processes which do not lead to improvement of activities. And particular attention needs to be paid to not making the QA system too bureaucratic at the cost of effectiveness.
Key success factors for a well-functioning internal quality assurance system identified by EUA’s Quality Culture project were strategic planning,
16 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009 appropriate organisational structures for quality assurance, commitment of the institution’s senior leadership, engagement of the staff and students, involvement of external stakeholders and well organised data collection and analysis. Except for this last, the University of Mostar seems to have appropriate structures and processes in place as long as it implements them efficiently.
However, as regards data collection and analysis, the Team feels that the University’s data systems and data collection are insufficient and inadequate. This fact was demonstrated by the simple fact that the University was unable to provide the team with some basic information on student progress, staff or finances. And, as far as the Team understood, the belief that IT-systems (each faculty has their own systems) are inadequate was shared by many people the Team interviewed. In order to make evidence-based decisions on the strategic priorities and distribution of funds, the institutional leadership must have comparable and reliable data on the inputs and outputs of the faculties and study programmes.
Therefore, the Team urges the University to give priority to building up an integrated IT-system and database to collect relevant data, for example data on graduate employability, and statistics to be used in all analysis and planning activities.
In addition, the Team wishes to draw the University’s attention to two possible lines for developing the QA system further. Firstly, the Team learnt about many good practices being implemented in some faculties and learnt that originally student questionnaires on teaching were initiated by the students at the faculty of medicine and have since then become a common practice in all faculties. This is an excellent example of sharing good practices within the institution and the Team hopes that the University continues to promote initiatives like this and thus encourage a bottom-up approach to QA.
Throughout the discussions with the staff, it was clear that the University has understood that QA developments are necessary and they are part of the Bologna Process. The Team also examined how the institutional processes comply with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ESG) and could see that the standards have been
17 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009 considered to some extent, although some challenges still remain, for instance regarding the data on student progress. As the University aims at being integrated in the European Higher Education Area and the national QA system – which is likely to be set up eventually – will probably comply with the ESG, the Team encourages the University to look into part one of the ESG when planning the QA activities further.
For example, the last standard for higher education institutions of publishing regularly up-to-date, impartial and objective information of the University’s activities is a challenge to all European universities, not least to the University Mostar. Publishing this kind of information relates closely to the service to, and interaction with, society as it is likely to increase the external impact and increase the levels of knowledge of the work done at the University among the external stakeholders.
18 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
4. Teaching
Although the legal framework for the implementation of Bologna has not been clarified within BiH, as discussed in the beginning of this report, the University has been proactive in this respect and began the reform of the curricula from the academic year 2005 – 2006. In practice, this has meant introducing evaluation of student work through ECTS credits, harmonising curricula with referential faculties (the faculties have done informal benchmarking with selected faculties as regards to contents of the study programmes) and introducing a three-cycle degree system.
The University enjoys a very high level of academic autonomy which has allowed these initiatives to be introduced and the Team is convinced that the reforms are heading in the right direction and wishes to encourage the University to continue these reforms. As quoted in the SER:
“Methods used in teaching are certainly not entirely at the level of those used at European universities and there is a big difference among faculties, among some study groups and even among some courses in the same group and the same faculty.”
This is something that the University should aim at addressing next, and the Team would like to think that staff development programme, mentioned earlier in this report, could be a very valuable tool in this respect, especially if it offers pedagogical training to teachers. Also, the issue of defining clear and transparent learning outcomes should be addressed in order to further ensure the relevance and quality of the study programmes the University offers.
As the University has been willing to initiate the reforms, reportedly this has caused some disturbing problems for the students. According to information the Team got during the interviews, the first students received their bachelor degrees last year, but these degrees are not recognised by the National Centre for Informing and Recognition of Documents (independent administrative organisation authorised for informing and issues of recognition in the area of higher education in the framework of the Convention on recognising diplomas in higher education). This has meant that most of the students have, in practice, been forced to continue their studies towards a
19 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009 master’s degree. This situation is quite alarming and the university should try to work together with the local authorities, such as cantonal governments, and students to resolve the situation.
The Team learnt that, at the University level, the student organisations and institutional leaders are co-operating and communicating in various ways and wishes hopes that the University continues to foster this relationship further. The student participation combined with open communication channels can be essential in the implementation of the reform processes in avoiding problems or any counter effects that may occur in the reforms.
According to the interviews, the students were relatively happy with the arrangements for student support at faculty level, but at the same time there are great differences among faculties in this respect. It seems that the current arrangements rely heavily on the individual staff members and deans. As the university is taking steps towards a more integrated system, the Team urges it to analyse the need for, and the supply of, support services for the students and based on this analysis to build up common support services for the students at the institutional level. It is quite natural that academic student counselling will continue to be the responsibility of a faculty or a programme, but other kinds of services could be offered more efficiently and professionally at the institutional level and thus again allowing the academic staff to spend more time on research and teaching. In addition, while academic support services should be provided at faculty or programme level the university has the responsibility for ensuring that minimum standards of this support are being maintained.
The University’s mission includes an aim of “being internationally relevant” and the Team feels that there is a great potential for the University in increasing co-operation with other universities and also the participation in European Programmes (which are opening up to BiH). The SER prepared by the University identifies the key issues in this respect:
“Regardless of the fact that there are significant and multiple international relations of the University, there are also difficulties in coordinating all those activities not only at the University level but also between the faculties and the University. Namely, the University has a
20 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
complete control and possibility of governing only with a part of international relations which functions at the University level.
However, even there are also significant problems and difficulties, starting from the fact that (...) the International relations office at the University level has only two persons, that there is no administrative support for activities of the international relations (realization of student, teacher and associate mobility), that there is no adequate informatical support to the activities of international relations.”
Furthermore, during the site visits the Team learnt that two persons working at the International Office also have responsibilities at faculty level, i.e. are part of the academic staff. In the interviews, students and staff members said that one reason for the almost inexistent flow of incoming student or teacher mobility is the lack of any kind of infrastructure for mobility (housing, student counseling, information provided etc.).
Despite this situation, faculty staff and students did report on the existence of well functioning relations with selected universities and faculties at subject level. These connections allow the students at some faculties to undertake part of their studies abroad and also provide staff members with essential interaction with their peers. The Team feels that by formalising these contacts and cherishing them as well as building up new academically meaningful contacts, the University can enhance its internationalisation. As the current trend in internationalisation stands, it is not the number of agreements, but the quality and volume of the activities carried out within the agreements, that count. Considering what has been stated above, the Team encourages the University to create an infrastructure to help develop international student and staff exchanges and participation in international research projects. Essential part of this infrastructure would be an international office with clear responsibilities to co-ordinate all co-operation and mobility agreements – in co-operation with the faculties and programmes concerned – and to provide specific services to facilitate the mobility, thus allowing the University also to have an insight on its international activities and to steer these activities so that they underpin its overall strategic priorities.
21 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
5. Research
The Team feels that the recommendation made at the end of last paragraph (create an infrastructure to help participation in international projects), would be part of the solution to the dilemma that the University faces currently regarding applying for research funds. As the SER states:
“As far as the possibility of applying in the framework of research programmes is concerned, the situation is today more favorable and our state can apply for getting significant funds for the research work, e.g. FP7, etc. But it is obvious that significant number of teachers and associates are not able to use the offered possibilities because of the low level of the English language knowledge and lack of the project management skills.
Consequences of such situation are far-reaching, because without existing of research projects, rejuvenation of teaching staff, whose progress in the first line depends on their research competence, is almost impossible. So, in the long-term perspective, instead of solving the problem, it becomes more serious and harder to solve.”
The Team shares the University’s concern in this regard, especially as it learnt from the staff that the time they can devote to research is very limited and the government (or cantons in this case) does not fund research at all. For a University with aspirations to be a research oriented university this combination poses a real threat.
Due to these circumstances, the Team feels that priority should be given to establishing an infrastructure with competent staff to provide information, support and assistance for researchers interested in applying for research grants. Such arrangements already exist in many universities, as they have understood that current research programmes require specialised knowledge on the vocabulary to be used at the application phase not to mention the project and financial management of the programmes.
Another source of financing for the University would be to become more engaged in applied research. The SER refers to this by stating “the applied research work is conducted at the University (making of projects, elaborates, etc.), but that is not even close to real possibilities and real needs”. After the
22 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009 site visits the Team was left with the impression that this kind of research was still underappreciated by the researchers interviewed. Often they seemed to feel that they needed to defend their involvement in such activities whereas in most of Europe a major part of research at the universities is applied research and the transfer of technology related to these projects is a very important way to increase the external impact of the university.
According to the SER “the faculties are organized in order to fulfil their two basic functions – educational and research one”. However, the University also has six institutes which mostly deal with research. In the meeting with the Heads of some of the institutes, the Team got the impression that the reasoning behind the institutes is the fact that faculties do not receive any funding for research and, when the outside research funding is channelled through institutes, this – in some cases – allows the researchers more security and autonomy as regards the use of the funds. However, in most of the European universities the faculties really coordinate both teaching and research activities and channel the funding for both, and therefore the Team invites the University to review the role of the reseach institutes, in particular their relation with faculties.
If the University adopts the model proposed earlier in this report of always channelling the external funds to a unit that has earned it (just taking an overhead to cover administrative and infrastructure costs), merging at least most of the institutes should not pose problems. Especially considering the fact that most of the staff of the institutes is shared with the faculties.
23 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
6. Service to Society
During the site-visits and through discussion with the representatives of the University as well as key stakeholders, the evaluation team was convinced that the University does play an important role in contributing to improving the economic development of the region. The stakeholders’ support and co- operation appears to be one of the strengths of the University.
Earlier in this report some ways to further enhance the visibility of the University and promote the co-operation with external stakeholders were discussed. In this context the Team wishes to draw the University’s attention to the fact that there seems to be a great potential for the University to further strengthen its presence in the region by responding to the need for lifelong learning in the region. The University is already contributing to these needs by offering extension studies for teachers in the region, but it should also examine if there are other needs for which it could cater.
As its final recommendation, the Team would suggest the University set up an alumni organisation to support the University. Traditionally, alumni organisations contribute to the development of the University financially, but it can also support the University by other means.
In this case, it could function as the network through which the University communicates with society, the channel through which the University informs the region about the services and expertise it has to offer but at the same time the channel to find out what kind of expectations exist towards the University. And thus, enable the University to make better informed decisions on strategic priorities or new activities. Alumni can also be a valuable source of information for the University when it develops curricula by providing information on the needs that exist in current working life. Employability being one of the key values within Bologna Process, it is essential to consider this aspect of the co-operation with the alumni and the rest of the stakeholders.
24 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
7. Conclusions
The Team recognises that the University works in a particularly complex and challenging national and regional context, and the evaluation took place in a period of substantial change. Still, it would strongly encourage the University to take full advantage of the possibilities that the legislative changes may offer and embrace the autonomy which it has.
During the visit, the IEP Team did recognise that there truly is a willingness within the University to make the changes needed in order for the University to move forward towards the concept of a European University, but also that there is resistance and it hopes that the concerns which cause this resistance can be addressed.
Finally, the Team wishes to emphasise one important asset the University possesses. During the numerous site-visits, it became convinced that the most important strength of the University, indeed, lies in the people who work and study at it. Many staff members demonstrated such a commitment and devotion to the University and its key tasks – research and teaching – which can only be admired. And the young staff members and students we met were at least as impressing. Many of them have truly a European identity, are aware of the developments of their discipline in other countries and universities and were able to discuss analytically the strengths, weaknesses as well as constraints of the research facilities and the education offered by the University. And while doing this, they demonstrated a clear sense of belonging to, and pride in being part of, this specific University community. The IEP team feels that this is the kind of foundation which provides the leadership a good starting point for a future development.
The key recommendations of the Team can be summarised as follows
1) Revisit and reconsider the recommendations of the earlier IEP evaluation from 2004.
2) Move from a semi-integrated to a fully integrated university. Be proactive!
3) Once the university has control over its entire budget, carefully reconsider the formula for distribution of funds to the faculties.
25 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
4) Further develop the existing proposal that the rules for determining the level of salaries will be the same irrespective of faculty.
5) Provide incentives to the faculties to facilitate interdisciplinary work and institutional cooperation.
6) Review the role of the reseach institutes, in particular their relation with faculties.
7) Give priority to building up an integrated ICT-system and database to collect relevant data, for example data on graduate employability, and statistics to be used in all analysis and planning activities.
8) Move to a more professionally managed institution developing a clear sense of vision shared within the university community.
9) Create an infrastructure to help develop international student and staff exchanges and participation in international research projects.
10) Build up common support services for the students at the institutional level.
11) Set up an alumni organisation to support the university.
12) Develop further the existing quality assurance system with a focus on ensuring the effectiveness and impact of the feedback collected.
13) Streamline and reinforce human resource management.
14) Implement the current plans for staff development including pedagogical training.
26 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
8. Annexes
8.1 Schedule of the First Visit
About 15h Airport Sarajevo Arrival of evaluation team
18h30-20h Hotel „ERO“ Mostar Briefing meeting
20h30-22h Hotel „ERO“ Dinner
23, February, 2009 Time Location Description 9-10h Rectorate of University Meeting with rector of Mostar
10h30-11h15 Conference Room, Introduction meeting Faculty of Economics, University of Mostar
11h30-13h Conference Room, Meeting with Self-Evaluation Faculty of Economics, team of (SET) SVE-MO University of Mostar
13h-14h30 Restaurant „Blue Line“ Lunch
14h30-15h A. Faculty of Civil Meeting with Dean Engineering Meeting with Dean B. Faculty of Natural Sciences and Education
15h-16h A. Faculty of Civil Meeting with academic staff Engineering representatives
B. Faculty of Natural Meeting with academic staff Sciences and Education representatives
16h-16h50 A. Faculty of Civil Meeting with students Engineering representatives
B. Faculty of Natural Meeting with students Sciences and Education representatives
17h-18h Rectorate of University Meeting with external partners of Mostar
18h30-19h30 Hotel „Ero“ Debriefing meeting
24 February, 2009 20h Recommendation: Dinner Restaurant „Aster“
27 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
9h-9h30 A. Academy of Fine Meeting with Dean Arts, Siroki Brijeg
B. Faculty of Agriculture Meeting with Dean
9h30-10h15 A. Academy of Fine Meeting with academic staff Arts, Siroki Brijeg representatives
B. Faculty of Agriculture Meeting with academic staff representatives
10h15-11h A. Academy of Fine Meeting with students Arts, Siroki Brijeg representatives
B. Faculty of Agriculture Meeting with students representatives
11h30-12h30 Campus I Tour of campus Campus II
12h30-13h Conference Room, Debriefing meeting Faculty of Economics, University of Mostar 13h-13h30 Conference Room, Plan the second visit schedule Faculty of Economics, University of Mostar
14h-16h Ethno village, Lunch Medjugorje
16h … Ethno village, Departure of some IEP team Medjugorje members
25 February, 2009
9h30 Departure from Hotel Departure to Sarajevo airport „Ero“
8.2 Schedule of the Second Visit
Time What & who? Why?
12 May, 2009
Late Arrival of evaluation team afternoon
60 minutes Briefing meeting Division of tasks, preliminary discussion of evaluation report Evaluation team alone structure and issues
Evening Dinner Welcome, renew acquaintance;
28 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
Evaluation team, with go over site visit programme rector and liaison person
13 May, 2009
9.00 – 10.00 Meeting with rector Discuss privately issues that need to be stressed in team’s Evaluation team, rector visit and report
10.10 – 11.00 Meeting with secretary Discuss budgeting and general organisation of the University as well as preparation of new Secretary general, statutes. evaluation team
11.10 – 12.30 Meeting with the deans Discuss relationship of faculties of the faculties we did with central level with respect to not meet during the first strategic development and visit quality management
Deans, evaluation team
12.40 – 14.00 Lunch Reflect upon impressions of first meetings and complete Evaluation team, liaison information as necessary person
14.00 – 15.00 Meeting with quality Discuss quality assurance coordinator of the system University and vice rector for students and teaching
Quality coordinator, vice rector, evaluation team
15.10 – 16.00 Meeting with Governing Discuss relationship of board (outside Governing board body with members) rectoral team regarding strategic and quality Members of the Governing management board who come from the outside of the University, evaluation team
16.00 – 16.45 Meeting with student Students’ views on the delegation institution, on relations with rector’s office, on student input Student representatives at in quality management and in University level (strategic) decision making
17.00 – 18.00 Meeting with outside Discuss relationships of partners institution with external stakeholders of private and (for instance teachers in
29 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
the region, alumni) public sector
18.00 – 19.00 Debriefing meeting Exchange impressions, review the day Evaluation team alone
Evening Dinner Reflect on impressions and start preparing oral report Evaluation team alone
14 May, 2009
9.00 – 10.00 Visit to faculties of Discuss relationships of Medicine and Law or faculties with the central parallel Economics level; input in self- Evaluation evaluation; role of quality team splits into Academic staff, evaluation control activities in faculty; pairs team recruitment of new staff; staff development; motivation policies. Please note that deans or vice deans should not be present at this meeting: it is reserved for “regular” academic staff only.
10.00 – 11.00 Visit to faculties of Students’ views on their Medicine and Law or experience (e.g., teaching parallel Economics and learning, student input Evaluation in quality control and team splits into Students, evaluation team (strategic) decision making) pairs
11.30 – 12.30 Representatives of To discuss the Research Institutes management, organisation parallel and role of research Evaluation Xx, evaluation team activities of the University. team splits into pairs
12.30 – 14.00 Lunch Evaluation team, alone, to exchange impressions Evaluation team alone
14.00 – 15.00 Meeting with someone To discuss the staff or some people development practices of responsible for staff the University development
Xx, evaluation team
30 Institutional Evaluation Programme/University of Mostar/July 2009
15.30 – 20.00 Debriefing meeting and Exchange impressions, drafting of the oral review day and begin report drafting the oral report
Evaluation team alone [evaluation team needs a working room in the hotel for this task]
20.00 Dinner Continuation of debriefing meeting Evaluation team alone
15 May, 2009
8.30 – 9.30 Concluding meeting Discuss draft oral report with the rector alone, to Rector, evaluation team ensure it reflects the findings of the team as well as the needs of the rector for the institution’s further development
9.30 – 10.00 Adapting oral report Adapt oral report according to discussion with rector Evaluation team alone
10.00 – 11.00 Presentation of oral report
Evaluation team, rector and members of the institution (invitations to be decided by the rector, e.g. rectoral team, liaison person, self- evaluation group, senate etc).
Midday Departure of evaluation team
31