Higher Education Reform Dynamics: A Research Perspective

The Higher Education Research Group (HERG)

Central European University (CEU)

Budapest

22 April, 2013

Peter Maassen

University of Oslo

1.HE as Policy Area in Europe

2.HE Diversity

3.HE Reforms and Change Dynamics

4.HE Diversity in Europe: trends illustrated

5.HE Studies at University of Oslo

1. HE as Policy Area in Europe

Otto von Bismarck

Policies and laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made

„Politics concerns the understanding of the possible“

After 1945 HE as policy area characterised by:

• Low political interest• Bilateral, vertical steering relationships (with Ministry of Education)• HE regarded as unique sector that needs to be ‘protected’ by political system• Relatively high level of earmarked or block grant public funding• Relatively high level of academic autonomy

Context for HE and for HE policy is changing

Three different but related rationales for HE policy change :

1. Complaining politicians/bureaucrats: call for modernisation of HE

2. Emerging private sector interests:Need to link HE more directly to innovation

3. Pessimistic, argumentative scholars: “There is something rotten in the state of Denmark!”

Politicians & scholars: The University faces a crossroads

One path leading to despair and utter hopelessness,

Let us pray that it has the knowledge to choose correctly

the other to extinction.

(Free after Woody Allen)

Knowledge Economy Focus:

Higher education has politically and economically become:

More important AND Less Special

Why the Political/Industry Interest in Higher Education?

Education Research

Innovation/Business

Example of new, ‘integrated’ political and industry/private sector view on HE in Europe:

Knowledge Triangle

Grand Societal Challenges (EU & OECD)

•Financial/economic crisis•Global warming•Tightening supplies of energy, water and food•Multicultural society •Demographic developments (“Ageing societies” vs “youth surplus”)•Public health•Pandemics •Security

Higher Education as transversal problem solver!

Since late 1980s:

Intensive HE Reform Dynamics in Europe

Basic assumption in academic literature in 1980s and 1990s:

Reforms lead to convergence; differences within HE systems increase, while

differences between HE systems are decreasing

2. HE System Diversity

Diversity as HE policy issue in Europe

1980s – 1990s:

National focus on binary divide, universities and colleges ‘equal but different’

Diversity: attempts to create division of labour, institutional profiles, etc.

In Continental Europe in general not successful

Late 1990s – 2006: Bologna process

Convergence of educational structures in HE systems and institutions

Since 2006:

Re-emergence of diversity, now in global context

‘European universities are lagging behind’

‘Need to create world class universities’

Diversity as HE policy issue in Europe (cont.)

Since 2006:

Re-emergence of diversity, now in global context

“…higher education institutions too often seek to compete in too many areas, while comparatively few have the capacity to excel across the board. As a consequence, too few European higher education institutions are recognised as world class in the current, research oriented global university rankings. For instance, only around 200 of Europe's 4000 higher education institutions are included in the top 500, and only 3 in the top 20, according to the latest Academic Ranking of World Universities. And there has been no real improvement over the past years. There is no single excellence model: Europe needs a wide diversity of higher education institutions, and each must pursue excellence in line with its mission and strategic priorities.”

(EU’s HE Modernization Agenda, 2011)

Classical Studies

• Ch. Darwin (1859),On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

• E. Durkheim (1893),De la Division du Travail Social

• T. Parsons (1966),Societies: Evolutionary and Comparative Perspectives

More Recent Theoretical Perspectives:

The Population Ecology Perspectives (Hannan & Freeman, 1977): ‘Organisations compete for limited resources’

The Resource Dependency Perspective (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978): ‘Organisations adapt to and change their environments’

The Institutional Isomorphism Perspective (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983): ‘Organisations adapt to existence and pressures of other organisations’

Higher Education governance theory: unity vs diversity

Balance between system level need for order (unity) and institutional need for autonomy (diversity)

Clark (1983):• Forces that keep HE systems together (coordination)• Forces that pull HE systems in different directions (change/diversity)

Olsen (2007)”Europe in Search of Political Order”• System level need for order (unity)• Need for institutional autonomy (diversity/disorder)

How to create/maintain balance between order and institutional autonomy?

Creating order in European HE systems traditionally national issue, i.e. reform aimed at creating more effective (or politically/ideologically more fitting) balance between government control and inst. autonomy

Emergence of:European HE 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 HEIs’ autonomy (’U-Map’ and ’U-Multiranking’ projects)

Understanding of Diversity in HE

Most Effective from System Perspective (Public Interest):

1.Government regulation over market place

2.Inter-institutional over intra-institutional

3.Mission differentiation

Arguments in favor of Diversity in Higher Education:

A more diverse higher education system:

1. offers better access to a wider variety of students;2. provides more social mobility through multiple modes of entry and

forms of transfer;3. better meets the diverse needs of the labor market;4. serves the political needs of a larger number of interest groups (and

creates political stability);5. permits the combination of elite and mass higher education;6. increases the effectiveness of higher education institutions (allowing

for institutional specialisation);7. offers more opportunities for creating effective links between basic

research and innovation.

3. HE Reforms and Change dynamics

Nationale HE policy dynamics

Common instruments and features:

Funding:• Multi-year ‘contracts / agreements’ linked to funding• Growing part of basic/operational grant performance based• Strengthening market orientation and competition, leading often to: ‘Equal

competition between unequal competitors’• Growing differences in levels of funding as consequence of financial crisis

System Structure and Organisation:• Growing focus on system diversity • Different attempts to create (nationally) global top universities• Institutional merger / cooperation dynamics

Governance:• From steered by bureaucrats to governed by politicians• Conditional institutional autonomy• Strategic role for Institutional Boards• Professionalisation of institutional administration

Nationale HE reform & change dynamics

Examples of specific features:

Funding:• Shift from contracts to indicators in public HE funding• Intra-institutional performance contracts• Focus on STEM• Increase of private funding components

System structure and Organisation:• Regional research & education clusters• Government funded centers of excellence in education• Change in legal status of universities: Introduction of private ownership option

Governance:• Diversity contracts between Ministry and HEIs

4. HE Diversity in Europe; trends illustrated

a) HE system structure

b) Research funding, production and impact

c) ERC

Traditional binary HE systems

Univ. Fachhochschulen/Polytechnics/Hogescholen/Colleges

HE system: inter-institutional diversity

HE system:intra-institutional diversity

Diversity challenge: inter- or intra-institutional diversity?

HE system inter-institutional diversity (’Hierarchy’):Australia; Canada; Japan; UK; USA

HE systemintra-institutional diversity:Norway

Diversity challenge: inter- or intra-institutional diversity?

Mixed HE system diversity, but: goal is hierarchy(inter-institutional diversity):Austria; Denmark; Finland; France; Germany; Netherlands; Portugal; Russia; Sweden; Switzerland

29

Selected Data on R&D funding, research productivity and research impact

Year Norway DK Sweden Finland OECD EU15

R&D resources

R& D expenditure as part of GDP (%)

2009 1.81 3.02 3.62 3.96 2.33 2.05

R&D expenditure per capita NOK

2009 8 675 10 070 11 890 12 360 6 905 6 275

Public R&D expenditure as % of total R&D expenditure

2009 47 28 27 24 28 34

Industry R&D expenditure as % of total R&D expenditure

2009 44 60 59 68 64 55

R&D expenditure in HE sector as % of total R&D expenditure

2009 32 30 25 19 17 24

R&D data Nordic countries, OECD, EU15

31

country

Nr of articles % of world production

Nr of articles per 1000 inhabitants

Relative change in nr of articles 2002-2010

USA 338 784 22.17% 1.10 27%

China 135 375 8.86% 0.10 243%

UK 93 092 6.09% 1,51 32%

Germany 88 420 5.79% 1.08 29%

Japan 72 882 4.77% 0.57 -1%

India 40 905 2.68% 0.03 114%

Brasil 31 639 2.07% 0.17 145%

Netherlands 30 948 2.03% 1.87 55%

Russia 26 836 1.76% 0.19 3%

Poland 20 617 1.25% 0.54 38%

Switzerland 19 976 1.46% 2.85 59%

Denmark 11 836 0.77% 2.14 50%

Czech Rep. 9 741 0.59% 0.93 49%

Hungary 5 892 0.36% 0.59 18%

Total world 1 180761 100% 0.17 48%

Scientific publishing in selected countries (2010)

Source:National Science Indicators/Thomson Reuters/NIFU

CountryCitation index Difference in points

2005-2007

Switzerland 166 12

Denmark 157 17

Netherlands 153 11

UK 141 11

USA 137 3

Germany 130 10

Hungary 99 7

Czech Republic 98 9

Japan 91 4

China 91 7

India 69 -2

Poland 68 -7

Brasil 65 -10

Russia 51 -1

Average world 100 0.0

EU15 117 6

OECD 111 3

Relative citation index (2008-2010)

Source: National Science Indicators/Thomson Reuters/NIFU

European Research Council (ERC)

• Established 1 January 2007

• Budget around €7.5 billion (2007-2013)

• Europe’s answer to the NSF

• The Champion’s League of Frontier Research

• Regarded as success, continued as part of HORIZON 2020 (budget around €15 billion)

ERC Overview number of contracted grants per country (15 April 2013; 3409 grants)

1. UK 7282. Germany 4803. France 4504. Netherlands 2765. Switzerland 2526. Italy 2027. Spain 1888. Israel 1829. Sweden 13310. Belgium 11711. Austria 8612. Denmark 6813. Finland 5714. Norway 3315. Hungary 31 (17SG 13AG 1SAG)16. Greece 31 (18SG 12AG 1SAG)17. Ireland 31 (22SG 7AG 2SAG)18. Portugal 2419. Poland 14

10 countries < 10 grants CEE countries in total: 63 grants

36

ERC Overview; number of contracted grants per university(15 April 2013; 3409 grants)

1. University of Cambridge (UK) 97 (54SG 40AG 3SAG)2. University of Oxford (UK) 84 (43SG 36AG 5SAG)3. Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Switz) 74 (40SG 30AG 4SAG)4. ETH Zurich (Switz) 65 (22SG 41AG

2SAG)5. University College London (UK) 61 (37SG 24AG)6. Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel) 56 (31SG 21AG 4SAG)7. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel) 55 (31SG 23AG 1SAG)8. Imperial College of Science, Technology, Med. (UK) 50 (27SG 22AG 1SAG)9. KU Leuven (Belgium) 36 (25SG 10AG 1SAG)10. University of Edinburgh (UK) 30 (16SG 14AG)11. LM Universitaet Munchen (Germany) 29 (9SG 20AG)12. University of Helsinki (Finland) 29 (16SG 12SG 1SAG)13. Technion-Israel Institute of Technology (Israel) 29 (21SG 6AG 2SAG)14. University of Bristol (UK) 28 (12SG 15AG 1SAG)15. University of Leiden (Netherlands) 28 (15SG 12AG 1SAG)16. University of Copenhagen (Denmark) 27 (15SG 12AG)17. Karolinska Institute (Sweden) 26 (15SG 10AG 1SAG)18. Radboud University Nijmegen (Netherlands) 26 (17SG 8AG 1SAG)19. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Netherlands) 25 (14SG 8AG 3SAG)

Central European University (Hungary) 6 (4SG 2AG)University of Warzaw (Poland) 6 (5SG 1AG)Charles University Prague (Czech Republic) 1 (1SG)

• Move from homogeneous to more diversified HE systems

• Move from basic, open to more strategic, targeted use of public HE funding

• Move from collective decision making to individual leadership

• Move from vertical governance relationship Ministry – HEIs to integration of HE policy in horizontal coordination structures under heading of ‘knowledge policy’

• Move from HEIs as mono-professional organisations to HEIs as bi-professional organisations: the two “separate worlds” of HEIs

In general: more competition for funding, students, staff, status

Immediate to Medium-term Impacts of National HE Policy Change

• Growing focus on impact of HE

• Growing focus on learning outcomes (EQF)

• Continuous focus on internationalisation, esp. student mobility and joint degree programmes

• Growing Europeanisation of quality assessment in HE

• Move from equal distribution of Research funds over member states to concentration on basis of quality indicators

But, there are clear indications that European Commission has withdrawn from HE Policy involvement: HE Policy responsibility back at national level

At the same time research & innovation policy competency clearly institutionalised at European level (HORIZON 2020)

Immediate to Medium-term Impacts of European level HE Policy Involvement

• Growing inter-country and inter-institutional diversity in European HE in terms of, for example:

o Levels of public funding & institutional budgetso Quality, status and attractiveness of national HE systems and

institutionso Institutional profiles, incl. nature of student bodieso Organisation and governance of HE systems and institutionso Growing concentration of frontier research (in specific

countries and 50-70 institutions)

Long-term Impact of HE Policy Change?

5. HE Studies at University of Oslo (Faculty of Education)

• Three academic core areas:1. HE governance studies2. Studies on Teaching and Learning in HEIs3. HE and Professional Learning studies

• Research Group HEIK (around 25 academic staff members) Higher Education: Institutional dynamics and Knowledge cultures http://www.uv.uio.no/english/research/groups/heik/index.html

• Mphil Programme in HE

• PhD Programme in Higher education and Professional Learning

Current research projects (external funding), include:

•HORIZON: produce new knowledge about challenges that arise from horizontal governance and change processes in higher education, and their way of fostering academic and professional development

•FLAGSHIP: produce insights into the way in which selected flagship universities in Europe interpret and use their ‘institutional autonomy’ in creating a balance between strengthening their academic excellence and securing the socio-economic relevance of their academic activities

•HERANA/NORHED: Research and Development to Strengthen Expertise on Higher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa, with special focus on Contribution of African Flagship universities to economic development

Components analytical framework in HEIK research work:

1. Beyond routine, incremental change and reform, and conceptualize current dynamics as search for a new pact between the university and its environments.

2. 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.

3. Beyond functionalism and analyze change as processes of contestation. 

4. Beyond a single-institution framework and take into account inter-institutional tensions and collisions.

5. 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 embedded.

Moving beyond “diagnostics” and anecdotes?

• How can we account for (potential) patterns of policy change we find in university/HE reforms?

• How can we account for (potential) patterns in HE system diversity (organization and governance)?

How to account for policy change?

• Original argumentation around convergence

• But: empirical analyses of change in HE systems shows a growing inter-country divergence instead of convergence in core governance areas

How to account for policy change?Six arguments:

• “Global script” argument• “Varieties in capitalism” / Systemic path dependency

argument: Nordic model• “Crisis” argument – change by exogenous shocks• “Incrementalism” argument• “Intercurrence” argument• “Temporal sorting” argument

“Global scripts” argument(a.o. Meyer et al. Stanford)

Global trends wrt HE as public policy sector:

1. Changes in technical environments and the fundamental material conditions of higher education, including ‘massification’

2. Emergence of a modernization agenda for universities/HE• Institutional autonomy• Public funding of HE• Institutional leadership/management• System diversity (European and national)

“Global scripts” argument: rationale

• Modernization agenda: global taken for granted ideas and norms as prescriptions for national policies

• “Solution driven” national reforms

• Propelled by European/global formal organised cooperation and communication in policy/administrative networks

Nordic Model of welfare capitalism:“varieties of capitalism” / path dependency

Underlying starting points:

• It is possible to combine a strong state influence aimed at securing welfare, equity, security, with labour market flexibility (‘flexicurity’), technical innovation and economic growth

• Nordic countries have been successful in combining economic growth with high levels of social protection, inclusion and equality

Project acronym: FLAGSHIPTitle: European Flagship Universities; balancing academic excellence and socio-economic relevance

FLAGSHIP (cont.)

Research problem:1.What are the organised settings and institutional characteristics that attract highly qualified staff and students, encourage academic excellence and free enquiry and also make universities take seriously their social and economic responsibilities?2.What are the main autonomy-related factors that over the last 10 years have affected these organised university settings and institutional characteristics?

Two phases:1.Institutional, national, European level reports2.Detailed case studies around 5 disciplinary areas: chemistry; psychology; history; teacher training; health & society

Analytical framework:“University adaptations between strategic choice, environmental dictate and institutional change”

FLAGSHIP project (cont.)

Funding:

• FORFI programme of Norwegian Research Council (NFR)

(Use oriented programme: Strengthening Knowledge basis for research and innovation policies)• University of Oslo (Rectorate and 5 case departments)• Department of Political Science• Department of Educational Research• Arena

FLAGSHIP project (cont.)

‘Flagship university’:

A comprehensive, research intensive university, located in one of its country’s largest urban areas. A flagship university is in general among the oldest and largest institutions for higher learning of its country.

First phase cases (11):

Universities of:

Oslo, Bergen (Norway); Aarhus, Copenhagen (Denmark); Gothenburg, Stockholm (Sweden); Helsinki (Finland); Amsterdam (Netherlands); KU Leuven (Belgium); Zurich (Switzerland); Vienna (Austria)

In addition: Universities of Melbourne, Ljubljana, Milano

Institutional case studies

Some reflections:

• Mergers into larger academic areas – removing one governance layer vs creating more governance layers…?

• Changes in governance structures towards stronger centralization – but still a very complex structure – what are the «real» influence of the various governance bodies?

Research questions 2nd phase Flagship project

1. How is university autonomy interpreted by the institutional leadership at all relevant levels?

2. What are the main developments with respect to personnel policies/HRM at all relevant levels in the selected Flagship universities?

3. How do Flagship universities handle at all relevant levels the expectation to contribute to private and public sector innovation?

4. What are the main incentives and barriers at the department level for taking strategic decisions in areas of personnel policies, and research organisation and funding?

5. How has the introduction of excellence-driven units and projects affected Faculty and Department level leadership and management?

Preliminary issues of attention in analyses of data and interviews

1. Major tension not between excellence and relevance, but between academic enterprise and the executive structure

2. Personnel policies (HRM) core strategic area

3. Challenging balance between research orientation in both university worlds, and basic funding realities

4. Increased formal university autonomy leads to reduced room to manoeuvre for academic staff

5. Professionalisation of administration leads in general to less effective support structure for academic activities