|
Higher Education Governance
Council of Europe
Higher Education Forum
Strasbourg,
22-23 September 2005
General
report
Martina Vukasoviã
1.
Introduction
It seems we live
in the age of a global quest for better governance. Whether it is the
preparation for the possible bird flu pandemic, allocation of resources to
a nation’s education budget, steering of a local company or repairing a
street in the town – it is understood that these tasks need to be done in
the most efficient and effective way, that decisions need to be legitimate
and reached in a democratic and transparent manner. Some would argue that
our particular age is marked by the New-Public-Management-speak, while
others, less faithful to the managerial approach, would demand for a New
Public Service.
On the other
hand, we might not be doing anything new. It could be argued that,
throughout history, mankind was always, to one extent or the other,
troubled by the search for more efficient and more democratic modes of
governance, even though the understanding of the terms “efficiency” and
“democracy” is continuously developing, together with the understanding of
“governance”.
Whatever the
case may be – higher education could not escape this trend. Institutions
themselves, as well as various actors in higher education governance are
discussing whether or not their present modes of higher education
governance are suitable for what they are trying to achieve and are they an
adequate response to the changing conditions in which higher education
operates and indeed, if they would need to be more proactive. Furthermore,
it would be hard to find a country in the world in which everyone is
completely satisfied how higher education is steered at system level. There
are changes being planned or implemented in certain parts of the system
almost everywhere in the world. Some countries are on the verge or in the
midst of major system restructuring.
However, the
issue of governance in higher education has not yet been fully discussed on
the international level. The topic of governance is usually a shadow in the
discussions of other changes taking place, such as curriculum development,
student mobility, quality assurance etc. Here it would be relevant to
stress that this refers primarily to the so-called political higher
education community, or, to put this in other terms, stakeholders in higher
education (however they are defined in different national contexts).
Educational research has offered some academic insight into the topic,
which is presented both in the literature survey and in some of the other
contributions to the conference. However, the goal here is not to be either
extremely political and interest orientated or extremely academic and
theory orientated. The goal is to try to map out at least a part of the
intricate fabric of the governance debate, to try to understand how the
governance of higher education is related to the changing conditions for
higher education and changes in the overall society and to try to agree on
some of the basic principles of good governance. Therefore, we should be
both academic and political to a certain extent and try to merge the better
of the two worlds and discard the interest focus of one and sometimes a
very disinterested view of the other.
It also seems
that it is a particularly good time to discuss such an issue under the roof
of the Council of Europe. The year 2005 is proclaimed to be the Year of Citizenship
through Education, which provides more visibility to the discussion on
higher education governance and puts the topic in the larger context of
societal development. One should look into how education as a whole
contributes to the establishment of the democratic structures, but even
more importantly, the democratic culture – both in the wider society, but
also within our institutions involved in education. Therefore, the
discussion around higher education governance should also bear these questions
in mind: What is the role of education in contributing to the development
of citizens who take pride in their activities in the civic society and who
cherish the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law? What is
the role of higher education in the same endeavour?
Furthermore, it
also seems that we have reached a point in the process of the creation of
the European Higher Education Area in which it seems that there is a rather
clear idea what changes are necessary to achieve the goals of the Bologna
Process. Whether they will be achieved or not in the designated timeframe
and in the planned way remains to be seen, but that is yet another aspect
of governance of higher education, this time on intergovernmental,
supranational and international levels, depending if the focus is on the
role of national ministries, EU or international cooperation between higher
education institutions. In most cases, although this may differ on the
depth of the analysis, the planning phase is over. The question no longer
is “what” but “how”. And this is where the issue of governance comes to the
forefront.
2.
Complexity of the topic
The topic of
governance of higher education is highly complex. The Working Party was
faced with this complexity as it tried to establish some borders around the
topic and some grid within the topic to facilitate the discussion and
ensure the relevance and usefulness of the conference and the conclusions
as well as the recommendations of the project as a whole. It was quite an
interesting journey in making a fluffy, intangible and somewhat
intimidating topic of higher education governance into something that can
be addressed in a short time by numerous participants with diverse
professional backgrounds and national contexts.
This complexity
is reflected in at least two ways.
The obvious one
relates to the term of governance in itself. The results of the translation
exercise of the term governance in the various languages and cultures
reflect this more vividly than could be explained in this report. However,
it would be worth pointing out that:
- there are as much as 8 different possibilities for translation of
the term “governance” in some languages;
- in most languages the translations are closely related to the terms
“steering”, “management”, “government” or “decision-making”;
- in all these languages it is implicit that the translation does not fully
grasp the content of the English term “governance” and
- it would be interesting to analyse the cultural and societal roots of
some of the translations, especially in languages where only one
understanding is offered (as is the case in e.g. ex-Yugoslav languages
where “governance” is understood as “management” or “steering” and not so
much as “democratic decision making”).
Even though we
will not take the English explanation of governance as the only true one,
the exercise of translating the term to the national languages and indeed
national contexts showed very clearly that there is an inherent danger of
misinterpretation, superfluous or misleading understanding of concepts and
we have to be aware of those in the discussions. While certain ambiguity of
terminology may be politically justifiable, as all would be able to
interpret it in the way that best suits their needs, too much freedom in
interpretation will lead to inconsistencies and incompatibility, which may
prove to be detrimental for other aspects of international cooperation in
higher education.
We can not
offer a simple, understandable definition of higher education governance, which
would be constructed in such a way as to capture different cultural
understandings of the notions such as “participation”, “democracy”,
“legitimacy”, “transparency” etc. Prof. Kohler in his paper offers a
definition of the term. But he also makes a distance himself by offering
“an approximate definition” and using such words as “may be defined as”.
And the definition is far from simple, it does encompass the various facets
of the term, but, as the essence of the concept is not simple, the
definition is far from simple. So, is it realistically possible to grasp
such a complex topic and presented in one sentence? Is it possible to make
sure that this one sentence will be understood properly by actors coming
from different fields, different cultural backgrounds and different sources
of interest in the topic? The answer seems to be – No.
However, it may
be wise to dwell a little on what governance is not and tackle some of the
frequent misconceptions of the concept of governance of higher education,
which are used and sometimes abused by various stakeholders.
First of all,
it is important to stress that governance does not equal management. There
are various attempts to reduce governance to only management, and to
neglect the fact that management is yet but a part of the governance
process, and, in a way, a final stage of a more complex activity.
Governance should be understood as a process of setting long term goals and
establishing strategies for reaching these goals. Management refers to the
process of implementation of these decisions, the day-to-day activities
(not only limited to decision making) ensuring the achievement of the
aforementioned strategies and goals. The distinction is illustrated also in
the request voiced at the conference for a division of tasks of governance
and management between the competent and legitimate governance bodies on
the one side and a professional administration on the other.
It is also
important to underscore that we should be extra careful to keep in mind
that we are not discussing governance per se. We have to remember that we
are discussing governance of higher education. And that this means that the
governance of higher education should reflect the complexity and
multiplicity of purposes and missions of higher education. The multiplicity
of purposes: preparation for the labour market, preparation for active
citizenship, personal development and advancement of knowledge, is coupled
with the multiplicity of values. We have heard different stakeholders
focusing on different aspects of higher education and attributing slightly
different priorities to the values of:
- competence,
- equality (achieving social cohesion)
- liberty (autonomy and even more so academic freedom – freedom to teach,
freedom to learn and freedom to research) and
- what in the literature is sometimes referred to as loyalty – but which
includes the demand from higher education to be more responsive to the
needs of the society.
Now, having in
mind the complexity of purposes and the complexity of values related to
higher education, as well as the different national contexts and
circumstances in which higher education institutions operate, I believe
that Burton Clark in his famous book “The Higher Education System: Academic
Organisation in a Cross-National Perspective” which is also referred in the
literature survey, was right to point out that:
“Any sensible administrator asked to confront directly and to
reconcile these … orientations would undoubtedly seek other employment.”
This does not
of course mean that most of the people reading the proceedings from the
conference should “go seek other employment”. This serves to reiterate
another point – governance of higher education must take into account the
complexity of the tasks of higher education, it must take into account the
diversity of contexts in which higher education takes place and it must
take into account the diversity of actors in higher education and
stakeholders who have interest in it. This may well be the most important
reason for saying that there is no “one-size-fits-all” model of governance,
neither on the system nor on the institutional level. The practice of
copy-pasting solutions from other countries will not work in higher
education, if it actually works anywhere else. Furthermore, copy-pasting
from one time to another may not be the best strategy either. Any
discussion of higher education governance and policy development connected
to this has to take into account “the outer world” – the context in which
higher education exists. On the basis of that, the best one can do is to
offer some basic principles of good governance.
3. Changing
context for higher education and impact on governance
Most of the
research in higher education stresses that change is seldom fast and
linear. Higher education is more an organism that evolves than something
inclined towards revolutionary changes. In addition, when change is
planned, it very rarely turns out exactly as it was planned. There are
interpretations of goals and objectives and there are too many actors to
allow for a straightforward implementation. Furthermore, the present higher
education institutions bear both old and new marks and it seems that, under
the modern structure and terminology lies much of the old traditions,
attitudes and understandings. In this respect, some of the presenters and
participants in the panel debate were true to point out that the present
modes of governance do not reflect entirely the present context of higher
education, but are rather a remnant of a time in which higher education was
less massive, less diverse and further removed from society. As higher
education moves from being a privilege, through being a right, to becoming
a necessity for successful life and employment, the spectrum of those
interested in how higher education actually operates becomes wider. There
are new stakes in higher education and thus new stakeholders. They need new
models of learning and new methods of teaching. New patterns of research
are established and new balances between pure and applied are being
established new partnerships between higher education institutions and
industry forged. There are new and stronger demands for higher education to
become more involved into solving societal problems, whether they refer to
industrial development, ecological issues or reconciliation between
different ethnic or religious groups. There is, on the other hand, an
interest (which may stem from a necessity for additional resources) on the
side of the higher education institutions to open their doors to society
much more, sometimes even more than is necessary or desirable. All these
changes then imply discussions on both who and how should govern higher
education, as well as on the notions of autonomy, legitimacy, participation
and democracy.
When it comes
to the new stakeholders in higher education – they have emerged together
with the new demands from higher education. The demand for higher education
to be more responsive to the needs of the outside world means that, apart
from the internal stakeholders (that is the usual suspects such as
students, teachers, other staff and sometimes the government as a founder
and owner of public institutions), there is a need to include external
stakeholders into the governance of higher education, including, but not
limited to, representatives of the business and civic sector, local and/or
regional authorities etc. Thus, adequate mechanisms of involvement of these
external stakeholders, both on the level of the institution and on the
level of the whole system, should be put in place. However, the creation of
adequate models depends on the contexts, cultures and the rationale of
involving the external stakeholders and again there can be no
“one-size-fits-all” model.
With the advent
of mass higher education and in some countries almost universal higher
education, there is an increasing number of those participating in higher
education, increasing diversity of their background and increasing
diversity of the ways that the tasks of teaching and research are being conducted
in higher education, which is also somewhat changing the roles of those who
teach and those who research. The fact that we now have a high number of
students from non-traditional backgrounds, non-traditional in age, in
origin as well as in education prior to higher education, imposes new
challenges on governance structures. The demand for flexible learning
paths, which was clearly stated in the Bergen Communiqué, in itself
includes a demand for structures and procedures which will support
flexibility in learning. New actors in higher education may also demand a
change in admission requirements and procedures, a change in recognition
procedures, especially recognition of prior learning, a change in student
assessment procedures and internal quality assurance procedures. On the
system level, new actors in higher education imply that there are new
criteria on which the evaluation of the success of the institutions should
be based, new funding mechanisms and new legislative frameworks. It is no
longer sufficient, if it ever was, to focus only on research performance of
institutions. Different institutions may cater for different needs for the
society and economy and it could be that the added value is a more suitable
starting point of evaluation of success.
Given this
diversity of both the stakeholders and actors in higher education, it is
important to stress, that, while recognising the necessity for governance
to include different stakeholders and take into account the different
actors of higher education, those involved in higher education governance
should to seek to strike a good balance between representing their
respective constituencies and working towards achieving the long term
overall purpose of higher education. While it would be naïve to suggest
that those representing various stakeholder groups could forget their own
interests (if they do, what then is the purpose of having the diversity of
stakeholders anyway?), it would also be naïve of the stakeholders to
expect that they would not have to negotiate sometimes their own goals and
objectives for a greater and more lasting good for all those benefiting
from higher education.
This brings us
to the basic principles of good governance, which are more succinctly
presented in the Considerations and Recommendations of the conference.
4. Basic
principles of good governance
Governance can
not be reduced to the decision making process only or to the organisational
structures in the sense that there is more to governance than the skeleton
described in the system legislation or statutes of the institution and
there is more to governance than the muscles on the skeleton which include
additional descriptions of procedures, records of decisions taken and
minutes of meetings.
One aspect is
that we should not be afraid to admit that the present situation is that
there is a front stage of governance and also a backstage of governance.
Many of those involved in higher education governance refer to the need for
“real participation” and participation not in numbers and size but in
essence. This seems to be a silent confession that there is more to
governance than skeleton and muscles described above.
It may be
impossible to bring all of the events to the front stage of governance, but
what is essential is to diminish the impact of backstage, hidden agendas
and power plays as much as possible. This can be only done if one other
dimension of governance is added, a sort of mind and soul of the skeleton
and the muscles we already have. This is the specific governance culture,
values and attitudes understood and shared by those involved in governance,
their aspirations towards the respect and development of the basic
principles of good governance. The basic principles of good governance
would include:
- the demand for transparency of structures and procedures
(basically as little backstage as possible);
- the demand for effective mechanisms of accountability of those involved
in governance on various levels;
- the ability to reach decisions and ensure their legitimacy;
- the commitment towards implementing these decisions.
This governance
culture also means that the atmosphere in which governance takes place
should also ensure that the decisions once made, if and only if they were made
in the spirit of good governance, are to be respected even by those who do
not agree with them, understanding that it is more important to ensure “a
day in court” for all of the relevant stakeholders than to always have
one’s own way. Here it should be underlined that this is true only if the
decision was indeed taken in the spirit of good governance, meaning with
full respect of the set procedures and with appropriate methods of
discussing over problematic issues. If this is not the case, then there is
substantial justification for expression of discontent in various ways. And
indeed, we can find examples, both on the institutional and on the national
level, that, when the full ownership of the decisions was not achieved,
that the reactions ranged from quiet disgruntled murmurs in the far out
corners of the room, over silent sabotage and impersonation of conformity
to open rebellion. And in most of these cases, both the murmurs and the
open rebellion are justifiable.
It has to be
understood that the principle of legitimacy and the principle of efficiency
are not in conflict – can a swift decision reached with seemingly unanimous
support be labelled as truly efficient if those to whom the decision is
related to do not agree with it and may, as I said, sabotage the
implementation? Is a decision efficient if it is not effective, if it does
not contribute to the fulfilment of the goals of higher education, in long
term perspective and having in mind the big picture and not immediate
narrow interests? We should understand the demand for efficiency as an
integral part of the demand for legitimacy of the decision making, so often
voiced in the request for full participation and ownership.
We can see here
that the basic principles of good governance actually entail what was
referred to as “the democratic culture” by the Third Summit of the Heads of
States of the Council of Europe. In the Action Plan adopted at the Summit it is stated:
“The tasks of building a knowledge-based society and promoting a
democratic culture among our citizens require increased efforts of the
Council of Europe in the field of education aimed at ensuring access to
education for all young people across Europe, improving its quality and
promoting, inter alia, comprehensive human rights education.”
5.
Governance on the institutional, system and international level
With respect to
governance of higher education at various levels, it is important to stress
that governance of higher education should not be understood only as
governance of HEI or even worse only as management of HEI. It should be
understood that the basic principles of good governance apply to both the
institutional and system level, but also to the international level.
However, there
are some specific characteristics of each of these levels.
a)
Institutional level
The first issue
worth mentioning here is the demand for strengthening the institutional
identity, or, to put it more explicitly, strengthening the institutional
level of governance. This issue is particularly relevant for some of the
regions in Europe, most notably South East
Europe, as the universities1 there do not exist
in the real sense of the term; the rector more often than not has only a
ceremonial role and the real focus of power lies at the level of the
individual faculties. Recognising the differences between the faculties, it
is necessary to strengthen the institutional level of governance, to ensure
common sets of standards, to provide for sound and sustainable overall
development plans, more effective use of resources and also greater
strength for confronting the undue pressures from the outside. This
includes both the strengthening of the governance in the wider sense on the
institutional level, but also in strengthening the central administration,
bearing in mind the distinction between management and governance of the
institution. The demand for more integration at the level of institution
should not be understood as a call for micromanagement and, to answer the
very colourful example of some of the deans who are trying to hang on to
their present kingdoms – no, this does not mean that the rector shall
decide on how much toilet paper the Department of Astrophysics at the
Faculty of Mathematics at a particular university needs.
The second
important issue is the quest for autonomy. First of all, it should be noted
that more autonomy means more accountability and that the fact that there
seems to be a steady process of deregulation of the authority of the state,
as an answer to that there seems also to be a steady process of self
regulation by institutions. The whole discussion on codes of conduct and
the role that both national associations of HEI as well as their European
counterparts, EUA and EUARSHE, are playing is a good illustration of this
process. However, it would be worth noting that the disappearance of
bureaucracy on one level would, and often does, lead to the appearance of
bureaucracy on another, lower level. Self-regulation should not turn into
mere shifting of bureaucracy from the system to the institutional level.
It is also
necessary to further analyse the content and the scope of institutional
autonomy with respect to the changed societal contexts. This may be a
possible topic of future international higher education fora. Does autonomy
refer only to autonomy from the state or is there someone else institutions
should be autonomous from? And, what does the demand of autonomy entail –
is it only the legal autonomy, the financial autonomy and how these demands
could be made operation and protected on the level of the system.
b) System
level
Concerning the
system level, public authorities should seek to provide an adequate
legislative framework necessary for the functioning of higher education.
This framework should refer both to the private and public higher education
institutions which is also reflected in the Considerations and
Recommendations of the conference. Furthermore, it has to be noted that
this framework must not be prescriptive, but that it should allow for
flexibility in developing concrete solutions to specific problems and
situations. It must not suffocate creativity and innovation. Flexibility in
the legislative framework is also important to allow for change to take
place without the delays caused by preparations of the new or amended
legislation and it passing it through the appropriate governmental and
parliamentary structures.
In addition to
this, it should also be stressed that we should try to see the system level
involving not only the government in the narrow sense of the word,
presented through the ministries responsible for higher education, research
and finance. There is a variety of public authorities which also operate on
the system level, such as the judiciary system, quality assurance and
accreditation agencies and even buffer structures such as the national
councils of (higher) education, all of which are an integral element of the
governance of higher education system.
c)
International level
In terms of the
international level the basic principles of governance (transparency,
legitimacy, flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness) are also valid here.
The increased
frequency of cross-border and transnational higher education, through
transnational institutions, joint programmes, mobility of students and
staff, the GATS negotiations under the WTO, as well as the commitment
towards establishing the EHEA and ERA, provide clear proof of the existence
of another level of governance in higher education, and also another level
where good governance is needed. The success of the ongoing international
processes, primarily the Bologna Process, could be seriously jeopardized if
they are not steered in such a way as to ensure adequate participation of
the relevant stakeholders.
It should be
noted that the international actors in higher education should also take
upon themselves to facilitate the dialogue and the dissemination of good
practice, recognising again that, while we can not copy models from each
other – we can learn from each others experiences.
6. By way of
conclusion
Prof. Pavel
Zgaga begins his introduction to the issue of governance of higher
education by shedding some light on the origin of the word “governance” - navigation
– the old art of ascertaining the position and directing one’s course at
sea. Therefore, if governance is navigation, good governance may include:
- an understanding that we are not only sailing the seas and
oceans, but also calm rivers as well as turbulent creaks and
- an understanding that more than one type of vessel is fit to cross the
sea, but that each vessel should have sails, ropes and a helm to direct the
vessel; otherwise it can not be called a vessel and it will sooner or later
sink.
We also need to
have:
- updated maps, reliable compasses and good calculation of the
course to take,
- skilled captains and first officers, whose authority is legitimate and
based on competence,
- skilled crews, who will keep the decks clean, make sure ropes are not
tangled and holes in the sails are repaired, and who, especially during
storms and in troubled waters, will not bump into each other or work
against each other, but who will complement each other’s efforts in
bringing the vessel safely to port.
And finally, we
need an understanding shared by those who steer the vessel, those who are
on the vessel as passengers and those who wait for the vessel in the
various ports to make use of the goods the vessel is carrying – that each
port is but a stop and that the voyage does not really have a final
destination.
|
