Dr Vuokko Kohtamäki, University of Tampere, Finland 19.9.2011
13
Dr Vuokko Kohtamäki, University of Tampere, Finland 19.9.2011 Different worlds of autonomy: reflections from the perspective of financial autonomy of higher education institutions
description
Different worlds of autonomy: reflections from the perspective of financial autonomy of higher education institutions. Dr Vuokko Kohtamäki, University of Tampere, Finland 19.9.2011. Autonomy & fundamental features of higher education institutions (HEIs). Autonomy: value and principle. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Dr Vuokko Kohtamäki, University of Tampere, Finland 19.9.2011
Dr Vuokko Kohtamäki, University of Tampere, Finland
19.9.2011
Different worlds of autonomy: reflections from the perspective of financial
autonomy of higher education institutions
Autonomy & fundamental featuresof higher education institutions (HEIs)
• Autonomy: value and principle
Autonomy & fundamental features of HEIs
•tensioned, complex organisations•conflicting goals•fragmented interaction with surrounding society•non-rational decision-making•tribes and territories with distinctive cultures •sluggish to change
Financial autonomy: narrow approach
Degree of financial autonomy:
freedom to• allocate funds• raise funds• set tuition fees• take loans• make investments• etc.
Financial autonomy: broader approach
How does financial autonomy manifest?
.
Regulated financial autonomy
Conditional financial autonomy
Entrepreneurial financial autonomy
Hybrid financial autonomy: Legal, formal & actual
Potential problems of (more) financial autonomy
HEI-external stakeholders• Increasing dependence of external stakeholders• Stronger environmental pressure• More reporting responsibilities• Misuse of financial autonomy
Inside HEI• Tensions between institutional level autonomy
and individual level autonomy
“Entrepreneurial autonomy has worked to make our universities among the best in the world. The entrepreneurship, competition and accountability delivered by autonomy is the right management structure for the future, too. (Executive Director State Universities of Michigan 2010)
“The emphasis on getting universities into partnership arrangement with other funders… does potentially open the doors to stresses between different cultures and objectives, and to unhealthily mixed motives.” (Oxford’s Vice-Chancellor 2000)
“Can leaders and managers enable their institutions to secure vital revenue, without diluting the values and conditions that have made universities unique and valuable to society?” (Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. 1997)
“Any attempt by government to influence university decisions...would be strenuously resisted by the universities on the basis that this could lead to breaches of academic freedom.” (McKinney v. University of Guelph 2010)
