The organizational autonomy of Greek : an attempt at quantification

George Stamelos, Haris Lambropoulos & Ourania Bousiou

Tertiary Education and Management

ISSN 1358-3883

Tert Educ Manag DOI 10.1007/s11233-019-09051-y

1 23 Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by The European Higher Education Society. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be self- archived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23 Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-019-09051-y

ORIGINAL PAPER

The organizational autonomy of Greek universities: an attempt at quantification

George Stamelos1 & Haris Lambropoulos1 & Ourania Bousiou 1

Received: 5 May 2019 /Accepted: 10 September 2019/ # The European Higher Education Society 2019

Abstract Both qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the degree of organizational autonomy of Greek universities, during the period of the implementation of Law 4009/11, is attempted. The necessity of such a study is very important and fruitful for the Greek universities, since in the period of the last research (2017) of the European Union Association (EUA) concerning autonomy, did not provide the required data to EUA and was not included in the countries studied. Sources regarding the measurement of the degree of university auton- omy in Greece were based on the methodology and results that emerged from the EUA researches (2007 & 2017), as well as on the review of the literature and analysis of the data that emerged from the legislation applied by the universities in Greece, during the corresponding period. The quantification of organizational autonomy provided the score and rank of Greek universities relative to other European universities, which is found to be quite low. Therefore, we make proposals for a realistic, for Greek data, increase in organizational autonomy. The aim is to upgrade the services provided by institutions and to respond to the modern requirements of a globalized society and market.

Keywords Greek universities . Higher education . University autonomy. Organizational autonomy. European Union Association

Introduction

Greece has a centralized tradition concerning educational policy. This also applies to higher education institutions which are exclusively public sector. It is a context that reduces university autonomy. However, it is not clear that universities are willing to demand a greater degree of autonomy, as they are afraid of taking on greater responsibilities (Stamelos et al. 2015).

* George Stamelos [email protected]

1 Department of Primary Education, University of Patras, GR-26504 Patras, Greece Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

On the other hand, in recent years the promotion of reforms aimed at strengthening university autonomy found strong support in the European Union. This is considered an important element for the increase in the effectiveness of teaching, related as it is to the high educational performances of graduates, for the productivity of research and for flexibility in governance (Ritzen 2016; Hoareau et al. 2013). In the Greek case, there seems to be a cleavage between tradition and the current tendency related to higher educational policies concerning autonomy. At this point, it should be mentioned that the concept of autonomy is relatively recent and is developed in parallel with the development of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). This concept does not exist in the relevant Greek legislation although it is used in public discourse. Here, it will be used firstly as a key concept of EHEA, in which Greece, and hence the Greek universities, participates too, and secondly as an Bumbrella^ concept in the attempt to comprehend the wider trend in the state-university relationships in Greece during the recent period of history (that has become known as the Regime Change). The issue of university autonomy has occupied Europe since 2007 in a systematic way. The European University Association (EUA) is the official European body that expresses the views of the universities. EUA seems to give a priority to autonomy in the context of the European Higher Education Area (EHAE) (Estermann and Nokkala 2009, Estermann et al. 2011, Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). Forty-seven countries participate in the EUA, which plays a crucial role in the application of the decisions made in Bologna. The body’s interest mainly revolves around finding new (innovative) methods for the improvement of teaching, research and innovation at the universities. Meanwhile, it also studies and publishes reports at regular intervals regarding the funding trends that prevail within the European universities. To achieve this end, it works together with reputable European and international organizations and ensures the independent voice of the universities in Europe. Consequently, it is a trusted institution, with a high reputation, which influences the European university ‘landscape’ through its decisions and activities. In this research an attempt is made to evaluate qualitatively as well as quantitatively the degree of university autonomy of the Greek universities during the period of the implemen- tation of Law 4009/11. The need for this study is great since during the period of the last research (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017), Greece did not provide the required data to EUA and was not included in the countries studied, since official scientific data regarding the degree of university autonomy in our country were not given.

Sources

The EUA began to collect data on university autonomy and attempted to classify it so that the data could comprise a point of reference for corresponding studies in the future, and so that a comparative study of the development of university autonomy on a national and European level could be possible. The study was based on the measuring of four general indicators that concern dimensions of autonomy and which were agreed on in the Lisbon Treaty (2007). The four general indicators are organizational autonomy (including academic and administrative structures, leadership and governance), financial autonomy (including the ability to raise funds, own buildings and borrow money), staffing autonomy (including the ability to recruit independently and promote and develop academic and non-academic staff) and autonomy in academic matters (including study fields, student numbers, student selection and the structure and content of degrees) (Estermann 2012;EstermannandNokkala2009; Estermann et al. 2011; Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017;Vidal2013). The following 29 countries took Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management part in this research, sending the required data to the EUA: , Flanders (Belgium), Wallonia (Belgium), Switzerland, Brandenburg (), Essen (Germany), North Rhine- Westphalia (Germany), , , , , France, , , Ireland, , , Lithuania, Luxemburg, , Holland, Norway, , , , Sweden, , and England (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). In this list the concept Bcountry^ has been used to characterise also sub-national entities that participate in the research. It became clear from the data collected during the research that was conducted by the EUA in the decade 2007–2017 that there are differentiations in the models that are adopted by the European universities regarding issues that concern university autonomy (Felt and Glanz 2003; Estermann and Nokkala 2009; Estermann et al. 2011; Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). That is why, according to some studies, the results are not absolutely comparable and include a degree of uncertainty (Ritzen 2016). However, as other studies claim, EUA’s experienced partners have been dealing with this particular issue for many years, which ensures the accuracy of the data and the reliability of the results, revealing the chief principles and conditions that prevail in the universities, as well as which of these fulfill their mission and their goals (Estermann and Nokkala 2009; Estermann et al. 2011; Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017;Estermann2012). Our research regarding the measuring of the degree of university autonomy in Greece will be based, on the one hand, on the results that emerged from the EUA research (Estermann and Nokkala 2009; Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017), and, on the other, on a review of the literature and analysis of the data that emerge from the legislation that was applied by the universities in Greece during the corresponding period. More specifically, Law 4009/11 proposes changes in the organization and governance of the Greek universities, adopting models that are implemented in various countries in Europe. The study will focus on the analysis of the general indicator of organizational autonomy, as this is defined in the Treaty of Lisbon, together with the three other indicators of autonomy referred to.

Measuring the organizational autonomy of the universities in Greece

Our research focuses on the dimension of university organizational autonomy, using the methodology of EUA’a corresponding research. For the case of Greece, the data that are available will be used (Ester mann et al. 2011), and where data do not exist (2015/16 research) they will be sought in our own research, through the analysis of the legislative texts. Obviously, the second case requires a differentiation of the methodology, which also signals the limits of our research. Nevertheless, it is important that a fuller picture of the Greek reality be shaped. The EUA research on organizational autonomy focuses on the following dimensions: the capacity to define the model of governance, its composition, its academic and administrative structures, the capacity to create legal entities, as well as issues related to the , such as the procedures regarding his/her selection, definition of his/her qualifications, his/her term of office and the terms for his/her dismissal (Table 1).

Selection of a rector/executive head

According to the latest EUA study (2017), the procedures for the selection of the Rector differ from country to country. The procedures, as these are recorded in the data collected for the research in question, were placed in four main categories: Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

Table 1 The individual indicators that comprise the general indicator for organizational autonomy

Organizational Autonomy Selection procedure for the Rector/Executive Head Selection criteria for the Rector/Executive Head Term of office of the Rector/Executive Head Dismissal of the Rector/Executive Head Capacity to decide on academic structures Capacity to create legal entities Governing Bodies – Models of Governance External Members in university governing bodies

1. The selection of the rector is conducted by a special electoral body, which is usually large and includes representatives from all the categories of staff who participate in the university community (academic and other staff, administrative staff, students at all levels). 2. The selection is carried out by a governing body, which has been elected through democratic procedures from among the members of the university community (usually the senate). 3. The rector is appointed by the institution’s council/board. 4. The rector is appointed through a two-step process, in which the senate as much as the institution’s council/board is involved.

Another important parameter of organizational autonomy is the universities’ capacity to select, and validate the selection of, the rector by university bodies, or otherwise to seek validation by an external authority, usually by the competent ministry. The results showed that in approx- imately 40% of the participating states (12 out of 29) the universities can select and validate the selection of the rector with internal procedures, while in roughly 60% (17 out of 29 states) approval is required by the supervising ministry (Fig. 1). In Greece the rector is the supreme governing body of the institution. In article 8 para- graph 15 of Law 4009/11 it is stated that: BTo the position of Rector a top-tier from

Fig. 1 Selection of the Rector (Executive Head appointment) Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management an Institute of Higher Education, from home or abroad, who is a Greek national with excellent knowledge of Greek, recognized standing and significant experience in governance may be elected^ (Law of Greek State 4009/2011). From this we can ascertain that for the first time in Greece it is permissible for individuals external to the university to participate in the selection process for the rector, individuals who may not be in any way connected to, or have any link with, the university community. The question that emerged with the publication of the article concerns the extent to which someone can successfully govern and manage extremely important matters, when in the required qualifications it is merely mentioned that the individ- uals should possess experience in governance, and even this not necessarily in corresponding public organizations (Patsikas 2013). In addition, the electoral body, whose members have the right to vote in the election of the rector, is modified significantly in relation to what is applicable in Law 3549/07, the pre- existing legislation to Law 4009/11. More precisely, the electoral body, according to law 3549/07, is made up of the sum of the total number of members of the faculty, multiplied by 50%, 40% of the total number of undergraduate and postgraduate students and by 10% of the total number of the laboratory teaching and technical staff and the administrative staff. It should be made clear that each candidate makes up a single ballot paper, which includes the rector and two or three candidate vice rectors, depending on the size of the university, with whom he wishes to work. The candidates that receive the absolute majority of votes from the total of the electorate are elected. The elections are conducted through a secret ballot and Bare published in the Government Gazette with the declaratory resolution of the Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs for the election of the Rector and the Vice-Rectors^ (article 8 of Law 3545/07). During the implementation of Law 4009/11, there are two stages in the procedure for the election of the rector. During the first stage, the position of rector is announced publicly by the institution’s council. The applications are examined by the institution’s council and its members decide on a shortlist of three candidates. Then, for the selection of the candidate who will become rector, elections are carried out by electoral bodies, in which all the academic staff of the university participate. More precisely, B16. a) The Rector is elected from amongst the and serving lecturers of the institution through direct, secret and universal ballot^ (Law of Greek State 4009/2011). With the new law other categories of staff are excluded, in other words the auxiliary teaching staff and the administrative personnel as well as the institution’s students (article 8 of Law 4009/11). In addition, at the same time, for the validation of the election of the , a decision by the Ministry of Education is required. According to paragraph 16 of article 8 of Law 4009/11: B16. a) …and is appointed by a decision of the Council which is published in the Government Gazette. The Minister of Education, Research and Religious Affairs publishes a de facto act for the appointment of the Rector^ (Law of Greek State 4009/2011). It is noted that in most cases the validation by an external body is usually a formality.

Selection criteria for the rector/executive head

In 66% of the states that participated in the research, the criteria for the selection of rector were clearly defined by the legislation (Fig. 2). In the countries where the universities themselves decided on the criteria, there weren’t any legal restrictions and commitments, but based on common practice applied in other organizations, they freely determined the criteria for the rector. Additional factors taken into account for the election were leadership ability and Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

Fig. 2 Definition of criteria for selection of Rector (Executive Head selection criteria) experience in governance, the age limit, and so on. Depending on the type of university that announced the position of rector, it was possible for them to require additional qualifications, as appropriate. For example, in some countries the possession of a doctoral title was an essential qualification, while in others only high-ranking professors had the right to apply. In Greece, the criteria for the right of election to the position of rector, in this period, are referred to in article 8 of Law 4009/11: B15. A top-tier professor of the same institution may be elected as Rector^ (Law of Greek State 4009/2011). It is highlighted that in the explanatory statement of the Law additional qualifications are provided for the election of some member as rector of the university. Further qualifications that are taken into account during the election are the highly regarded character and standing of the candidates as well as adequate experience in governance. The election takes place after international invitations and candidates who have Greek nationality, from either home or abroad, may participate (Explanatory Statement of Law 4009/11).

Rector’s term of office and terms of dismissal

In approximately 80% of the cases examined, the rector’stermofofficeisdeterminedinthe legislation, sometimes a fixed duration, at others with the definition of the maximum term permitted (Fig. 3). The term of office ranges from between 4 to 6 years and the possibility is usually granted for a second term. In only six states (roughly 20%) are the institutions given the right to determine the duration of the chancellor’s term of office through internal procedures. In Greece, the rector’s term in office is determined by the law. The rector is elected through a secret ballot by the total number of professors and lecturers at the university, for a term of four years, while in article 8 paragraph 16 of law 4009/11 it is stated that: BThe Rector cannot be re-elected for a second consecutive term at the same institution^ (article 8 of Law 4009/11 & Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). The increased majority in the voting ensures selection of an individual widely accepted in institution and community, with strong legitimi- zation and limited dependences in the exercise of his duties as academic leader of the institution. On the other hand, the rector’s accountability to the council ensures the Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

Fig. 3 Rector’s (Executive Head’s) term of office transparency and trustworthiness of the institutions and functions as the essential institutional counter-weight for the consolidation of the necessary trust, with the intention of further strengthening of the institutions’ self-governance and the granting to them of duties that until now belonged to the Ministry of Education, Life Long Learning and Religious Affairs (Explanatory report of Law 4009/11). The dismissal of the rector and the granting of responsibilities is another important point for highlighting organizational autonomy. In contrast with the rector’s term of office, it was observed that there aren’t any decrees that refer to the issue of the dismissal of the rector. In most countries, there are no such decrees in the laws. In 14 countries, the dismissal is examined by internal university bodies and the decisions of collective bodies are applied without, in most cases, external validation of the dismissal decision being required (Fig. 4). In Law 4009/11 there is no clear reference to the issue of the dismissal of the rector. Even the departure of the rector for whatever reason is not provided for. This omission in the law was corrected a year later by a legislative regulation in which it is stated that: BIn the case of the departure of a single-member governing body, for whatever reason, including resignation

Fig. 4 Dismissal of the Rector (Executive Head) Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management or retirement, the Senate of the same Institution defines from amongst its members their replacement until the expiry of the four-month deadline of paragraph 1 of the present article. In particular, in the case of the departure of the Rector or other single-member governing body, within the time period of their term of office, as is foreseen in subparagraph a of paragraph 2 of the present article, the Senate of the Institution determines from amongst its members his replacement with a term of office up to the end of the during which this replacement was made. Within the same period of time the election of a new Rector, or a new single-member governing body, takes place, in accordance with the provisions of Law 4009/11 (A; 195), as long as this is valid. The term of office of the new Rector or of the single- member governing body commences at the end of the term of office of the replacement appointed by the Senate. The above terms of office of the replacements are not considered full terms of office^ (article 12 of Law 4076/12, GG-159 A/10–8-12) (Law of Greek State 4076/2012).

Internal academic structures

In more than two-thirds of the states, the universities are free to decide on their academic structures. Nevertheless, in some of them, the law determines the existence of certain academic units, without these provisions restricting the autonomy of the institutions (Fig. 5). In four countries the universities are able to determine the legal guidelines. While the law doesn’t determine the number of academic units, nor name these units, other restrictions are set, chiefly of an economic nature. In the case of Greece, the law states that the universities operate schools, departments, laboratories, institutes and other units, and the composition of the governing bodies of these units is described. In Croatia, Slovenia and Slovakia organizational autonomy is limited since the academic units are referred to in detail in the law. In these countries the universities aren’t able to establish new schools and departments or modify or rename pre-existing structures, without the existence of a prior modification in the law. This is the reason why the organizational structures have functioned in the same way since their

Fig. 5 Ability to determine internal academic structures Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management establishment, while there is stability in their funding, in the governance and the adoption of a particular decision-making strategy. Two cases deserve special attention. According to recent legislation voted on in Sweden in 2011, no provision is made for the existence of rectors. This change was applied in all the tertiary education institutions from 2011 and it gave them the opportunity to advance the reorganization of the whole of their organizational structure and decision-making processes with more flexibility. In contrast, in the Irish universities the capacity to decide on their academic structures is restricted, since stricter regulations regarding the renumeration of the staff in these structures is being promoted. The university can’t recruit higher administrative and teaching personnel for staffing the various structures since approval of the payments for staff salaries is strictly restricted by the state (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). At the same time in Greece it appears that the degree of autonomy of the university institutions increased. A characteristic point in the promotion of such changes is Chapter B′ of Law 4009/11, entitled BRegulative framework for Higher Education Institutions self- government^. More precisely, in article 5, the legislator strengthens the autonomy of the universities to create entities. These entities deal with matters to do with the governance, and organizational and financial operation of each institution, so that each university can maintain a distinct appearance in relation to others that operate in the country. The composition of the organization needs to go through three preparatory stages before it receives final approval from the minister. The organization is recommended by the rector, debated in the senate, which sets out an opinion and is passed on to the council for approval. Once the council approves the proposal, it sends the organization to the minister for approval and publication in the Government Gazette (article 5 of Law 4009/11). Here it is worth pointing out that ultimately article 5 essentially remained inactivated, since no Greek university has advanced to the composition of new entities and internal regulations. The non-implementation of these partic- ular provisions is down to two main reasons. Firstly, the flexibility that the state demonstrated towards the universities since the ministry, as a result of the non-composition of regulations, continued to regulate many of the issues that concerned the organization and operation of the universities. Secondly, the universities didn’t appear to be ready to proceed to the taking on of responsibilities on matters related to the increase in their degree of autonomy. An important point concerning the self-government of the Greek universities is the ability granted to the institution for the establishment, merging, segmentation, renaming or closure of their schools and departments, following a proposal and approval from the Minister of Education. With article 1 of Law 4076/12, the reasons for which the institution can propose structural changes to their organizational structure are made clear. More specifically, the minister examines the substantiated proposals of the universities, taking into consideration the opinion of the Hellenic Quality Assurance Agency (HQA): Ba) when it is necessary for the meeting of certain social needs for the growth of higher education or the cultivation of new scientific and technical fields or interdisciplinary fields that are judged necessary for the socio-economic growth of the country and which are not adequately met by the Higher Education Institution or the Schools or Departments that operate. b) when it is imposed by the disproportionately high or correspondingly low annual number of students or graduates per professor in a Higher Education Institution or School or Department. c) When the operation of individual Higher Education Institution or Schools or Department is not scien- tifically justified and, on the contrary, makes research and the teaching of the corresponding cognitive fields difficult. d) When it is in accordance with the needs and capabilities of the national economy^ (article 1 of Law 4076/12) (Law of Greek State 4076/2012). Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

From this it is clear that the institutions submit proposals but essentially they do not have the executive power to perform changes. The demand for processing and approval by more bodies, (Rectorate, Senate, Council, H.Q.A.) before approval by the minister of education in essence limits the degree of autonomy that the institution has for the promotion of changes. If one adds the economic crisis that Greece suffered in the same period it is obvious that the institutions’ autonomy to promote internal structural changes in their organizational structure is restricted (van Ginkel 2011).

Establishment of legal entities

The ability to establish independent governing structures allows the universities to implement their strategies in a flexible and satisfactory manner in order to carry out their mission. While in almost all the universities the establishment of not-for-profit structures is permitted, approximately two-thirds of the states extend this privilege to for-profit legal entities too (Fig. 6). Universities in Greece, at this time, according to the aforementioned Law 4009/11, are structured in schools, departments and sectors. More specifically: B1. Each Institution is made up of Schools, which comprise its chief units. The School covers a group of related scientific branches and ensures the interdisciplinary approach, communication between them and the coordination necessary for their teaching and research. The School supervises and coordi- nates the operation of the Departments, according to their Study Regulations. 2. The Depart- ment comprises the chief educational and academic unit of the Institution, it promotes science, technology or the arts in the respective scientific field, organizes the teaching in the framework of the study programme and ensures the continual improvement of the learning within it. The Department is made up of the Professors, Lecturers, members of the Special Educational Staff (SES), the members of the Laboratory Teaching Staff (LTS) and the members of the Special Technical Laboratory Staff (STLS), who work within it^ (article 7 of Law 4009/11) (Law of Greek State 4009/2011). The SES perform a special educational-teaching task at the Greek universities and they are assigned autonomous teaching work, such as foreign languages, physical education, music and arts (article 29 of Law 4009/11). In addition, according to article 7 of Law 4009/11, a presidential decree is published B6. Proposed by the Ministers for Administrative Reform and Electronic Governance, Finance

Fig. 6 Ability to create legal entities Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management and Education, Religious Affairs, Culture and Sport^ in order to merge, segment, rename, or close institutions and change their location as well as to establish, merge, segment, rename and close schools or departments and change their location (article 7 of Law 4009/11). For the establishment, merger, renaming, or closure of administrative units, of any level, the Bc) setting out of an opinion to the institution’s Council for the establishment or closure, merger, segmentation, renaming or change of location of schools^ (article 8 of Law 4009/11) is required. We note that the organizational and administrative autonomy of the Greek univer- sities is restricted, granting this right only to the supervising Ministry of Education.

Governing bodies

As far as the governance of the universities is concerned, we could in general say that two different systems (models) of governance are evident: the unitary and the dual system of governance (Fig. 7). The dual system of governance is characterised by a council, the composition of which includes a limited number of members of the senate. Usually, in most cases, the senate is a more representative and more numerous body, in which all levels of teaching staff participate as well as representatives from other groups of employees. Duties are shared by the two bodies. In the dual system of governance some differentiations from the rule are observed. For the categorization of these differentiations two sub-systems are recognised, called the ‘traditional’ dual system of governance and the ‘asymmetrical’ dual system of governance (Fig. 7). In the ‘traditional’ system of governance, the institution’s council is responsible for strategic deci- sion-making, such as approval of the internal regulation and the organization of the university, strategic planning, the selection of the rector and vice rector and approving the budget. The senate is usually made up of internal members of the university community (academic and other teaching staff, administrative staff, undergraduate and postgraduate students), who participate through representation, with ratios that are determined in the relevant legislation. The senate’s duties concern academic matters, such as approval of the study programmes, and awarding of corresponding titles. In addition, it regulates matters that concern staff develop- ment. In the ‘asymmetrical’ dual structures, one of the bodies is recognised as the main

Fig. 7 Governance structures Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management executive body, while the second has limited duties and objectives. The second body usually has more consultative duties than executive. In some of the states that participated in the research, there was a unitary system of governance. Here there is only one decision making body, usually the senate. The senate is responsible for all important decisions in the institution, in other words the same body decides and implements. Other particularities have also been noted, such as for example in Austria, where the senate and the rector are on the same administrative level, or in Denmark, where there is the senate, in the framework of which a small body (3–5 individuals) is formed by the relevant ministry, which is responsible for strategic decision making and supervises the decisions and the operation of the senate (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017).

Composition of governing bodies (participation of external members)

The participation and inclusion of members who do not belong to the university community is one of the important issues that concern their organizational structure. If an institution wishes to include external members in the higher governing bodies, the choice of members can be made by the university itself and/or by the external authority (Fig. 8). The capacity of the university to decide to include, or not to include, external members in the higher governing bodies is a procedure which is rarely encountered (for example in Estonia and the United Kingdom). In most of the states that participated in the research and adopted a dual governance system, the participation of external members was only required in the decision-making governing bodies. The number of external members is usually determined in the relevant legislation. There are differentiations in terms of the percentage of participation by external members since in some cases it is limited to one-third or fewer of the total number of members of the body (e.g. France and Italy) or they constitute 40% of the members (Finland). In Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and Estonia, the percentage of external members comes to 50% of the total number of council

Fig. 8 External members in governing bodies Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management members. There are cases where the entire council is made up of external members: Austria, Luxemburg, Holland and Slovakia (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). The participation of the external members in the governing bodies follows four main models (Fig. 8): (1) The universities can freely decide whether they will include external members, (2) The external members are chosen by the institution but are appointed by the external authority, (3) A percentage of the external members is appointed by the institution, while another percentage is appointed by an external authority, (4) The external authority decides exclusively on the appointment of external members (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). The external members that are chosen as representatives on the universities’ governing bodies are usually members of public bodies, such as for example, local, regional, national bodies, representatives of chambers of commerce, trade representatives or individuals from the country’s research and university centres. There are no regulations that forbid the participation of members from abroad, although this is a rare practice, mainly due to issues related to the language and communication between the members during meetings (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). In 2011, for the first time in the history of the Greek universities, Greece adopted the dual system of governance, putting together the two higher governing bodies. Within the frame- work of the modernization of higher education there is an attempt to introduce Banew, democratic and collective model of governance, internationally tried and tested, that distrib- utes administrative duties, supervision, control, approval and strategic-developmental plan- ning between three bodies: the Council, the Senate and the Rector. This model assures the self- governance of the institutions, introduces institutional counterweights to the noted distortions in governance, constitutes a balanced relationship between governing and academic bodies, and at the same time links the institutions with the active powers in society^ (Explanatory Report of Law 4009/11). The reorganization of the governance and operation of higher education aims at bringing legislation into line with constitutional principles, based on the full autonomy of the institution so that they can operate freely through the decisions that are taken by their collective bodies (Explanatory report of Law 4009/11). According to article 8 of Law 4009/11: B2:. a) The Council consists of fifteen members. In institutions where the number of professors in the top level is fewer than fifty, there are eleven Council members. The term of office of the members of the Council continues to its expiry, independent of whether the number of professors in the top level at the institution changes. b) The nine or seven members of the fifteen or eleven-member Council respectively, are internal members of the institution and, more precisely, eight or six members respectively are profes- sors from the first level or associate professors and one member is a representative of the institution’s students. The remaining six or four members respectively, are external^ (article 8 of Law 4009/11) (Law of Greek State 4009/2011).

An attempt at the quantification of the organizational autonomy of the universities in Greece

We are now in a position to attempt the quantification of the organizational autonomy of the universities in Greece and to compare it with the situation in other European countries, as this is calculated and recorded on the official web page of the European University Association (EUA) (www.university-autonomy.eu/). For the implementation of the quantitative scoring we require two sets of data: (a) the score (this scoring concerns the awarding of Bautonomy scores^ Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

(autonomy percentages) by indicator, based on the EUA research) of all the cases for each of the individual indicators that were defined and described and which make up organizational autonomy, and (b) the weightings of the individual indicators of organizational autonomy. The weightings of the autonomy indicators are based on the results of a survey undertaken during EUA’s annual conference and statutory meetings in 2010. The representatives of the European national rectors’ conferences were asked to complete a survey on the relative importance of the autonomy indicators. They were asked to decide whether they considered the indicators included in the autonomy questionnaire to be Bvery important^, Bfairly important^, Bsomewhat important^ or Bnot important^. These results were used to develop a system to weight the autonomy indicators. The means of calculating the weightings is referred to analytically in the EUA research (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). Consequently, at this point we can look at the full table of values that we used in our study (Table 2). Based on the analysis in the previous section, we are now in a position to know in which of the above cases of each individual indicator Greece falls. Consequently, using the weightings as well as the autonomy score for each case, we can calculate the total score for the general indicator of organizational autonomy, as the weighted addition of the individual autonomy scores. In Table 2 the means of quantification of the general indicator of organizational autonomy is shown analytically as well as the corresponding final result for Greece.

Ranking and comparison of Greece with European countries in terms of organizational autonomy

In Table 3 we can see the position of Greece in comparison with other European countries, based on the score it received in the general indicator of organizational autonomy. In the same table one can see too the corresponding scores of the other countries, based on the results of the EUA study.

Table 2 Calculation of the degree of Organizational Autonomy of the Universities in the case of Greece

Indicator of organizational autonomy/Weighting The case in Greece Quantification of factors autonomy / Score

Selection of Rector/Executive Head 14% Selection of the executive head is 0% validated by an external authority Qualifications for selection of Rector/Executive Selection criteria for executive head are 0% Head 14% stated in the law Dismissal of Rector/Executive Head 12% Procedures for the dismissal of the 100% executive head are not stated in the law Participation of External Members in the Universities cannot decide as they must 100% Governing Bodies 24% include external members Rector’s/Executive Head’s term of office 9% Maximum or range of length is stated in 0% the law Definition of internal academic structures / Ca- Guidelines exist the law 60% pacity to decide on academic structures 15% Establishment of Legal Entities / Capacity to Universities are only allowed to create 60% create legal entities 12% non-for-profit legal entities Final weighted score of Organizational Autonomy: 52% 0,14 × 0% + 0,14 × 0% + 0,12 × 100% + 0,24 × 100% + 0,09 × 0% + 0,15 × 60% + 0,12× 60% = 52% Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

Table 3 Ranking of the European countries in terms of the general indicator of organizational autonomy

Characterization / Percentage clusters Organizational autonomy Rank, Country, Score

High Level of autonomy 1. England, 100% 81–100% 2. Denmark, 94% 3. Finland, 93% 4. Wallonia, 90% 5. Estonia, 88% 6. Lithuania, 88% Medium high level of autonomy 7. Portugal, 80% 61–80% 8. Austria, 78% 9. Norway, 78% 10. Essen, 77% 11. Ireland, 73% 12. Flanders, 70% 13. Holland, 69% 14. North Rhine-Westphalia, 68% 15. Poland, 67% 16. Italy, 65% 17. Slovenia, 65% 18. Croatia, 62% 19. Sweden, 61% Medium low level of autonomy 20. France, 59% 41–60% 21. Brandenburg, 58% 22. Latonia, 57% 23. Hungary, 56% 24. Spain, 55% 25. Switzerland, 55% 26. Greece, 52% 27. Serbia, 51% 28. Iceland, 49% 29. Slovakia, 42% Low level of autonomy 30. Luxemburg, 34% <40%

From the research results, we arrive at some conclusions. One important observation is that, although national or local peculiarities were noted (Felt and Glanz 2002), in the general indicator Borganizational autonomy^ and specifically in the category Bmedium autonomy^ there is a high degree of homogeneity in the way that the issue of university organization is dealt with. In the majority of countries that are included in this category, the state imposes significant restrictive terms, while the freedoms that are left to the universities to act with autonomy on the issue of their organization are small (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). On the other hand, approximately two-thirds of the participating countries have either a high or satisfactory level of autonomy, with the greatest concentration in the category of adequate autonomy. If one bears in mind that the two highest categories give universities autonomy between 61% and 100%, one realises that there is a large degree of freedom in the universities for them to organise their structures according to the decisions of their collective bodies. Whatever restrictions exist chiefly concern organizational matters that refer to the relevant legislation (term of office and determination of the qualifications of the rectors, etc.). Finally, another important observation is that in the last category, ‘low level of autonomy^,witha percentage of <40%, only one country is recorded. Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

Greece occupies the 26th position out of a total of 30 countries (Table 3). Although the intention of the legislators of Law 4009/11 was the significant increase in the degree of the institutions’ autonomy, the results reveal that this ultimately was not achieved, at least at the level of legislative arrangements. This is due to the issues that concern the organization and governance of the universities (for instance, term and criteria for selection of rectors, the establishment of academic structures, participation of external members in the governing bodies, etc.), which is determined analytically by the state in the legislation and the universities are not left any margin to organize their structures as they wish.

Limitations of the research – Proposals for further improvement

The attempt to adopt the methodology used by the EUA for measuring university autonomy in Greece revealed certain weaknesses. We believe that it is important to mention these weak- nesses, in order for future studies to bear them in mind, to improve the way in which similar data are located and investigated.

1. The non-participation of Greece in the research in question resulted in Greek representa- tives not being able to be involved in the discussions for the shaping of the quantification criteria and values. Hence, Greek reality is not fully reflected. For example, in the case of the Greek universities, and in particular the indicator BDismissal of Rector^, 100% autonomy was recorded, which doesn’t depict the reality. In Law 4009/11 there are no clear decrees concerning the terms for the dismissal of the rector, so other decrees that hold generally for civil servants may hold and impose limitations on the governing bodies. This could perhaps have been avoided if a representative of the Greek universities had participated in the planning of the research. 2. As is mentioned in the EUA study (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017), the small number of questionnaires (30) that the EUA partners processed in order to determine the weightings for each indicator was a borderline sample. Although the member participants in the research were specialists, a larger sample would have strengthened the reliability of the results. On the other hand, the uniformity of the responses does to a great extent make up for the small number of questionnaires and gives a relatively high degree of reliability to the existing results (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). In any case, EUA’s high standing and the international acceptance of its research fully legitimise its results. Despite this, the aim should be for the participation of the greatest possible number of represen- tatives. In addition, encouraging interested members to participate in the research would be more effective if it took place in a variety of ways, for example, by informing the Ministries responsible of the importance of the results, briefing the Council of Rectors in the various countries as well as briefing the units that implement the evaluations of the universities. The lack of participation should be a cause for concern. 3. The determination of the percentage of autonomy does not always depict reality (Felt and Glanz 2002). There are cases where the recording of a high or low percentage of autonomy in a particular autonomy indicator doesn’t provide the full picture. To under- stand this better, we should mention a specific example. In the case of Greece, the particular indicator BSelection of Rector^, of the general indicator of organizational autonomy, was scored with 0% of autonomy. This happens since the result of the selection requires formal validation by the external authority. However, as is well-known in Greece, Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

validation by the ministry is a purely a formality, without there being any meaningful intervention. For this reason we believe that the degree of autonomy that Greece was assigned in this particular indicator is especially strict and does not depict the real situation. In this indicator there were only two cases: (a) the case where the selection of the rector requires Binternal validation procedures^ (100% autonomy) and (b) the case where the selection of the rector requires Bformal validation by an external authority^ (0% autonomy). A third case, with a midway autonomy score, would reflect the situation in Greece more realistically. 4. University autonomy is often considered as a performance enhancer (Estermann et al. 2011;Choi2019) and EUA’s methodology for measuring autonomy is in line with this view. Very recently, it has been mentioned by Choi (2019) that the EUA’s approach may be justified by government budget priorities, industry’s demand for skilled workers, students’ desire to get high-income jobs and other economic purposes (Byun 2008; Christensen 2011; Department for Business, Innovation & Skills 2011, 2016;European Commission 2011; Felt and Glanz 2003; Gibbons 1998;Gibbons2005;Liefner2003; Ministry of Education 2015). In view of this, a possible modification of the autonomy indicators may be necessary, in order to take into account that universities should also protect academic freedom and generate public good (Choi 2019).

General trends – Conclusions

As we have already mentioned, it is generally accepted that governmental policies influence the universities’ educational policies. Hence, educational reforms that the state proposes influence the autonomy of the universities, a part of which is the Borganizational autonomy^. In recent years, in the majority of the states that participated in the research, the legislation that concerned the universities changed. In most cases, the changes in the legislation reflected on the one hand a trend towards greater autonomy and an increase in the degree of freedom for the universities, but on the other, they increase the participation of external members in the collective decision making bodies in the universities (Felt and Glanz 2002). In Greece in recent years a number of attempts to change the legislation have been made, at times proposing measures regarding small changes, and at others proposing radical restructuring of the organization and governance of the universities. In general the trend of the governments, in the post-war period up to the application of law 4009/11, was, at least in terms of planning, the increase in the degree of autonomy, in order for the universities to be able to operate with greater freedom and highlight their particular appearance. In particular in Law 4009/11, in the general indicator for organizational autonomy, this trend is expressed in the transition from the Bunitary^ to the Bdual^ system of governance, with the parallel participation of external members in the governing bodies. The co-existence of the two governing bodies with different roles and duties served two purposes. Firstly, it allowed the universities to experiment with a new model and in the mid to long-term to evaluate the results that would emerge from its operation. Secondly, it maintained to a great extent the classic model of governance, so that there was no major upheaval in the existing operational system. Beyond Greece, the EUA research revealed that Estonia, Norway, Portugal and Sweden also promoted measures for experimentation with different models of governance and promotion of changes in the roles and duties of their organizational bodies (Bennetot- Pruvot and Estermann 2017). Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

An issue that deserves particular attention, in the case of Greece, is the promotion of decrees for the equal participation of internal and external members in the new governing body, the council. If one considers that Law 4009/11 grants this body very significant administrative duties within the university institutions, for example, regarding matters of strategy, financial matters, short listing the three candidates for rector and so on, one can see that this is a change in the philosophy behind institutional governance. Besides the case of the Greek universities that adopted the new model of governance, similar experimentation took place in the universities in France. As a counterbalance to the promotion of these changes and in order to blunt the reactions of the affected groups (e.g. permanent academic staff) that act within the universities, decrees were added according to which the election of internal members would be from all the institution’s professors. Then, the elected members and not some external authority elect the external members. In this way an attempt was made to increase the degree of organizational autonomy in the universities. The external members, as in the other EU states that participated in the EUA research, are usually professors from other universities, individuals with high prestige who are valued and enjoy high acceptance. They are individuals who participate actively in the social, educational and economic life of the country, or Greeks abroad who are interested in contrib- uting to the growth, openness and internationalization of the Greek universities. In Greece, as in most of the states that participated in the EUA research, the rector is usually elected by the members of the university community, but validation of the decision is usually required by an external authority (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). In addition, the term of office of the chancellor is determined in legislation, while in some states the maximum period in office is determined (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). In general, although in recent years noteworthy progress has been observed in the increase in the degree of Borganizational autonomy^ in the universities, some unsuccessful attempts to promote reforms in this sector have also been recorded. Studying these failures, it was noted that they were due to various reasons, mainly linked to generalised economic crises in the countries and further explanation and processing of the data is needed (for example, Iceland and Greece) (Bennetot-Pruvot and Estermann 2017). In Greece, a country that does not have a strong economy, since the primary and secondary sector industries are in deficit, the university is directly linked to the state. This has caused the universities to become insular, caught in a tight embrace with state power and political parties. In such circumstances, it appears that one issue would be the re-shaping of the relationship of the university with the state and its further connection with society and the market, without however the latter replacing the state and undermining the administrative and organizational autonomy of the university (Sianou–Kyrgioy 2008). This is what is at stake in the future in Greece, and which concerns as much the university as the state and the market.

References

Bennetot-Pruvot, E. & Estermann, Th., (2017). University Autonomy in Europe III, The Scorecard 2017. Byun, K. (2008). New public management in Korean higher education: Is it reality or another fad? Asia Pacific. Education Review, 9(2), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03026499. Choi, S. (2019). Identifying indicators of university autonomy according to stakeholders’ interests. Tertiary Education and Management, 25,17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-018-09011-y. Christensen, T. (2011). University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy? Higher Education, 62,503–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-010-9401-z. DBIS Department for Business Innovation & Skills. (2011). Students at the Heart of the System. Author's personal copy

Tertiary Education and Management

DBIS Department for Business Innovation & Skills. (2016). Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, Social mobility and student choice. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher- education-success-as-a-knowledge-economy-white-paper. EC European Commission. (2011). Supporting growth and jobs - an agenda for the modernization of Europe’s higher education systems. Communication from the commission to the parliament, the council, The European economic and social committee and the Committee of the Regions. http://ec.europa. eu/assets/eac/education/library/policy/modernisation_en.pdf. Estermann, T. (2012). Cesaer Seminar, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, 18 October 2012. Estermann, T. & Nokkala, T. (2009). University Autonomy in Europe I, Exploratory Study. Retrieved from http://www.rkrs.si/gradiva/dokumenti/EUA_Autonomy_Report_Final.pdf Estermann, T., Nokkala, T. & Steinel, M. (2011). University Autonomy in Europe II. The Scorecard. Brussels. European University Association. Retrieved from: https://www.eua.eu/resources/publications/401 :university-autonomy-in-europe-ii-the-scorecard.html Felt, U, in collaboration with M Glanz. (2002). University Autonomy in Europe: Changing Paradigms in Higher Education Policy, in Managing University Autonomy, Collective Decision Making and Human Resources Policy, Bolonia University Press. Felt, U, in collaboration with M Glanz. (2003). Autonomous Universities in Knowledge societies: the impact of research,, in Managing University Autonomy, Shifting Paradigms in University Research, Bolonia University Press. Gibbons, M. (1998). Higher Education Relevance in the 21st century. Education, The World Bank. Gibbons, M., (2005/2). Engagement with the Community: a new basis for the university autonomy in a knowledge society, in Managing University Autonomy, University autonomy and the institutional balancing of teaching and research, Bolonia University Press. Hoareau, C., Ritzen, J., & Marconi, G. (2013). Higher education and economic innovation, a European-wide comparison. IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, 2, 24. Law of Greek State 4009/2011 (Government Gazette 195/issue A'/6–9-2011): "Structure, operation, quality assurance of studies and internationalisation of higher education institutions". Law of Greek State 4076/2012 (Government Gazette 159/issue A'/10–8-2012): "Regulating issues of Higher Education Institutions and other provisions". Liefner, I. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46,469–489. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027381906977. MoE Ministry of Education. (2015). The plan for the Program for Industrial needs-Matched Education (PRIME) (in Korean). Patsikas, M., (2013, July, 17). University reform based on Law 4009/2011, pub. In Administrative Science, 17/7/ 2013). Ritzen, J. (2016). University autonomy: Improving educational output, IZA World of Labor, Maastricht University, the Netherlands and IZA, Germany. Sianou–Kyrgioy, E., (2008). Policies and Practices for the Reform of the Greek University. Stamelos, G., Vasilopoulos, A. & Kavasakalis, A., (2015). Introduction to Educational Policies. Retrieved from https://dsep.uop.gr/attachments/Anakoinwseis/STAMELOS_EISAGOGH_EKPAIDEYTIKES_ POLITIKES.pdf. (09-01-2019). van Ginkel, H. (2011). Academic Freedom and Institutional Autonomy within the Context of Accreditation, Quality Assurance and Rankings, Contemporary Threats and Opportunities, Bolonia University Press. Vidal, F. (2013). University Autonomy and the Governance System, Universitat Rovira I Virgili.

Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.