1 / 22

Governance models and practices in Italian Universities

Governance models and practices in Italian Universities. Certosa di Pontignano April 2, 2009 Angelo Riccaboni and Cristina Galgani Siena University. Outline. Aims and objectives Motivation and methodology Findings Discussion Final remarks. 2. 1. Aims and objectives.

coty
Download Presentation

Governance models and practices in Italian Universities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Governance models and practices in Italian Universities Certosa di Pontignano April 2, 2009 Angelo Riccaboni and Cristina Galgani Siena University

  2. Outline • Aims and objectives • Motivation and methodology • Findings • Discussion • Final remarks 2

  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 3

  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 4

  5. 2. Methodology Analysis of 27 Bylaws and recent reform proposals a. 2008-2009 Censis-La Repubblica ranking 5

  6. 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 7

  7. 3. Findings 27/27 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) 8

  8. 3.2 DIMENSION AND MEMBERSHIPThe Senate: Bylaws and RP  large dimension Students always included; usually the personnel • Only Tuscia, Camerino and Venezia  small Boards • All Reform Proposals  small Boards

  9. 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 3.3 EXTERNAL MEMBERS 10

  10. 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

  11. 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 12

  12. 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 13

  13. To summarise • 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

  14. From Engwall’s presentation State Market France USA Germany Scandinavia The Netherlands UK Italy Profession

  15. 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) 16

  16. 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

  17. 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? 18

  18. From Engwall’s presentationImplications State Market France USA Germany Scandinavia The Netherlands UK Italy Profession

  19. 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

  20. 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

  21. 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 22

More Related