1
Artykuł opublikowany jako rozdział 10 w: Bieńkowski W., Grada J.C., Stanley G. (2012), The University in the Age of Globalization, Palgrave Macmillan 202-223
LOOKING FOR THE MODEL OF THE CONTEMPORARY UNIVERSITY Krzysztof Leja
Gdansk University of Technology Faculty of Management and Economics
1. General remarks (context)
America now faces, potentially, the most stressful period of interactive relations between higher education and the surrounding society in the more than three and one-half centuries since the founding of Harvard in 16361. The opinion of Kerr, a famous researcher of higher education, the former president of the University of California, whose works are among the classics, is worth to consider referring to any country where the knowledge of economy has been created and social expectation of HE institutions have raised significantly. The future of the university, in the minds of many researchers, is connected with the evolution of the perception from an ivory tower to the entrepreneurial organization2.
Universities, with more than nine – century long history, face the following major trends and challenges:
Diversification of an offer3,4,5.
Diversification of the funding sources6.
1 Hearn, J.C., Holdsworth, J.M. 2002: The societally responsive university: public ideals, organizational realities and the possibility of engagement, Tertiary Education and Management, vol. 8(2): 127.
2 Etzkovitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, Ch., Cantisano, Terra B.R. 2000: The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm, Research Policy, 29(2-3): 313- 330.
3 Altbach, Ph. , Resberg, L., Rumbley, L. 2009: Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution, A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, Paris;
4 Neave, G., 2000: Diversity, differentiation and the market: the debate we never had but which we ought to have done. Higher Education Policy 13(1):19.
5 The need for diversifying European HEIs missions (300 of 3800 are research-active) has been noticed during the conference The Europe of Knowledge 2020: A vision for university-based research and innovation Liège, Belgium in April 2004, p.79. International, national, regional, research, educational, research and education and services for local communities have been singled out.
6 In the OECD Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society, op.cit. it was stressed that diversification means : looking for new sources of funding but also understanding growing social pressure to strengthen the competitive
2
Growing pressure on greater efficiency and evaluation based on outcomes.
Searching for new methods of management and governance7.
Increasing staff mobility to create university networks, which compete with each other and cooperate simultaneously8,9.
Growing pressure to evolve into socially responsible organizations10.
Growing pressure on HEIs to be publicly responsible for higher education11.
Reflecting on the modern university concept, we must not ignore the phenomenon of higher education changing from elite to massive. Statistics show that the number of students in the world increased from 13 million in 1960 to 68 million in 1991, 132 million in 2004 and 150 million in 200812.
(Fig.1)
The educational boom was recorded in Poland on a similar scale (cf. Fig.1), but demographic prognoses are undesirable because the population of the age between 19-24 in 2025 will decrease to 57% of the one from 2007 (and it is among one of the highest in the EU)13. Selected data of Polish higher education institutions are presented in Table 1.
form of budgetary allocation and co-financing costs of education by students together with suiTable scholarship system.
7 Contraths, B., Trusso, A. 2007: Managing the university community: exploring good practice. Brussels:
European Universities Association Case Studies, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
8 Lisbon Declaration, Europe’s Universities beyond 2010. Diversity for common purpose. 2007. Brussels:
European University Association.
9. Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J. 1995: The right game: use game theory to shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, July-August; Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J. 1996: Co-opetition. New York: Doubleday.
10 Leja, K. (ed.). 2008: Społeczna odpowiedzialność uczelni. Gdańsk: Wydział Zarządzania i Ekonomii Politechniki Gdańskiej i Instytut Społeczeństwa Wiedzy (in Polish).
11 Bergan, S., Guarga, R., Polak, E., Sobrinho, J.D., Tandon, R., Tilak, J.B.G. 2009: Public responsibility for Higher Education, UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education, Paris.
12 Altbach, Ph. , Resberg, L., Rumbley, L. 2009: Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution, A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, Paris, p. IV.; El- Khawas, E. 2001: Today’s universities: responsive, resilient or rigid?. Higher Education Policy, 14(3): 241;
Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society. OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education Synthesis Report.
3-4 April 2008, p. 3.
13 Ritzen, J. 2010: A Chance for European Universities, Amsterdam: AmsterdamUniversity Press, p.27.
3 (Table 1)
The document of Manifesto Empower European Universities, signed by former ministries of HE, university rectors and other repuTable higher education experts from the EU, sought the key drivers to the future of the European higher education. They tried to answer fundamental questions: where are we? and why are we there?, where do we want to be? and how to get there?14. The undersigned treat the Manifesto as a contribution to the debate on the strategy of the European Union by 2020. The document states that in order to use the abilities of higher education it is necessary to:
Increase mission differentiation within higher education, along with differentiation
of strategies, new governance and financial arrangements.
Mobilize the full potential of universities to engage in innovative teaching and learning and in research. This requires their full autonomy. A professional management approach by universities makes it necessary to separate academic leadership, responsible for high academic standards, and a (supervisory) Board of Trustees.
Make European universities and HE systems much more international. This means
attracting more students and researchers from Europe itself, but also from other parts of the world15.
2. Diagnosis (Polish public HEIs) – where are we?
Unfortunately, in Polish public HE institutions (which will be discussed further, on) none of the Manifesto demands are met.
14 Manifesto Empower European Universities. Expert group on European Universities. Meeting June 15/16, 2010 Brussels:http://www.ony.unu.edu/news/empowering-european-universiti.html, 30.10.2010.
15 Ibid.
4
Firstly, the study by Kochalski team from Poznan University of Economics shows that in about half of the universities the mission statement has not been formulated16. Public technical universities analysis by the author confirms the lack of diversification of the mission, as stated earlier in the OECD report of 2007 on higher education in Poland, and a stronger orientation toward the past than future17,18.
Secondly, the public school authorities are elected by the academic community (including students).This leads to the paradox: rector’s authority, which incorporates in terms of the state, the position of President, Prime Minister and the Speaker of Parliament, is de facto relatively weak due to the dependence on the electorate. Besides, the elected rector has practically no impact on the election of the leaders of basic units(deans), as they are elected by the community of the faculty. So the elections’ results are determined more by the game of interests than by the competences to become the rector. In addition, the rector shall decide on both the most trivial and the key issues for the university, which leads to the situation that it is difficult to talk about university strategic management.
Thirdly, an internationalization of Polish universities (with a few exceptions) is vestigial.
Although it is changing in a significant way, as the both the No of foreign students in Poland and Polish students who study abroad under Erasmus program has been growing.
(Fig. 2)
16 Jasiczak, J., Kochalski, C., Sapała, M., Wyniki badań nad projektowaniem i wdrażaniem strategii rozwoju w publicznych szkołach wyższych w Polsce, materiały niepublikowane prezentowane podczas konferencji pt.
Zarządzanie strategiczne publiczną szkołą wyższą – teoria i praktyka, Poznań 28 maja 2010 (unpublished, in Polish).
17 Fulton, O., Santiago, P., Edquist, Ch., El-Khawas, E. and Hackl, E. 2007: OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education Poland. Paris: OECD.
18 Leja, K. 2010: Uniwersytet: tradycyjny, przedsiębiorczy, oparty na wiedzy – podejścia komplementarne czy sprzeczne – analiza wybranych uczelni, Sprawozdanie z realizacji projektu N115 0732 33 (in Polish, unpublished ).
5
The answer to the question “why we are there” in Poland has been illustrated with the help of de Boer’s equalizer19. Liberal (Humboldt) university vs entrepreneurial university proposed by are compared in Fig. 2, diagnosis of the Polish HEIs is illustrated in Fig 320.
(Fig.3)
Conclusion: We have done a lot (Fig.2) but we will have to do much more to realize the evolutionary change of Polish universities in the nearest future into the entrepreneurial ones (Fig.2 and Fig.3). We are all responsible for the current situation, especially professors who hold various positions in administration, collegial bodies and research corporations influence the changes in the science system in Poland, said The President of Polish Science Foundation21.
3. Where we want to be and what is the way to get there?
The main goal of the paper is to show the way to realize the assumptions of the higher education mentioned in Manifesto.
Hypothesis: Universities should evolve into socially responsible organizations. The prerequisite is to ‘open’ universities for morphogenesis22 (see Table 2).
(Table 2)
19 de Boer, H., Enders, J., Schimank, U. 2006: Orchestering creative minds. The governance of higher education and research in four countries, in: Jansen, D. New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations – Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration. Dordrecht: Springer.
20 Clark, B.R. 1998: Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation.
Oxford: Pergamon , For IAU Press.
21 Żylicz, M. 2010: Nie bójmy się zmian. Forum Akademickie No. 10 (in Polish).
22 Morphogenesis is a form that penetrates so deeply into the genetic code that all future generations acquire and reflect those changes. In morphogenesis the change has occurred in the very essence, in the core, and nothing special needs to be done to keep the change changed [Levy 1993: 7 behind Smith 1984:318]
6
That approach, as opposed to morphostasis23 (first-order change), indicates the changes affecting the foundations. That’s why it is so difficult to carry them out. As noted by Levy, second-order change is multidimensional, affects all levels of the organization, relates to the behavioral aspects, which are extremely resistant to change. If changes are to lead to success, i.e. to achieve competitive advantage thanks to the fact that the organization is not better than competitors, but different, the changes may be not only rational, which further hampers carrying them out. Characteristic are the words concerning changes in universities by Jan Szczepański, a researcher of higher education who wrote that: despite wars, revolutions and changes in social formations, the collapse of some states and emergence of others, religious and political reforms, mass migration, economic crises and culture transformations, some elements of higher education reality are characterized by amazing durability, and the existence of mechanisms unchanging for centuries. Higher education institutions are far less sensitive to change than the world around them. Informal mechanisms for the operation of the HEIs proved to be stronger than the whole power of the party and government24.
The socially responsible university has been presented earlier (see: Fig. 3)25.
(Fig.4)
The most important expectations are: interdisciplinary knowledge, social engineering skills, business ethics and the ability to manage forward – looking to create incremental strategy26.
23Morphostasis encompasses two types of changes. First there are those that enable things to look different while remaining basically as they have always been. The second kind of morphostatic change occurs as a natural expression of the developmental sequence the natural maturation process [Levy 1993:10 behind Smith 1984].
24 Szczepański, J. 2003: Granice reform szkolnictwa wyższego. Nauka i szkolnictwo wyższe No. 2, p. 6-7 (in Polish).
25 Leja, K. (ed.). 2008: Społeczna odpowiedzialność uczelni. Gdańsk: Wydział Zarządzania i Ekonomii Politechniki Gdańskiej i Instytut Społeczeństwa Wiedzy, p.57-72 (in Polish).
7
De Boer, Enders and Schimank distinguished three groups of university regulators (Fig. 2): a/.
legislative: state regulations, managerial selfgovernance, academic self-governance; b/.
market: stakeholders guidance and competition and 3/. social pressure27. Adaptive capabilities see: Fig. 4) are linked with the paradoxes, which can be encountered during the strategy elaboration of each organization, including university.
How to achieve the goal in practice?
Three following remarks precede the starting point for further discussion. Firstly, if assumed that in near future competition will take place not only between individual institutions but between university nets, the university leader will serve the role of the orchestrator and manager. New approach to strategic paradox: to compete or to cooperate is required and we have to try and ‘combine fire and water’. Brandenburger and Nalebuff to manage this paradox proposed coopetition28. The proposal is so interesting because coopetition is the positive-sum game (not zero one), as in the case of rivalry, which means that players win games (a win- win). Coopetition is the most accurate indication of the direction of academic institutions, as well as the higher education system, (if we want Polish universities to compete on the global market.)
Second concern to strategic paradox: to use own or global resources and the accompanying dilemma: to fit the university offer individually or adapt to the mass audience. The answer to the question are the following formulas: N = 1, R = G, which means that the offer (education, research, consultancy) should be tailored, using global resources Prahalad and Krishnan29. Such approach is possible in the field of education in creating a dual educational offer:
26Koźmiński, A.K. 2004. Zarządzanie w warunkach niepewności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, p.58. (in Polish).
27 De Boer et al., op.cit.
28 Brandenburger, Nalebuff, 1995, op.cit.; Brandenburger, Nalebuff, 1996, op.cit.
29 Prahalad, C.K., Krishnan, M.S. 2010: Nowa Era Innowacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Profejonalne PWN (in Polish).
8
addressed both to massive and elite students, which is a very complex in practice but necessary endeavor. With regard to other activities, there is no alternative to such an approach, but it offers a chance that the demand for services offered by universitiess will significantly increase and the proportion between budgetary and non-budgetary research funding will change from the current 80% to20%.
The third remark relates to the university’s mission, and more specifically to the third mission, which relates directly to the university – stakeholders relationships and creates conditions where both academic staff and students encourage technology commercialization30. It also points out clearly that the universities co-create values with active stakeholders’ participation. The third university mission means an evolution from "ivory tower" to the organization as the center of innovation and excellence31. The question is whether all universities have passed this way, and if not, at which point are they now? The importance of this question is involved with the growing competitiveness of higher education and consensus that education graduates should be prepared to create the knowledge-based economy, which means that in addition to the knowledge and skills they should be characterized by such features as acceptance of competitiveness, creativity and respect for the success of others32.
4. What should the changes be like at the university?
30 Wissema, J. G. 2005: Technostarterzy, dlaczego i jak? Warszawa: Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości (in Polish).
31Woźnicki, J. 2007: Uczelnie jako instytucje życia publicznego. Warszawa: Fundacja Rektorów Polskich (in Polish).
32 Grudzewski, W., Hejduk, I. 2004: Zarządzanie wiedzą w przedsiębiorstwie. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Difin, p.16. (in Polish).
9
As mentioned earlier, the author is convinced of the necessity to try out the changes in universities. Three proposals will be presented briefly corresponding to the demands contained in the Manifesto.
(Tab. 3)
Problem: to increase mission differentiation; Suggested answer: hypertext university Mission differentiation needs, in the author’s opinion, second-ordered organizational changes [cf. Table 2]. Nonaka & Takeuchi searching for new organizational concepts stressed that they should be flatter than their predecessors, more dynamic than static, should favor creating close relationships with stakeholders, put the emphasis on competencies - unique technologies and skills, consider the knowledge and intellect as the main competitive tool33. The aim is to integrate many activities undertaken by a complex organization. Nonaka and Takeuchi provide an example of the U.S. Army battle with the Japanese army during World War II, when the Americans took nonstandard earth-aquatic activities, combining those which has previously been carried out separately34. The result of the battle was the American’ success and it was an inspiration to search for organizations integrating hierarchical and task-based structures.
An example is a hypertext organization, which constitutes the answer to the bureaucratic structures, failing in uncertainty. Bureaucratic structures help to implement and use new knowledge through combination processes (conversion of explicit to explicit knowledge) and internalization (explicit to tacit knowledge). Task structures favor the conversion of tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge (socialization) and tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge
33 Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. 2000: Kreowanie wiedzy w organizacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Poltext, p.197 (in Polish).
34 Ibid., p. 202.
10
(externalization)35. Hypertext organization differs from the matrix one, in such a way that employees are not under two supervisors, but belong to a business or project team.
The concept of hypertext organization as related to the modern university will be explained.
Hypertext university consists of three layers: the knowledge base, business system (structures of the institution) and project teams.
A. Knowledge-base layer – organized by university management – that coordinates the vision of modeling of the organizational culture. Organizational knowledge generated by the other layers is categorized, which in practice means that university ordered it by an importance for the whole university development and contextualized, which in practice means looking for common elements in university units and synergy among them. In this layer, decisions concerning the use of technology and creation of knowledge bases favoring the use of available knowledge generated in other layers are made. Knowledge base is not an additional organizational structure. It is a repository of organizational knowledge, which consists, among others of a description of what the ancillary university leadership is, to what extent self-organization is possible to implement, how to use university autonomy and to create capacity to work flexibly within the existing law, how to achieve anticipative flexibility. Knowledge base also contains tips how to develop the university to become a learning organization, how to liberate the employees creativity of and how to organize the fuzzy structure of universities, as well as how to prepare employees’, mostly administrative ones to the volatility of their roles and responsibilities. As a result, the knowledge base also helps hierarchical and heterarchic structures, whose elements are the project teams layer and the organization of hypertext, to coexist. Knowledge base should become the base for two entirely different layers of the university organisation - bureaucratic and task one.
35 Ibid, p. 198.
11
This is not an easy task, since the creation of a knowledge base requires considerable knowledge about the university and at the same time openness to new, previously unknown organizational solutions.
(Fig.5)
B. Business layers, in this case, the structures of universities, which coordinates standard procedures - in Polish public universities this role could be played a team led by the Chancellor. The role of professional group of people, constituting the business system, is very important because it could relieve teachers of onerous bureaucratic procedures accompanying the projects. Personnel of business layer carry out the university basic competences and the irrelevant ones are outsourced. Professional and small university administration, supported by IT system and departmental administration (not-doubled university one) shall complete the basic skills for organizing and responding to routine activities, personnel and financial services, support student affairs and international cooperation and information – library system. Employees of the university administration and faculty cooperate with the project teams.
C. Project teams layers consist of the personnel from various organizational units of the university. In the modern university one can see both the traditional structure of departments/ institutes/chairs, as well as new features: centers of excellence, academic incubators, schools, colleges, etc. University vision linked project teams personnel but the teams operate relatively independent of each other, creating hypernet, involving all layers of an organization of universities. Project teams consist of employees from different departments and chairs, prepared for some substantial activity, and flexible.
Their task may be, for example, preparation of interdisciplinary program of study or
12
research project requiring the participation specialists in various fields. The effective functioning of interdisciplinary teams depends on the team leaders’ attitude to the fact that they will not have impact on them, because of permanent supervision. Moreover, members of the project team subordinate to the head of the project, only during the project.
Interaction between the teams is to create a network connecting the “islands of knowledge”. Project teams are a place of socialization of knowledge, that is sharing the knowledge by individual members of different origins. This is particularly important when analyzing the possibility of implementation of new solutions for education programs. Developing a program of interdisciplinary studies should be preceded by sharing tacit knowledge by team members to better understand their intentions. The same is true in the case of research teams.
Problem: To separate academic leadership and a supervisory Board of Trustees;
Suggested answer: Third generation university
Third generation university (in contrast to the medieval – first generation; humboldtian - second generation) is an interesting concept of36. The starting point of the concept was an assumption that the main goal of the university is to help students and staff to create start up, called technostarters37. Wissema argues his concept that economy needs new activities, especially those of innovative character and universities can help. Students and university staff undertake business more often and universities, especially the technical ones, are trying to create networks of cooperation with economy, for example technology parks38. Wissema
36Wissema, op.cit.; Wissema, J.G. 2009: Uniwersytet III generacji. Uczelnia XXI wieku. Święta Katarzyna:
Wydawnictwo ZANTE (in Polish).
37 Ibid.
38Wissema 2005, op.cit., p.7.
13
shows, basing on his research, that students and staff who are determined for self-employment are glad because:
they can take responsibility for their future,
independence satisfies them,
they have original ideas and want to be their own bosses
According to Wissema this trend will be growing, stipulating that a large crowd of undecided existed (latent entrepreneurs)39. According to the observations of the author of this book, situation in Polish universities confirms Wissema’s prediction. According to Wissema traditional universities are divided into two groups: those aspiring to become international technology transfer centers, competing with others in the world and those which aspire to become local players, educating the needs of local enterprises. The essence of the university of the third generation has the following characteristic40
Basic research is the fundamental and core activity of the university
Transdiciplinary and interdisciplinary research are dominates
The third generation university is a university network
Universities are both massive (undergraduate studies) and elite (postgraduate).
Universities are cosmopolitan, they compete in international markets. English is lingua franca.
Using the know-how is next to education and research the third goal in perceiving universities as the cradle of entrepreneurship
Universities may be independent of the state, there is no direct public funding.
39 Ibid., p.15-16
40 Wissema 2009, p.41-42.
14
The organizational axes of the third generation university are project teams, and coordination axes are faculties. This results in a reversal of the roles of traditional and new organizational structures. Rigid, bureaucratic structures hamper the creation of interdisciplinary teams and conducting interdisciplinary research. The result can be achieved in the model of the university which is shown by Morgan’s metaphor - organization as an alive organism, which is an open system41. The university, whose structure is presented in Figure 6, is characterized by a self-regulatory capacity, by providing the self-organization of its staff. The university’s autonomy is the freedom to acquire and use resources provided to obtain results valid from the viewpoint of the university environment. This creates the extravert-oriented university organizational culture.
(Fig.6)
University management consists of the President and five-person’ University Board.
Departments (university units) are responsible for the academic effects to the President and responsible functionally to the relevant members of the board. The board controls university strategy, finances, quality of education, research and commercialization42. The principle of minimum critical specification is in force in the university, which means that regulations 'from above' are limited to the most important issues.
According to Wissema it is necessary to depart from the belief that the best director of a university is the professor, as well as the best director of a hospital is a doctor. This is due to the fact that the organization of the university, like the hospital, is so complex that it requires knowledge and experience in management.
41 Morgan, G. 2005: Obrazy organizacji. Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 41-84.
42 Wissema, J.G. 2009: Uniwersytet III generacji. Uczelnia XXI wieku. Święta Katarzyna: Wydawnictwo ZANTE, p.124-125 (in Polish).
15
Wissema proposes an experienced manager as the university President (Fig. 7), supported by a team of experts. Leaders of academic units should be specialists, suggested Wissema.
Proposal by Wissema is so interesting that it meets the growing interest at Polish universities, as show recent books by Wissema translated into Polish and inviting the Author for meetings concerning the future of the universities.
(Fig. 7.)
Problem: To make European universities and HE systems much more international;
Suggested answer: N=1; R=G
There are many definitions of internationalization in higher education. For example according to Knigth it is “the process of integrating and international or intercultural dimension into the research, teaching and service functions of an institution of higher education.
Internationalization at the national, sector, institutional levels is defined as the process of integrating any international, intercultural or global dimension into the purpose, functions or delivery of post-secondary education43.
In the Middle Ages, Latin – linqua franca of European universities - favored students’ and staff’ mobility, but opportunities were scant. National languages as languages of instruction in the Renaissance and Enlightenment meant significant restrictions of internationalization in HE. At present when English is lingua franca, international mobility (of people and skills) is much easier. A return to universalism, as Morawski said, favoured: the limited resources and overflowing of information and knowledge, IT and growing demand for services offered by
43 After: Luijten-Lub, A. 2007: Choices in internationalisation: how higher education institutions respondto internationalisation, europeanisation, and globalization. Enschede: CHEPS/UT
16
HEIs44. OECD documents Morawski cited the following scenarios of HEIs evolution: 1/.
Open networking; 2/. Serving local communities; 3/. New public responsibility; 4/. Higher education Inc.45.
Polish HEIs are at the beginning of the road leading to internationalization. The is shown by the following information. The number of foreign students in Poland, represent only about 0.9% of the total number of students - a quarter of them are studying at medical universities and the number of visiting professors at Polish universities is just 210 (0.9% of all professors and ca. 0.2% of the total staff in HEIs)46. The proportions for the exchange of students within the ERASMUS program is also ‘shaken’, since the 3,5 more students go to foreign universities (in 1998-2009 - about 80 000) than are coming to Polish universities (about 23 000)47.
The most important factors favoring the development of internationalization of higher education are:
duty to pass some exams in English (it is not commonly obligatory )
allowing students to carry out the part of their studies abroad
joint degrees granted by Polish and foreign universities
development of international research programs
implementation of the criteria for the internationalization to internal and external quality assurance systems48.
The main obstacles are:
44 Morawski, R. Z. 2009: Uwarunkowania międzynarodowe i internacjonalizacja szkolnictwa wyższego, W:
Polskie szkolnictwo wyższe. Stan, uwarunkowania i perspektywy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, p.135.
45 Ibid., p.139.
46 Szkoły wyższe i ich finance w roku 2009. Główny Urząd Statystyczny. Warszawa 2010.
47 Erasmus w Polsce. Dane. http://www.erasmus.org.pl/index.php/ida/54/, 2.11.2010.
48 Morawski, op.cit., p.188.
17
• a small proportion of teachers able to teach in English
• lack of a national coordinating agency for foreign students
• poor educational offer for foreign students
• resistance to appropriate remuneration for the above courses at some universities
• inbreeding - the majority of teachers have no experience in international cooperation and work at the university, they graduated from49.
National qualification frameworks give a chance for internationalization development, because they gives more transparent indicators to study for Polish and foreign students. While discussing the issues of internationalization, we must not ignore the dilemma mentioned by Koźminski in the following opinion:
Higher education is one of the key vehicles that transports new ideas into the minds of people, be it universal, globalized and local, or culture specific. Higher education systems, however, are facing a fundamental dilemma regarding the content of education: how much local and how much global? Extreme solutions to this dilemma are dangerous. [...] globalized universities that are completely free of “local content” and mimic top-class international universities produce dangerous technocrats or cosmopolitan intellectuals unable to understand local environments, to act within their limitations, and to change them. One of the main responsibilities of higher education in transforming societies is to create a platform for an open debate between “global” and “local”. Such a debate should lead to an optimum fit between global requirements and local culture. The young generation must be given a great deal of freedom and a great deal of knowledge50.
49 Ibid., p.188-189.
50 Koźmiński, A.K.2009. in: 100 Voices A Decade of Inspiration and Achievements in Higher Education, www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001894/189471e.pdf, 2.11.2010.
18
According to the author of the paper, the proposal by Prahalad and Krishnan (N=1; R=G) could be interesting to implement in Polish HEIs to develop internationalization, as mentioned earlier. That approach causes enormous resistance in the academic community because it announces the second-order changes, which means violation of the foundations of the system.
5. Summary
The goal of the paper was to identify ways to implement Manifesto’s initiatives concerning changes in higher education. The author tried to show that universities should be transformed in socially responsible organizations, i.e. serving their environment and accepting the fact that it is necessary to carry out the second –ordered changes.
First of the Manifesto’s demands, i.e. diversification of the university missions can be realized at the university, which would resemble the structure of hypertext organization. That solution should support employees’ activities and taking action depending on the expectations of the stakeholders of universities: both global and local ones.
Another demand requires separation of academic functions and management ones at the university level, and could be implemented using Wissema’s concept of the third generation university. The main idea of the concept is the reversal of the role of basic units (faculties/institutes) and interdisciplinary teams. At the university of the third generation the board is to be formed and the currentelection (in Poland) rules are to be changed.
The third postulate is to develop internationalization in the field of education and research, which should contribute to motivation of the academic staff to elaborate programs in English, as well as inviting lecturers from abroad. These activities, apart from good will, require funding.
19
These notes could be summarized by the words of Burton Clark, Professor Emeritus of Higher Education from the University of California, which indicate the need and direction of change in higher education.
With many reasons to stay in the traditional box, with steady-state inertia wedding institutions to the status quo, a large number of globally dispersed universities, perhaps a majority, will not venture very far down the road of self-induced major change (…). The traditional box needs to be replaced by an organizational framework that encourages fluid action and change-oriented attitudes. Structures are inescapable, but they can be made into ones that liberate, that tutor groups and individuals on how to be smart about change. Key features of the new type of organization can be briefly summed up in two parts: transforming elements, newly clarified; and sustaining dynamics that construct a steady state of change51.
Footnotes
1. Hearn, J.C., Holdsworth, J.M. 2002: The societally responsive university: public ideals, organizational realities and the possibility of engagement, Tertiary Education and Management, vol. 8(2): 127.
2. Etzkovitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, Ch., Cantisano, Terra B.R. 2000: The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm, Research Policy, 29(2-3):
313-330.
3. Altbach, Ph. , Resberg, L., Rumbley, L. 2009: Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution, A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, Paris;
4. Neave, G., 2000: Diversity, differentiation and the market: the debate we never had but which we ought to have done. Higher Education Policy 13(1):19.
5. The need for diversifying European HEIs missions (300 of 3800 are research-active) has been noticed during the conference The Europe of Knowledge 2020: A vision for university-based research and innovation Liège, Belgium in April 2004, p.79. International, national, regional, research, educational, research and education and services for local communities have been singled out.
6. In the OECD Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society, op.cit. it was stressed that diversification means : looking for new sources of funding but also understanding growing social pressure to strengthen the competitive form of budgetary allocation and co-financing costs of education by students together with suiTable scholarship system.
7. Contraths, B., Trusso, A. 2007: Managing the university community: exploring good practice. Brussels:
European Universities Association Case Studies, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
8. Lisbon Declaration, Europe’s Universities beyond 2010. Diversity for common purpose. 2007. Brussels:
European University Association.
9. Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J. 1995: The right game: use game theory to shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, July-August; Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J. 1996: Co-opetition. New York:
Doubleday.
10. Leja, K. (ed.). 2008: Społeczna odpowiedzialność uczelni. Gdańsk: Wydział Zarządzania i Ekonomii Politechniki Gdańskiej i Instytut Społeczeństwa Wiedzy (in Polish).
51 Clark, B.R. 2009: in: 100 Voices A Decade of Inspiration and Achievements in Higher Education, www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001894/189471e.pdf, 2.11.2010.
20
11. Bergan, S., Guarga, R., Polak, E., Sobrinho, J.D., Tandon, R., Tilak, J.B.G. 2009: Public responsibility for Higher Education, UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education, Paris.
12. Altbach, Ph. , Resberg, L., Rumbley, L. 2009: Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution, A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, Paris, p.
IV.; El-Khawas, E. 2001: Today’s universities: responsive, resilient or rigid?. Higher Education Policy, 14(3): 241; Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society. OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education Synthesis Report. 3-4 April 2008, p. 3.
13. Ritzen, J. 2010: A Chance for European Universities, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, p. 27.
14. Manifesto Empower European Universities. Expert group on European Universities. Meeting June 15/16, 2010 Brussels:http://www.ony.unu.edu/news/empowering-european-universiti.html, 30.10.2010.
15. Ibid.
16. Jasiczak J., Kochalski C., Sapała M., Wyniki badań nad projektowaniem i wdrażaniem strategii rozwoju w publicznych szkołach wyższych w Polsce, materiały niepublikowane prezentowane podczas konferencji pt.
Zarządzanie strategiczne publiczną szkołą wyższą – teoria i praktyka, Poznań 28 maja 2010 (unpublished, in Polish).
17. Fulton, O., Santiago, P., Edquist, Ch., El-Khawas, E. and Hackl, E. 2007: OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education Poland. Paris: OECD.
18. Leja, K. 2010: Uniwersytet: tradycyjny, przedsiębiorczy, oparty na wiedzy – podejścia komplementarne czy sprzeczne – analiza wybranych uczelni, Sprawozdanie z realizacji projektu N115 0732 33 (in Polish, unpublished ).
19. de Boer, H., Enders, J., Schimank, U. 2006: Orchestering creative minds. The governance of higher education and research in four countries, in: Jansen, D. New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations – Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration. Dordrecht: Springer.
20. Clark, B.R. 1998: Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation.
Oxford: Pergamon , For IAU Press.
21. Żylicz, M. 2010: Nie bójmy się zmian. Forum Akademickie No. 10 (in Polish).
22. Morphogenesis is a form that penetrates so deeply into the genetic code that all future generations acquire and reflect those changes. In morphogenesis the change has occurred in the very essence, in the core, and nothing special needs to be done to keep the change changed [Levy 1993: 7 behind Smith 1984:318]
23. Morphostasis encompasses two types of changes. First there are those that enable things to look different while remaining basically as they have always been. The second kind of morphostatic change occurs as a natural expression of the developmental sequence the natural maturation process [Levy 1993:10 behind Smith 1984].
24. Szczepański, J. 2003. Granice reform szkolnictwa wyższego. Nauka i szkolnictwo wyższe No. 2, p. 6-7 (in Polish).
25. Leja, K. (ed.). 2008: Społeczna odpowiedzialność uczelni. Gdańsk: Wydział Zarządzania i Ekonomii Politechniki Gdańskiej i Instytut Społeczeństwa Wiedzy, p. 57-72 (in Polish).
26. Koźmiński, A.K. 2004. Zarządzanie w warunkach niepewności. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, p.58. (in Polish).
27. De Boer et al., op.cit.
28. Brandenburger, Nalebuff, 1995, op.cit.; Brandenburger, Nalebuff, 1996, op.cit.
29. Prahalad, C.K., Krishnan, M.S. 2010: Nowa Era Innowacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Profesjonalne PWN (in Polish).
30. Wissema, J. G. 2005: Technostarterzy, dlaczego i jak? Warszawa: Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości (in Polish).
31. Woźnicki, J. 2007: Uczelnie jako instytucje życia publicznego. Warszawa: Fundacja Rektorów Polskich (in Polish).
32. Grudzewski, W., Hejduk, I. 2004: Zarządzanie wiedzą w przedsiębiorstwie. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Difin, p.16. (in Polish).
33. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. 2000: Kreowanie wiedzy w organizacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Poltext, p.197 (in Polish).
34. Ibid., p. 202.
35. Ibid, p. 198.
36. Wissema, op.cit.; Wissema, J.G. 2009: Uniwersytet III generacji. Uczelnia XXI wieku. Święta Katarzyna:
Wydawnictwo ZANTE (in Polish).
37. Ibid.
38. Wissema 2005, op.cit., p.7.
39. Ibid., p.15-16
40. Wissema 2009, p.41-42.
41. Morgan, G. 2005: Obrazy organizacji. Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 41-84.
21
42. Wissema, J.G. 2009: Uniwersytet III generacji. Uczelnia XXI wieku. Święta Katarzyna: Wydawnictwo ZANTE, p.124-125 (in Polish).
43. After: Luijten-Lub, A. 2007: Choices in : how higher education institutions respond to , europeanisation, and globalization. Enschede: CHEPS/UT
44. Morawski, R. Z. 2009: Uwarunkowania międzynarodowe i internacjonalizacja szkolnictwa wyższego, W:
Polskie szkolnictwo wyższe. Stan, uwarunkowania i perspektywy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, p.135.
45. Ibid., p.139.
46. Szkoły wyższe i ich finance w roku 2009. Główny Urząd Statystyczny. Warszawa 2010.
47. Erasmus w Polsce. Dane. http://www.erasmus.org.pl/index.php/ida/54/, 2.11.2010.
48. Morawski, op.cit., p.188.
49. Ibid., p.188-189.
50. Koźmiński, A.K.2009. in: 100 Voices A Decade of Inspiration and Achievements in Higher Education, www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001894/189471e.pdf, 2.11.2010.
51. Clark, B.R. 2009: in: 100 Voices A Decade of Inspiration and Achievements in Higher Education, www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001894/189471e.pdf, 2.11.2010.
References
1. Altbach, Ph. , Resberg, L., Rumbley, L. 2009: Trends in Global Higher Education:
Tracking an Academic Revolution, A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education, Paris.
2. Bergan, S., Guarga, R., Polak, E., Sobrinho, J.D., Tandon, R., Tilak, J.B.G. 2009: Public responsibility for Higher Education, UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education, Paris.
3. Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J. 1995: The right game: use game theory to shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, July-August.
4. Brandenburger, A.M., Nalebuff, B.J. 1996: Co-opetition. New York. Currency Doubleday.
5. Clark, B.R. 1998: Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon , For IAU Press.
6. Clark, B.R. 2009: in: 100 Voices A Decade of Inspiration and Achievements in Higher Education, www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001894/189471e.pdf, 2.11.2010.
7. Contraths, B., Trusso, A. 2007: Managing the university community: exploring good practice, Brussels: European Universities Association Case Studies, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.
8. de Boer, H., Enders, J., Schimank, U. 2006: Orchestering creative minds. The governance of higher education and research in four countries, in: Jansen, D. New Forms of Governance in Research Organizations – Disciplinary Approaches, Interfaces and Integration. Dordrecht: Springer.
22
9. El-Khawas, E. 2001: Today’s universities: responsive, resilient or rigid?: Higher Education Policy, 14(3): 241-248.
10. Erasmus w Polsce. Dane. http://www.erasmus.org.pl/index.php/ida/54/ , 2.11.2010.
11. Etzkovitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, Ch., Cantisano, Terra B.R. 2000: The future of the university and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm, Research Policy, 29(2-3): 313-330.
12. Fulton, O., Santiago, P., Edquist, Ch., El-Khawas, E. and Hackl, E. 2007: OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education Poland. Paris: OECD.
13. Grudzewski, W., Hejduk, I. 2004: Zarządzanie wiedzą w przedsiębiorstwie. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Difin (in Polish).
14. Hearn, J.C., Holdsworth, J.M. 2002: The societally responsive university: public ideals, organizational realities and the possibility of engagement, Tertiary Education and Management, vol. 8(2): 127-144.
15. Jasiczak J., Kochalski C., Sapała M., Wyniki badań nad projektowaniem i wdrażaniem strategii rozwoju w publicznych szkołach wyższych w Polsce, materiały niepublikowane prezentowane podczas konferencji pt. Zarządzanie strategiczne publiczną szkołą wyższą – teoria i praktyka, Poznań 28 maja 2010 (unpublished, in Polish).
16. Koźmiński, A.K. 2004. Zarządzanie w warunkach niepewności. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, (in Polish).
17. Koźmiński, A.K.2009. in: 100 Voices A Decade of Inspiration and Achievements in Higher Education, www.unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001894/189471e.pdf, 2.11.2010
18. Leja, K. (red.). 2008: Społeczna odpowiedzialność uczelni. Gdańsk: Wydział Zarządzania i Ekonomii Politechniki Gdańskiej i Instytut Społeczeństwa Wiedzy (in Polish)
19. Leja, K. 2010: Uniwersytet: tradycyjny, przedsiębiorczy, oparty na wiedzy – podejścia komplementarne czy sprzeczne – analiza wybranych uczelni, Sprawozdanie z realizacji projektu N115 0732 33 (in Polish, unpublished )
20. Levy, A. 1986: Second-Order Planned Change: Definition and Conceptualization, Organizational Dynamics, 15(1): 5-23.
21. Lisbon Declaration, Europe’s Universities beyond 2010. Diversity for common purpose.
2007, Brussels: European University Association.
22. Luijten-Lub, A. 2007: Choices in internationalisation: how higher education institutions respondto internationalisation, europeanisation, and globalization. Enschede:
CHEPS/UT.
23. Manifesto Empower European Universities. Expert group on European Universities.
Meeting June 15/16, 2010 Brussels:http://www.ony.unu.edu/news/empowering- european-universiti.html, 30.10.2010.
24. Morawski, R. Z. 2009: Uwarunkowania międzynarodowe i internacjonalizacja szkolnictwa wyższego, W: Polskie szkolnictwo wyższe. Stan, uwarunkowania i perspektywy. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, s.133-212.
25. Morgan, G. 2005: Obrazy organizacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN 26. Neave, G., 2000: Diversity, differentiation and the market: the debate we never had but
which we ought to have done. Higher Education Policy 13(1):7-21.
27. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H. 2000: Kreowanie wiedzy w organizacji. Warszawa:
Wydawnictwo Poltext (in Polish).
28. Perechuda, K (red.). 2005: Zarządzanie wiedzą w przedsiębiorstwie. Warszawa:
Wydawcnitwo Naukowe PWN.
29. Prahalad, C.K., Krishnan, M.S. 2010: Nowa Era Innowacji. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Profejonalne PWN (in Polish).
23
30. Ritzen, J. 2010: A Chance for European Universities, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
31. Szczepański, J. 2003. Granice reform szkolnictwa wyższego. Nauka i szkolnictwo wyższe No. 2, s. 5-10 (in Polish).
32. Szkolnictwo wyższe. Dane podstawowe 1992, Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej.
Warszawa 1993 (in Polish).
33. Szkoły wyższe w roku 1996/1997, Główny Urząd Statystyczny. Warszawa 1997 (in Polish).
34. Szkoły wyższe i ich finanse w roku 2000. Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa 2001 (in Polish).
35. Szkoły wyższe i ich finanse w roku 2009, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa 2010 (in Polish).
36. Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society. OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education Synthesis Report. 3-4 April 2008.
37. Wawrzyniak, B. 1999: Odnawianie przedsiębiorstwa. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Poltext (in Polish).
38. Wissema, J. G. 2005: Technostarterzy, dlaczego i jak? Warszawa: Polska Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości (in Polish).
39. Wissema, J.G. 2009: Uniwersytet III generacji. Uczelnia XXI wieku. Święta Katarzyna:
Wydawnictwo ZANTE (in Polish).
40. Woźnicki, J. 2007: Uczelnie jako instytucje życia publicznego. Warszawa: Fundacja Rektorów Polskich (in Polish).
41. Żylicz, M. 2010: Nie bójmy się zmian. Forum Akademickie No. 10 (in Polish)
24
Fig. 1. Population and students per 1000 residents in Poland
Source: own, based on data from Central Statistical Office 0
10 20 30 40 50 60
1938 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2009
Population (m) Students/1000
25
1990–1991 2000–2001 2009–2010
HEIs 112
(b.d.)
310 (195)
461 (330)
Students (ISCED 5A) 404 000
(b.d.)
1 585 000 (472 000)
1 900 000 (633 000)
Alumnies (ISCED 5A) 56 000
(b.d.)
304 000 (80 000)
439 000 (158 000)
PhD students (ISCED 6) 2 700 25 600
(2 103)
36 000 (2 400)
Post-diploma students 32 800* 146 750
(25 624)
194 000 (66 000)
Academic staff 59 334*
(0).
70 865 (9 343)
100 000 (17 400)
Foreign students (.) 6 563
(897)
17 000 (4 425)
Educational rate ( w %) 12,9 40,7 53,752
Public funding for HEIs (% PKB) 0.82* 0,72** 0,88***
Non-public funding (% total costs) (.) 33%** 24%****
Tuition fee (% students) (.) 63% 56%
*1991; **2000; ***2009
Table 1. Higher education institutions in Poland – some statistical data (non-public HEIs - in brackets)
Source: own, based on: Szkolnictwo wyższe. Dane podstawowe 1992, Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej, Warszawa 1993; Szkoły wyższe w roku 1996/1997, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa 1997; Szkoły wyższe i ich finanse w roku 2000, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa 2001; Szkoły wyższe i ich finanse w roku 2009, Główny Urząd Statystyczny, Warszawa 2010 (in Polish)
52 An average factor in OECD countries is 57% – http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/55/41262145.pdf , [19.03.2009].
26
LIBERAL UNIVERSITY ENTREPRENEURIAL UNIVERSITY
state regulations – SR; academic self governance – AG;
stakeholder guidance – SG; managerial governance – MG; competition – C
Fig. 2. Equalizer – liberal and entrepreneurial university
Source: own, based on: Fried J., University interfaces, www.donau-uni.ac.at, 4.03.2006 AG
SG MG C SR AG
SG
MG
C SR
27
1990 2010
state regulations – SR; academic self governance – AG;
stakeholder guidance – SG; managerial governance – MG; competition – C
Fig. 3. University equalizer – Poland’1990 and Poland’2010
Source: own, based on: Fried J., University interfaces, www.donau-uni.ac.at, 4.03.2006 AG
SG
MG C SR
AG
SG MG
C SR
28 EXPECTATIONS
S T U D E N T S
REGULATORS
B U S I N E S S M
A R K E T
ADAPTATION ABILITIES
L A W
UNIVERSITY AUTHORITIES
&
STAFF
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT SOCIAL PRESSURE
SOCIETY GOVERMENT,
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
SOCIAL SECTOR
Fig 4. University at social service organization
Source: own, based on: Wawrzyniak 1999: 21
29
First-Order Change Second-Order Change
Change in one or a few dimensions, components, or aspects.
Multidimensional, multicomponent change and aspects.
Change in one or a few levels (individual and group level).
Multilevel change (individuals, groups, and the whole organization).
Change in one or two behavioral aspects (attitudes, values).
Changes in all the behavioral aspects (attitudes, norms, values, perceptions, beliefs, world, view and behaviors)
Quantitative change. Qualitative change.
Change in content. Change in context.
Continuity, improvements, and development in the same direction
Discontinuity, taking a new direction.
Incremental changes. Revolutionary jumps.
Reversible changes. Irreversible change.
Logical and rational change. Seemingly irrational change based on different logic.
Change that does not alter the world view, the paradigm.
Change that results in a new world view, new paradigm.
Change within the old state of being (thinking and acting).
Change that results in a new state of being (thinking and acting).
Tab. 2. The characteristics of first- and second-order change in organizations
Source: Levy, A. 1986: Second-Order Planned Change: Definition and Conceptualization, Organizational Dynamics, 15(1), p.11.
30
Goal To implement the idea of
To increase mission differentiation. Hypertext organization of the university (based on Nonaka & Takeuchi)
To separate academic leadership and a (supervisory) Board of Trustees.
University of the third generation.
(based on Wissema) To make European universities and HE
systems much more international.
N=1; R=G.
(based on Prahalad & Krishnan) Table 3. Goals and their implementation
Source: own
31
Fig. 5. Hypertext university
Source: own, based on: Perechuda, K. 2005. Zarządzanie wiedzą w przedsiębiorstwie. Polskie Wydawnictwo Naukowe 2005, p.58 (in Polish)
Legend:
B - university board;
RT - research teams’ network ET - educational teams’ network 1 - learning interaction
2 - staff mobility (between chairs and teams)
3 - organizational knowledge transfer and storage in repository
Team level (B)
RT ET
Knowledge database (C)
University level (A)
3
2 B 2 1
32
Fig. 6. Structure of the third generation university Source: Wissema, J. 2005, op.cit., p.52
Supervisory board
University Board
Suport staff for the board
University service staff x
Team A Team B Team C Team D y
Coordination axis
Organization axis
33
Fig. 7. Five-pointed star model of the university board Source: Wissema J., op.cit., s. 98.
PRESIDENT
Rector responsible for coordination and R&D
Member of the board responsible for education
Member of the board responsible for finances, administration and support
services
Member of the board responsible for
technology commercialization Universi
ty Board
