Governance models and practices in Italian Universities
description
Transcript of Governance models and practices in Italian Universities
![Page 1: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Governance models and practices in Italian Universities
Certosa di Pontignano
April 2, 2009
Angelo Riccaboni and Cristina Galgani
Siena University
![Page 2: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Outline
1. Aims and objectives
2. Motivation and methodology
3. Findings
4. Discussion
5. Final remarks
![Page 3: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
1. Aims and objectives
• Wide debate on changes in the way university are governed
• Analysis of 27 Italian universities and recent reform proposals
• Focus on Rector, Board of Administrators and Senate, in terms of functions and structure
![Page 4: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
2. Motivation of the study
Criticisms of the way Italian universities are governed
• Higher expectations from stakeholders
• Need for greater efficiency
• Low degree of responsibility
• Need for more merit recognition
![Page 5: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
2. Methodology Analysis of 27 Bylaws and recent reform proposals
a. 2008-2009 Censis-La Repubblica ranking
LARGEST UNIVERSITIES YEAR
1 TORINO (2008)
2 PADOVA (2008)
3 BOLOGNA (2005)
4 PISA (2007)
5 FIRENZE (2008)
6 BARI (2008)
7 MILANO STATALE (2006)
8 PALERMO (2008)
9 ROMA LA SAPIENZA (2008)
10 CATANIA (2007)
SECOND LARGEST UNIVERSITIES
1 ARCAVACATA DI RENDE (2008)
2 PAVIA (2008)
3 GENOVA (2001)
4 PERUGIA (2008)
5 VERONA (2005)
![Page 6: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
AVERAGE-SIZED UNIVERSITIES YEAR
1 SIENA (2008)
2 ANCONA (2006)
3 BRESCIA (2002)
4 SASSARI (2008)
5 TRENTO (2008)
6 TRIESTE (2006)
7 MACERATA (2005)
8 VENEZIA (2001)
9 MODENA-REGGIO EMILIA (2004)
19 TUSCIA (2009)
SMALLER UNIVERSITIES
1 CAMERINO (2009)
POLITECNICO DI TORINO
1 POLITECNICO DI TORINO (2001)
![Page 7: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
b. Reform proposals (RP)
• “Linee guida del Governo”, 6-11-2008 Guidelines
• Document by Crui - Association of Italian Rectors -“Considerazioni e proposte per la revisione della governance delle università”, 19-2-2009, with 3 alternatives CRUI
• Law proposal, 2-2009, n. 1387/2009 LP 1387
• Document by the Ministry of Education MIUR, “Autonomia e responsabilità degli atenei: governance, valutazione, reclutamento”, 24-3-2009 MIUR
![Page 8: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
3. Findings27/27 universities changes on governance issues in 2001-2009
3.1 FUNCTIONS OF UNIVERSITY BODIES
•Trento (2008) and Camerino (2009): the Board -> both areas
• Reform proposals The Board: Central role in strategic planning (Guidelines, MIUR e CRUI 1)
The Senate -> needs of research and teaching (also Camerino 2009)
25
2Senate: Strategicplanning - BoardFinancial planning
Board: Both
![Page 9: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
3.2 DIMENSION AND MEMBERSHIPThe Senate: Bylaws and RP large dimension Students always included; usually the personnel
9
7
2
5
1
1
2
0 2 4 6 8 10
3 per category
2 per category
1 per category
per category
appointed by the Senate
garante (Camerino)
none
Board: representatives of 3 categories of professors
• Only Tuscia, Camerino and Venezia small Boards• All Reform Proposals small Boards
![Page 10: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
1010
• More numerous in Torino, 2008 (8/15) and Venezia, 2001 (6/9)• More than 1 external representing entities other than public
administration: Venezia, Torino, Tuscia (2/7) and Camerino (3/10) • RP: strong presence of externals: MIUR: over 50%, CRUI over 40%,
LP 1387 4/9
75
215
5
none
representing publicadministration
majority ofexternals notrepresenting publicadministrationat least 1
3.3 EXTERNAL MEMBERS
![Page 11: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
• Bylaws -> Board members elected. Exceptions: Venezia (2001) and Tuscia (2009) appointed by the Senate
• CRUI and LP 1387 Board members appointed
3.4 ELECTION OR APPOINTMENT OF BOARD MEMBERS
![Page 12: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
3.5 THE RECTOR
• Represents the university • 20/27 Bylaws, Guidelines, LP 1387 and CRUI
limit to the number of terms Camerino (2009) one-term election
• RP: role of the Rector in the implementation of strategies (MIUR and LP 1387)
• Bylaws election by Professors, Researchers (with some exceptions), students (with one exception), and personnel (with one exception)
• CRUI: hypothesis of a Chairman of the Board different from the Rector only Trento
![Page 13: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
3.6 NEW BODIES
• A body to promote relationships with the economic and social environment MIUR, Tuscia (2009), Padova (2008) and Camerino (2009)
3.7 ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES
•Guidelines, MIUR and LP 1387 integration among structures dealing with research and teaching -> Camerino (2009)
•MIUR and LP 1387 appointment of a General Director
![Page 14: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
To summarisea. Until 2008
Common features • Strong similarities in terms of formal functions and
structure
• Separation but Bicameralismo
Rector:• Often long terms -> Too much power • Unable to implement desired strategies -> Too little
power
But also clear differences
No unique model
![Page 15: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
From Engwall’s presentation
MarketState
Profession
ScandinaviaThe Netherlands
FranceGermany
UK
USA
Italy
![Page 16: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
b. Emerging trends from reform proposals and 2008-2009 changes in Bylaws
• Board central role in the strategic planning process Guidelines, MIUR, CRUI, Camerino, Trento
• Board: Fewer members, many externals RP, Camerino, Tuscia + Venezia (2001)
• The Senate less central inside the planning process
• It represents the needs of research and teaching RP, Camerino, Trento
• However, it appoints the Board (Guidelines, CRUI, MIUR)
• Integration among research and teaching structures RP, Camerino + Pisa Project (2009)
![Page 17: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
• More important and explicit role given to evaluation CRUI, MIUR, Padova, Firenze, Tuscia, Camerino
• The Rector power for strategy implementation MIUR and LP 1387
• More relevance given to external stakeholders -> ad hoc body MIUR, Camerino, Tuscia and Padova
• Major changes predicted in organisational features– Integration of Research and Teaching structures
RP, Camerino – Introduction of a new position: General Director
MIUR and LP 1387
![Page 18: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
4. Discussion• 2008-2009 Bylaws and Reform Proposals
• Stronger Rectors and Boards• Externals in the Board• Weaker Senate • Stronger administration• Integration of research and teaching structures
• A turning point?
• Is a new governance “model” for Italian universities emerging?
• “International model” based on Market solutions?
![Page 19: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
From Engwall’s presentationImplications
MarketState
Profession
ScandinaviaThe Netherlands
FranceGermany
UK
USA
Italy
![Page 20: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Pros
Interesting solutions
How to achieve more accountability without market biases?
Institutional innovation hard managerialism
• Professional participation by academics better qualified
• More accountability through changes in governance processes
![Page 21: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Concerns• A unique international model does not exist
• Traditional features of Italian universities
• Faith in externals
• Strong differences among universities– Need for autonomy– Tuscia and Camerino 2009
• Similar innovations • Differences
![Page 22: Governance models and practices in Italian Universities](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022062518/56814a57550346895db77be0/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
5. Final remarks
• Analysis of 27 Bylaws and Reform proposals
• 2008-2009: A turning point? A new “model” is emerging?
• Room for autonomy is needed
• The debate ought to be based on an analysis of practices