The dilemma of university system
governance: a pluralistic or fragmented
network?
Eliana Minelli, Gianfranco Rebora, Matteo Turri
WORKSHOP
ON
“CHANGES IN GOVERNANCE OF ITALIAN UNIVERSITIES:
INSTITUTIONAL OR MARKET SOLUTIONS?”
SIENA, ITALY, APRIL 2-3, 2009
Framework
• We have used a new analytical
framework to explore the evolution of
university system governance in Italy in
the last twenty years.
• This framework is built on the analytical
observations of Olsen (2005 and 2007)
who analysed change in university
governance in Europe.
Framework
• Our analytical framework departs from two concepts:
locus and focus.
• LOCUS: Locus of governance may be inside or outside the
university system. The decision-making centres that influence or
condition important choices and events concerned with system
governance are either within or without the university institutional, its
organisation and staff. There are thus two extremes of locus of
governance and a wide range of intermediate situations.
• FOCUS: The second dimension closely resembles the idea of
shared or conflicting interests between actors. Decision-making may
be strategically rational and driven by the shared aims and values of
the people taking part or involves the multiple and conflicting aims
and values of those involved.
The conceptual combination of the focus and locus of
governance produces four different models:
Strategic focus of governance
Rational decision-making in university policies and strategies.
Shared aims and values.
Self-government
driven by
intellectual values
Instrument
of public policies
Internal
strategic
governance
Locus of
governance
inside the
university system
Internal
negotiationbased
governance
External
strategic
governance
Locus of
governance
outside the
university system
External
negotiationbased
governance
Alliance of
independent “feuds”
Pluralistic or
fragmented
network
Negotiation-based focus of governance
Incremental decision-making affected by pluralism.
Pluralistic or conflictingl aims and values.
Changes in Italian University
Total no.
Universities
State Private
1980 40
11
Permanent Academic staff
Students
% enrolled
19 year olds
28,4
Total no.
students
1.060.274
Graduates
in the year
73.927
Full and
Researchers
Assistant
Professors
8.122
16.411
(assistants ...)
1989 45
10
36,5
1.362.734
85.811
28.182
14.495
1999 57
13
43,3
1.673.960
152.341
30.945
19.556
2006 67
27
56,1
1.823.886
301.298
38.928
23.046
(academic
(academic
(academic
year
year
year
2005/06)
2005/06)
2005/06)
Prior to 1989: internal negotiation-based
governance
NATIONAL BODIES
BODIES AND PEOPLE IN THE UNIVERSITY
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
Planning and general coordination
of university policies
CUN
Advice and opinions
for the Minister
CRUI
Confrontation with central
bodies,
formulation of
common policies
ADMINISTRATIVE BOARD
Supervises administrative and
financial matters
BOARD OF
AUDITORS
Audits economic and
administrative activities
UNIVERSITY SENATE
Develops and plans academic
developments
RECTOR
Legal representative
of the university.
Coordinates all activities
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR
Responsible for administrative
and financial matters.
Carries out programmes
dictated by the
governance bodies
FACULTIES/DEGREE COURSES
Planning and coordination
of teaching and related resources
DEPARTMENTS
Programming and coordination
of research, respecting
the autonomy of academics
ACADEMIC STAFF
Responsible for teaching and research.
Members (by rights or through representatives) of Faculty and degree course committees,
departments, university senate and board of directors
TRADE UNION
ORGANISATIONS
National contracts and
comparisons on the
development of the
university system
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Carry out specific administrative work.
Are represented in university bodies
STUDENTS
Represented in university bodies
Strategic focus of governance
Rational decision-making in university policies and strategies.
Shared aims and values.
Self government
driven by
intellectual values
Locus of
governance
inside the
university system
Instrument
of public policies
Locus of
governance
outside the
university system
<1988
Alliance of
independent “feuds”
Pluralistic or
fragmented
network
Negotiation-based focus of governance
Incremental decision-making affected by pluralism.
Pluralistic or conflictingl aims and values.
1989-1998: the drives towards external
governance
INTERNATIONAL BODIES
NATIONAL BODIES
MINISTRY OF THE
UNIVERSITY AND RESEARCH
Planning and general coordination
CONFEDERATION OF
EUROPEAN UNION
RECTORS' CONFERENCES
Represention in EU bodies
COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN HE
MINISTERS
Periodic meetings for coordinating
policies
PRESIDENT OF
COUNCIL OF
MINISTERS
National Research Plan
ASSOCIATION OF EUROPEAN
UNIVERSITIES (CRE)
Comparison, common lines of
action and projects for
improvement
BODIES AND PEOPLE IN THE UNIVERSITY
CUN
Advice and opinions for the
Minister
ADMINISTRATIVE
BOARD Supervises
administrative and financial
matters
CRUI
Confrontation with central bodies,
formulation of common policies
BOARD OF AUDITORS
Audits economic and
administrative activities
CNSU
Opinions for the Minister
OBSERVATORY FOR
EVALUATION
Coordination of evaluation in the
university system
UNIVERSITY SENATE
Develops and plans academic
developments
RECTOR
Legal representative
of the university.
Coordinates all activities
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR
Responsible for administrative
and financial matters.
Carries out programmes dictated
by the governance bodies
FACULTIES/DEGREE COURSES
Planning and coordination
of teaching and related resources
DEPARTMENTS
Programming and coordination
of research, respecting
the autonomy of academics
REGIONAL AND LOCAL BODIES
REGIONAL COUNCILS
AND GOVERNING BODIES
support for universities through
the European Social Fund
REGIONAL COORDINATION
COMMITTEE
development
of regional university system
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Support teaching and
research initiatives
MINISTRY OF THE ECONOMY
Economic and financial planning
CODAU
association of administrative directors.
Promotes benchmarking of
administrative activities
TRADE UNION
ORGANISATIONS
National contracts and
comparisons on the
development of the university
system
ACADEMIC STAFF
Responsible for teaching and research.
Members (by rights or through representatives) of Faculty and degree course committees, departments,
university senate and board of directors
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Carry out specific
administrative work. Are
represented in university bodies
STUDENTS
Represented in university bodies
RSU – local trade union
representatives of administrative staff
BANKING FOUNDATIONS
Funding for research
and other activities
Strategic focus of governance
Rational decision-making in university policies and strategies.
Shared aims and values.
Self government
driven by
intellectual values
Instrument
of public policies
Locus of
governance
outside the
university system
Locus of
governance
inside the
university system
1989-1998
Alliance of
independent “feuds”
Pluralistic or
fragmented
network
Negotiation-based focus of governance
Incremental decision-making affected by pluralism.
Pluralistic or conflictingl aims and values.
1999 - 2006: Pandora’s box
NATIONAL BODIES
MINISTRY OF THE
UNIVERSITY AND RESEARCH
Planning and general coordination
INTERNATIONAL BODIES
PRESIDENT OF
COUNCIL OF
MINISTERS
National Research Plan
COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN HE
MINISTERS
Periodic meetings for coordinating
policies
EUA
Comparison and projects for
improvement
ENQA
Qualification of national teaching
quality assurance agencies
ERC
Promotion and funding of top
research projects
CUN
Advice and opinions for the
Minister
BODIES AND PEOPLE IN THE UNIVERSITY
CRUI
Confrontation with central bodies,
formulation of common policies
CNSU
Opinions for the Minister
CNSVU/CIVR (ANVUR since
2007)
Evaluation of teaching, research
and administrative activities.
Quality assurance steering
MINISTRY OF THE ECONOMY
Economic and financial planning
ADMINISTRATIVE
BOARD
Supervises administrative and
financial matters
BOARD OF AUDITORS
Audits economic and
administrative activities
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR
Responsible for administrative
and financial matters.
Carries out programmes dictated
by the governance bodies
MINISTRY FOR INNOVATION
Innovation policies in public systems
EVALUATION UNIT
Internal evaluation of teaching,
research and administrative
activities.
Faculties
Bachelor Degree Courses
Councils or committees
Planning and coordination
of teaching and related resources
REGIONAL AND LOCAL BODIES
REGIONAL COUNCILS
AND GOVERNING BODIES
University policies shared with the state
REGIONAL COORDINATION
COMMITTEE
development
of regional university system
Ph.D Schools
Masters Degree Courses
MINISTRY FOR ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Industrial innovation policies and
technology transfer
UNIVERSITY SENATE
Develops and plans academic
developments
RECTOR
Legal representative
of the university.
Coordinates all activities
DEPARTMENTS
Programming and coordination
of research, respecting
the autonomy of academics
LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Support teaching and
research initiatives
RESEARCH CENTRES
Carry out research for
external stakeholdersi
EMPLOYERS’ ASSOCIATION
Advice on new training initiatives
CODAU
association of administrative directors.
Promotes benchmarking of
administrative activities
TRADE UNION
ORGANISATIONS
National contracts and comparisons
on the development of the university
system
ACADEMIC STAFF
Responsible for teaching and research. Members (by rights or through representatives) of Faculty and
degree course committees, departments, university senate and board of directors
ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Carry out specific
administrative work. Are
represented in university bodies
STUDENTS
Represented in university bodies
RSU – local trade union
representatives of administrative staff
BANKING FOUNDATIONS
Funding for research
and other activities
Strategic focus of governance
Rational decision-making in university policies and strategies.
Shared aims and values.
Self government
driven by
intellectual values
Locus of
governance
inside the
university system
Instrument
of public policies
Locus of
governance
outside the
university system
1999-2006
Alliance of
independent “feuds”
Pluralistic or
fragmented
network
Negotiation-based focus of governance
Incremental decision-making affected by pluralism.
Pluralistic or conflictingl aims and values.
Since 2007-2008: Waiting...
• The majority of commentators and principal actors, starting with the
Minister, were convinced that university governance needed to be
reformed
• There are high hopes for evaluation but the new agency, ANVUR
(National Agency for University Evaluation and Research) is still not
operative.
• In this stage the external locus of governance seems already to be
an established fact .The focus of governance remains incremental,
conflicting and negotiation-based.
• The advocates of new, more effective reforms where governance
would become a vital force seem to be staking everything on the
steering from a distance solution (Instrument of public policies
model).
• The university system has assimilated the concept of diversity
particularly well, and it is difficult to reject this concept. It is also
unlikely that unified intentions, aims and viewpoints can be retrieved
as this kind of unity is considered old-fashioned in the modern world.
Strategic focus of governance
Rational decision-making in university policies and strategies.
Shared aims and values.
Self government
driven by
intellectual values
Locus of
governance
inside the
university system
Instrument
of public policies
Locus of
governance
outside the
university system
<1988
1999-2006
1989-1998
Alliance of
independent “feuds”
Pluralistic or
fragmented
network
Negotiation-based focus of governance
Incremental decision-making affected by pluralism.
Pluralistic or conflictingl aims and values.
Pluralistic or fragmented network?
• This interpretation shows an ambiguity in that the inertial shift is
towards fragmentation.
• Looking back at the danger of fragmentation and its effects in the
early years of this century, there seem to be people who want to repropose public policies by attempting to govern the system in an
undifferentiated way.
• The overall history of the Italian situation suggests following a
different route, abandoning the ambition to develop a strategic focus
of governance in the system with the necessary consequences in
terms of coherence and shared aims.
• The alternative is to aim for pluralism which is more in line with
reality and more aligned with international trends.
Conclusion (1/2)
• A pluralistic structure of the system is a feasible
alternative with respect to a drift towards fragmentation
or re-proposal of the “instrument of public policies”
model.
• Italy and other countries are required to introduce and
carry out steps for steering university systems. This is a
difficult task imposed by the relevance of state funding
for the resources in the system but has no sense in
being managed through the traditional Napoleonic
model that “gave the ministry , through the laws, the right
to organise and implement policy concerning the entire
education system” aiming to ”homogenise the system at
different levels of society and therefore assure equity
throughout the country” (Moscati, 2001).
Conclusion (2/2)
• A limited number of entrepreneurial universities could
emerge depending on their ability to appeal to local
resources and attract external funding even by using the
support of national bodies. This must take place without
returning to obsolete forms of national programming and
state-controlled public policies.
• Setting up differentiated structures and behaviour in
universities is vital for improving the overall efficiency of
the system. As regards the state, this means really
“steering at a distance” making it possible to build a
platform that functions even when there are different
drives and behaviour on the part of universities.