“quo vadis, universitas?” governance in the 21st century: a challenge for the university...

“Quo Vadis, Universitas?”Governance in the 21st Century: a

challenge for the University

J.P.ContzenIST, Lisboa

March 18, 2004

A personal note

A view essentially perceived with research eyes. My association with the University itself is fairly recent after a long career in research and research management.

A fairly broad international perspective: Tokyo (UNU/IAS), Lisbon (IST), Brussels (von Karman) and Saint Petersburg (Nansen Foundation).

The message (1)

For decades, the University has remained relatively isolated from the turbulence of a world in constant evolution. This is no longer possible. Submitted to growing external forces, the University has to redefine its role in higher education, its contribution to research and innovation and its relations to Society.

The message (2)

Various scenarios could be considered for the future of the University; the preferred one implies strong governance that must be exercised in its internal management as well as in its interface with the social and economic world. This could lead to a redefinition of the very structure of the University

Identifying pressing issues within an evolving environment constitutes a prior condition to exercising governance.

An evolving environment for the University (1)

The emerging Knowledge-Based Society, in constant learning, perceiving a growing role of the civil society, dominated by technological innovation and witnessing extended globalization, creates a new environment for the University system.

Is it an opportunity or does it constitute a threat? The answer is ambivalent: it could be both a threat and an opportunity. It depends on how the system will react under the pressure of strong external forces


Keywords for describing the impact of the evolving environment are: A broader access to higher education

impacting on teaching An increased role in research and innovation A greater involvement in building the local

social tissue, in the life of the City A stronger cooperation between Universities

associated to an increased competition among them and from other institutions

An unstable financing


With globalization and the evolution of the Society, the wish expressed in the 1920’s by

Albert Einstein « Science should be performed in isolated communities

away from economic pressures »is no longer on the agenda for Science. The same applies to the University system that becomes more closely integrated in the socio-economic environment.

Teaching (1)

The improvement of socio-economic conditions leads to more people wishing to have access to the University.

At the same time, the productive world wishes to see a higher education system « attentive to its immediate needs », needs that might be affected by the rapid evolution of the economic situation (ICT’s after the « bubble »?)

Teaching (2)

The acceleration of the S&T development leads to a useful half-life of knowledge, at least in natural sciences, of about 5 years. The growing need for Lifelong Learning constitutes another challenge. The University should contribute to the reduction of this new form of social exclusion called the age divide.

Teaching (3)

The pressure of the civil society for a greater attention devoted to the sustainability of our socio-economic system creates new needs in education and training

All these factors point towards an increased demand and more societal relevance in the University teaching but The demand is somewhat tempered by the downward

demographic trend in some countries The students’ own wishes in terms of orientation does

not necessarily match the demand (current deficit in exact sciences).

Teaching (4)

Positive aspects of this evolution: The increased demand in certain fields has

given a new impulse to the training functions It has created new curricula, notably at the

interface between disciplines It has led to in-depth reflections on the

process of teaching and to the emergence of some structural reforms (still at a low pace, e.g. nearly 7 years for founding a business school -the Said school- at Oxford University)

Teaching (5)

Negative aspects of this evolution: Wild competition without any quality control,

leading to hasty education, of scarce value. Excessive multiplication of the number of higher education institutions

Institutional confusion: everybody involved in higher education attempts to do everything. The word University is used indiscriminatingly: « Devenez universitaire le soir »

Teaching (6)

Concentration on those themes responding to current market opportunities

Creation of pseudo-interdisciplinary schemes at undergraduate level under the pressure of the market demand

Teaching (7)

Richard Ernst, 6th March 2000

Teaching (8)

The main issue in the teaching field is to follow the societal demand or to follow the aspirations of the students’ population in a fairly chaotic system with a long time constant in its response

There is no universal answer to this issue but the University should exercise itself governance in this field, attentive to the solicitations of the outside world but not leaving to governments or the market the privilege to dictate choices.

Research and Innovation (1)

The University becomes increasingly the focal point for public R&D, replacing specific research centers. Why?: The need for interdisciplinary knowledge,

while at the same time, the search, notably by Industry , for highly specialized, advanced knowledge. Both factors lead economic operators to increased R&D outsourcing

In particular, a stronger R&D content in products and processes creates a demand from SMEs that don’t perform R&D themselves


The advent of e-Science, allowing remote access, erases some of the previous disadvantages of the University with respect to research centers built around large experimental facilities

A greater demand for R&D assisting the decision-makers and the civil society in managing change, in managing risk, leads to a renewed interest in social sciences and their marriage with natural sciences.


The shortening of the process bridging the creation of knowledge (research) to its effective application (innovation) brings the University researchers closer to the marketplace

Innovation in the University is already a reality; one third of all the world’s biotechnology companies have been founded by faculty members of the University of California. It should not be forgotten that the implication of the University in innovation is not totally new: already in the 1890’s, the success of the German chemical industry was due to its close links with Chemistry faculties of the German universities.


Positive aspects: A new impulse to the creation of knowledge,

not solely to its transfer. Reinforcement of cross-fertilization between teaching and research within the University system

A University better inserted in Society, playing its role as a tool for socio-economic development and becoming a partner in the innovation process

The development of new R&D areas featuring interdisciplinarity and associating natural sciences and humanities


Negative aspects: Trend towards favoring those R&D areas where

outside money can be found more easily (perversity of targeted public research programs), leading to deficits in other areas (e.g. mathematics, humanities)

Increased time spent by researchers in the hunt for funds

Increased tendency for researchers to « recycle » their scientific papers for soliciting grants from a system that rewards quantity


Financial Times, 1998


Increased debate on the freedom in the choice of R&D themes, in their exploitation.

Market proximity has led to restrictions on the free circulation of ideas within the University, and has created conflicts of interest

Loss of perceived independence in the exercise of neutral expertise. The credibility of researchers has decreased to a very low level among representatives of the civil society.

The University in the life of the City (1)

A growing role of the University as social stakeholder can be witnessed. The University is seen locally as: An element of diffusion of culture A forum for debate A source of local expertise An intellectual support to the elder generation

The University is considered (rightly) as a tool for regional development. Its local presence is actively sought by political decision-makers and socio-economic operators. The University experiences “glocalization”.

The University in the life of the City (2)

Does that mean that there should be one University in each province, prefecture, department, county, etc?

How could the University - already burdened by its essential functions of teaching and research – assume its social role in the City?

Cooperation and Competition (1)

Globalization and the process of European integration have introduced a stronger competition among Universities that have now to attract and retain professors and researchers as well as students for surviving. The attraction exercised by American Universities constitutes a source of interrogation about the evolution of European universities

The attribution of funds for research on a competitive basis is increasingly adopted by public authorities; this factor reinforces the race between universities.


Positive aspects: Educational and R&D networks have

reinforced the cooperation for the mutual benefit of the partners

Mobility of professors and students has increased. The barriers erected by the Nation States of the 19th Century are crumbling


Increased competition is a stimulus for improvement in quality; evaluation schemes have been introduced

Global e-Science and e-learning offer new opportunities to developing countries and to remote areas of developed countries, contributing to the reduction of inequalities linked to geographical isolation.


Negative aspects: Creation of multinationals of learning with

monopolistic attitudes, notably in developing countries

Excessive search for excellence implying strong concentration and selectivity. What is excellence? Indiscriminate benchmarking can lead to the desertification of the University landscape. Are we «willing to shoot our wounded and suckle the survivors»?

(from « The Lexus and the Olive Tree » by Thomas L. Friedman)


« Vacuum Cleaner effect » leading talented professors and researchers to conglomerate at the most prestigious places

Last but not least, the loss of cultural identity. The University has been traditionally the guardian of the national, regional identity, the focus of cultural, philosophical or religious values. Globalization, market pressure are driving the University away from this mission so much praised by von Humboldt.


How can the University be open to broad cooperation while at the same retain its identity?

Facing competition, how should the University react? Easy access vs. strict excellence? Use research as the attraction pole or privilege teaching?

How should it meet another form of competition resulting from the aggressive drive by non-University Higher Education institutions to increase their field of competencies?In general, the issue of competition is closely linked with the question of financing.

Financing (1)

The financing of the University has been a constant problem that has come once again at the forefront in some countries (UK, Germany)

Financing could come from 4 sources: The Government: it constitutes the traditional source.

In most European countries, public budgets are under severe pressure

Students: they provide in general a (small) fraction of the corresponding cost

Individuals: they provide donations, endowments Socio-economic actors: they allocate funds, with or

without strings attached, rarely on a permanent base.

Financing (2)

Can the role of individuals be increased in Europe, following the US example?

Should a stronger involvement of socio-economic actors be sought, raising the issue of the autonomy of the University and of its impartiality?« In my opinion, the autonomy of a University consists

of two elements: the freedom to decide on the content of education and research and the freedom to select people appropriate for this purpose. One condition to realize this kind of autonomy is sufficient financial backup »

Akito Arima, the 3rd Annual Michio Nagai Memorial Lecture, UNU, Tokyo, December 2002

Financing (3)

Should students - or their families - be asked to pay the real cost, at least when the studies that they are undertaking give rise to an immediate, significant profit?

Should finally the Government be more attentive to the growing contribution of the University to the development of our Society and adapt its funding accordingly?

The future evolution of the University (1)

Three scenarios are possible; they present plausible illustrations of the future, with no probability attached: Scenario 1: Resistance to change. Reforms are slow in

their implementation, not wholeheartedly accepted. “Reorganizing deckchairs on the Titanic”. Why change? The hidden danger of past success.In this case, the system will explode in a not too distant future « We dance on a volcano » (France, Charles X, 1830)

Scenario 2: Deregulation. Demand and market forces predominate. This scenario presents good features but brings negative consequences for Society at-large (California, Gold Rush, 1849)


Scenario 3: Strong Governance. Structures inherited largely from the 18th Century feel the pressure to adapt to the new environment. The system accepts the evolution and implements reforms with in-built safeguards. It requires strong governance (Japan, Meiji Era, 1867)

If the trend is leaning towards scenario 3, answers should be found in terms of governance to all the questions enunciated in the previous part of the presentation. All embracing solutions should be avoided but some general patterns should be followed.


An attempt to respond to some of the questions is outlined here. It concerns: A new task sharing within the higher

education system between University and non-University organizations, refocusing the mission of the University

A new governance scheme adapted to the realities of the 21st century introducing new managerialism in the University itself and establishing clear mechanisms for its interface with the outside world.

A new task sharing within the University system (1)

The new task sharing should be based on functional layers, respecting the institutional integrity of each component. Innovation should be part of the deal

With the expected extension of Lifelong Learning, the length of the education period will no longer constitute a criteria for discriminating between University and non-University organizations


R&D intensity, degree of specialization (as opposed to interdisciplinarity), type of innovation (incremental vs. radical), regional impact, degree of internationalization, cultural dimension appear to be suitable criteria. Their application is illustrated in the following diagram comparing the two types.


0123456

Degree of specialisation

R&D intensity

Type of innovation:incrementalvs.radical

Degree of internationalisation

Regional impact

Cultural dimension

Non University University


The suggested task sharing is in fact favoring the concept of the American Research University as described in 1982 by Robert M.Rosenzweig: «We choose to combine basic research, a fair mixture of applied research, training for research and undergraduate education at the same place, done by the same people, frequently at the same time »


Should we go further and use the model of the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (the « Shinkansen University ») created in 1990 ? It consists of « graduate schools without undergraduate programs, for the purpose of carrying out high-level researches and systematic education in the fields of advanced S&T »

A new Governance scheme for the University (1)

Adapting the structure of the University to the realities of the 21st Century will require strong governance. Two issues dominate the scene: Introduce « new managerialism » in the

management of the University system Establish clear rules for the interface with the

economic world

New Managerialism (1)

« New managerialism » (Braun and Merrien 1999) has been presented often as « Academic Capitalism » (Slaughter and Leslie 1997) . Ideological debates should be avoided over this important issue. The evolution should not be considered as the result of « a market-based ideology opposing public counter-cultures », it is part of the quest for efficient public structures.

New Managerialism (2)

What does « new managerialism » imply? Decentralize, introduce flexibility in structures

inherited from the 18th and 19th Centuries Introduce and sustain modern administrative

and financial procedures Strike the right balance of power between the

academic community and the administration Make the academic career more attractive for

young people

A new Governance scheme for the University (2)

The other important aspect of a revised governance scheme relates to a reorganized interface with the economic world obeying to clear rules. The lessons learned from the current interface problems should lead to a redeployment of the University structure

A proposal for a three-layers structure is presented here for further reflection. The three layers should exercise strong interaction between each other but maintain their functional identity .

A new structure for the University (1)

1

2

3 Three layers:

1:teaching and basic research in disciplinary areas

2:teaching and research in multidisciplinary areas

3:innovation (spin-offs, incubators, joint ventures, entrepreneurship centers, etc) as well as social fora


Composition of the three layers : Inner Core: the heart of the University with

teaching (at all levels) and basic research, both centered essentially on disciplines. Departments remain the basic structure. Freedom of choice should be the guiding principle. Gibbons mode 1 operation. Basic financing should be guaranteed with a fraction of competitive funding for testing excellence. Funding from Industry allowed only if no strings attached (the Berkeley/Novartis deal could be a model). Should work closely with like-minded outside academic organizations.


Intermediate Layer: interdisciplinary teaching (no undergraduate level) and interdisciplinary theme-oriented research (a US example: the Nathan Shock Centers of Excellence in Basic Biology of Aging). Gibbons mode 2 operation. Performed in centers jointly operated by several disciplinary departments with the cooperation of outside academic organizations. Clustering should be based on specialization and competitive advantage. Relies more heavily on outside financing from industry, public bodies and hopefully donations.


Outer Layer: the interface with the economic world and the social world. In the first case, it consists of technology

transfer and licensing offices, spin-offs, entrepreneurship centers, incubators, joint ventures and any other form of cooperative structure with economic operators. This layer should be at least financially self-sustaining or better profit-making.

In the second case, it works with local authorities and civic associations for promoting cultural events, providing fora for debates, museums, etc. It contributes to local expertise. Financing should be shared with the partners.

THE UNIVERSITY GALAXY

U1

U2

U3

U4

U5

Ux1

Ux2

In conclusion

The University must demonstrate its capability to manage an evolution that can’t be ignored or repelled.

What will happen should not be the product of fatality or the random combination of diverse external forces. It should rely essentially on what the University has decided itself to do.The University should act NOW, not in splendid isolation, but with the support of all public and private socio-economic actors, for remaining what it has been through the centuries, i.e. « a place of light, of liberty and of learning »

Benjamin Disraeli, House of Commons, 1873

“quo vadis, universitas?” governance in the 21st century: a challenge for the university...

Documents

university system

university j

evolving environment

new environment

socioeconomic environment

unstable financing slide

research management

research eyes