Governance models and practices in Italian Universities

Certosa di Pontignano

April 2, 2009

Angelo Riccaboni and Cristina Galgani

Siena University

2

Outline

1. Aims and objectives

2. Motivation and methodology

3. Findings

4. Discussion

5. Final remarks

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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

• 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

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

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

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

15

From Engwall’s presentation

MarketState

Profession

ScandinaviaThe Netherlands

FranceGermany

UK

USA

Italy

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)

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

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?

19

From Engwall’s presentationImplications

MarketState

Profession

ScandinaviaThe Netherlands

FranceGermany

UK

USA

Italy

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

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

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