Higher Education Reform Dynamics A Research Perspective The

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, the other to extinction. Let us pray that it has the knowledge to choose correctly (Free after Woody Allen)

Why the Political/Industry Interest in Higher Education? Knowledge Economy Focus: Higher education has politically and economically become: More important AND Less Special

Example of new, ‘integrated’ political and industry/private sector view on HE in Europe: Knowledge Triangle Innovation/Business Education Research

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 1980 s: Intensive HE Reform Dynamics in Europe

Basic assumption in academic literature in 1980 s and 1990 s: 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 1980 s – 1990 s: 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 1990 s – 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 (Di. Maggio & 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

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

Selected Data on R&D funding, research productivity and research impact 29

R&D data Nordic countries, OECD, EU 15 Year Norway DK Sweden Finland OECD EU 15 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 2009 32 30 25 19 17 24 R&D expenditure in HE sector as % of total R&D expenditure

Scientific publishing in selected countries (2010) Nr of articles % of world production country 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% 9 741 0. 59% 0. 93 49% 5 892 0. 36% 0. 59 18% 1 180761 100% 0. 17 48% Czech Rep. Hungary Total world 31 Source: National Science Indicators/ Thomson Reuters/ NIFU

Relative citation index (2008 -2010) Citation index Difference in points 2005 -2007 Country 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 EU 15 117 6 OECD 111 3 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 2. Germany 3. France 4. Netherlands 5. Switzerland 6. Italy 7. Spain 8. Israel 9. Sweden 10. Belgium 11. Austria 12. Denmark 13. Finland 14. Norway 15. Hungary 16. Greece 17. Ireland 18. Portugal 19. Poland 728 480 450 276 252 202 188 182 133 117 86 68 57 33 31 (17 SG 13 AG 1 SAG) 31 (18 SG 12 AG 1 SAG) 31 (22 SG 7 AG 2 SAG) 24 14 10 countries < 10 grants CEE countries in total: 63 grants

ERC Overview; number of contracted grants per university (15 April 2013; 3409 grants) 1. University of Cambridge (UK) 97 2. University of Oxford (UK) 84 3. Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Switz) 74 4. ETH Zurich (Switz) 65 5. University College London (UK) 61 6. Weizmann Institute of Science (Israel) 56 7. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel) 55 8. Imperial College of Science, Technology, Med. (UK) 50 9. KU Leuven (Belgium) 36 10. University of Edinburgh (UK) 30 11. LM Universitaet Munchen (Germany) 29 12. University of Helsinki (Finland) 29 13. Technion-Israel Institute of Technology (Israel) 29 14. University of Bristol (UK) 28 15. University of Leiden (Netherlands) 28 16. University of Copenhagen (Denmark) 27 17. Karolinska Institute (Sweden) 26 18. Radboud University Nijmegen (Netherlands) 26 19. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (Netherlands) 25 Central European University (Hungary) University of Warzaw (Poland) Charles University Prague (Czech Republic) (54 SG 40 AG 3 SAG) (43 SG 36 AG 5 SAG) (40 SG 30 AG 4 SAG) (22 SG 41 AG 2 SAG) (37 SG 24 AG) (31 SG 21 AG 4 SAG) (31 SG 23 AG 1 SAG) (27 SG 22 AG 1 SAG) (25 SG 10 AG 1 SAG) (16 SG 14 AG) (9 SG 20 AG) (16 SG 12 SG 1 SAG) (21 SG 6 AG 2 SAG) (12 SG 15 AG 1 SAG) (15 SG 12 AG) (15 SG 10 AG 1 SAG) (17 SG 8 AG 1 SAG) (14 SG 8 AG 3 SAG) 6 (4 SG 2 AG) 6 (5 SG 1 AG) 1 (1 SG) 36

Immediate to Medium-term Impacts of National HE Policy Change • • • 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 biprofessional organisations: the two “separate worlds” of HEIs In general: more competition for funding, students, staff, status

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

Long-term Impact of HE Policy Change? • Growing inter-country and inter-institutional diversity in European HE in terms of, for example: o Levels of public funding & institutional budgets o Quality, status and attractiveness of national HE systems and institutions o Institutional profiles, incl. nature of student bodies o Organisation and governance of HE systems and institutions o Growing concentration of frontier research (in specific countries and 50 -70 institutions)

5. HE Studies at University of Oslo (Faculty of Education) • Three academic core areas: 1. HE governance studies 2. Studies on Teaching and Learning in HEIs 3. 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 • Ph. D Programme in Higher education and Professional Learning

Current research projects (external funding), include: 1. 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 2. 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 3. 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: FLAGSHIP Title: 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 reports 2. 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 2 nd phase Flagship project 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. How is university autonomy interpreted by the institutional leadership at all relevant levels? What are the main developments with respect to personnel policies/HRM at all relevant levels in the selected Flagship universities? How do Flagship universities handle at all relevant levels the expectation to contribute to private and public sector innovation? 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? 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. Major tension not between excellence and relevance, but between academic enterprise and the executive structure Personnel policies (HRM) core strategic area Challenging balance between research orientation in both university worlds, and basic funding realities Increased formal university autonomy leads to reduced room to manoeuvre for academic staff Professionalisation of administration leads in general to less effective support structure for academic activities