This article was downloaded by: [University of Sussex Library]On: 27 August 2014, At: 13:38Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Higher Education in EuropePublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/chee20

UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY ANDQUALITY ASSURANCECarin BergPublished online: 02 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Carin Berg (1993) UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY AND QUALITYASSURANCE, Higher Education in Europe, 18:3, 18-26, DOI: 10.1080/0379772930180303

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0379772930180303

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is

expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

13:

38 2

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE, Vol. XVIII, No. 3, 1993

UNIVERSITY AUTONOMY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

Carin BERG

• The question of university autonomy is posedand examined from a number of points ofview, beginning with a short historical surveyof the concept and its application. It is linkedto academic freedom, to problems ofcentralization versus decentralization, to theinternal organization of universities, to therole of

universities in rapidly changing societies, todemocratization, and to societal expectationswith regard to universities. If universityautonomy is essential for the proper functioningof universities, then quality control and manage-ment are essential prerequisites for autonomy.

When approaching the question ofuniversity autonomy, one is immedi-ately trapped in a long series ofquestions of definition. The same istrue for words like decentralizationand centralization. Rational argu-ments are advanced in favour of oneor the other, hiding the obvious con-notation of power, which sometimesrenders debates more passionatethan rational. In addition, both acentralized and a decentralized sys-tem have clear advantages and justas clear disadvantages. Thus onecannot claim that one system is su-perior to the other. The choicedepends upon which goals onewishes to achieve.

A LITTLE HISTORY

The university, which has a very longhistory, has shown a remarkableresistance to time. This fact can beillustrated by the quotation from theCarnegie Council and Clark Kerr: "In1530 when the Lutheran Church wasfounded, some 66 institutions that ex-isted then, still exist today in theWestern world in recognizable forms:

the Catholic Church, the LutheranChurch, the parliaments of Icelandand the Isle of Man, and 62 univer-sities".

During the 900 years of its exist-ence, the university has fought forits autonomy and for academicfreedom. In his Constitutio Habitaof 1158, Frederic Barbarossapromulgated the first law onautonomy to the University ofBologna. Whether or not his onlyaim was to give those dealing withcivil law the same privileges asthose dealing with canonic law, theConstitutio Habita can be inter-preted as a first victory of theuniversity in the battle forautonomy that was fought out in theMiddle Ages between the Churchand the university. The struggle forautonomy has continued throughthe centuries until this day. Con-sider, for instance, the situation ofuniversities under Napoleonic lawin 19th century France and underthe communist regimes in centraland eastern Europe.

-18-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

13:

38 2

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

Carin BERG

THE PLACE OF ACADEMICFREEDOM

When raising the question ofautonomy versus centralization, onecannot avoid having to deal withacademic freedom. While universityautonomy refers to the status of theinstitution, academic freedom refersto the right of academics to teach andto do research freely without inter-ference, with the only aim of pursuingthe truth and of passing it on to thenext generation. The Lima Declara-tion of 1988- defines academicfreedom as "...the freedom of mem-bers of the academic community, in-dividually or collectively [to pursue]the development and transmission ofknowledge, through research, study,discussion, documentation, produc-tion, creation, teaching, lecturing,and writing"; and further states that"...the academic community covers allthose persons teaching, studying,[doing] research and working at aninstitution of higher education".

That this definition is not withoutits drawbacks is easily understoodwhen one looks at the past, when es-tablished truths, such as the earth'sbeing the centre of the universe, werefinally abandoned for a heliocentricconception, and the biblical versionof the creation, challenged by that ofDarwin. One can, however, arguethat these truths were abandoned be-cause of the advancement of scienceand new knowledge. Recent events,much publicized, concerning aprofessor in a European country whoclaims that the Holocaust never oc-curred, indicate that the problem stillexists in all its acuity. Ethical ques-

tions raised by research in genetics orbiotechnology are another exemple.

To forbid teaching in one area orresearch in another is not a viablesolution. Limits to academicfreedom, rather, should be self-im-posed by the adherence of universityteachers to codes of academic ethicsand to standards of rigorous scien-tific methodology which buttress in-tellectual integrity and justify theparticular responsibilities which areentrusted to university teachers withregard to teaching and to research.The public authorities, however, cancontribute to the goal of pursuing thetruth, while promoting academicfreedom, by providing means for dif-ferentiated research, by assuring andrequesting the transparency of the re-search results used in academicteaching, and by encouraging freedebate.

AUTONOMY AND FREEDOM

The notions of university autonomyand academic freedom are very oftentreated as two sides of the same coin.But one could, of course, imaginecompletely autonomous universitieswithout academic freedom. However,in our times democracy has becomeclosely linked to both the issues ofacademic freedom and of universityautonomy, a very noticeable reality,particularly nowadays, iii central andeastern Europe.

Universities have been accused ofbeing ivory towers. They have never-theless always been influenced by thecultures of the societies in which theyhave evolved. In the past, Europe fea-tured two principal models for itshigher education institutions: the

-19-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

13:

38 2

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

AUTONOMY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

Anglo-Saxon model and the con-tinental model, both of them state-financed. The British universities en-joyed a comparatively large degree ofautonomy, the state being seen as adefender of university autonomy byproviding funding while not interfer-ing. Thus the traditional British sys-tem can be distinguished from theAmerican system, in which autonomywas and is exercised to a marked ex-tent in the framework of a market-driven system.

The continental university system,on the other hand, was one in whichdecision-making was exercised in thecontext of more-or-less detailed lawsand regulations. Even when the Hum-boldtian tradition prevailed, rights ofdecision concerned only teachingand research and were only carriedout by tenured professors who werealso civil servants. Only after theevents of 1968 did categories of per-sonnel, other than full professors andstudents, win access to the decision-making bodies in the departmentsand faculties as well as to the univer-sity senates at most westernEuropean universities.

What is university autonomy? It iseasy to make a sweeping formulationlike decision-making entrusted to theuniversities. Reality, however, is as al-ways complex. To begin with, howdoes one define university. Obviouslyit is not a person, but only personscan make decisions. Thus universityin this case means people: professors,young researchers, graduate stu-dents, undergraduate students,university administrators - all thesecategories evolve within the univer-sity and sometimes have conflictinginterests. And what about outside

forces that claim the right to maketheir opinions heard: governmentswhich provide funding, or society atlarge, which expects universities toturn out highly trained professionalsand high quality research, both beingexpected to contribute to the positivedevelopment of society?

Several interest groups can thus bedistinguished in the context ofuniversity autonomy. Academicsbeing the experts, governments rep-resenting society, students being con-sumers, and institutional managersrepresenting an interdisciplinaryview, should be the first to be men-tioned. Many would add business/in-dustry as an additional but importantgroup on the consumer side and per-haps also local governments, whichview universities as providers ofwork places and services as well asregional prestige elements.

The question of universityautonomy is thus a very complexquestion. In addition, despite the factthat the university is a commonEuropean invention, this question isaddressed in each country in the con-text of the national culture, of cus-toms, and of habits. It is striking tosee how more-or- less innocentdetails in rules and regulations differfrom one country to another thusforming coherent parts of distinct ad-ministrative philosophies in eachcountry.

What Decision-Making for Universities?

What decisions are we talking about?The complexity of universityautonomy is sometimes overlookedand reduced to the right to decideabout programmes, curricula, and ex-

-20-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

13:

38 2

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

Car in BERG

aminations. Closely linked to thesecategories are the admission of stu-dents, which in an autonomousuniversity should of course be in thehands of this institution. However,many European countries today havelaws and regulations stipulating thatthose with a secondary school leavingcertificate have the right to study at auniversity (but frequently, not auto-matically at other tertiary institutionsexisting in parallel in the highereducation system - a paradox that ap-parently has not struck everybody). Itis obvious that these questions, in ad-dition to the policy implications, havestrong financial impacts and musttherefore also be dealt with from thisangle and not only from the positionof academic/scientific affairs.

When analyzing universityautonomy, one must thus considernot only teaching and research, butalso higher education policy, thesteering and the financing of theuniversity, and the organization of itsadministrative and decision-makingstructures.

Why the Need for Change?

But if there are so many problemsattached to the increase of autonomyof the universities, why bring aboutchanges? Why this interest in themanagement of universities, in theirfinancing and in their steering? Whyall these reforms which are going onin practically all European countries,a process in which we witness theseemingly paradoxical move of moreautonomy to universities in the con-tinental European system, and moreinterference by the state in theAnglo-Saxon systems?

The overall arguments can be sum-marized in terms of effectiveness andefficiency. To these can be added, par-ticularly in central and easternEurope, democratization. There is ageneral change of attitude towardgovernmental intervention, a widelyshared belief that the centralized sys-tem is not efficient for running masshigher education institutions giventhe new and diversified demandsbeing made on them.

The traditional university wascreated to enlarge knowledgethrough systematic studies and dis-cussions, and also because someprofessions increasingly requestedsuch a quantity of knowledge andskills that it was no longer possible tolearn and to master them throughmere apprenticeship. It becamenecessary to transmit this knowledgein an intellectually systematic way.Universities thus educated a verysmall portion of the population forsome clearly defined professions:lawyers, medical doctors, clergy,school teachers. In addition, theytrained researchers/teachers fortheir own needs in various dis-ciplines. Even if these disciplinesgradually multiplied, especially inthe humanities and what becameknown as the social sciences, the stu-dents were, by and large, absorbed bythe universities themselves and thepublic sector.

Over time, universities became, toa greater or lesser extent, a secludedworld, far from the noise and hustleof everyday life. By many this wasseen as something positive, even anecessary condition for the pursuit ofknowledge and truth. The attempts ofstudents to bring in the topical ques-

-21 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

13:

38 2

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

AUTONOMY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

tions of the day were actively con-tes ted , and often resulted ingovernmental interference and su-pervision.

The Expectations of Society

Today the situation is very different.Society challenges universities toleave the ivory tower. They are ex-pected to become core institutionswith regard to reforms, to staffdecision-making bodies in alldomains with the requestedknowledge base for decisions and thecompetent experts for advising, andto provide equally competentspecialists for the implementation ofdecisions. The majority of graduateswill no longer be absorbed by theeducational system, nor even bypublic sector employment. Most stu-dents, in fact, no longer enroll inuniversities with the purpose of get-ting an education in the sense of in-tellectual training. Most of them areseeking professional training thatwill help them establish themselveson the labour market. If in theprocess they receive an educationwhich opens up their minds and in-fluences their ways of thinking andtheir behaviour, the result is an addi-tional benefit rather than the primor-dial goal.

Many will argue, however, that theintellectual training embodied in auniversity education, based on thesame rigorous methodology, in-tegrity, and self-discipline that char-acterizes scientific research, is notonly the main task of the universities,together with the pursuit of truth andthe enlargement of knowledge, buttheir very raison d'etre. Whatever thedisciplines, the professional skills

that are taught, the systematic intel-lectual training of students thatenables them to deal with problemsin a rational and disciplined way,constitute the very essence of univer-sity education as opposed to otherpost-secondary training. It is throughthese particular features that auniversity education is indispensableto the development of societies.

This basic and specific task of theuniversity should not preventacademics from addressing questionssuch as graduate unemployment,given the increasing complexity andsophistication of modern societies,and proposing solutions to problemsengendered by the need of society tooffer intellectual and professionaltraining to larger proportions of thepopulation.

Today, in whatever domain, weturn to experts to solve our problems.Clearly, university teachers are theexperts on university teaching and re-search and should consequently bethe most qualified to make decisionsas to what should be taught and inwhat ways. They should also be thefirst to decide as to the problemswhich should be addressed in re-search, and the issues which appearto be the most promising for furtherinvestigation.

A PROPER SCOPE FORAUTONOMY

One frequently hears that there is nohesi tat ion in t ransferr ing thedecision-making concerning the in-ternal affairs of the university tothose concerned, that is to thedecision-making bodies of the in-stitutions themselves. But which

-22-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

13:

38 2

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

Carin BERG

questions can be considered inter-nal? Mention has been made ofdecisions concerning curricula and ofthe organization of teaching and re-search. Hesitation, however, alreadybegins with regard to curricula.While academics may be consideredcapable of elaborating a curriculumin, for instance, sociology, theauthorities seem to be much moredoubtful about their competence toorganize programmes in medicineand in teacher-training.

Curricula and university courseprogrammes are closely linked to theright to confer diplomas. Here onewill find the full scale of regulations:while this function is entirely in thehands of the universities in somecountries, in others the state confersthe right to award diplomas to theuniversities according to narrowlyprescribed conditions. The organiza-tion of doctoral programmes and theinstances which should have the rightto award the doctorate, the highestacademic degree, are also subjects ofa good deal of dispute.

And what about the admission ofstudents? Many countries have clearpolicy goals concerning the admis-sion of students: increasing access,enlarging it to non-traditionalgroups, etc. While these questions inthe United States are addressedthrough financial incentives, theEuropean governments tend toprefer to regulate them in legislation,thus taking decision-making awayfrom universities in this domain.

University staff is another area inwhich governments, allegedlydevoted to university autonomy, be-come hesitant. Who appoints staff

and according to what criteria? Whoappoints the heads of universities?How are decision-making bodies setup at various levels? Who decideswhat persons can be part of thesebodies? If persons outside the univer-sity can be part of the universitysenate, does this fact mean that theuniversity has lost its autonomy? Per-haps one would say no, if the decisionis made by an autonomous universitysenate, but yes, if it is imposed by theauthorities.

AUTONOMY VERSUS EFFICIENCYAND ACCOUNTABILITY

All these questions ultimately dealwith the steering of universities.While many governments declarethat they are willing to give increasedautonomy to universities, they are atthe same time anxious to assure botha method of accountability and amethod of assuring that governmen-tal policies are carried out. One cansafely say that there is also a certainamount of distrust between govern-ments and universities. Universitiesare places where new ideas are bornand debated, ideas that may chal-lenge and trouble the establishedorder.

The governments which were putin place following the revolutionarymovements in central and easternEurope, movements which were lar-gely sustained by the universities,know that the same professors andstudents who supported them arenow the first ones to criticize them.At the same time, the huge sums in-volved in higher education teachingand research require that society isgiven its money's worth, that univer-

- 2 3 -

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

13:

38 2

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

AUTONOMY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

sities are held accountable for thefunding they receive.

Another reason for the increasedinterest in finding ways to increasethe efficiency and the effectiveness ofuniversities is that the mass univer-sity is very expensive. Not only doesit require more teachers, but alsomore buildings, l ibrar ies ,laboratories, equipment, studenthousing, and student financing. In ad-dition, modern research requiressophisticated and sometimes ex-tremely expensive equipment. Thesheer size of this undertaking in turnrequires competent management andadministration.

At the same time, one must admitthat as soon as an organization is notmaster of its financing, it is not fullyautonomous. Government funding isin most cases provided directly to theuniversity budget, very often not as alump sum, but with strict prescrip-tions attached. Other funding agents,be they research councils or privateenterprises that universities try toidentify in order to attract resourcesin addition to those provided bygovernment, obey the rules of themarket. They make resources avail-able, provided they get what theywant in return. While there seems tobe a general consensus in favour ofincreasing university autonomy, theparadox is that many more factorsexist today, than in the past, whicheffectively hinder universityautonomy in an absolute sense.

Looking closer at the individual,national systems, we find that there isa clear t rend in favour of thedecentralization of decision-makingin countries which traditionally had a

centralized system, while the Anglo-Saxon system is moving in the op-posite direction. However, there isno country in the world in which thegovernment does not have an educa-tional policy which includes highereducation. In the rapid developmentof our societies, universities are ex-pected to play a pivotal role, par-ticularly in central and easternEurope. Governments provide fund-ing, not only directly via universitybudgets, but also through researchcouncils. Increasingly, they holduniversities accountable, and so doespublic opinion. As responsibility ismentioned as an inseparable partnerof freedom, accountability is linkedto university autonomy. The questionis therefore not if governmentsshould or should not have controlover universities, but the extent towhich they should have such controland how it should be exercised.

Quality Control

This equation is not an easy one. Howcan autonomy be conciliated so as toassure efficiency and effectivenesswhile putting in place mechanismsthat assure accountability? A way outof this dilemma may be quality con-trol and quality management, inwhich the interests of the universityand those of the state coincide. Ac-countability thus goes beyond finan-cial control, which only represents aminimal level.

All universities, worthy of thename, are anxious to preserve and toimprove the quality of their teachingand research. The pursuit of excel-lence has always been a hallmark ofthe university. In the domain ofquality assessment, universities and

-24-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

13:

38 2

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

Carin BERG

authorities may meet in a commoninterest to set up well-functioningprocedures for this undertaking. In-deed this process is occurring in mostEuropean countries, where new na-tional organizations are now beingbuilt up, often as intermediary in-stitutions, between the universitiesand the authorities. A new term hascome into existence, buffer institu-tion, to designate them. The questionis of course to whom these institu-tions belong: to the universities or tothe ministries? Are they to begovernmental or non-governmental?Both solutions are being tried inEurope, sometimes as a result of astruggle between the concerned par-ties, sometimes simply as the result ofestablished traditions without toomany questions being asked.

Internal Institutional Organization

The trend of increasing universityautonomy can have surprisingresults. Shortly after thedecentralization reform of highereducation in Sweden in 1977, theteaching/research staffs in theuniversity departments began to com-plain about the increased centraliza-tion, which in this case meant thecentral university administration, asomewhat surprizing outcome for thecentral authorities.

Thus the question of universityautonomy also addresses the internalorganization of a university. Thedecision-making bodies at differentlevels must be organized in such away that they do not hinder efficientdecision-making, either because dif-ferent levels block each other, or be-cause different categories can inter-vene through veto rights or the like.

If such constructions are not avoidedwithin universities, the probabilitythat state intervention will increase isvery high, and university autonomywill thus suffer.

A centralized system has - in thebest of cases - the advantage ofcoherence, stability, planningfacilities, shorter decision-makingprocedures, and transparency. Ex-perience points to such disad-vantages as lack of creativity, repeti-tive teaching, low efficiency, heavyadministrative procedures, increas-ing costs, rigidity, lack of interest onthe part of those concerned, and littleinclination for renewal.

University autonomy can perhapsnot cure all these deficiencies. How-ever, it is intellectually difficult toargue that central authorities shouldbetter understand how to elaborateprogrammes and to choose and to or-ganize research than the experts, theuniversity teachers themselves. Cur-rent organization theory claims thatthe possibility to actively influenceone's working situation and to iden-tify with the organization is a prereq-uisite for commitment and efficiency.Research in this domaindemonstrates that when people aregiven responsibilities, they tend to as-sume them.

University autonomy would thusbe one of the prerequisites for highquality teaching and research. As theorganization and running of institu-tions of higher education is deter-mined by the organization of teachingand of research, it would follow thatin the interests of efficiency, this ac-tivity be the responsibility of theuniversity community concerned.

-25-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

13:

38 2

7 A

ugus

t 201

4

AUTONOMY AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

The Need for Strict Accountability and also be perceived as useful fornormal activities. Quality assessment

It seems normal, nevertheless, that a n d management provide such an in-funding agents, including the govern- strument that positively influencesment, should require accountability. teaching and research while assuringThe mechanisms and the procedures a feedback to authorities and thefor accountability should have the ac- public,ceptance of the academic community

-26-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Su

ssex

Lib

rary

] at

13:

38 2

7 A

ugus

t 201

4