Governance and Adaptation to Innovative Modes of Higher Education Provision (GAIHE) (original) (raw)
Governance and Adaptation to Innovative Modes of Higher Education Provision. Research Report
2016
This project examines innovative modes of higher education provision, as well as ways in which the management and governance of higher education are changing in support of innovations in higher education provision. At a time when more students than ever are attending higher education, its provision is becoming more fluid, global and competitive. For example, developments in new technologies mean that higher education institutions (HEIs) can make their courses available all over the world. These developments bring into question the traditional delivery model of higher education institutions, which tends to be confined to physical-and hence geographically defined-course offerings. The project, which started in October 2013 and was completed by the end of June 2016, was funded by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission. Partnership. Our Europe-wide consortium consists of 12 partner institutions (universities, higher education institutions and research institutes) across 9 European countries. Methodology. The methodological approach followed by the project consisted of desk research, the development and implementation of an online survey to gather the perceptions of higher education leaders on innovation, and the production of institutional case studies to determine best practices. The survey was disseminated across representatives of higher education institution leaders in 47 institutions in 9 countries (
Governance and Adaptation to Innovative Modes of Higher Education Provision
In the context of the ever growing use of technology through e-learning and open-courseware, our paper presents a project that is being carried out by a consortium of twelve partners and is coordinated by the University of Maastricht. This project sets out to examine the evolution of the innovative modes of higher education provision in teaching and learning across Europe, the motivations for their emergence as well as the ways in which higher education management and governance have responded and adapted to such new modes of provision. In the highly competitive sector of HE, while attempting to enhance the quality of teaching and learning, the increasing range of teaching and learning providers (encouraging both new delivery models and the ‘unbundling of delivery’ through partnerships, spin-out organisations, franchising, etc.), has challenged the ‘traditional’ model of university and stimulated changes in the provision and management of higher education. Our paper describes the general framework of the project, foregrounding the first preliminary results of the project to be presented and discussed during the conference in July as part of what will be the first European-wide analysis of such innovative modes of provision in teaching and learning in Europe.
2010
This report was commissioned by the Directorate General for Education and Culture of the European Commission and its ownership resides with the European Community. This report reflects the views only of the authors. The Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained herein. GOVERNANCE REFORM FUNDING REFORM Volume 1 * Executive summary * Main report Volume 1 * Executive summary * Main report Volume 2 * Methodology * Performance Data * Literature Survey * National system analyses * Case studies Volume 3 * Governance fiches Volume 3 * Funding fiches * Rates of return survey
Education has always been considered an area of national sensitivity, and that for a number of reasons. These range from the obligation of the state to provide compulsory education to the role of educational institutions as nationally embedded socialising institutions. Yet, despite the tenuous nature of the legal basis that gives some substance to policy-making at European Community level, the European Commission is assuming taking on an increasing role in education, and particularly in higher education. The main vehicles for re-defining the Community's role in this domain embrace the implementation of both the Bologna process and the Lisbon Strategy. In this paper, we discuss the European policy implementation processes and how they contribute to change European higher education while enabling the creeping competence of the European Commission in higher education.
Pursuing things that work in European higher education governance
Efforts to develop coherent indicators to compare higher education systems in Europe open up the possibility for researchers and practitioners alike to escape nationalistic tunnel vision. This article argues that to realize the potential of its new tools, the field of international higher education must go beyond a synchronic and passive analysis of higher education systems. For the field to have real impact, it must heed the call of its founding father to “pursue the things that work” (Clark, 2007, p. 319). With this aim in mind, the present article briefly traces the landscape of governance change in European higher education and critically assesses emerging pathways of future research.
Higher Education Governance across Nations: The case of Greece
In K. M. Joshi & S. Paivandi (Eds.), Global Higher Education: Issues in Governance (pp.34-62). Delhi: B .R. Publishing Corporation, 2015
Introduction: Setting the scene Education policies in a mass higher education system and more specifically the issue of governance in higher education are important and difficult policy issues that require thorough in depth analysis. For the last 50 years, higher education systems worldwide have been constantly expanding. During this expansion, and in combination with the broader economic and political agenda , the matter of the efficiency of the institutions themselves, as well as of the higher education system in general, was raised. On the issue of higher education expansion, Pavel Zgaga mentions that increased demand for higher education was not only a simple response to the growing employment options but also a result of the population’s higher social and cultural expectations. Moreover, higher education is no longer primarily a personal calling; it is a social necessity, since modern societies, in order to function, have to increase the number of educated and skilled people (Zgaga, 2007: 12 and 16). These reforms were underpinned by a radical conceptual shift in understanding of the relationship between institutions and the state. In the literature, it was interestingly described as a move away from the traditional “interventionary” towards the new “facilitatory state” (Neave &Van Vught, 1991). Therefore the international changes in higher education systems push governments to see higher education institutions as responsible for their internal governance. So, although responsibility for the provision of higher education still remains with the state, there are issues and problems that go beyond the borders of national higher education systems. When problems like the recognition of degrees and periods of study, or professional rights tied to higher education studies come under discussion, then the responsibility for higher education becomes international. On a European level, as Weber implies, besides the universal changes already mentioned, the origins of the changing environment for European higher education institutions are threefold: Globalization, as well as scientific and technological progress: these are phenomena which strongly impact on our society and economy; The voluntary policies launched in Europe, such as the Bologna process for the creation of a European Higher Education Area without any borders, in which 47 countries now participate, dealing with crucial policy questions like doctorate studies, quality assurance and the social well-being of students, or the set of EU policies known under the heading of “Lisbon Agenda” and; challenges inherent in the development of the higher education and research sector (Weber, 2006: 64). In this wider framework the European Commission identifies a number of issues that higher education systems and institutions should respond to, such as “continued democratization of access to higher education, new access conditions, in particular the recognition of past professional experience, setting up of lifelong learning schemes, increase of funding diversification, co-operation with industry, EU research funding mainly directed to networks of excellence, increasing interdisciplinarity, intellectual property rights and many others are on the table of the decision makers of the EU as part of their duties to accomplish the aims of the agreed strategy (Soares, 2006: 61). A central policy issue for all the aforementioned international developments is the issue of the governance of higher education systems and institutions themselves. At this point a distinction between the terms governance and management should be made. From a 2008 Eurodyce report we quote: “As far as higher education is concerned, governance focuses on the rules and mechanisms by which various stakeholders influence decisions, how they are held accountable, and to whom. In the context of higher education, governance refers to ‘the formal and informal exercise of authority under laws, policies and rules that articulate the rights and responsibilities of various actors, including the rules by which they interact ’. In other words, governance encompasses ‘the framework in which an institution pursues its goals, objectives and policies in a coherent and coordinated manner’ to answer the questions: ‘Who is in charge, and what are the sources of legitimacy for executive decision-making by different actors?’ Management, on the other hand, refers to the implementation of a set of objectives pursued by a higher education institution on the basis of established rules. It answers the question "how are the rules applied?" and is concerned with the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of services provided for internal and external stakeholders” (Eurydice, 2008: 12). And as the report continues “despite the distinction between governance (with its emphasis on the process of setting policies and long-term goals as well as the strategies for reaching these goals) and management (which is action-oriented), the various links between the two will not be overlooked” (Eurydice, 2008: 12). Moreover it has to be said that the notion of governance is not easy to define precisely. As Kohler says “the notion of higher education governance appears to be hard to understand. It is seen as being complex and abstract. Rightly so; and yet it shows itself in very concrete forms and modes of cultures and techniques to be found with regard to autonomy and external stewardship, to internal leadership and steering, to communication and inclusion, to collectivism, stratification and individualism, be it in relation to political setup, administration, decision making, implementation, or monitoring of higher education institutions and their activities” (Kohler, 2006: 17). And the very concept of governance of higher education, if it is to be analyzed and investigated, should, since it is a multidimensional concept, be roughly split into three structural dimensions: a) internal or institutional higher education governance (governance of higher education institution(s)); b) external or systemic higher education governance (governance of higher education system(s)); and c) international or global higher education governance (governance of higher education systems within an international (global) perspective, for example, the Bologna Process) (Zgaga, 2006: 39). In all these dimensions of governance two notions are always present: autonomy (for us in the wider concept of the democratic functioning of universities) and social accountability. Briefly as far as autonomy is concerned, we should agree with Weber’s view that: “history teaches us that each time the sovereign (church, emperor, dictator or political regime) restricted the autonomy or took control of universities there followed a period of intellectual and social stagnation or decadence” (Weber, 2006: 67). The second central notion in higher education governance is accountability. As the systems of higher education become more and more massified and complex, the state chooses to grant greater autonomy to the institutions as an alternative solution so that the system can function more effectively (and at the same time, the state can limit the huge amounts that need to be given so that the system can function). However, since public funding, due to the sheer size of higher education in each state is so great, the governments are bound to hold higher education institutions accountable for their outcomes. As stated in an OECD paper: “Despite the broad trends in official policy and government legislation to give greater autonomy to higher education institutions, these changes have often been accompanied by new mechanisms for monitoring and controlling performance, quality and funding” (OECD, 2003: 64). And, as is indicated with almost no exception “increased autonomy over a wide range of institutional operations has been accompanied by the introduction of a more sophisticated quality assurance system based on the establishment of a national quality agency for higher education. This has shifted responsibility for higher education quality from a mainly internal judgment by institutions themselves to an external process of peer review and judgment by others such as quality assessment agencies, and funding bodies” (OECD, 2003: 69). From the above it becomes clear that today's issues related to governance in higher education, to autonomy, and to the nature of external and internal control, are multi-layered, difficult to analyze and, above all, issues worthy of further research. Therefore at national level (in our case at Greek level) issues concern the general framework of national higher education, the structure of Greek higher education governance, the financing of the Greek higher education system and the status and recruitment of academic and administrative staff in Greek higher education institutions