University governance in the Tempus countries Recent developments

Objectives  Presentation of the results of a study carried out in 2009 under the Tempus programme: John Reilly, University of Kent (UK) Ard Jongsma, International Correspondents in Education (DK) “Changing rules – A review of Tempus support to university governance”  Draw the attention of the role of Tempus projects in the reflection about & implementation of new governance models

Why studying governance ? Why an interest in governance? Growing expectations from society towards HE Recognition of the fundamental role of HE in economic, political and social reforms (learning society) Growth in number of HEIs and students Major public expense Need for modernisation and reform Increasing engagement of stakeholders (students, families, staff, employers, the public) Need to protect society and stakeholders from unfair attitudes (corruption & fraud)

Why studying governance ? Why an interest in governance? All of this makes good governance of primary importance to society and to the individual Good governance is a social, political & economic imperative Governance: Complex Sensitive Evolving No single model

The concept of governance

Governance is not “management” Strong relationship but management deals with: - implementation of agreed policies - efficiency, effectiveness, quality of services provided Whereas governance… The concept of governance

“ The framework in which an institution pursues its goals, objectives, policies in a coherent and coordinated manner” Answers to questions such as:  Who is in charge ? Who is responsible ?  What are the sources of legitimacy for executive decision making ?  Who takes the decisions ? Not only who, but also why (justification) and how ?

Governance deals with:  Policies, mission, functions, roles  Design of procedures & processes  Power: hierarchy, delegation, responsibilities,duties  Information flows  Governing structures: - who determines them? (constitution, structure, composition) - what authority do they have? - who implements decisions? - how, when, where do they report? The concept of governance

Key words – current trends  Autonomy  Responsibility  Accountability  Effectiveness  Efficiency  Transparency In terms of HR, finance, programmes and degrees, admission of students, research, property and estate, QA, external relations, international cooperation… Features of university governance

Challenges Find the right balance between diverging / contradictory trends / requirements: autonomy / accountability tradition, continuity / adaptation & breaks academic culture & freedom / new approaches Basically two complementary (opposing ?) models: - Collegial / democratic: tends to be oriented to the interests of key stakeholders, the academics - Corporate / executive: tends to be more performance oriented Features of university governance

Main results

Three step approach - Analysis of the documentation of 31 Tempus projects - Questionnaire survey filled in by NTOs - Site visits Methodology of the study

Overall Similar ambition and objectives Similar constraints despite diversity of situations Not totally familiar with the concept – Recent preoccupation Focus on management issues Sensitive, highly political Ongoing reforms & real achievements Legal framework Regulatory – Prescriptive – Evolving Pilot role of Tempus projects (side effect) Main results

Autonomy Common reference for different actors but… Different perspectives between Ministries & Universities Within institutions, various opinions (suspicion and fears from staff / rectors pressing for increased autonomy) Governance structures still prescribed by legislation Limited autonomy as regards HR and finances, student numbers & selection, tuition fees, appointment of rectors and senior officers Increasing autonomy to develop new programmes but still slow and conservative accreditation processes Main results

Governing bodies Absence of external stakeholders (limited interest also) Limited role of students (formal) Difficulties to implement decisions Number, size and role of bodies (Council – overarching decision making body / Senate – academic decision making body / Advisory bodies ?)Processes Lack of clarity about decision making processes Ensuring implementation Rationalising – reforming – quality controlling processes Flexibility, transparency, formalisation Main results

Leadership Key role of rectors – deans – administrative heads High status and formal powers of rectors but limited management authority in practice Appointment procedures (transparency, political dimension) Crucial need for trainingStaff Main challenge is attitude towards change Lack of rewarding, motivation mechanisms, career perspectives (recruitment, remuneration) Need to engage staff and to persuade them to get involved in collective action Main results

Internal structures and functioning Challenges of integrated universities (relations between the different organisational levels) Compartmentalisation and fragmentation of structures (dpts, institutes) Need to break down internal walls between academics and between academics and administratorsFinances Highly circumscribed – limited room for manoeuvre Salaries often excluded Often direct reporting to Ministry of finance Increasing autonomy in relation with generated income, incl. tuition fees Need for high quality financial management structures & processes Main results

Information Vital importance of collated, detailed and timely data at macro and micro levels Crucial need for reliable information systems Main results

Evidence of dynamic change, development and evolution Willingness to initiate and implement change in difficult circumstances Priority topic: appropriateness and effectiveness of governance structures For the future… Need for training and development for senior management & others Need to raise awareness at all levels Further analysis, further comparisons are needed Exchange of experience is crucial Still much room for TEMPUS action…. Conclusions

More on: