4. UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE
In this chapter the Panel presents its assessments and recommendations as regards the. development of specific governance aspects of the Danish university sector since the introduction of the 2003 University Act and subsequent regulations. In line with the Panel’s Terms of Reference, we address two main aspects. Firstly, we assess the way in which the 2003 University Act, and regulations plus various other steering instruments following the Act, have affected university autonomy. In addition, we discuss the extent to which the universities have implemented the Act effectively in the sense of university autonomy. Secondly, we assess the effects of the 2003 University Act on intra-university governance issues and the universities’ implementation of the Act in the sense of intra-university governance. More specifically, we assess the involvement of staff and students in intra-university decision making processes, the freedom of research, and the free academic debate.
4.1 University autonomy
4.1.1 University autonomy: a central objective
In line with international trends, the 2003 University Act changed the status of universities from being state institutions to autonomous bodies within the public sector. This changed the relative responsibilities of the universities and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (henceforth referred to as the Ministry) in its oversight role over the universities. The overall task of the university board under the Act is to “safeguard the university’s interests as an educational and research institution and determine guidelines for its organisation, long term activities and development”. The Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation (henceforth the Minister) “is charged with formulating the framework for the universities’ activities; determining society’s requirements for the universities’ activities, and the size of the subsidies from the Danish state to support these activities; safeguarding the operational reality facing the university management and encouraging the management to make the sensible decisions from a socio-economic perspective” [E2, p 2].
For public institutions, such as the Danish universities, it is essential to ensure an adequate balance between autonomy and accountability. In order to maintain a high, or even world-class standard, the universities need room to operate and develop, while at the same time the tax payers have a legitimate right to oversee that the universities use the substantial public funding prudently.
The Panel finds that the 2003 Act provides for a high level of autonomy of the universities in appropriate balance with accountability. The Act itself does not constrain the universities from establishing a satisfactory level of autonomy and accountability – including the freedom to develop distinctive individual institutional profiles, while at the same time documenting for society how the public resources are spent on universities’ activities and achievements.
On basis of its interviews and the submissions it has received, the Panel also concludes that within the university sector and among various stakeholders there are widespread consensus that the Danish universities have gained greater autonomy through the 2003 Act. In general, universities appear to have become more dynamic because of the newly gained autonomy. The Act is generally welcomed and by and large, the stakeholders view the 2003 Act as a big step forward in strengthening the universities’ autonomous status and providing room for flexibility and innovation. The university leadership also welcomes the principle of dialogue initiated by the Minister following the 2003 Act, as well as the new auditing approaches that have been introduced.
4.1.2 Continuing constraints
Nonetheless, there remain a number of important constraints on university governance, and new ones have been added following the 2003 Act, many of which are in weak compliance with the intentions of the Act and are hampering the autonomy of the universities. The Panel mainly sees these problems within the following three areas:
> Regulations are often used as steering instruments for publicly funded institutions which are responsible for central societal tasks. At present, extensive rules interfere unnecessarily with the universities’ freedom to operate, particularly with respect to educational activities and the institutional management structure, including very detailed rules, overlapping rules, and rules which entail unnecessary administrative burdens and unclear division of responsibilities.
> Public funding is a powerful steering instrument, which can be used in a considerate manner to set incentives for achieving political goals, but can also be used in ways which impede the autonomy of the universities.
> A structured dialogue between the universities and the central administration is important in order to ensure an optimal balance between autonomy and accountability. However, the prerequisites given in the Act for the dialogue can impede university autonomy. At present, the restrictions given to the development contracts make them less appropriate as goal setting instruments.
In the following, the Panel will address the three above topics.
Overregulation / micromanagement
A number of Orders (regulations) have been implemented since 2003, both within and outside the framework of the 2003 Act, covering the areas of education and research [see full list in background document F5], and affecting university management. Some are decided by Parliament, some by Government, and some are decided at the ministerial level, by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation or other ministries. Furthermore, several regulations predate the 2003 Act but continue to operate.
It appears to the Panel that in the current national steering framework the universities’ activities are to be approved before implementation as well as controlled during operation, while also the output is monitored – via orders, accreditation criteria and procedures, supervisory bodies, development contracts, evaluations, etc. The Panel finds this to be an unnecessary duplication of control, which is not only hampering university autonomy but also wastes university resources that could be used more effectively.
Many of the external constraints are an intrusion into areas of competence, which should be the responsibility of the universities themselves. The constraints amount to a level, which may be called micro-management, and limit the university leadership’s room to manoeuvre and flexibility in its strategic decisionmaking and positioning. Some procedures, while not limiting university autonomy, are excessively bureaucratic and generate inefficiencies in university operations. Considerable administrative resources are demanded of the universities for reporting and applying for approval. This may very well impede the strategic and visionary management of the universities. This may arise due to a duplication of oversight, when more than one tool is used for the same purpose, or if the monitoring procedures employed are overly resource-consuming for the universities.
Examples of inconsiderate regulations
Regulations in the area of education are particularly limiting the universities’ autonomy, as they are wide-ranging, covering decision areas such as study programmes, admission, and enrolment procedures; awarding of parallel and joint degrees; and: arrangements for credit transfer, exams, grading scale, guidance and counselling, and quality assurance procedures.
Speeding up enrolment and graduation
As implied, the Panel has observed that several tools are used by the authorities and politicians to achieve the same goals. For example, in some cases, development contracts, taximeter rules, recruitment rules and rules on student counselling, are all geared, in part, to speed up enrolment and graduation. One unintended consequence is administrative inefficiency because responding to overlapping demands ties down resources of the universities and the commitment of such resources reduces universities’ room to manoeuvre in substantive areas.
Student intake and exams
Another example is that universities cannot decide on the criteria or procedure for student intake on their own. Student enrolment to bachelor’s programmes is controlled centrally through an Order (issued in 2008). The objective of the changes introduced in 2008 and 2009 was to expand enrolment in Quota 1 at the expense of Quota 2. Likewise, it was introduced that applicants applying no later than two years after having completed their upper secondary will have the average of their secondary school grades multiplied by 1 08 to raise eligibility.
The Government as well as the Parliament have passed specific decisions on matters that can be expected to lie in the competence of the universities, such as the abolishment of group exams, and the introduction of very detailed rules regarding re-examination within a short time after students’ failed passing of the “regular” exam. Also, detailed rules for students’ rights to complain are demanding excessive resources of the universities
Study programme accreditation process
The Panel is concerned that the current practice of regulations and procedures regarding the development of new or adaptation of existing study programmes can have negative effects. Quality control of study programmes is necessary, and it is important that universities function within an agreed national quality assurance framework. The difficulty with the current regulations is that in addition to regular external quality control of established study programmes, the Danish universities must obtain accreditation of new study programmes in advance from ACE Denmark (the accreditation institution for higher education). The requested resource commitments reduce the universities’ preparedness in responding rapidly to emerging demands for new skills and competences of master’s and bachelor’s programme graduates.
The Panel supports the general idea of the establishment of an independent institution under the Danish Accreditation Act. It provides an arm’s length approach to assuring the quality and relevance of the university study programmes, which replaced the previous system where the development of new study programmes was directly controlled by the Ministry on the basis of macro-efficiency concerns and criteria. In the new system, programme accreditation is based on an overall assessment of study programmes and a combined weighting of all the criteria of the Accreditation Order (such as demand in the labour market, research-based teaching, depth of education, results of the study programme). The Minister still determines the subsidy status, title, specific admission requirements for bachelor’s programmes, the prescribed study period, and any limit on student intake, before the Accreditation Council can approve a study programme. Through an amendment to the Act in 2007, universities are under obligation, as of January 2008, to set up recruitment panels for study programmes involving industry representatives.
There is universal complaint among the universities against the resource costs and inefficiency of the in-advance accreditation process. The Panel finds the lengthy process from an idea for a new programme to the actual start of the programme as hampering universities’ quick response to changing socio-economic knowledge, skills, and competences needs. From that perspective, it would be preferable to use also in Denmark the internationally dominant ex-post evaluation procedure instead of the current ex-ante accreditation practice.
Joint degrees, international collaboration on study programmes
In terms of the increasing internationalisation of education, the Danish regulations appear inflexible and are impeding the development towards an increase of Danish students going abroad for a shorter or longer period. For example, the cases of parallel and joint degrees are handled by a separate Order that lays down conditions for approval. These regulations take little account of the international environment in which Danish universities are operating. Furthermore, Danish regulations limit the international marketing of Danish study programmes, the establishment of joint degrees, and Danish universities’ participation in the Erasmus Mundus programme. For the latter, there has been a retrograde step in that initially the retention of the taximeter scheme for Erasmus Mundus students was achieved, but has subsequently been discarded (as of March 2009).
Top positions
While several areas of decision making regarding staffing have been transferred to the universities in recent years, constraints remain in place as universities are part of the public sector financial and labour market regulations. For example, the number of management positions of pay grade 37 and above (E2, p 12) is limited, and determined by the Ministry of Finance. The cap on the number of professorships was abolished in 2008, but with respect to experienced professors (pay grade 38) the Ministry of Finance has set a maximum of 255 positions for the university sector as a whole. The appointment of a rector or prorector or any of the designated academic administrative positions, including deans and heads of departments, is subject to an externally fixed total number per university of such positions. With regard to staff remuneration, universities do have freedom in topping up the public-sector bargained minimum scale for employees in pay grades lower than 37 In addition, there are upper limits on salaries for the different leadership positions, from rector to heads of department, which must not be exceeded without the approval of the Ministry of Finance. As regards budgeting, while universities are free to draw up their own budgets, and to save and build up equity, they are not permitted to raise loans without prior authorisation from the Ministry of Finance [E2]. A majority of the Danish universities do not own their teaching and research facilities but rent them from the State, an issue that has been opened up for negotiations by the 2003 Act.
Sufficient instruments for strategic development?
Funding arrangements, as well as development contracts, are important steering instruments available to the government. They can be tools for strategic steering, without resorting to direct operational intervention, or they can be used to limit university flexibility. Much depends on how they are shaped and implemented in practice.
Funding
The funding tracks for research in Denmark, as well as in comparable countries, are formed in several ways which influence the quality and effectiveness of research and promote research in fields especially important for the country. In the present funding system in Denmark, the direct funding consists of both free funding (the basic funding, also called the appropriation funding) and funding to fulfil the research-based public-sector services. The indirect funding track consists both of schemes which distribute funding on a competitive non-targeted basis with research quality as the main indicator and of schemes with pre-set targets for the research to be funded, in Danish often called “free schemes” and “strategic schemes” respectively.
The universities must have sufficient basic funding for developing their research strategies and prioritisations as well as for financing high quality research-based education at PhD, master’s and bachelor’s levels. The basic funding component has increased considerably since 2003 (see figure 2 in annex 7), but the amount available by the competitive funding schemes have also increased, some schemes of which demand co-financing. The external “free funding”, received by individual researchers or research groups in competition especially from national and international funding councils, might also be used by the universities as a basis for prioritising top quality research activities which are, or in the longer term may develop into, knowledge areas of importance for society. This peer reviewed research may thus contribute to the (further) profiling of the university. Funding received from competitive “strategic schemes”, even though the research is restricted to certain fields, may also give the universities a framework for further strategic prioritisation decisions.
According to annex 7, table 4, the overall share of basic funding of the total funding for research has dropped from 64% (2003) to 56% (2009). Nonetheless, as mentioned, in absolute terms the amount of basic funding has increased during the later years, and the question whether the universities have sufficient room for deciding on strategic prioritisations of their own within the present financing conditions is not an easy one. It also depends on the extent to which basic funding is used for co-financing external funding. The Panel finds that the universities’ internal considerations for outlining an institutional strategy or profile, amongst other things, are dependent on the quality and competitiveness of their academic staff, and the effectiveness of the institutions’ personnel policies.
Development contracts
The development contracts [described in background document E7] could be used as individual, helpful tools for the universities’ strategic development and profiling, as well as for realising important targets, such as speeding up graduation and specific enrolment targets. However, we do not find the development contracts in their current practice effective enough as such steering instruments, as the explanatory notes to the University Act make them less appropriate for this role. The development contracts have become too detailed and process-oriented. In practice they consist of a list of indicators, on which universities provide data.
For an overview of the university sector, the Parliament, as well as the Ministry, obviously needs comprehensive information and statistics on the universities’ performance. This information is necessary and can be developed in dialogue with the universities, but it does not necessarily belong in a development contract.
Corrective action taken so far
Recognising the constraints placed on university flexibility, the Minister has initiated several committees and working groups to identify areas where university autonomy could be strengthened and where the rules do not correspond with requirements in the explanatory notes to the Draft Bill for the 2003 University Act. Many university-Ministry issues have been resolved through this mechanism and the Ministry is continuing to look into areas where regulation can be simplified or scrapped. At the time of the decision on the 2003 University Act, the political parties behind the Act listed ten degrees of freedom which should be sought established. Nine of these areas were implemented [E2, p 3]. The tenth, an increase in the maximum amount which can be earmarked for university construction without separate application to the Finance Committee, has been approved recently. However, it is the impression of the Panel that the universities do not see these degrees of freedom as the core of institutional autonomy. In 2007, the Minister appointed a committee which has come up with an additional ten areas where further de-regulation is being considered [E2, p 3]. Eight of these areas have reportedly been implemented in 2008 – 2009.
4.1.3 Universities’ progress regarding autonomy
The development of university autonomy in the period after 2003 was dependent on the extent to which the universities have been able to use the opportunities offered by the University Act for becoming strategic actors and develop more direct and effective relationships with society, including the private sector and the international research community. As discussed in the previous sections, the Panel has observed that to some extent the universities have been hampered in the development of their strategic capacities by a dense set of government regulations. Nonetheless, this situation does not mean that the universities have been paralyzed and have had no room to manoeuvre at all.
Therefore, in this section, the Panel generally discusses how the universities have used the opportunities for autonomy offered by the 2003 University Act. Has the university sector as a whole become more strategic and diverse? Are there signs of differences between the universities with respect to the ways in which the 2003 University Act has been implemented?
The Panel has conducted its evaluation in the transition from what has been called the first generation university management to the second generation. The first generation of university managers has in many respects had to get used to the new responsibilities as well as opportunities offered by the University Act. At the same time, the university Boards have had to find their role in stimulating the strategic positioning of the universities. As indicated, the universities have been hampered by the Ministry and Parliament who have interfered in many ways in the details of the day-to-day operations of the universities. In addition, as will be discussed in following sections, overall the university managers have also had difficulties in finding the right balance between an executive leadership style and the need to involve staff and students in academic and administrative decision making processes.
University autonomy is not an aim in itself. In the Danish case, the reforms of the 2000s were expected, amongst other things, to lead to more intra-sector diversity through university profiling. There are a number of indications that suggest that the universities are becoming more strategically oriented and are taking the responsibilities seriously that have been transferred to them. A first indication consists of the strategic plans that most of the universities have produced. Even though there are differences between these plans when it comes to strategic focus and the clarity and consistency of the strategic goals included, they nonetheless show that the universities are in a process of becoming strategic actors. A second indication can be found in the careful attempts of a number of the universities to develop an explicit institutional profile, amongst other things, by using part of the basic funding to stimulate research programmes in areas where they have a strong track record. In addition, some universities have begun to proactively support researchers or research units in their applications to strategic research funds, e g. the ERC. The university Boards have played an important role in this. Overall, the Board members whom the Panel met during its visits in August 2009 have emphasized the importance of further strengthening the relationships of the universities to society in the coming period. Developing a clearer institutional profile was regarded as a core element in this.
Many countries around the world, e g. Australia, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the UK, are adapting their university governance approach in order to create the conditions under which their universities can compete at world class level. If the Danish university system is to become a genuine world class system, two basic governance conditions have to be fulfilled. Firstly, the Government and Parliament have to shift their university governance approach from detailed regulation to ‘steering at a distance’. Secondly, the universities have to become more proactive and focused in developing strategic priority areas and activities. Only the universities themselves are able to determine in which areas they can and want to compete at world-class level, even if external peer reviews are helpful for their decisions. In the abovementioned institutional strategic plans, confirmed in the Panel’s visits, the contours of these university priority areas carefully become visible. In most cases an important first step has been made, though a lot of work still needs to be done within the universities.
The first years after 2003 can be regarded as a learning period for all involved in university management in Denmark. The Panel points in this report to changes which are recommendable in the governance approach with respect to higher education. The recommended approach can be summarised as moving from detailed government regulation to ‘steering at a distance’, based on a high level of trust in the capacities of the universities to use the institutional autonomy in the expected way. Obviously, such a trust has to be ‘earned’ by the universities. They have to show that they are capable of operating as strategic actors. This can be regarded as one of the core challenges for the second generation university management in Denmark: The need to create the conditions and take the decisions that will allow their university to develop an appropriate institutional profile. This has to be in line with the university’s academic strengths, and make it possible for the university to participate in the global knowledge competition in such a way that it contributes to further strengthening the global competitiveness of the Danish economy.
4.1.4 Recommendations on autonomy
In the Panel’s evaluation framework (chapter 3) a main issue is whether the 2003 University Act and other steering instruments following the Act, have influenced university autonomy and to what extent the universities operate as autonomous and accountable public institutions.
The Panel concludes that the universities have gained greater autonomy through the 2003 University Act and have become more dynamic because of the newly found autonomy. Notwithstanding these developments, there remain many constraints on university autonomy. In the Panel’s opinion, these are an expression by the Parliament, Government and ministries of low trust in the current capacity or willingness of the newly autonomous universities to deliver on national strategic goals set for them. Many regulations and dialoguebased demands placed on the universities go beyond their expected role as general steering strategies in pursuit of the politically set system-wide objectives. Instead they encroach on the university management prerogatives – they intrude on university decision-making regarding “how best to achieve” the overall targets of the political system.
→ Recommendations: Implementing a high-trust strategy
In the Panel’s opinion the way forward is to develop a high-trust strategy that stimulates the universities to deliver on mutually agreed missions by allowing them to operate in practice under higher levels of autonomy than is currently the case. The approach is to find less intrusive accountability mechanisms that would go hand in hand with new deregulations and would require changes on the part of the Parliament, the ministries as well as the universities.
To this end, the Panel offers the following two recommendations, which may require adjustment of the explanatory notes to the bill for the University Act:
> The Parliament and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation should consider reviewing current regulations and reconsidering those that curtail universities’ freedom in their fields of competence.
The Panel recommends that the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in collaboration with the universities actively examines all relevant regulations, including those from other Ministries, with a view to determine their continued use, or undertake actions for scrapping them or replacing them by other instruments. The decision should be based on the Minister’s task [as identified in the background document E2] as “formulating the framework for the universities’ activities; determining society’s requirements for the universities’ activities and the size of the subsidies from the Danish state to support these activities”. Regulations that infringe on the task of the universities to “safeguard the university’s interests as an educational and research institution and determine guidelines for its organisation, long term activities and development” should be removed. This may require an adjusted explanatory note to the University Act.
Thus a clear distinction should be drawn between what constitutes “strategic objectives” for the sector, the determination of which should be the province of the Parliament and the Ministry, and what constitutes “how to” achieve those objectives, which properly lies within the competence of the universities. Only those regulations that deal with setting the strategic objectives should be considered for retaining, while with respect to those regulations that deal with the areas where the universities can be expected to have the expertise and experience “to know best” removal should be considered.
Dialogue between the universities and the Ministry should be used to deal with system-wide objectives. The issue of reducing drop-out rates is an example: rather than the Parliament introducing a regulation for this purpose, it should engage in a dialogue with the universities to come to a decision concerning the actions the universities can take themselves. The taximeter system is a good example of a tool, which can be used to provide incentives for achieving system-wide goals.
Compared to the structures for quality assurance of university study programmes in other countries, the current Danish accreditation system is heavily prescriptive and in advance control-oriented. It symbolises a lack of trust in the universities since the quality and relevance of programmes offered by Danish universities do not seem to warrant any general concern. The present control is taking place ex-ante, while the experience elsewhere suggests that ex-post control is much more effective. The Panel proposes that the overall directions of ACE Denmark should be reviewed to make them consistent with broad policy directions aimed at further strengthening university autonomy and consistent with governmental steering from a distance. An alternative model should be considered, which puts responsibility on each university to maintain rigorous internal quality review processes and allows a flexible response to the competence needs of society.
> The Parliament and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation should consider to define the development contracts as goal steering instruments
As various autonomy issues arose following the implementation of the University Act, the Minister set up committees and working groups, composed of Ministry and university officials, to discuss emerging problems and propose their resolution. Setting up these mechanisms is a clear signal of the Ministry’s commitment to enhancing university autonomy. The Panel recommends this confidence-building, positive approach.
However, the development contracts and the “rules” for them laid down in the explanatory notes to the University Act, need to be carefully scrutinised in order to make the development contracts individual, helpful tools for the universities’ strategic development and profiling as well as tools for important governmental targets. The Panel recommends the development contracts to become more evident goal steering instruments. In order to fulfil such a role, the development contracts have to be re-oriented to focus on overall targets, specific for each university, and without detailed process targets. This may well include system-wide issues which at present are tackled by regulations. For the universities’ use of the contracts as strategic development and profiling tools, the universities will have to contribute with information on their strategic goals.
Furthermore, statistical data and other information for maintaining overview of the proceedings of the whole university sector should not be handled within the framework of the development contracts. Developing a system-wide knowledge base on the universities is a worthy objective, but the construction of indicators, especially those for monitoring purposes, should be developed in agreement with the universities. They should be linked to a process of self-monitoring by the universities.
4.2 Codetermination and academic freedom
4.2.1 Codetermination
As explained in Chapter 3, codetermination of employees and students at Danish universities is an important element of the Danish university reforms, closely linked to the issue of university autonomy. The Danish tradition places high value on codetermination based on the general expectation in the country and on modern management practice for knowledge organisations such as universities. The Panel views codetermination at the Danish universities as involvement of academic staff in the decision-making processes regarding research and education matters, involvement of students in issues related to education and study programmes, involvement of administrative staff in the decision-making processes on administrative issues, and involvement of technical staff in the decision-making processes concerning technical matters.
We find that such codetermination at the universities is important for securing the best possible environment for education and research. We are therefore of the opinion that this area requires serious attention.
4.2.1.1 Changes brought by the 2003 University Act
The 2003 University Act has changed the framework for the involvement of staff and students in university decision making processes. Prior to the Act, university leaders were elected by the employees and the students. The Act introduced a range of changes to the organisation of university leadership, including a university board and appointed leaders, and left internal organisational issues in the hands of the new leadership subject to the general directions provided by the Act. The Act stipulates rules for participation of staff and students in the university board and various decision making and advisory bodies of the university. In addition, the explanatory notes to the bill for the Act stipulate obligations of deans and heads of department to ensure involvement of staff and students.
Under the 2003 Act, university boards include representatives from the academic staff (at least one), the technical and administrative staff (one) and the students (two). The academic council and the PhD committee at university or faculty level have representatives from academic staff and students. Study boards operate at department or faculty level with academic staff and student participation.
Under the new hierarchical, unitary management system, the board appoints and dismisses the rector, and appoints and dismisses the pro-rectors and the university directors, following recommendations from the rector. The rector appoints the deans (in the institutions where there are deans), who in turn appoint the heads of department and, where this applies, heads of the PhD schools as well as directors of studies, based on recommendations from study boards. This system replaces the previous system of elections to these positions in which the staff and the students participated.
The 2003 University Act does not spell out internal decision-making procedures in detail; these are left to the individual university to decide. The Act also requires for each university that academic councils are set up composed of academic staff and students, while technical staff can participate as observers. The composition of the study boards has remained unchanged since the 1970 Higher Education Act. Study board members comprise in equal measure of elected staff and student representatives. Through an amendment in 2007, the University Act now includes clauses for setting up PhD committees, with equal participation from academic staff and PhD students, to give PhD students a say in matters with respect to their study programmes and other aspects of relevance to their employment situation. As implied in the beginning of the section, the explanatory notes to the University Act indicate that the Dean also is to set up an organisation that is able to manage all tasks of the main academic area by involvement of students and the academic, technical and administrative staff and that the Head of Department is to organise the department so that it is able to manage all relevant tasks by involvement of the students and the academic, technical and administrative staff.
Furthermore, within the general labour market rules in Denmark, collaboration committees are set up at the universities, which have the objective of bringing together staff (academic and technical/administrative staff) and leadership on issues of staff policy and working conditions, matters concerning long-term development as well as routine matters affecting the work environment. It is up to each university to form such committees. Provision for shop stewards (who are elected), Safety Committee and Workplace assessments (WPA) are also included in the general labour market framework.
4.2.1.2 Experience and problems
Panel interviews and findings of the Capacent Survey paint a mixed picture of how codetermination is working out in Danish universities. There is high variety in the degree of satisfaction expressed with the present codetermination processes, across institutions, staff categories (academic staff, technical and administrative staff, students) and levels of decision-making.
During its visits, the Panel heard strong voices of dissatisfaction with the experienced lack of effective codetermination, especially among the academic staff. The academic councils, for example, are seen mostly as non-influential. Among the technical and administrative staff, the Panel got the impression that there is dissatisfaction due to insufficient involvement in the decision-making processes at department and faculty level. Among students, the study boards and PhD-committees are seen as important bodies. Students e g. readily referred to study boards, as a way to discuss problems with education programmes, but several objected to the limited influence of study boards and said, for example, that deans hold decision powers that study boards should have.
Overall, the Panel thus heard of perceptions of a decrease in involvement of academic staff and students in the decision-making processes. Most people interviewed relate the problem not in the first place to the hierarchical management provisions of the University Act as such, but see it rather resulting from a lack of commitment to codetermination on the part of the leadership, and lack of managerial skills for establishing intrauniversity structures and procedures for involvement. The Panel gained the impression, though, that in some, but not all, institutions the leadership has attempted seriously to develop an organisational culture in support of codetermination.
The Panel observes that current weaknesses in the codetermination structures and processes are also recognised by several stakeholders, including the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations (AC), Universities Denmark and the university top leadership. These stakeholders have expressed to the Panel that they consider the period since 2003 as representing “first–generation university management”, which includes an insufficient level of codetermination. The stakeholders see a challenge in the need to move university governance to the next stage – second-generation university management – i e. modern management adequate for knowledge-intensive institutions like universities. This would, among other things, include a satisfactory level of academic staff and student involvement in the intra-university decision-making processes.
It is the Panel’s impression that the university top leaders find it a challenge to recruit qualified leaders, particularly at the department level. Many of the present Heads of Department are the same as before 2003. Many of them are experienced within research and education, but not in the area of university management. We find it particularly important that the leaders have experience and skills in both research and education, and in management. However, according to the top managers of the universities, the market of persons who at the same time have leadership and management qualifications, and experience at a senior level in academic research and education is still small. This aspect has to be taken seriously by the universities, and they should take steps to develop adequate leadership career structures as well as adequate leadership training. Professional leadership training programmes for university leaders at all levels as well as actual and potential Board members are very important. The issue of codetermination should form an important element of such training.
Overall, the Panel finds that the decision-making ability has been strengthened through the new executive leadership provisions of the 2003 University Act. However, at the same time the Panel is of the opinion that the involvement of academic staff and students in the decision-making processes in Danish universities is in need of specific improvements. As the management structure introduced in the 2003 University Act forms the basis for the decision-making at universities, it has to be connected with a greater involvement of academic staff and students in academic and educational issues. The notes to the bill stipulate obligations of deans and heads of department with respect to involvement of staff and students, but we find that this has not been implemented by the universities to a sufficient extent. There is thus need for an improvement of the culture in the universities in support of good structures and procedures for involvement of staff and students in decisionmaking processes. Improvements in this area cannot be left to leadership sensitivity on the issue, and ways should be found for holding management accountable for their performance regarding codetermination. This is a system-wide and strategic issue that deserves attention at national political level.
We recommend therefore that the University Act, or the explanatory notes to the Act, should be amended to include a statement directed towards the university boards in order to ensure that the universities implement effective involvement of staff and students. To this effect, the university Board should require senior leaders at all levels in the university to develop, in collaboration with staff and students, procedures and organisational mechanisms for ensuring effective involvement of staff and students in compliance with modern management practice in knowledge organisations and the Nordic traditions in the university sector. The Board should also ensure implementation of procedures for a high degree of transparency in nominating university top managers, including the external members of the Board.
4.2.2 Freedom of research
Freedom of research is a fundamental principle of university life, and both governments and universities must ensure respect for this fundamental requirement. This is, among other things, stated in the Magna Charta Universitatum, a declaration, signed in 1988 by a few hundred rectors from European universities. Since then, many more university rectors and their equivalents, also from outside Europe, have signed the Magna Charta. As indicated in this declaration, to meet the needs of the world around it, university research must be morally and intellectually independent.
The concept of freedom of research is often used very broadly. Clearly, this is not unlimited, as researchers have to do research in the field of their employment and function within the quality standards of their specific academic field. Within these constraints, the general principles often invoke to give the concept a functional definition that researchers should be allowed to freely select their research topics, freely develop their research methodology and be free to publish their research results.
In the Danish university sector the topic ‘freedom of research’ is a complicated issue that has various legal, political and economic dimensions. One of the core dimensions with legal and political connotations concerns article 17 2 of the 2003 University Act. This article is seen by many academic staff members of the universities as a major symbol of the controversies around the Act, as it gives the institutional leadership the formal power to tell individual staff members which academic tasks to perform. The article could be regarded as an intrusion into traditional values and rights of academic university staff.
During the university visits the Panel heard very strong views on this article from many members of academic staff. These are mainly driven by a fear of possible infringements of the individual staff members’ traditional freedom to determine the nature and focus of their own teaching and research activities. On the other hand, many academic staff members did not view article 17 2 as a real problem. In their view practically all university staff members can in practice determine their own research agenda and choice of methodology within the specific strategic, scientific quality and financial frameworks of their institution.
Although the Panel has heard about only a few examples of the explicit use of the article in practice, we find that the question can be raised whether article 17 2 in all its details fits the Danish and European traditions with respect to academic freedom. In addition, the strong controversies around the article, even though the issue may be mainly symbolic, have a negative impact on the intra-university governance relationships and the effectiveness of the university leadership.
Taking these considerations into account, the Panel recommends the Parliament to remove or reformulate the article 17 2.
Funding is another important dimension in relation to research freedom. According to the Capacent survey, “researchers generally believe that both individual and institutional freedom has been weakened since 2003, and that the individual freedom has been weakened the most. However, the researchers are generally satisfied with the conditions of their own research freedom despite the increasing limitations of research freedom. This tendency is also supported by the qualitative interviews ”.
The individual research freedom is, according to the participants in the survey, mainly threatened by the changes in the public research funding system during the latest years. A majority of the respondents find that in the overall public research funding, the relative share of competitive and targeted funding has increased at the expense of a decreasing share of basic funding. This is felt to have had a negative impact on the individual freedom of research. As discussed above (in section 4 1 2), the overall share of basic funding in the total public funding of research has dropped from 64% (2003) to 56% (2009), although the total amount of basic funding has increased. However, the figures do not allow for a more careful analysis of the development in the amounts of basic research funding per university, nor of the influence of the mergers on the balance between basic and targeted/competitive research funding per university.
Internationally, there are two separate approaches when it comes to national strategies for stimulating excellent research through public funding investments. The first concerns a focus on supporting a limited number of centres of research excellence through nationally organised competitions. This approach implies that the universities themselves have little influence on the selection of the national centres that in general are selected by research councils, usually in a close alignment with the national science ministry. The other approach consists of making a large amount of ‘free research funding’ directly available to the universities, thereby allowing them to determine how they themselves want to stimulate research excellence within their institution. Each approach leads to a specific kind of research dynamics, each with its own pros and cons. The Danish research funding mechanism has certain elements in line with the second approach. As a consequence, the amount of direct ‘free research funding’ (basic funding) available within the Danish universities for strategic research investments is relative large in comparison with most other European countries, e g. the Nordic neighbours Norway and Sweden.
To the extent that the competitive funding is ‘free’, i e. independent of pre-set research dis-ciplines, as is the funding of the Danish Independent Research Councils and the European Research Council, it even plays a role for promoting freedom of research in the sense that it is granted to individual researchers with new ideas which may not find intra-institutional funding despite high quality. At the same time, the Panel finds it natural in national and international context to have funding schemes with strategically pre-set research disciplines, for e g. finding solutions for particular societal needs or problems. Such schemes have, of course, a potential for impeding the research freedom, at least if they constitute a too large share of the total research funding.
All in all, the Panel finds it important with a balanced funding system which includes a substantial share of basic funding directly to the universities, but also contains substantial competitive funding schemes – some for “free” research and some for research with polically/strategically pre-set research fields.
The Panel is aware that an increased demand for applying to external funds contributes to the reported growing time pressure experienced by the academic staff. In the surveys available to the Panel, many academic staff members have indicated that the growing time pressure has had a negative effect on their ability to do the research they would like to do. The Panel is also aware of the negative effects of growing time pressure, such as stress and decreased working efficiency, and we acknowledge that the combined effects of these may contribute to a situation in which less time is available to the academic staff for conducting research, while a certain amount of time must be available for being able to carry out research. However, it is the question whether this can be regarded as an aspect of ‘freedom of research’, since the Panel find that the latter concerns freedom to select research issues, freedom to develop research methodology and freedom to publish results, rather than with the question of available time for conducting research.
4.2.3 Freedom of debate
One of the themes of the evaluation concerns the status of the free academic debate at the Danish universities, including the framework conditions under which the academic debate takes place. The Panel gained the clear impression that there are no essential problems with freedom of academic debate in Denmark. Our observation is supported by the results of the Capacent survey, which show that the responding academics do not see this as a big issue. During our visits, we did hear of a few cases where freedom for debating was said to have been hampered, but these are few and incidental, and it is thus our overall conclusion that the Danish researchers in general are allowed to publish and participate in the academic and public debate, of course under certain ethical restrictions as well as restrictions laid down in laws on freedom of speech.
During the Panel’s visits, the engagement from staff and students to give their opinion to us shows a sound basic condition for possibilities to make one’s voice heard. There were plenty of opinions put forward to us, as is customary in universities, especially on academic freedom and on the academic leaders, but to a certain extent also on the issue of free academic debate. Even though the Panel was told about specific occasions where the free expression in internal university magazines or newspapers reportedly had been denied, it has not been on the Panel’s agenda to further examine these occasions. Nevertheless, the internal criticism has been voiced, which is important Another area of discussion has been that the existence of government commissioned research inside the universities may contribute to a decrease in the free academic debate. As understood by the Panel, the free academic debate still exists at the Danish universities and has expanded to cover the merged GRIs. This extension is important to the Danish society.
The result from the Capacent survey shows that academics more frequently take part in the internal academic debate than in the public debate. There is a possibility that this result shows a tendency not to be as active in the society outside the university walls as one might expect. The burden on academics in a competing academic world might contribute to this tendency.
The awareness of the importance of a free academic debate is high in Denmark, and therefore, the slightest restrictions one might suspect will be heavily and openly criticised This is a good sign of a healthy community. The universities are important institutions in contributing to an open debate and new knowledge in society and are thereby also a fundamental part of a democratic society. The free press contributes to this. It is the opinion of the Panel that the universities in Denmark fulfil their obligation to the Danish society in this regard. It is also the opinion of the Panel that the present legislation in Denmark, concerning universities and free academic debate, is appropriate. The integration of the four non-merged GRIs into universities could contribute to an open debate in all areas of knowledge development connected to the Danish Government.
It is important that the Danish political system, including the different involved ministries, are aware of the long-term importance for the Danish society of a free academic debate In the evaluation framework (chapter 3), the Panel raised the issue of what impact the regulatory internal organisation, including the executive leadership, has had on the democratic and codetermination processes, as well as on freedom of research and the free academic debate.
4.2.4 Recommendations on codetermination and academic freedom
In the evaluation framework (chapter 3), the Panel raised the issue of what impact the regulatory internal organisation, including the executive leadership, has had on the democratic and codetermination processes, as well as on freedom of research and the free academic debate.
→ Recommendations: Strengthening of codetermination
The Panel finds that the universities have not implemented codetermination procedures and structures to a sufficient extent. The involvement of academic staff and students in the university decision-making processes needs improvements, even though there is a high variability in the degree of satisfaction with the codetermination possibilities. As the governance and leadership structure introduced in the 2003 University Act and the explanatory notes to the Act form the basis for the decision-making processes at universities and for the staff and student involvement in these, we find that it should be adapted to support improved involvement of staff and students in academic issues. This could meet the present need for a change in the culture in the universities in support of structures and procedures that stimulate involvement wherever appropriate. Improvements in this area may be outlined for holding university leadership accountable for their performance regarding codetermination. This is a system-wide and strategic issue that deserves attention from the university Boards as well as from the national political level.
Accordingly, the Panel makes the following recommendations regarding codetermination:
> The universities should implement codetermination procedures and structures to a sufficient extent, in accordance with the intentions laid down in the University Act.
> The University Act, or the explanatory notes to the Act, should be amended to include a statement directed towards the university boards to ensure intra-institutional implementation of procedures and structures of codetermination
> The university Boards should require senior leaders of the university to develop, in collaboration with academic staff and students, procedures and organisational mechanisms for ensuring effective involvement of staff and students in compliance with modern management practice in knowledge organisations and the Danish (and Nordic) traditions in the university sector.
> The university Boards should ensure implementation of procedures for a high degree of transparency in nominating university top managers, including the external members of the Board.
> Professional leadership training programmes should be established for university leaders at all levels as well as actual and potential Board members, and the issue of codetermination should form an important element of such training. This could be taken up by Universities Denmark as well as the individual universities, since it is in the first place the responsibility of the universities themselves.
→ Recommendation: Removal or reformulation of article 17.2
The Panel recommends the article 17 2 in the University Act to be removed or reformulated even though the Panel has not found clear evidence of severe restrictions on the individual conditions for freedom of research at the Danish universities, in terms of free selection of research issues, free development of research methodology and free publishing of results.