Building Capacity for Structural Reform in Higher Education of Western Balkan Countries

TEMPUS SM 511355 – 2010

ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLATED VIA STREW QUESTIONNAIRE

- Overall Regional Report -

Natasa Simic University of Belgrade

Sample structure

Total sample – 190 participants

• 12 universities• 7 HEAs

Importance of University Features

Features M SD Support (%)

Comprehensiveness 3.99 1.13 71.2

Autonomy 4.51 0.75 92.0

Being integrated 3.86 0.18 68.6

Highest quality of research and teaching 4.72 0.59 94.6

Right to award PhD degrees 4.61 0.78 92.0

Being non-profit 3.27 1.35 48.6

Responsiveness to social needs 4.39 0.78 86.2

Accessibility 4.26 0.96 82.4

Strong partnership with the 3rd sector 4.07 1.21 73.4

* M-mean; SD – standard deviation; Support – percentage of rates 4 and 5

Most valued general principles concerning HE

• Most valued principles are: • The development of HE should be informed by a strategic and long-

term vision, (M=4.79, SD=0.50)• Quality assurance and improvement, external evaluation and

accreditation are all areas of Regional importance to higher education institutions (M=4.64, SD=0.79)

• Public management and governance of higher education has to be fully professional (M=4.60, SD=0.89)

• Least valued principles are: • New models for financially autonomous, professionally governed

and managed non-state higher education institutions and bodies have to be introduced, e.g. foundation owned HEIs and bodies (M=3.59, SD=0.90)

• An adequate distance between higher education institutions and ministries have to be made through neutral expert intermediary bodies (M=3.92, SD=1.07)

Autonomy and legal status

• AUTONOMY should be on:• Both University and Faculty level - 62.9%• University level - 31.2% • Faculty level - 5.9%.

• LEGAL STATUS should be associated to:• University – 47.3% • Both University and Faculty – 46.8% • Faculty – 5.9%

Functions to be assigned to either

University or Faculty Functions

Percentages

University Faculty Both

1. Enrolling students 32.3 40.7 27.0

2. Employing staff 30.7 24.3 45.0

4. Issuing diplomas/degrees 54.7 6.4 38.9

5. Negotiating with government for funding 64.2 4.7 31.1

6. Having development fund 38.1 9.0 52.9

7. Having international relations office 46.7 6.6 46.7

8. Having quality assurance office 46.8 7.9 45.3

9. Having student support services 12.6 46.8 40.5

10. Having information system 34.7 8.4 56.8

11. Having students organizations 27.0 12.2 60.8

12. Creating proposals of the content of study programmes 5.4 69.4 25.2

13. Approving the content of study programmes 42.3 18.1 39.6

Administrative staff and information system

• Administrative staff: inefficient, uninformed, not motivated for professional development, low level of IT skills…

• University information system should be central (39.9%)

• Macedonia - satisfaction with administrative staff (M = 4.19) and information system (M = 4.79), vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina - administrative staff (M = 2.79) and Serbia - university information system (M = 2.44)

M SD

Importance that key members of university administrative staff have MA/PhD in relevant areas

4.25 0.92

Level of satisfaction with university administrative staff 3.13 1.18

Importance that university has an efficient and comprehensive information system

4.78 0.47

Level of satisfaction with university information system 2.95 1.33

Importance of features of an integrated university

Features M SD Support (%)

To have central information system 4.61 0.79 93.1

To have central services 4.28 0.87 85.7

University being only legal entity 3.42 1.58 53.5

Rector being appointed by advert and having full power 3.81 1.26 65.3

Deans being appointed by rector 3.12 1.61 42.7

AS being well qualified and competent 4.56 0.77 90.7

AS playing important role in decision making 3.55 1.09 55.3

Students unions - single university legal entity 4.23 0.83 80.0

Students services - part of central university services 4.21 0.83 81.1

Central management with the recourses 4.09 1.10 76.3

Financial and ownership autonomy 4.44 1.03 90.9

Rector has effective decision power 3.90 1.04 71.1

Centralized university decision making 3.34 1.30 44.1

Central development fund 4.29 0.94 72.2

Importance of features of an integrated university – comparison

Feature Countries with different results (Means)

University being only legal entity

Bosnia and Herzegovina

(M=2.97)

Macedonia (M=4.41)

Rector being appointed by advert and having full power

Albania (M=2.73)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

(M=3.52)

Macedonia (M=4.74)

Deans being appointed by rector

Albania (M=2.00)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

(M=2.56)

Macedonia (M=4.32)

Central management with the recourses

Bosnia and Herzegovina

(M=3.81)

Macedonia (M=4.60)

Universities in the country being integrated

• 3 (about to be integrated) – 34.6%, • 4 (fairly integrated) – 29.7%• 1 (loosely coupled) – 15.1%• 5 (fully integrated) – 11.4%• 2 (functionally integrated) – 8.6%• 0 (totally disintegrated) – 0.5%

• Statistically significant difference between countries – Macedonia (M=3.67), Montenegro (M=3.58), Albania (M=3.56), Bosnia and Herzegovina (M=3.03) and Serbia (M=2.22).

Importance of features of university autonomy

Features M SD Support (%)Right to restructure themselves internally as they see fit 4.46 0.77 89.7

Right to negotiate common positions, projects and programmes with sister institutions, nationally and internationally.

4.51 0.76 94.1

Right to employ their own staff 4.42 0.86 84.6

Right to vary salary scales and similar remuneration according to institutional needs

3.99 1.08 73.6

Right to retain earnings from their own assets or from donations

4.48 0.76 88.2

Right to have predictable long term funding framework with multi-year financial planning

4.47 0.81 86.6

Right to set up holding companies (alone or with external partners

3.56 1.22 54.0

Right to have diversified funding and particularly access to private funding

4.04 1.00 73.6

Right to have budgetary autonomy 4.41 0.94 84.9

…university autonomy

Features M SD Support (%)Right to have ownership autonomy 3.80 1.35 68.5

Right to have access to private funding 4.16 1.09 73.0

Right to withdraw from the state status if they want to 2.82 1.52 33.7

Right to define their own strategic and long-term vision 4.61 0.78 93.0

Right to respond effectively to increasing domestic and international competition

4.56 0.78 89.2

Right to decide about curricula 4.65 0.67 94.6

Right to decide about research subjects 4.62 0.73 94.1

Right to determine tuition fees 3.76 1.23 67.6

Right to have its own developmental fund 4.18 0.90 79.4

Right to have classified internal information 3.61 1.15 54.8

…university autonomy – comparison

Feature Countries with different results (Means)

Right to retain earnings from their own assets or from donations

Serbia (M=4.17) Macedonia (M=4.85)

Right to have predictable long term funding framework with multi-year financial planning

Albania (M=4.19)

Macedonia (M=4.89)

Right to set up holding companies (alone or with external partners)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

(M=3.13)

Macedonia (M=3.96)

Right to decide about curricula Bosnia and Herzegovina

(M=4.40)

Albania (M=4.84)

Right to decide about research subjects Macedonia (M=3.92)

Bosnia and Herzegovina

(M=4.35)

Intermediary bodies

• 51.1% of participants are not familiar with the concept of intermediary bodies

Intermediary bodies could M SD Support (%)

Provide detailed steering of HE system, broad policy framework

3.72 1.12 65.5

Facilitate strategic development of the HE sector 3.90 1.12 67.4Safeguard and promote university autonomy 3.67 1.26 56.7Provide for a separation of functions 3.86 1.17 65.5Safeguard and promote academic standards 4.05 1.20 79.3Limit bureaucratic control and micro management 3.87 1.30 70.1Limit direct political involvement in HEIs 4.10 1.27 87.2Prevent inappropriate use of power 4.16 1.03 79.8

Preferences

• Trust in state universities (M=4.32); not-for-profit, either state or private (M=2.71) and for-profit universities (M=2.33)

• Preference – state university (42.0%) and university of excellence (40.9%)

• Certificates that could provide more confidence concerning the quality of HEI – international accreditation certificate (79.9%) and appearance in any of influential global rankings of HEIs (62.9%).