Governance in higher education described the process and structures by which institutions of higher education are governed, taking in the making of policy and strategic planning as well as oversight of management. Governance structures for higher education vary across the world, but often have common elements.
Governance
"Governance" in higher education normally refers to the process of making institutional policies and strategic decisions. It typically involves several different bodies and processes with different decision-making functions. Governance in higher education takes in corporate governance, including matters such as finance, estates and other resources, and academic governance, taking in academic matters such as admissions, standards and quality.
The two principal models of university governance are unitary, with a single body responsible for all aspects of governance, and dual, with two bodies. Dual governance may be traditional or asymmetric, depending on the balance of powers and responsibilities. Tre main two types of governing body are the board (sometimes referred to as a council or court) and the senate (sometimes called an academic board); in the dual model these are responsible for corporate governance, and academic governance, respectively.
Senates tend to be larger and to have an academic-oriented membership. Their primary concern is normally with academic matters. Boards, in contrast, tend to be smaller and to have a more diverse membership. Their competence tends to be in strategic planning and institutional finances. Unitary governance systems may have either a senate or (more usually) a board, while dual systems will almost always have both a senate and a board. In dual asymmetric models, it is normally the board that holds the dominant position. The largest group on a senate is normally the academic staff, with students as the second largest group. Non-academic staff may be included but external members are rare and mostly confined to where the senate is the single governing body in a unitary system.
The degree of involvement of local or national governments in university governance varies between countries. Four dimensions of institutional autonomy have been identified by the European University Association (EUA): Organizational autonomy, financial autonomy, staffing autonomy and academic autonomy. Of these, organizational autonomy is most closely tied to the ability of institutions to decide on their own governance structure. The indicators used by the EUA in assessing this dimension of autonomy include the university's control over selection procedures for, selection criteria for, dismissal of, and term of office of the executive head; the university's control over inclusion and selection of external members in governing bodies, capacity to decide on academic structures; and the university's capacity to create legal entities.
The degree of involvement of university staff also varies. In a dual governance system, it is normal for academic governance to be the province of the senate-type body, typically dominated by academic staff, but the proportion of staff on the board-type body responsible for corporate governance can vary from a staff majority to having no staff representation. In a unitary system with a senate-type body, staff normally have a majority say in governance, while in the (more common) situation where this is a board-tyoe body, staff involvement even in academic governance may be quite limited. The UK's Dearing Report found that "Effective governing bodies will have a majority of lay members" and that "Effective governing bodies will also, to have legitimacy, include as full members some who are drawn from the students and staff of the institution". Contrary to this, the US Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) states that "AGB does not advocate the inclusion of faculty, staff, and students on governing boards because of the fiduciary responsibilities involved in governance".
The three main patterns in higher education governance are the Napoleonic, the Humboldtian and the Anglophone, which developed in the 19th century. Under the Napoleonic tradition, which holds sway in countries that formed part of, or were influenced by, the Napoleonic empire such as France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, governments control the universities as part of the state education system and the primary function of the universities has historically been teaching rather than research, with a focus on professional and vocational studies. The Humboldtian system, in contrast, prioritises academic autonomy and integrates research and teaching in the mission of the universities. The universities remain part of the state but with a high degree of autonomy and academic freedom, and the main role of the government is to guarantee and protect these freedoms. This model of the research university is found in countries such as Germany and Norway. The Anglophone model is based on the pattern established by the civic universities of universities as independent institutions with lay-led governing bodies. While universities are free to carry out teaching and research, the partnership with the state that sits at the heart of the Humboldtian model is absent. Instead, the government's involvement is its influence as a regulator and as the primary source of funding, acting through intermediary agencies rather than direct ministerial decisions.
Australia In October 2003, the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC), the council of Australia's university presidents, put forward a "Chancellors and AVCC statement on university governance." Given national and institutional debates over the governance of tertiary education, the statement acknowledges the opportunities with developments in management and governing structures. The statement notes the role of the "business model" that has been advanced alongside the traditional models of governance in Australia. With reference to additional "third models" in introducing a discussion of the existing frameworks for the governance of tertiary education, the statement defines the legal autonomy of institutions and independence from external stakeholders. Acknowledging the diversity of governing structures and believing a balance is necessary between internal and external forces, the organization maintains: "No single way to achieve an effective governance arrangement" is possible. In recognizing the differences in institutional structures and frames of reference, the statement offers operational good practices as generic principles and recommendations, also identifying national protocols for the success of Australian higher education.
The recommendations address practices by which internal governing structures operate and how they can improve institutional governance for the Commonwealth of Australia. External relations, the role of faculty and students in governance are not approached except inasmuch as institutional board members should be appointed with their selection based on contributions "to the effective working of the governing body by having needed skills, knowledge and experience, an appreciation of the values of a university and its core activities of teaching and research, its independence and academic freedom and the capacity to appreciate the university's external community needs from that university". The committee defines the responsibilities of university governance, including legal obligations and legislative requirements for the internal governing boards of Australian institutions. Accordingly, governing bodies "should make available a programme of induction and professional development . . . to ensure that all members are aware of the nature of their duties and responsibilities". The report concludes with protocol for annual reports, including report of risk management and additional steps to ensure good governance.
Australia's public universities are increasingly governed by private-sector managerialist theories that overlook the unique nature of education as a public good, as well as the distinct idiosyncrasies and institutional cultures of individual universities. The imposition of corporate management practices has resulted in unnecessary and often harmful changes, undermining the traditional collegial model of academic governance.
Australia's universities once ranked among the world's best, but recent declines in international rankings reflect, in part, significant staff budget cuts and a drop in the quality of education. To rebuild trust and improve outcomes, universities must increase transparency around discretionary spending, allowing staff and students to clearly see how funds are being allocated. There are policies that could be introduced to increase transparency and accountability at Australia's universities.
Austria Austria operates a traditional dual governance system with universities having a board overseeing budgets and strategy and a senate responsible for academic matters. This governance arrangement is defined by law, which also defined the rectorate (executive) as a co-equal governing body. The board only contains external members, with half being nominated by the senate and half by the government. Austria is defined as having medium-high organizational autonomy, with medium-low financial autonomy, medium high staffing autonomy and high academic autonomy.
Denmark Denmark's universities have a unitary governance, with the board being the sole government body. The academic council (senate) only has a consultative role. The majority of the members of the board are external but the membership also includes elected representatives from the academic and non-academic staff as well as students. Denmark is seen as having high organizational autonomy, with medium-high financial autonomy, high staffing autonomy and medium-high academic autonomy.
Finland Finnish universities have a dual asymmetric governance structure with the board dominant and the senate (collegium) mainly having responsibility for appointing board members. In most public universities, the board has academic, non-academic, student and external members, with external members meeting up at least 40 percent. The two foundation universities (Aalto and Tampere) have fully external boards. The senates have membership drawn from the university community, with no single group holding a majority.
Germany University regulation in Germany is the responsibility of the States of Germany. Thus, universities have different governance structures in different states. Universities in Brandenburg have unitary governance by senates composed of students and academic staff, while Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia both have traditional dual structures, with the make-up of the senate in both cases being defined by law.
South Africa
University governance in South Africa evolved following the transition to democracy and the end of Apartheid in the 1990s. European and North American models of institutional autonomy were not entirely applicable to the South African context, leading to the concept of government "steering", based upon a cooperative framework with "conditional autonomy". The goals and objectives for cooperative governance were established by the National Commission on Higher Education in 1994.
However, the national government assumed a much stronger regulatory and bureaucratic control of postsecondary institutions than had been originally expected. Via appointments to the National Commission on Higher Education, the 1997 Higher Education Act, and the 2001 National Plan for Higher Education, the national government assumed direct control of curriculum, funding and regulation of institutions, leading to a reduction in the autonomy of universities and other higher education institutions.
United Kingdom