Transcript Tittel

University Dynamics and European Integration
Peter Maassen
Seminar NORPOL Project:
Polish Higher Education and the European Higher Education and Research Areas.
Comparative Analysis and the Transfer of Good Practices
Poznan, 2-4 September 2009
1. European Higher Education Crisis?
2. Order vs Autonomy & Diversity
3. Four Visions on University Governance and
Organisation
4. HE Reform in the Nordic countries: Denmark,
Finland, Norway and Sweden
5. Conclusions
2
The European University faces a crossroads.
One path leading to despair and utter hopelessness,
the other to extinction.
Let us pray that it has the knowledge to choose
correctly
(”Woody Allen”)
3
“After remaining a comparatively isolated universe for a very long period,
both in relation to society and to the rest of the world, with funding guaranteed
and a status protected by respect for their autonomy, European universities
have gone through the second half of the 20th century without really calling
into question the role or nature of what they should be contributing to society.
The changes they are undergoing today and which have intensified over the
past ten years prompt the fundamental question:
Can the European universities, as they are and are organized now,
hope in the future to retain their place in society and in the world?”
(Commission 2003: 22)
4
Quotes….
“European higher education systems have fallen behind over the last few decades,
in terms of participation, quality, and in research and innovation”
“our Universities are being held back from delivering to society the various
benefits that they could provide”
“unless the etatist mentality is broken, European HE will not only fail to
catch up with the US, but it will fall further behind in the years to come”
“the latest ranking from Shanghai Jiaotong University finds that Europe
may have boasted world-class universities before America even appeared
on European maps, but today it is running behind in the quality of graduates
it produces”
“European universities suffer from poor governance, insufficient autonomy,
and often perverse incentives”
5
“The challenge for Europe is clear.
But so is the solution”
6
Claim:
Solutions will improve performance by changing practices and structures
developed over long historical periods, as well as conceptions of the proper
role of government in the economy and society.
But:
The remedies offered are celebrating private enterprises and competitive
markets and they can be seen as “one size fits all” remedies or
“solutions looking for problems” in all sectors of society.
7
For example:
 link between autonomy and quality
 link between management and performance
 link between concentration and output
 link between basic research and innovation
In general, based on:
Strong convictions, weak evidence
8
Example:
Claimed gap between educational revenues per student for European public
HEIs compared to US public higher education institutions
Bruegel report (Aghion et al. 2008, p. 5):
“the EU25 spends on average €8,700 per student versus €36,500 in the US”
European Commission (2006):
“there is a revenue gap of some €10,000 per student”
NCHEMS (2007) / www.higheredinfo.org
“In 2007 the revenues per full-time equivalent student (public appropriations
and tuition revenues) were on average $10,618 for all public universities
and colleges in the USA”
9
Post-Bologna Era
Bologna process absorbed into a complex set of processes, initiatives,
measures, policies aimed at further European integration of
Higher Education and Research.
- Directives (e.g. Professional Recognition; Large Mammals in Research;
Admission of non-EU researchers: ‘Fast-track’ for Researchers’ visas )
- European Area Integration Processes:
 Copenhagen Process;
 Ljubljana Process (aimed at ERA revival; launched 15.04.08)
- European Qualification Framework (EQF)
- European Research Council (ERC)
- European Institute for Innovation and Technology (EIT)
- Boosting a single European labour market for researchers, incl.
pan-EU pension schemes for Researchers
- Erasmus Mundus Second Round (Budget € 1 billion), incl. PhD innovations
10
2. Order/Integration vs Disorder/Autonomy/Diversity
Clark (1983):
 Forces that keep HE systems together
 Forces that pull HE systems in different directions (diversity)
Olsen (2007)
”Europe in Search of New Political Order”
 System level need for order
 Need for Institutional autonomy (diversity/disorder)
11
How to create/maintain balance between order
and disorder?
Creating order in European HE systems traditionally
national issue, i.e. national systems and adaptations of
university autonomy
Emergence of:
European Higher Education Area / European Research Area
Creating balance no longer solely a national issue; there is also a need to
create a balance between a European order in HE and
European university autonomy (’European Carnegie classification’)
12
3. Visions on University Governance and Organisation
Two different views on the university:
1. Instrumental
2. Institutional
13
Four visions of university organization and governance
(derived from institutional view; Olsen 2007)
Autonomy
Internal factors dominant
External/Environmental
factors dominant
Humboldt:
Hierarchy:
University as a rulegoverned community of
scholars
University as a tool for
national agendas
Democracy:
Market:
University as a
representative democracy
University as service
enterprise embedded in
competitive markets
Conflict
Shared norms and
objectives
Conflicting norms and
objectives
14
The university is a rule-governed community of scholars
Constitutive logic:
Identity based on free inquiry, truth finding, rationality and expertise.
Criteria of assessment:
Scientific quality.
Reasons for autonomy:
Constitutive principle of the university as an institution: authority to
the best qualified.
Change:
Driven by the internal dynamics of science. Slow reinterpretation of
institutional identity. Rapid and radical change only with performance crises.
15
The university is a representative democracy
Constitutive logic:
Interest representation, elections, bargaining and majority decisions.
Criteria of assessment:
Who gets what: Accommodating internal interests.
Reasons for autonomy:
Mixed (work-place democracy, functional competence, realpolitik).
Change:
Depends on bargaining and conflict resolution and changes in
power, interests, and alliances.
16
The university is a tool for national political agendas
Constitutive logic:
Administrative: Implementing predetermined political objectives
Criteria of assessment:
Effective and efficient achievement of national purposes.
Reasons for autonomy:
Delegated and based on relative efficiency.
Change:
Political decisions, priorities, designs as a function of elections, coalition formation
and breakdowns and changing political leadership.
17
The university is a service enterprise embedded in
competitive markets
Constitutive logic:
Community service. Part of a system of market exchange and price systems
Criteria of assessment:
Meeting community demands. Economy, efficiency, flexibility, survival.
Reasons for autonomy:
Responsiveness to “stakeholders” and external exigencies, survival.
Change:
Competitive selection or rational learning. Entrepreneurship and adaptation to
changing circumstances and sovereign customers.
18
Diversity challenge: variety in visions
CORE QUESTIONS wrt UNDERLYING VISION:
1. Humboldt: Under what conditions are professors, other
university employees, students and governments likely to be fully
committed to the vision of a rule-governed community devoted to
academic values, excellence and freedom?
2. Hierarchy: Under what conditions are governments able and
willing to provide well defined and fairly stable objectives for the
University and forecast what it takes to reach these objectives?
19
CORE QUESTIONS (cont.):
3. Democracy: Under what conditions will there be an
identifiable electorate in the university, representing wellorganized interests and well-informed “citizens”, as well as
political and societal acceptance of university autonomy based on
internal, representative arrangements?
4. Market: Under what conditions are markets perfect enough
(few frictions, perfect knowledge, easy entry, etc.), and oriented
towards academic quality rather than low prices, so that
competition rewards excellent research and teaching and
eliminates low quality?
20
What kind of university
for what kind of society and
what kind of purpose?
21
In our analytical framework for addressing this question we
have to go:
•
•
•
•
•
Beyond routine, incremental change and reform, and conceptualize
current dynamics as search for a new pact between the University and
its environments.
Beyond a dominant concern for substantive performance and
explore the possible independent importance of the legitimacy of
institutions in the assessment and justification of existing
arrangements, reforms and change.
Beyond functionalism and analyze change as processes of
contestation.
Beyond a single-institution framework and take into account interinstitutional tensions and collisions.
Beyond explanations based upon environmental determinism or
strategic choice and consider the more complex ecology of processes
and determinants in which the European University is currently
22
embedded.
Higher Education Reforms
in the Nordic Countries:
Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden
23
Higher Education Reforms:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Role of politics: National strategy/framework?
Concentration vs spreading of funds and talents
Structure of HE system
Funding
Ownership of institutions
Personnel status
Dominant vision on HE organisation and governance
24
a. Role of Politics
Denmark: National framework strategy “Denmark in the Global
Economy”; HE reforms top-down driven
Finland: National Innovation Strategy; HE reforms combination of topdown and bottom-up
Sweden: No national ‘knowledge oriented’ strategy, but active involvement
of politics in HE development; HE reforms mainly bottom-up
Norway: Politics has ‘abdicated’ from HE and Research. Regional policy
dimension dominant; HE reforms in close consultation between Ministry and
HEIs
25
b. Concentration
Denmark: Overall strong concentration tendency, esp. in research
Finland: Overall strong concentration tendency combined with regional HE
policy focus
Sweden: Discussion on the need to concentrate research funding has started
in 2007
Norway: Institutional concentration politically unacceptable. Centers of
excellence in research and in innovation funded by NFR
26
c. Structure of HE system
Denmark: Strengthening of binary structure aot through mergers;
8 universities next to and separated from 8 professional colleges
Finland: Further development of binary system through inter-sectoral
mergers and cross-sectoral cooperation structures. National top universities
Sweden: Discussion on reduction of number of universities, and stronger
separation between basic research universities and other HEIs. Mergers.
Norway: Opening up of binary sector; gradual integration of university and
professional college sectors
27
d. Ownership of institutions
Denmark: Partial independent legal status since 2003 (special
administrative entities in public law)
Finland: Move towards universities as independent public agencies or
private foundations. First private foundation university starts 1 January 2010
(Aalto University)
Sweden: Among 38 HEIs three private foundations since mid-1990s.
National Commission proposal to turn all Swedish HEIs into public
corporations.
Norway: All seven universities and nearly all professional colleges are state
structures. One specialised university (BI) large private institution.
28
e. Public Funding (at least 80% of institutional budget)
Denmark: Contracts basis for public HE funding. Increase of public
research budget; concentration of basic research funding in universities.
Limited use of incentives. Tuition fees only for non-EU students. Taximeter
system for public funding of HE
Finland: Contracts basis for HE funding. Aims: Larger institutional financial
autonomy. Experiments with introduction of tuition fees for non-EU students
Sweden: Proposal: structural separation between funding of research and
funding of higher education. HEIs received funds for stimulating excellence
themselves, instead of nationally funded Centers of Excellence. No tuition fees
Norway: 60% basic grant, remaining 40% distributed on the basis of
performance in education (open budget) and research (fixed budget). No tuition
fees. Nationally funded Centers of Excellence (research and education)
29
f. Status Personnel
Denmark: Civil servants
Finland: Move away from civil service status
Sweden: Move away from civil service status
Norway: Civil servants
30
g. European Integration
Denmark: Overall, critical towards further European integration. Was
among leading countries (with Italy and Norway) in implementing Bologna
Declaration. In HE and Research Global strategy/framework.
Finland: Most ‘integrated’ and effective EU member of Nordic countries. In
HE and Research policies strong focus on innovation. Late implementation of
Bologna Declaration (2006).
Sweden: Overall critical towards further European integration; however, in
research policy among prime implementers of European measures and
policies. Late implementation of Bologna Declaration (2007)
Norway: Fanatically anti-EU membership; however, in HE and Research
among leading implementers of European integration measures and policies.
Uses Nordic Cooperation as link to EU decision making. Was among leading
countries (with Denmark and Italy) in implementing Bologna.
31
Visions on HE Governance and Organisation
Autonomy
Internal factors dominant
External/Environmental factors
dominant
Humboldt:
Hierarchy:
Traditionally strong in
Sweden and Denmark;
weak in Norway; Finland
moderate. Currently
defended by staff unions
Traditionally strong in all
Nordic countries. Currently
move away in Denmark,
Finland, and Sweden. Norway
HE linked to regional agenda
Democracy:
Market:
Important in all Nordic
countries since 1960s.
Currently strong in Norway,
Finland, and Sweden;
under pressure in Denmark
Traditionally not important.
Nordic welfare state
modernized. Currently weak to
moderate market elements in
HE governance and
organisation in all 4 countries.
Conflict
Shared norms and
objectives
Conflicting norms and
objectives
32
Conclusions
1. National reforms of HE and Research are strongly affected by
European integration context
2. As a separate HE process, the Bologna process is over. It is now part
of a much larger and more complex change dynamics that is aimed at
further stimulating the integration of European HE, while at the same
time there are clear efforts in many countries to redefine the
(control and steering) role of the national governments wrt HE.
33
3. In creating new system level order in European HE, there is not
'one HE system model that fits all European societies'.
Also the four Nordic countries that in many respects are
similar and very close, and have set up after WWII the first formal
regional cooperation structure in Europe (Nordic Council of Ministers)
have different approaches to the reform of their university / HE sectors
4. In socio-economically effective and successful European countries
HE is regarded as a core public sector that requires a high level of public
investments.
5. Nonetheless, HE reforms are needed; we are in a transition period
in which a new pact between HE and society is required.
34
6. As an analytical tool, autonomy is of limited value.
We have to strengthen our tool box in our attempts to make sense of
the current dynamics of HE in Europe
35