3. THE WIDER CONTEXT
The reform forces and expectations that confront universities around the world also apply to the Danish universities. Danish universities and this evaluation must take account of these contextual forces for better understanding the challenges Danish universities are facing nationally and internationally. There are, firstly, the global reform trends. With Denmark’s goal of developing a world class university system that can support the global competitiveness of the country’s economy, it joins a large number of other countries with similar ambitions. Countries around the world are introducing reforms aimed at creating conditions under which their universities can compete with the best universities in the world. Secondly the European context is of particular significance for Danish universities from the perspective of the development of the European Higher Education Area (as part of the Bologna Process) as well as the European Research Area. In the framework of this evaluation, especially the role of the European research funding is examined. Thirdly in the Nordic context the interconnections are strong. In this context especially common Nordic political and cultural values and traditions are of relevance. Finally, university reforms within the country take place within the context of wider socio-economic and political forces. University reforms in Denmark have been shaped by and must take account of such developments as the Government’s Globalisation strategy. These four elements are discussed below as a prelude to describing the Panel’s evaluation perspective, which is taken up at the end of the chapter.
3.1 Global governance reforms
Two global trends: Strengthened autonomy and strengthened regulatory regimes
Faced with these changes governments in all OECD countries are engaged in reforming their higher education system. In this, special attention is given to the governance modes with respect to higher education. This concerns both the system level governance approach and the intra-institutional governance structures. There are two clear and opposite directions of change. One, in continental European countries, and the Asian OECD countries, where levels of university autonomy were traditionally low, there is a move to expand the degree of institutional autonomy. The second orientation, visible in those countries in which universities enjoyed traditionally high degrees of autonomy, is to strengthen the regulatory regime to bring the more autonomous university sectors more in line with the requirements of the public interest.
These opposite, but complementary, trends represent the need for national governments to find an appropriate balance between system level order and the need for governmental control versus an effective level of system diversity and autonomy of the public sector institutions including universities (Olsen 2007). The two trends represent attempts to improve the governance balance between government and higher education: either through strengthening university autonomy or to reduce university autonomy in certain areas from a public interest perspective. This also implies that university autonomy is not an aim in itself, nor can be absolute. It is part of a complex governance relationship that has to be reviewed and adapted regularly in order to assure its continuous effectiveness.
Consequently, the key question governments are struggling with, when it comes to governing their university systems effectively, is the following:
How to provide appropriate levels of institutional autonomy and, at the same time, complement institutional autonomy with an accountability regime that satisfies the public interest without becoming a constraint on universities’ responsiveness and innovation?
3.2 The European context
Since the second half of the 1990s there has been a growing political focus in Europe on the possible consequences of globalisation. This development was ignited by the perceived weaknesses of the European economies in comparison to the US economy and the rapid rise of China and India as important economic powers. The heads of state of the EU members have expressed their worries and presented their strategies for addressing the challenges for Europe in the so-called Lisbon 2000 Agenda, which aims at strengthening the economic competitiveness of Europe as well as improving the social cohesion of its societies.
As a consequence, there is at the beginning of the 21st century a clear political “momentum” for the university in Europe. The Lisbon Summit of 2000 has (re-)confirmed the role of the university as a central institution in the “Europe of Knowledge”. Consequently, we can observe that since 2000 the Commission has become highly interested in the university as an object of European level policy-making. This is clearly inspired by the interpretation of the university’s central role in connecting education, research, and innovation (the Knowledge Triangle), and the assumption that the effectiveness of this connection is considered to be of major importance for the competitiveness of Europe’s economies and the level of social cohesion of its societies. In the Commission’s communications and other policy papers the university has either directly or indirectly become a central concern.
The general worry about “global competitiveness” is primarily focused upon the European research-intensive university. Based on indicators and statistics, especially international rankings, but also on statistics such as the number of international students in Europe, the number of European students in Australia and the US, and the number of European academics at US universities, the view dominates that the European University is lagging behind. Reform is promoted as the means through which European universities can compete (again) with their US counterparts.
The European level reform proposals use two organisational models as their main frame of reference, namely the leading US research universities and the successful enterprise and its assumed style of organisation and governance. The first defines the crisis of the European university and is organised around the question: “Why is there no Euro-Ivy League?” (Science 2004: 951) The second presents the solution: European universities have to become more like private enterprises operating in competitive environments.
The university reform agendas that are presented at the European level focus especially on the relationship between research and innovation. The legitimacy of the European Commission to launch university reform ideas is based on its competence in the area of research policy, which has been developed since the beginning of the 1980s. The most important research policy instrument for the Commission has been the multi-annually framework programmes (FPs). The first FPs had a purely economic rationale, but they gradually expanded in disciplinary scope and funding. The attached objectives became more heterogeneous covering not only economic but also ecological, social, and political rationales.
The Lisbon 2000 summit led to important innovations in the aims, organisation, and ambitions of the FPs, as well as to the introduction of the European Research Area (ERA). Through the ERA the EU intends to influence and integrate the national research policies of its member states. The ERA ambitions are, amongst other things, expressed in the joint 3 % target of GDP to be invested in research and development. In addition, in the development of the latest FP (FP7), the member states and the EU agreed upon the establishment of the European Research Council (ERC) which is a considerable institutional innovation at the European level. It is significant because it entails changing the idea and principles of research funding in Europe. To understand the innovative nature of the ERC, the following transformative dimensions are of relevance:
> The ERC brings basic research into the heart of the EU research policy, i e. as a separate construction within the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).
> The establishment of the ERC changed the definition of what kind of research is a legitimate concern at the EU level.
> The ERC represents a break with the established principles of criteria for European research funding with the “excellence only” principle, no pre-determined research topics and no criteria of trans-nationality or even research collaboration, but highly selective funding given to individual researchers and their teams.
Currently, the EU research funding context for Danish universities consists first and foremost of the FP7, one of the largest public research programmes in human history with a budget of over € 50 billion to be distributed in the period 2007-2013. The underlying assumption for the FP7 is that it will be a major step towards creating a world class European research environment through stimulating competition for research funding among Europe’s best and most ambitious researchers; stimulating mobility of the best researchers leading to strategic concentrations of top researchers in a limited number of European universities, public non-university research institutions, and the private sector; and stimulating national research councils, ministries and university leadership to develop strategic priorities in line with the research agendas of the European Commission.
While (higher) education has traditionally been a nationally sensitive policy area in the EU, also here the Lisbon Summit marks an important beginning of more direct involvement of the European Commission in educational policies. The Erasmus Mundus programme has, for example, given a major boost to the development of international joint degree programmes in Europe.
Finally, we wish to mention the Bologna Process. Currently 46 European states participate in this intergovernmental process, documented by the communiqués of the bi-annual ministerial conferences. The Bologna Process aims at creating the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) characterised by a compatibility and comparability of national higher education systems based on a three cycle structure. As stressed in the Leuven communiqué of April 2009, the Bologna Process is “firmly embedded in the European values of institutional autonomy, academic freedom, and social equity” and requires “full participation of students and staff”. Intra-European mobility of students, early stage researchers, and staff, is one of the main concerns of the Bologna Process. The Leuven communiqué states the ambitious goal that, by 2020, “at least 20 % of those graduating in the countries of the European Higher Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad” Although, officially, the Bologna Process is a purely intergovernmental process among nearly all European states, it is more and more driven by various stakeholders including the European Commission, the latter successfully trying to integrate EU’s education and lifelong learning policies and programs with the Bologna agenda.
3.3 The Nordic dimension
The Danish universities are positioned in a number of international arenas, including the Nordic region consisting of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and the autonomous territories of Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Åland. Nordic cooperation within higher education was established well before the current focus on the economic and societal impact of universities. While the traditional rationale for Nordic cooperation within higher education was culturally and academically based, such traditions are challenged by emerging new rationales for universities’ internationalisation and relations to economy and market competition. Nonetheless, for understanding the Danish university dynamics, the Panel finds it of relevance to reflect briefly on the main dimensions of Nordic higher education.
Similar to the EU with its Lisbon Agenda, in 2000 the Nordic Council of Ministers also adopted a Nordic Agenda and a strategy for Nordic cooperation. The Nordic Agenda highlights five areas of special importance for Nordic cooperation:
> Technological development with special reference to the information society and Nordic research
> Social security and the possibility for Nordic citizens to live, work, and study in another Nordic country
> The internal Nordic market and cooperation for abolishing border obstacles > Cooperation with neighbouring countries and neighbouring regions > The environment and sustainable development in energy, transport, forestry, fishery, and trade and industry.
In 2005, this Agenda was followed by a joint strategy of the Nordic Council and the Nordic Council of Ministers as presented in the report “Norden som global vinderregion” [The Nordic Region as a Global Winner region]. The report argues that the Nordic region is under pressure from globalisation and increased international competition from China and India, and that this raises the question of what the Nordic region should base its economy and welfare in the future.
As a consequence of the agreements reached in the Nordic Council and Nordic Council of Ministers over many years, the Nordic countries have developed a common labour market, have established common institutions in various policy areas, and have developed cooperation schemes and programmes. With respect to education this has resulted in various mobility programmes for pupils, students, teachers, and researchers (including the Nordplus programme for students and teachers); agreements for the mutual recognition of degrees and study programmes, simplified admission requirements for Nordic students throughout the region; and various expert committees for policy issues and cooperation initiatives. Further, a number of cooperation programmes have been implemented relating to research. The Nordic Science Policy council was established in 1983, and cooperation in the area of research training has existed since 1990.
The socio-economic, political, and cultural similarities between the Nordic countries form a solid foundation for their long-term cooperation, and form at the same time a good basis for a continuing bench-marking in different areas, including education and research. Although there are clear political, economic, and historical differences between the countries, policy-making in this region is often characterised as being a result of the “Nordic Model”. With respect to higher education, typical ingredients of this model are public higher education institutions with institutional autonomy in many areas, a democratic intra-university governance structure with a structured involvement of staff and students, high levels of state investments, strong emphasis on equality concerning the institutional landscape and the way in which public resources are allocated throughout the system. To complement this picture, the Nordic states have traditionally also offered quite favourable student support schemes with the aim of stimulating high participation rates in the sector.
3.4 Globalisation Strategy in Denmark
Denmark is one of the European countries that have developed a specific national globalisation strategy called “Progress, Innovation and Cohesion Strategy for Denmark in the Global Economy”. Responsible for this strategy was a Globalisation Council set up in 2005 and consisting of representatives of many sections of society. The strategy can be re-garded as one of the most straightforward and explicit national level initiatives in Europe to handle the challenges of the global economy. In the analysis underlying the strategy a number of the Danish strengths and weaknesses have been highlighted. The strengths indicated are the strong national economy, the flexible labour market, low unemployment and a highly educated population. The indicated main weaknesses are the ageing population, the high cost and price level of the Danish economy, and the fact that the Danish education system is not geared towards a knowledge society. The latter expresses itself in the following characteristics: Danish students begin and complete their studies late (age wise), higher education programmes have a high drop out rate, and the number of graduates in natural and engineering sciences is too low.
The Globalisation Strategy has, as such, a strong focus on education and research on the basis of the starting point that “Human knowledge, ideas and work effort are key for exploiting the opportunities of the globalisation” (In Danish: “Menneskers viden, idérigdom og arbejdsindsats er nøglen til at bruge de muligheder, som globaliseringen giver os”). In its implementation, this focus has even become more pronounced, implying that the globalisation strategy has become, in the first place, an education and research policy strategy.
The most important university-oriented policy goals introduced in the framework of the globalisation strategy are to:
> raise the public investments in research from 0 75% to 1% of the Danish GDP; > link the basic public funding of universities more directly to the quality of their activities;
> integrate the government research institutions (GRIs) into the universities;
> double the number of PhD students;
> introduce a system of accreditation for all university education programmes;
> increase the higher education participation rate from 45 to 50%;
> stimulate a more rapid throughput of higher education students;
> introduce better and more structured options for Danish students for studying abroad.
To realise these policy goals a number of specific measures and reforms have been intro-duced in the Danish university sector, including the university merger processes. These are not isolated, but relate to the Danish political system’s overall reform efforts with respect to higher education, which include the 2003 University Act aiming at university autonomy. All these efforts are aimed at further strengthening the Danish universities and, as one of the underlying goals, enabling the universities to compete in a number of fields with the world’s best universities. The Danish Globalisation Strategy, also mirroring the trends in Europe, as well as other parts of the world, is thus an important component of the basis for this evaluation
3.5 Panel’s evaluation perspectives
As indicated, the changes and expectations that confront universities around the world also apply to the Danish universities. As expressed in parliamentary resolution V9, the overall aim of the two main university reforms introduced by the Danish Government in the 2000s was to create the conditions under which the universities would be able to develop their own strategic priorities with respect to their education, research, and innovation tasks. In addition, the reforms were intended to improve the relationships between the universities and society.
The first of these two reforms, i e. the 2003 University Act, was focused on establishing university autonomy while at the same time ensuring accountability. The new Act introduced a major change by modernising the intra-university governance structure through moving decision making responsibilities from collegial, representative councils to appointed leaders (rector, deans, and heads of department). Further, the new Act aimed at improving the relationship between universities and society through the introduction of central university boards with a majority of external members. This reform was followed by the 2007 merger operations that led to fewer universities and a concentration of publicly funded R&D in the university sector.
The university merger processes consisted of an integration of GRIs into the university sector, which was a target of the globalisation strategy; and mergers between universities, which was initiated by the Government. The integration of GRIs had as its main aims to stimulate research synergies between until now institutionally separated sectors; to fertilise the university sector with practice oriented research leading to close contacts with societal, i e. private and public sector agencies; and: to make additional research resources available for educational processes, leading to a strengthening of the link between higher education and research.
As such, the 2003 Act can be seen as creating the governance conditions for the profiling and strategic prioritising of universities, while the merger processes added a substantive dimension through the concentration of research capacities in selected areas in specific universities. The Panel’s evaluation framework is based on the nature and aims of these two reforms.
Consequently, the Panel has organised its evaluation and assessments along two lines, i.e. first developments with respect to university governance since 2003 (focusing on two sub-lines: university autonomy, and codetermination and academic freedom); and second the effects of the mergers on the dynamics and productivity of the university system
University governance
The 2003 Act is in line with global reform trends aimed at modernising university management. Such reforms are not implemented in a vacuum, since the governance structures to be changed have their own traditions and characteristics that continue to have an influence long after the legal foundations for the structures have been altered. In the Danish case this means, for example, that the democratic traditions with respect to university governance, including the structured involvement of staff and students in intra-university decision-making, continue to have an influence also after the 2003 reform. As such the introduction of appointed leaders in university governance structures, and the establishment of central executive boards, have ameliorated the formal decision-making capabilities of the universities, but the demand for a democratic intra-university governance structure has also continued. As a consequence, for it to be successful and effective, the 2003 reform needs to lead to an appropriate balance in the intra-university governance structure between top-down oriented executive leadership, and a bottom-up management style, which should include an effective involvement of staff and students in academic decision making at all appropriate levels.
In addition, the framework conditions, within which the university leadership can operate autonomously, demand an “arm’s length distance” from the side of the involved Ministries and the Parliament, which implies the setting of overall targets, instead of an interference through detailed regulations and control in the day-to-day responsibilities of the university management. One of the conditions for this is a high level of trust from the central authorities in the capabilities of the universities to use the autonomy in the expected way. In other words, an adequate balance between autonomy and accountability of the universities should be maintained. On the one hand, the universities, in order to keep up a high, or even world-class standard, need room to operate and develop. On the other hand the authorities, representing the tax payers, have a legitimate right to demand documentation for the universities’ prudent use of the substantial public funding.
Furthermore, academic freedom, including freedom of research and free academic debate, is a fundamental principle of university life, and both governments and universities must ensure respect for this fundamental requirement. To meet the needs of the world around a university, the research must be morally and intellectually independent, and it must be ensured that research issues can be freely selected, research methodology freely developed, and research results freely published in the framework of the employment conditions provided by the university and the assessments of peers from the same academic area.
University mergers
While the 2003 reform created the governance framework for strategic leadership, the globalisation strategy provided the framework for making the next step, i e. creating the academic framework conditions for strategic prioritisation and profiling by stimulating merger processes that would lead to a concentration of research capacities in universities. The mergers were also expected to strengthen education, and especially upper level education degree programmes, amongst other things, by bringing research staff from the GRI sector into the universities. Mergers were also intended to create the conditions for effective relationships between universities and the private as well as the public sector, which would contribute to economically relevant, as well as other societal, innovations. The starting point for the merger process was the assumption in the Globalisation Strategy of the benefit in merging the government research institutions (GRIs) with the universities. Subsequently, the Government also initiated a merger process between universities. The stated expectations of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation were the establishment of a strongly reduced number of universities with ameliorated strength in the international setting.
Main evaluation issues
Based on these perspectives, the Panel has in the first place studied and assessed the way in which specific governance aspects of the university sector have developed since 2003. In this, it has examined two specific issues:
> How have the 2003 Act, and regulations plus various other steering instruments following the Act, influenced university autonomy, and have the universities implemented the Act fully and adequately in the given conditions and framework?
> How has the implementation of the 2003 Act by the universities affected university democracy, more specifically the involvement of the staff and students in intra-university decision making processes; and the freedom of research and the free academic debate?
The issues of autonomy, staff and student involvement, research freedom and free academic debate are addressed in Chapter 4. In chapter 5 the Panel presents its assessment of the effects of the mergers, while recognising the methodological limitations imposed by the short period since the mergers. Mindful of this limitation, the Panel has attempted to analyse the effects of the mergers on the key issue of strategic positioning by universities in pursuit of the goal of strengthening the university sector’s global competitiveness.
> What kind of impact of the mergers can be seen so far on the main activity areas of the universities, i e. education, research, and innovation, on universities’ relationship with the private sector, and on government-oriented research?