University Autonomy for Ukraine
Olena P. Yershova
Kyiv National University for Technologies and Design
After Bologna process actively finalized in 2010 we are to identify the perspectives to work on to truly meet the new world standards. As a part of European Higher Education Area (EHEA) Ukraine is to keep up with the educational community standards on the one hand and should retain its national identity on the other.
Changing environment ( socio-economic and political transformations in global and European contexts) entailed changes in education and universities, namely in relationship between universities and society (Nybom ) and in the role of university from traditional (teaching and research) to the diversity of missions and tasks modern universities have, including collaboration in research and development with different organizations in society; the task of adapting to changing conditions in a time of general resource scarcity and competition (Nyborg , Felt).
Changes in university functions entail their constant search for effective ways out, for change, institutional reforms to ensure their basic mission. University autonomy proved to be one of the effective leverages in responding to the rapidly changing environment and the increasing demands to universities.
The issues I would like to bring up for discussion are: how to effectively apply and appropriately adapt international experience in the field of university autonomy in Ukrainian universities with regard to our national identity, legacy and situation to enhance Ukrainian higher education quality standards and facilitate democratization process to meet the world community best standards and demands.
Why should universities be autonomous?” The reasons are many, yet the most convincing seem to be those put by Weber :1)”In history, each time the sovereign restricted the autonomy of universities were period of intellectual and social stagnation or decadence; 2) society needs universities due to the long-term responsibility of universities towards society in developing new knowledge and transmitting it as well as in examining every societal question freely, with a high level of scholarship and the most appropriate scientific methods;3) autonomous universities can be proactive and entrepreneurial”
Autonomy is needed for each and every university to engage in the acquisition, transmission and preservation of knowledge the way it thinks best to serve science, its nation and the individual student (Skulason).Autonomous university can better adapt to the demands of society; it allows an institution to do things to the curriculum, the consequences of which are good for its competitive image. What should we know about university autonomy?
The first traces of more focused attention to the issue of University autonomy were put into words in THE DECLARATION ON ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND AUTONOMY OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION in 1988.According to the Declaration “autonomy” means “the independence of higher education from the State and all other forces of society to make decisions regarding its internal government, finance, administration and to establish its policies of education, research, extension work and other related activities”. The evoked interest would result in lively discussion and pool of ideas from professionals (Anderson ; Johnson 1998; Stetar, 1999; Post ,2003; Weber, 2006; Nybom, 2008; Skulason, 2008 ). The significance of the issue is proved by the number of world forums(in 1988 in Lima, in Sinaia, Romania, in May 1992 ,in Oslo in June 2003, in Ching Mai, Thailand, 2006),with the focus on the issue: “Universities will not become innovative and responsive to change unless they are given real autonomy…;” recommendation 1762 of the parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (30/06/20006) Art.4”… The assembly reaffirm the right to academic freedom and university autonomy…”
In 2005 – Glasgow Declaration (the European Universities Association ) highlighted the need for institutional autonomy and the European Rectors called on their respective ministers of research and education to take immediate and decisive measures in order to radically increase the legal, administrative and financial autonomy of European universities.
In 1998 Don Anderson and Richard Johnson conducting the research on university autonomy in twenty countries identified seven main topics when considering institutional autonomy and the government’s role vis a vis the institutions:
Staff - appointments, promotions and status of academic and senior general staff;
Students-admission, progress and discipline;
Curriculum and teaching – methods, examinations, content, text books;
Academic standards – degree standards, quality audits, accreditation;
Research and publication – postgraduate teaching, priorities, freedom to publish;
Governance – councils, academic boards, student associations; and
Administration and finance – funding of institutions; operating grants, capital and equipment grants, one-off tasks, non-government funding, accountability arrangements;
Further elaboration of the issue first resulted in broadening the range of theoretical questions in the realm of university autonomy .Later on when positioned onto different countries educational contexts, considering their legacy and national identities this heavy-loaded virtual concept narrows, bringing into the forefront some particular aspect/s, thus modifying the ideal model and offering some more real, adapting it to the country interests and demands. So the realities entail the diversity of university autonomy models tangible filtering the options available.
In this research we differentiate between the following groups of autonomy terms: 1) traditional (historically developed, like in England or USA) and modern (artificially tailored in the late XX- th century); 2) theoretical (virtual or ideal) vs practical or real; 3)full vs partial (considering the scope of autonomy implemented);4) administrative, financial and academic (meaning the aspect in focus)
In Ukraine the issue would become the subject matter of publications in national media (Zerkalo nedeli: November 2005, Zubritskaya ,March 2006, Georgiy Kasyanov; Vsevolod Rechitskiy /Fulbright Ukraine) and be on the agenda at the Ministry of Education and Science Meetings after a group of leading universities formed in 2003 a Consortium of Universities for Autonomy and initiated discussion on university autonomy. In February 2005 they proposed to the then President to run an autonomy experiment at 8 universities – Consortium members. On 02.02.08 the ex-minister of Education Mr. Vakarchuk arrived at the conclusion:” We need to move from state to public governance of higher education.” The issue was thus reflected in the “Amendments to the Law on Higher Education”, where the lines about autonomy were included.
In August 2010 at the Public Humanitarian Council Meeting the new President Janukovitch advocated the need for launching the university autonomy process in Ukraine focusing on administrative and financial autonomy as the means of facilitating higher education quality upgrading.
Today the media and live broadcasting discussions highlight two major opposing types of desired autonomy for Ukrainian universities: administrative and academic.
Juxtaposing the autonomy patterns in the world with the elements scarcely identified and observable in our country as well as positioning all the terms and facts onto Ukrainian context and reality, we would come up with modern , theoretical, partial, administrative and legally prenatal autonomy at the stage of pre-nuptial agreement negotiation.
What kind of university autonomy could be applicable to and feasible in Ukraine and what should we consider while anticipating the process of university autonomy here?
These broad issues entail more specific questions to ponder upon:
1) How to bring about changes in Ukrainian universities to make them capable of performing their mission and responding to society changes and whether university autonomy is the leverage sought?
2) Should we use the ready-made model (if yes, which one) or work out the blended one?
3) Should all the universities enjoy real autonomy or only some to spearhead the process and the rest should use the ready–made recipes for “curriculum-cooking”?
The prompts and clues are to be sought in Ukrainian legacy, since to successfully implement innovations in educational system in Ukraine as well as anticipate their perspectives, we should trace the historical connotations of the process in the past.
Out of many factors that have had impact on the development of education in Ukraine on the whole and idea of higher education in particular, I would point out some: “the statecraft factor”, “the borderline culture”, “national identity” and “mentality”.
The first “statecraft factor” implies the fact that Ukrainian nationality, its culture and education have lived for centuries without a national state and have come under the influence of various organized states, i. e. Byzantine, Polish, Russian. This fact impeded with the formation of the skill to independently govern the state and the education as well, thus retarding both effective independent state and education models even under legally obtained independence, though didn’t diminish national values and traditions. They were cherished and retained via adapting the best foreign models to the needs and interest of the state Ukraine was an integral part of at the time.
The second factor “borderline culture” means the following: “For many years Ukraine’s culture was oscillating between two opposing cultural spheres that emerged in Europe in the 11th century – the Western-Catholic-Roman and the Eastern-Orthodox-Byzantine. The tragedy of Ukrainians is that since the 15th century their territory has been a borderland between East and West, incapable of committing itself entirely to either side, and denied free choice coveted by both” (Pritsak, Reshetar). As a result for many centuries the concept of higher education was formed mainly under the influence of foreign cultures and educational (though the best) models. For the 20 years of independence in Ukraine the nominal reforms have been promulgated and launched, including Bologna process transformations. Yet the tangible changes just imitate the best models having no national flavor or accent.
Despite the fact that Ukrainian national identity is not well developed and is still in the process of fermentation, we can confirm that striving for national identity precipitated the establishment of the first HE institution in Ukraine in the 17th century. This striving was an impetus for the revival of national higher education in the 20th century. Today this factor serves as an extra incentive for choosing the very model of transforming our higher education adapting the most effective educational models to our needs and cherishing our national legacy, i.e. traditions and values .
Anticipating the changes effectiveness we should consider the factor of mentality, since it is the one that resists anything revolutionary being imposed on and favors only evolutionary irreversible changes. Thus the tendency to imitating the best foreign samples via their adaptation to national needs; respect to everything smart and intelligent; perceiving foreign and cherishing national values can be referred to sensitivity – the key mental feature of Ukrainians. It facilitates our skill of meeting each other half way when positioning our “self” onto some other ”self” (Janiv) and thus giving up some of your first “self “. At the same time we demonstrate the tendency of cognizing the world via personal emotions and experience. Another type of mentality patterns associated with Ukrainians is that of being introverts. Ukrainian introvertness is revealed in cherishing traditional values and treating foreign as something available yet not necessarily worth being imitated or followed.
Thus the whole history of higher education in Ukraine was marked by two major tendencies: striving for national identity and imitating world educational models. As a result we can say that historically Ukrainian HE was mainly imitating the best proved models and producing its national blended versions via adapting them to the national needs and demands. The chances are high that Ukrainian model for University autonomy will be blended using the best models via their modification according to the national needs. The question is what kind of blend?
After my research into the issue followed by the exposure (under the Fulbright Program) to American and Canadian experience in the realm of university autonomy in broad meaning and the concrete aspect of it in particular - in university curriculum development via taking courses supported by library research and professional expertise, I came up with my vision of the issues I would like to offer.