Barbara M. Kehm Higher Education in the 21 st Century BIESTRA 3 rd Biennial of Higher Education and the World of Work Santiago de Chile, 7 October 2015

Structure 1.Introduction: Higher Education in the 21st Century 2.Professionalization of Management in HE 3.Internationalisation and Employability 4.Conclusions and Future Perspectives

1. Higher Education in the 21st Century The University has survived the centuries as an institution but there is currently no unified „idea of the university“ any more. Three concepts of today‘s University: The multi-versity The entrepreneurial university The network university

The Multi-University No fixed location or several locations Large variety of activities Often massive conglomerates with big bureaucracy

The entrepreneurial university (B. Clark 1998) Five key elements: A strengthened steering core An expanded developmental periphery A diversified funding base A stimulated academic heartland An integrated entrepreneurial culture

The network university Multiple missions and visions Strategic partnerships and alliances, including public- private partnerships Multi-level governance arrangements Lateral management and decentralisation

What would be an appropriate model (or unifying idea) for the university of the 21st century?

2.Professionalization of Management Changes in the organisational fabric of higher education institutions have led to new tasks and functions, new divisions of labour within and new forms of governance with external control and internal diversification. More institutional autonomy is connected to higher public accountability and the expectation of a more professionalised management.

New ‚higher education professionals‘ (HEPROs) have emerged as a new group of actors within HE. The traditional dichotomy of administrative versus academic staff has become blurred. Four basic areas of HEPRO activities: Preparation and support of management decisions Professionalised services Hybrid sphere between management and services Differentiation of teaching and research functions

EUROAC study: 8 European countries. Research questions: What factors trigger professionalization processes? What forms of professionalization can be observed? How does this impact on academic work?

Key results can be summarised in four points: Professionalization Changes in job roles and tasks The role of administration Tensions/reciprocal influences among academics, HEPROs and management

Professionalization Academics: New and additional skills for the practice of teaching and research; but also a higher administrative workload HEPROs: learning on the job or learning by doing; hardly any systematic training (facilitators and bean counters) Management: professionalising itself through deployment of HEPROs

Changes in job roles and tasks Differentiation into teaching only and research only positions not much progressed (except for Switzerland). For academics: more professional competences for teaching and research, additional competences for third mission activities, career management. For management: leadership and managerial skills (manager-academics) For HEPROs: increasingly differentiated job roles without systematic training and unstable career progression

The role of administration Academics have to carry out more administrative tasks (no more secretarial support). In Central and Eastern Europe: old-style bureaucracy and new-style HEPRO work HEPROs are typically recruited by up-skilling existing administrative staff or down-skilling academic staff

Tensions and reciprocal influences Tensions between HEPROs and academics tend to arise when HEPROs work for the central management level (data requests, reporting requests). Members of the academic profession tend to professionalise themselves but HEPRO support is welcomed if it unburdens from unloved administrative tasks. HEPROs see themselves as dominantly service oriented but often meet with resistance from academic staff.

Conclusion I Professionalization typically takes place through job enrichtment or through a division of labour. More prominent phenomenon currently is a hybridisation of job roles characterised by a blurring of boundaries between academic and non-academic areas and activities within higher education institutions.

3.Internationalisation and Employability Historically the „golden age“ of mobility of scholars and students was in the Middle Ages. Contemporary forms of academic mobility go back to the 1920s (USA) and the post World War II era in Europe. National (higher) education and immigration policies have been important for enabling or limiting mobility.

Phases of development: First phase (until mid-1970s): one-way flows from less developed to more highly developed countries; policy of „open doors“; foreign cultural policy important. Second phase (mid-1970s to 1987): European initiaitves to support „study abroad“; exchange became more important; temporary rather than for a whole degree programme.

Third phase (1987 to 1999): ERASMUS Programme; horizontal mobility also wider range of internationalisation activities (e.g. Curriculum development, foreign language learning, internationalisation at home, etc.) Fourth phase (1999 until today): European Bologna reform process; globalisation and influx of Asian/Chinese students; terrorist attacks led to visa restrictions (esp. In the USA) and new destinations, e.g. Australia; demographic changes leading to active recruitment of foreign staff and students

Nowadays the recruitment of international students is an important factor of instituional income generation but also a means to fill skills gaps due to demographic changes. Student mobility has become normal and thus the previous employability advantage has decreased (at least in Europe).

Studies have shown that the positive impact of temporary study abroad within ERASMUS for (a) obtaining a first job, (b) type of work and (c) income has decreased between 1993 and From 71% to 54 % for obtaining a first job From 49% to 39% for type of work From 25% to 16% for income Indicator for gradual decline of uniqueness of student mobility (though not in terms of importance)

Degree mobility has increased, temporary (credit) mobility has decreased due to a shift from horizontal (intra- European) to more vertical (global) mobility. In addition, forms of mobility have multiplied (online, foreign providers in home country)

4.Conclusions: Future Perspectives With growing internationalisation (even globalisation) and increased competition changes and reform initiaitives will become more similar in many countries around the world. Universities are becoming actors on markets and need autonomy to react flexibly to changes and new demands. However, experts agree that actorhood of higher education institutions is not yet fully achieved and it is unclear what would be the best or most appropriate organisational type.

For universities to become „more complete organisations“ (Brunsson, Sahlin-Andersson 2000) they need to develop hierarchy, identity and rationality. There is still a role to play for national governments but state functions are repositioned rather than shrinking. The New Public Management (NPM) narrative addresses the internal governance of HEIs and aims to increase efficiency and quality.

Overall, the relationships between HEIs and the state (or public authorities) have been re-defined and based on new ideas about what should be steered and how.

Thank you for your attention.