Transcript Adapting University Structures to respond to societal

Adapting University Structures to respond
to societal needs
“Quo Vadis, Universitas?”
J.P.CONTZEN
6th EUA Conference
Marseille, April 2, 2004
An evolving Environment for the
University (1)
• With globalization and the evolution of the
Society, the wish expressed in the 1920’s by
Albert Einstein
« Science should be performed in isolated
communities away from economic pressures »
is no longer on the agenda for Science. The
same applies to the University system that
becomes more closely integrated in the socioeconomic environment.
An evolving Environment for the
University (2)
• The University is subjected to strong external
•
pressures. Their impact on the University
structures is inescapable
Keywords for describing these external pressures
are:
– A broader demand for higher education impacting on
teaching
– An increased role in research and innovation
An evolving Environment for the
University (3)
– A greater involvement in building the local social
tissue, in the life of the City
– A stronger cooperation between Universities
associated to an increased competition among them
and from other institutions
– An unstable financing
Teaching (1)
• More people wishing to have access to the
•
•
•
University (in spite of a demographic downward
trend)
The pressure of the productive world for having
a higher education system “attentive to its
immediate needs”
A greater attention devoted to the sustainability
of our Society creates new needs in education
A durable mismatch between the demand of the
socio-economic stakeholders and the students’
own choices.
Teaching (2)
• Main results of this evolution:
– More societal relevance means new curricula mostly
based on interdisciplinarity
– An increased demand has led to a multiplication of
higher education institutions, creating institutional
confusion
– The nature of the demand leads to a concentration on
those themes that respond to market opportunities
and the setting-up of pseudo interdisciplinary
schemes at undergraduate level.
Research and Innovation (1)
• The University becomes increasingly the focal
point for public R&D, replacing specific research
centers. Why?:
– The need for interdisciplinary knowledge expressed by
industry, while at the same time, its search for highly
specialized, advanced knowledge. Both factors lead
economic operators to increased R&D outsourcing
– A greater demand for R&D assisting the decisionmakers and the civil society in managing change, in
managing risk, leads to a renewed interest in social
sciences and their marriage with natural sciences.
Research and Innovation (2)
– A strong need for interdisciplinary knowledge is
expressed by industry, while at the same time, it
requires highly specialized, advanced knowledge. Both
factors lead economic operators to increased R&D
outsourcing
– A greater demand for R&D assisting the decisionmakers and the civil society in managing change, in
managing risk, leads to a renewed interest in social
sciences and their marriage with natural sciences
– The shortening of the process bridging the creation of
knowledge (research) to its effective application
(innovation) brings the University researchers closer
to the marketplace
Research and Innovation (3)
– Innovation in the University is already a reality; one
third of all the world’s biotechnology companies have
been founded by faculty members of the University of
California. It should not be forgotten that the
implication of the University in innovation is not totally
new: already in the 1890’s, the success of the
German chemical industry was due to its close links
with chemistry faculties of the German universities.
Research and Innovation (4)
• Main results of this evolution:
– A new impulse is given to the creation of knowledge,
not solely to its transfer. Cross-fertilization between
teaching and research within the University system is
reinforced
– New R&D areas featuring interdisciplinarity and
associating natural sciences and humanities do
appear
Research and Innovation (5)
– There is a growing debate on the freedom of choices
of R&D themes. Beyond the directivity that industry
might impose, there is also a trend towards favoring
those R&D areas where public money can be found
more easily (perversity of targeted public research
programs), leading to deficits in other areas (e.g.
mathematics, humanities)
– The proximity of the market may lead to restrictions
on the free circulation of ideas within the University
and may create conflicts of interest
– There is a clear loss of the perception by social
stakeholders of the neutrality and independence of
the University when providing expert advice.
The University in the life of the City
(1)
• A growing role of the University as social
stakeholder can be witnessed. The University is
seen locally as:
–
–
–
–
An element of diffusion of culture
A forum for debate
A source of local expertise
An intellectual support to the elder generation.
The University in the life of the City
(2)
• The University is considered (rightly) as a tool
for regional development. Its local presence is
actively sought by political decision-makers and
socio-economic operators. The University
experiences “glocalization”.
The University in the life of the City
(3)
• Main results of this evolution:
– Does that mean that there should be one University in
each province, prefecture, département, county, etc?
– How could the University - already burdened by its
essential functions of teaching and research – assume
its social role in the City?
Cooperation and Competition (1)
• Globalization and the process of European
•
•
integration have introduced a stronger
competition among Universities that have now to
attract and retain professors and researchers as
well as students for survival
The attribution of funds for research on a
competitive basis is increasingly adopted by
public authorities; this factor reinforces the race
between universities
There is an aggressive drive by non-University
higher education institutions for competing with
the University.
Cooperation and Competition (2)
• Main results of this evolution:
– The cooperation has been reinforced through
educational and R&D networks, for the mutual benefit
of the partners
– The mobility of professors and students has increased
but the « Vacuum Cleaner effect » encourages
talented professors and researchers to conglomerate
at the most prestigious places
– The increased competition is a stimulus for
improvement in quality; evaluation schemes have
been introduced.
Cooperation and Competition (3)
• How can the University be open to broad
•
cooperation while at the same retain its identity?
Facing competition, how should the University
react?:
– Easy access vs. strict excellence?
– Use research as the attraction pole or privilege
teaching?
• How should it meet the competition from nonUniversity Higher Education institutions?
Financing (1)
• The financing of the University has been a
•
constant problem that has come once again at
the forefront in some countries (UK, Germany)
Financing could come from 4 sources:
– The Government: it constitutes the traditional source.
In most European countries, public budgets are under
severe pressure. Funding is often based on the
number of students, with perverse effects
– Students: they provide in general a (small) fraction of
the corresponding cost
– Individuals: they provide donations, endowments
– Socio-economic actors: they allocate funds, with or
without strings attached, rarely on a permanent base.
Financing (2)
• Can the role of individuals be increased in
•
Europe, following the US example?
Should a stronger involvement of socio-economic
actors be sought, raising the issue of the
autonomy of the University and of its
impartiality?
« In my opinion, the autonomy of a University consists
of two elements: the freedom to decide on the
content of education and research and the freedom to
select people appropriate for this purpose. One
condition to realize this kind of autonomy is sufficient
financial backup »
Akito Arima
The future evolution of the University
(1)
• The evolution of the socio-economic
•
environment creates a series of challenges for
the University. Strong governance is required for
giving an adequate response to all of them.
Two elements of response should be considered
in particular:
– A new task sharing within the higher education
system between University and non-University
organizations, refocusing the mission of the University
– A new governance scheme adapted to the realities of
the 21st century introducing new managerialism in
the University itself and establishing clear
mechanisms for its interface with the outside world.
A new task sharing within the
University system (1)
• With the implementation of the Bologna
•
declaration and Lifelong Learning, the length of
the education period will no longer constitute a
criteria for discriminating between University and
non-University organizations
R&D intensity, degree of specialization (as
opposed to interdisciplinarity), type of innovation
(incremental vs. radical), regional impact,
degree of internationalization, cultural dimension
appear to constitute suitable criteria. Their
application is illustrated in the following diagram
comparing the two types:
A new task sharing within the
University system (2)
Degree of specialisation
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cultural dimension
Type of innovation:incremental
vs.radical
Regional impact
Non University
R&D intensity
University
Degree of internationalisation
A new task sharing within the
University system (3)
• The suggested task sharing is favoring the
concept of the American Research University as
described in 1982 by Robert M.Rosenzweig: «We
choose to combine basic research, a fair mixture
of applied research, training for research and
undergraduate education at the same place,
done by the same people, frequently at the same
time »
A new task sharing within the
University system (4)
• BUT should we go further and use the model of
the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and
Technology created in 1990 (the « Shinkansen
University »)? It consists of « graduate schools
without undergraduate programs, for the
purpose of carrying out high-level researches
and systematic education in the fields of
advanced S&T »
• Could the implementation of the Bologna
declaration favor the latter concept?
A new Governance scheme for the
University (1)
• Adapting the structure of the University to the
realities of the 21st Century will require strong
governance. Two issues dominate the scene:
– Introduce « new managerialism » in the
management of the University system
– Establish clear rules for the interface with the
economic world.
New Managerialism (1)
• « New managerialism » (Braun and Merrien
1999) has been presented often as « Academic
Capitalism » (Slaughter and Leslie 1997) .
Ideological debates should be avoided over this
important issue. The evolution should not be
considered as the result of « a market-based
ideology opposing public counter-cultures », it is
part of the quest for efficient public structures.
New Managerialism (2)
• What does « new managerialism » imply?
– Decentralize, introduce flexibility in structures
inherited from the 18th and 19th Centuries
– Introduce and sustain modern administrative
and financial procedures
– Strike the right balance of power between the
academic community and the administration
– Reinforce the inner governance by installing
such structures as Board of Trustees or
Strategic Councils.
A new Governance scheme for the
University (2)
• The other important aspect of a revised
•
governance scheme relates to a reorganized
interface with the economic world obeying to
clear rules. The lessons learned from the current
interface problems should lead to a
redeployment of the University structure
A proposal for a three-layers structure is
presented here for further reflection. The three
layers should exercise strong interaction
between each other but maintain their functional
identity.
A new structure for the University (1)
3
Three layers:
2
1:teaching and basic
research in disciplinary
areas
1
2:teaching and research in
multidisciplinary areas
3:innovation (spin-offs,
incubators, joint ventures,
entrepreneurship centers,
etc) as well as social fora
A new structure for the University (2)
Composition of the three layers :
• Inner Core: the heart of the University with
teaching and basic research, both centered
essentially on disciplines. Departments remain
the basic structure. Freedom of choice should be
the guiding principle. Gibbons mode 1 operation.
Basic financing should be guaranteed with a
fraction of competitive funding for testing
excellence. Funding from Industry allowed only
if no strings attached (the Berkeley/Novartis deal
could be a model). Should work closely with likeminded outside academic organizations.
A new structure for the University (3)
• Intermediate Layer: interdisciplinary teaching
(no undergraduate level) and interdisciplinary
theme-oriented research. Gibbons mode 2
operation. Performed in centers jointly operated
by several disciplinary departments with the
cooperation of outside academic organizations;
clustering should be based on specialization and
competitive advantage. Relies more heavily on
outside financing from industry, public bodies
and (hopefully) donations.
A new structure for the University (4)
• Outer Layer: the interface with the economic
world as well as the social world
– In the first case, it consists of technology transfer and
licensing offices, spin-offs, entrepreneurship centers,
incubators, joint ventures and any other form of
cooperative structure with economic operators. This
layer should be at least financially self-sustaining and
should aim at profit-making
– In the second case, it works with local authorities and
civic associations for promoting cultural events,
providing fora for debates, museums, etc. It
contributes to local expertise. Financing should be
shared with the local stakeholders.
Ux1
U2
U1
U3
U5
U4
Ux2
THE UNIVERSITY GALAXY
In conclusion (1)
The University must demonstrate its capability to
manage an evolution that can’t be ignored or
repelled. Past success should not be an excuse
for doing nothing.
What will happen should not be the product of
fatality or the random combination of diverse
external forces. It should rely essentially on
what the University has decided itself to do. It
should act with determination and vision, not
just “reorganizing deckchairs on the Titanic”
In conclusion (2)
The University should act NOW, not in splendid
isolation, but with the support of all public and
private socio-economic actors, for remaining
what it has been through the centuries, i.e.
« a place of light, of liberty and of learning »
Benjamin Disraeli, House of Commons, 1873