Organisational autonomy clusters
While institutional evaluation/accreditation processes continue to progress, the extent to which they replace programme accreditation remains limited. Study fields accreditation seems to become more frequent, as an intermediary between institutional and programme accreditation. Overall, the related administrative burden remains heavy on universities, and the slow pace of such processes remains a source of frustration. In addition to avoiding the heavy workload with programme and/or combined approaches for external quality assurance, institutional approaches provide more flexibility to institutions in terms of establishment of joint programmes and the creation of new programmes. Internal quality assurance for programme level offers higher degrees of flexibility and agility, and ensure they are adapted to the institutional needs in their specific context.
Medium high High Medium low
Low
FI
NO
IS
SE
EE
LV
DK
LT
A focus on organisational autonomy
IE
UK
PL
NL
With regard to organisational autonomy, the Scorecard focuses on the following aspects: the university’s capacity to define its leadership model, the composition and structure of its governance, internal academic structures and the possibility to create legal entities. In this update, the capacity of universities to autonomously make changes to their statutes is also considered, albeit not an indicator under the Scorecard methodology (and therefore not factored into the scoring).
BE
CZ
DE
LU
SK
AT
LI
HU
CH
FR
SI
RO
HR
BA ME
RS
BG
MK
AL
GE
ES
EL
PT
TR
University leadership
MT
The selection of the executive head may have to be validated by an external authority. This applies to one third of the systems considered. In these cases, the confirmation can have formal or informal nature. Recent changes in this area (toward lesser involvement of public authorities in the process) include Latvia, Luxembourg , and the Netherlands. The Turkish case remains unique as the president has the discretion to select, appoint and dismiss the rector of all universities across Türkiye. In Spain, the Autonomous Community governments continue to swear in newly elected rectors. The law usually includes selection criteria for the executive head. The most common legal requirement is the need for the rector to hold an academic position. Only rarely does the law make it mandatory for the rector to be selected from staff of the same institution; however, this remains common practice. Further specifications include demonstrated managerial competencies, international experience, or age limits. In Spain, the 2023 law modifies the previous requirement to be full professor (‘Catedrático’) and now specifies that candidates must be full-time permanent teaching and research staff holding a doctoral degree and demonstrate a high research capacity, an accredited teaching career as well as sufficient university management experience.
Figure 1. Organisational autonomy clusters
maximum period. The term typically ranges from four to six years (Ireland being an exception with ten-year mandates), and it is often renewable once. While in Spain universities could fix the term of office of the rector, often set at four years, the 2023 law now specifies non-renewable, six-year terms for the executive head. Dismissal is a key factor when assessing the rector’s accountability to the institution and to other stakeholders. Dismissal responsibilities are usually set up in a way that mirrors the selection of the rector. In two-thirds of the systems considered, the dismissal of the executive head is tightly regulated, and in some cases may ultimately depend on an external authority. Spain falls into this category, with the dismissal procedure described in law. Although it is an internal matter, the Autonomous Community government formally intervenes, just as it confirms the rector’s nomination.
considerably between higher education systems. Two sub- types may be outlined: so-called ‘traditional’ dual governance structures, and ‘asymmetric’ dual structures. Systems featuring dual governance structures remain the majority across Europe, while unitary governance models are fewer. Only in a handful of countries do universities retain a senate- based governance model. Some systems continue to present specific characteristics as far as governance structures are concerned. Spanish universities retain a large ‘social council’, a body composed of members external to the institution, that supervises the economic activities of universities and the performance of its services, in addition to a board and senate. It is responsible for approving the budget and the longer- term financial plans of universities. The 2023 law specifies that the social council’s size, composition and term of office is to be set by Autonomous Community law, while it lifted limits previously set for senate and council membership (to be defined in the university statutes). The law nevertheless includes composition rules via minimum shares to ensure representation of the different groups in the governing bodies. Across Europe, university governance paradigms have been shifting towards more diverse, representative, and outward- looking governing bodies. Public authorities often appoint part of the external members.
Governance bodies
Within the framework of the Autonomy Scorecard, two types of governance structures have been conceptualised: unitary, and dual. In the latter case, the scope and division of responsibilities between governing bodies may vary
The rector’s term of office is stated in the law in a large majority of the systems, either as a fixed duration or as a
79
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker