Governance of Higher Education Institutions in Croatia: Response to the
New External Demands
Vesna Kovač, University of Rijeka, Croatia
Paper presented at the Higher Education Close Up Conference 2, Lancaster University, 16-18 July 2001
Introduction
New dynamics in higher education policy in Croatia have been following global trends in higher education world-wide. Although the majority of research on higher education policy, particularly comparative, emphasises the importance of respecting specific national context and developments in higher education, recent developments are pointing towards several trends, changes and problems common to the majority of academic communities world-wide. According to the well known and frequently cited documents, papers and reports about higher education policy three of them lead the way: 1) changing relationship between governments and higher education institutions, mostly in terms of encouraging greater degree of self-regulation of higher education institutions (further in text, HEIs); 2) endeavours for improving quality of higher education followed by introducing national quality assurance systems into higher education policy and 3) changing conceptions of governance of HEIs as a result of new external (and internal) demands on higher education.[1] Those three phenomena are not supposed to be observed independently: they are mutually related and conditioned, which leads to the need of careful planning and understanding of dynamics in higher education policy. In ongoing public discussions concerning the implementation of the new law on higher education in Croatia, certain concepts are planned to be introduced under the new policy with some of them never being experienced in Croatia by now. It causes doubt and resistance from the academic staff.
The purpose of this paper is to provide the theoretical background needed for understanding dynamics and developments in higher education policy, derived from the recent organisational theories and researches on higher education policy, with the special emphasise on relationship between HEIs and demands from their external environment. Special focus has been given on discussion about adequate conceptions of governance of HEIs, which should respond on recent external demands, but assuring at the same time the quality of its basic (pedagogical) activities – teaching and learning. According to the number of identified factors which have an influence on creating an adequate conception of governance, those related with academic staff themselves have been neglected (not only) in Croatian academic policy. The survey on conceptions of governance, undertaken at the University in Rijeka in April 2001[2], has identified several relations between academic staff and governance structures in universities, which indicates important set of problems which need to be considered in future developments in higher education. Academic staff opinion about the governing structures and their role in those processes in the university, as well as their perceptions of strengths and weaknesses of the process have been analysed. Findings, derived carefully from the data by using qualitative methodological approach, can form important background for future reflections on changes which need to be made in context of higher education, in order to become comparable, internationally recognised in the light of recent trends towards globalisation and integration.
In this paper, the term governance refers to the composition and representation of the different individuals and groups (bodies, councils) in decision-making processes as well as the mode of execution and implementation of decisions. Leadership refers to the structures (positions, offices, formal rules) and processes through which individuals/groups influence on decision making processes.[3]
Croatian response to global trends in higher education: a brief report
a) Changing relationship between governance and higher education
Relationship between state and higher education could be observed through several dimensions: one aspect is the way in which state runs the decision making processes concerning some key elements of higher education policy: allocation of funds, admission policy, determining curriculum standards, diplomas, expansion of higher education institutions or employment policy. Croatian higher education[4] has been traditionally reflecting the system of rational planning and control, characterised with the centralisation of decision making processes, usage of strict rules and strong control over policy implementation (classification used according to the Neave and Van Vught, 1994). Most of the financial support came from the state budget: so far, the state has financed institutions of higher education (faculties, polytechnics) following the “traditional principle”, that is, by allocating funds in the amounts proportionate to the already existing staff of the already existing institutions. In order to keep control over the total amount of funds, the state used to control employing new staff (by granting or refusing its permission). State also has full control over issuing accreditation for performing the activity of higher education to institutions of higher education. Suddenly, current initiatives in higher education in Croatia, explained in the Draft of the Bill on Institutions of Higher Education, proposed by the Croatian Ministry of Science and Technology (MST) in 2000, are pointing on introducing the system of self–regulation with the special emphasise on decentralisation and introducing the principle of market economy through certain mechanism (charging tuition fees from the students; introducing students’ loans; central funding according to the ranking based on quality assessment etc). However, institutions are expected to compete for sources and find some alternative ways of funding which turns them into (for Croatian circumstances) unknown market behaviour. State should step back from direct, central control encouraging HEIs for autonomy, self-regulation and market - orientation in their activities. Considering those newly proposed changes, although following global trends in higher education policy world-wide, it can be argued that Croatia would fit in the group of countries with “self-regulation in difficulties” (Sanyal, 1995), because of some heritage of the previous system which would make certain movements more difficult or even impossible. Several circumstances derived from particular national and higher educational context and dynamic, structure and size of higher education, tradition and mentality of academic community should form the basis for future reforms, together with the trends of globalisation, integration and adoption of (successful) foreign experiences.
b) Quality assurance movements
It is known that new relationship between government and HEIs, known in literature also as “steering at the distance”, calls for certain accountability measures, like performance indicators and various models of quality assurance in order to assure efficiency and effectiveness of higher education, with special emphasise on responsiveness, accountability and improvement. The quality concept in higher education is not a new one: several authors have offered a range of discussions in order to provide a definition of quality in higher education (e.g. Harvey and Green, 1993; Green, 1995; Harvey, 1995; in Croatia: Rafajac et. al, 1998. etc). It is important to point out that holistic, multidimensional approach to defining quality of higher education, with respect of interests of every stakeholder and having in mind different segments of higher education – is the most suitable concept. This demand is being introduced in higher education world-wide through many different quality assurance systems and mechanisms. It is possible to derive range of approaches and methodologies of quality assurance at the system as well as at the institutional level (Frazer, 1992; Vroejienstijn, 1993; Billing and Thomas, 2000; etc.), but it is generally accepted that search for the internationally recognised and comparable quality assurance system in higher education has the highest priority. It is not surprising when keeping in mind that the recent demands in international higher education policy (in region) are directed towards creating European area of higher education, promoting academic mobility and mutual recognition of studies, programs, credits and diplomas, as stated in Bologna Declaration[5] (CRE, 1999).
Insight into practice of quality assurance also provides certain level of understanding the relationship between governments and higher education. However, the nature of quality assurance system is conditioned also by its “owners”: indicators can be, for example, subjects who participate mostly in quality assessment procedures (academic staff, governmental or non-governmental organisations and agencies, representatives from employers, industry...), way of reporting the results (internal for institutions or publicly) or follow-up policy (suggestions for improving practice or decisions related to funding). In their comparative survey on quality assurance practice in several West-European countries, Goedegebuure and van Vught have assumed that majority of systems depends on constellation of power-indicators in higher education (Goedegebuure and van Vught, 1994). If the most important indicators (for example: funding policy, opening and closing of study programs, admission policy, etc.) are possessed by the state, it is quite certain that it will also possess the quality assurance system. It is also valuable to observe the performance indicators used in specific mechanism of quality assurance: the state is going to be interested in more quantitative indicators like number of teachers and students, drop-outs rates or international activity of the institution. If possessed by the institution itself, quality assurance mechanism would deal mostly with evaluation of teaching and learning. It is also supposed that system possessed by the state is rather more oriented on control and accountability, less on improving. If advocating the greater importance of orientation on improvement (aimed on influence on improving the quality of teaching, learning, research and other activities performed by HEIs) and knowing that systems oriented on improving can function exclusively in terms of self-regulation of HEIs, it is very important to put the system of quality assurance correctly into well known Clark’s triangle of power and co-ordination (Clark, 1983). Recently, the story became even more complicated: because of the request for introducing internationally recognised and comparable quality assurance system, which should guarantee recognition of academic degrees and qualifications gained in different countries – the new element of co-ordination and power in higher education has been introduced: element of international, particularly European integration.
Quality assessment and assurance of the Croatian system are (supposed to be) performed by the National Council for Higher Education, an independent and advisable body composed of eighteen members nominated by the Rectors’ Conference and higher education institutions, and appointed by the Parliament of the Republic of Croatia. The Ministry of Science and Technology creates its policy on the findings of the National Council for Higher Education. The examination of the quality and efficacy of education, scientific research and professional work of an institution of higher education and its organisational units, carried out by the National Council are to be based on the several criteria, with results notified in public.[6] The National Council will proceed to the Ministry, based on the evaluation results, its recommendation to modify the terms of agreement, or to cancel an agreement on financial support for performing public service for certain courses of study carried out by an institution of higher education, or to grant institutional accreditation or serve a letter of expectation or refuse institutional accreditation.[7] From this general statements, it is clear that proposed quality assurance system has the features of state possessed system, with the strong orientation towards control and accountability, and it would have the serious repercussions on institutions’ financing. Having in mind the importance of decisions supposed to be made on a basis of these quality assessment procedures, together with the idea of introducing principle of market economy as a basis of higher education practice, suitability of this system should be examined carefully. Besides, market-oriented system should not function on the basis of (uncritical) implementation of successful foreign experiences, without questioning capability of institutions to cope with new demands. Appropriateness and rationality of introducing pure market mechanism in higher education system without previous knowledge and tradition of market behaviour should be examined very carefully whilst considering the possible consequences for individual institutions and the whole system. It is also questionable whether such an quality assurance system really provides adequate quality information. Secondly, certain legislation framework should enable HEIs to become more self-regulative in performing their activities.
c) Conceptions of governance of higher educational institutions
Another important trend deals with the need for changes at institutional level: more precisely, towards greater autonomy and decentralisation of governing structures followed by greater degree of self-regulation. It means that institutions should become more responsible for their own survival, i. e. decision making should be transferred from the government level to the institutional level. What is expected from higher education institutions is that they are able to make purposeful, priority oriented, focused, and above all, better decisions that the government civil servants, far from science, research and education were able to make (Frackman, 1994). Changes in higher education policy world-wide have distinguished two extreme conceptions of governance of HEIs during last decades: traditional collegiality, characterised by participation of all academic staff in decision-making, or through representatives in relevant boards or bodies, which succeed to retain at universities for centuries. Another conception emerged strongly during 1980s and 1990s, in countries where market mechanisms in higher education have been introduced (Canada, UK, New Zealand, Australia). This conception, overtaken from busyness corporation practice and named by several authors as managerialism, implies strong competition among institutions (for financial resources, students) and rapid institutional response to changing external demands. Decision making process is determined by dominance of small group of people on the top, assuming that quick decision-making process is needed in order to improve the position of HEIs in new, competitive environment. Slow, multiple layer and often very inert collegial bodies were supposed to be inadequate in new terms of HEIs governance, which challenged new conceptions of governance. Analysing countries of Central and Eastern Europe, Sanyal noticed considerable lack of structural transformations inside HEIs: too much power is still concentrated on collegial bodies (Senates, Faculty Boards), with very weak executive level (Sanyal, 1995). Knowing the global trend of strengthening the role of rectories and institutional management, it can be observed that role of the rector is particularly under-emphasised. It would be wrong to conclude that universities, which are about to overtake market mechanisms in their everyday operations, should automatically overtake managerial mode of governance as a way of survival within a competitive market. Many different factors will influence processes of designing, adapting and applying adequate conceptions of governance. Regardless of common trend of introducing self-regulation of HEIs in many countries, adaptation processes inside academia will not occur following the equal patterns. Bearing in mind that different countries have widely differing starting points, and such consequential trends will naturally diverge into different directions according to the different country in hand, it should be emphasised that there is a need for a deeper understanding of the varying degree in particular starting points (Kogan, 1998). Understanding the traditional role of state, market and academic community in a particular country is of renewed importance, as well as of recent dynamics of relevance for higher education, as concerned with earlier mentioned European integration.
Factors contributing on design of adequate conceptions of HEIs governance: internal matters
Some earlier researches, focused on organisational aspects of universities, have pointed on the importance of respecting basic characteristics of universities as organisations: knowledge as basic activity, traditional academic autonomy and freedom, ambiguity of individual aims and objectives, variety of roles and responsibilities of academics – are some of them which encouraged researchers to discuss the most appropriate models of institutional governance. Already classical examples, like professional bureaucracy, collegiality, organised anarchy, cybernetic system or political model of university – emphasised particularities of academic organisations, although some of them pretending on some distinguished segments of higher education policy, valid mostly in situation of relative stability and consensus (Lockwood and Davies, 1985; Walford, 1987). But, in time of rapid changes, jeopardised financial securities of universities, strong demands from external environment and conflicts inside higher education policy – university overtook features of complex and dynamic organisation and expressed the need for new conceptions of governance. Acknowledging just two variables of stability and complexity, Santos, Heitor and Caraca have explored the evolution and changes of external environment of universities from their first appearance in Middle age until today, searching for factors which changed the nature of university organisation (Santos and al, 1998). Complexity was determined regarding the number and variety of environmental factors of relevance for universities: for example, number of institutions and clients whose needs should be considered; amount of knowledge needed for university operations (which determines divisions on disciplines and departments), and recently, nature of market in which the university operates. On the other hand, stability is determined by the degree and amount of changes in academic environment. It is clear that medieval universities, relatively isolated from society, educating small and elite group of rich students, with no financial restrictions – could have operated with a simple governance structure. Universities today, faced with problems of mass (even universal) approach, strong institutional and program diversification and fragmentation caused by the enormous growth of information and opening to new disciplines – require more complex profile of governance structure. It seems like authors don’t favour neither of the two extreme conceptions of governance, recommending that each institutional level should develop different mode of governance, explaining this by different fields and types of decisions. They are pleading to “bottom-up” approach, emphasising critical importance of basic units (departments) as starting points of decision making processes where participation, democratic and decentralised still of management should be nurtured. However, authors made their conclusions based on ideal type of university, with no respect of the number of national, contextual and institutional specialities which influence on creation adequate conception of governance.