Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

1

Building a Screening Card for University Governance

Background

The world average unemployment rate for people aged 18-25 is 11 percent, while the average for MENA is 25 percent. In some countries such as Egypt, Qatar, and Syria, youth make up more than 60 percent of the unemployed. And in countries like Tunisia, University graduates are the group with the highest unemployment rate. One of the key challenges for all countries in MENA is to improve the moderate and fluctuating economic growth with low employment creation capacity in order to accommodate the

growth in the labor force. The ability to create employment is a critical component to promote economic growth and key for poverty reduction and equitable and sustainable globalization. It is critical to reverse the low ability to generate employment observed in MENA given the large and growing young population.

To bridge the gap between education supply and labor market demands, more systematic attention to the outcomes of tertiary education and greater emphasis on accountability and incentive systems to improve service delivery are essential. Tertiary education enrollment is growing rapidly in the MENA Region. The average enrollment in MENA countries is above 30% of the population aged 18-24, which is high compared to other regions. Many countries have experienced rapid enrollment increases in the past ten years, and with the expansion of secondary education and increased number of secondary graduates throughout the region, this trend is likely to increase in the coming years. In addition to this rapid expansion, tertiary education systems are seeking to diversify the type of tertiary education available, ranging from University graduate and undergraduate programs, to technical and professional degrees granted by polytechnic institutes, Community Colleges, as well as Open University programs. There is also a wide interest in the region for developing e-learning and distance education tertiary programs, and for many of the countries in the region, the expansion of the provision of private tertiary education is stated as one of their goals for the near future. Universities are relevant institutions in promoting economic growth and promoting civil society participation. Not only for their capacity to create and disseminate knowledge, but also as organizations that attract talented people, inject new ideas, enrich cultural life and are regarded as encompassing the whole social fabric of which they are part. They are interesting development partners because they are resourceful actors and they link up with many realms of society and strands of activity. Modern universities are linked to the economic and political environment in which they operate. Globalization and mobility of students have brought important challenges to Universities all over the World. In the past two decades, University Reforms have been observed in most OECD countries, and this trend is now seen World Wide. In Europe, the Bologna process, the European Qualifications Framework and the declaration of the Lisbon goals, are defining important drivers of change in tertiary education. The effects of these European processes are seen outside of Europe, and the tools brought in to harmonize programs, provide quality control and emphasize outcomes, are being used widely not only for countries in the European Neighbourhood, or aspiring to be part of the European Higher Education Area. These are tools used in the US and Canada, Australia, and more recently in Latin America, East Asia and the Middle East and North Africa. One of the key elements that have been the recent focus of these trends in Tertiary Education reform World Wide is University Governance. A relatively new concept - the first typology was established by

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

2

Clark in 1983- it addresses how Universities, and Higher Education Systems, define their goals, implement them, manage their institutions and monitor their achievements. The most widely used typology of University Governance is defined based on the tension between three main forces: the state, the market forces and the academic oligarchy. The different University Governance models would vary depending on how the powers between these three forces would be balanced. Thus on one side of the spectrum we would find a centrally driven State Controlled University System, and on the other side a total Private, Profit oriented Corporate Institution, with different levels of power for the Academic

Oligarchy in between. Voice and Accountability are key elements for good governance, as access to information on government’s decisions and participation on policy development are important elements of democratic and open societies. Freedom of expression and availability of free media are very important in monitoring public policy making and implementation. Improving transparency and accountability are key obstacles to overcome in MENA in order to succeed in improving Governance for Development. Increasing awareness and participation of civil society does help to improve government’s accountability in particular on outcomes and quality of public services delivery. One of the priority areas under the Arab World Initiative is to strengthen the Governance and Anticorruption (GAC) initiatives, not only in the MENA region, but in Arab countries at large. The MENA Education Flagship Report (2007) had as a main conclusion that education systems in the region need to follow a new path of reform in which the focus needs to be placed on incentives and public accountability.

According to the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) produced by DEC and WBI, the MENA region scores lowest on Voice and Accountability, an aggregate indicator that measures perceptions of citizens’ ability to participate in selecting their government, possibility of freedom of expression, freedom of association, and access to free and independent media. Most of the countries in MENA rank below the 15th percentile for Voice and Accountability. The only exceptions are Lebanon, Morocco and Jordan, which scores rank below the 30th percentile which is pretty low compared for their GDP levels. (See graph below)

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

3

University reforms are clearly linked to either economic or political crises or both. Until the 1960s, European Universities were mostly ‘ivory towers’, catering for the elites, and governed by the Academic Oligarchy. Since then, and with the aim of democratization of higher education, Government intervention both in terms of funding and governing the System including the Universities has been widely the most common case. On the other hand, in the U.S. the predominant has been private higher education institutions, in many cases funded from philanthropic donors, and following Corporate practices such as being governed by Boards of Trustees, and benefitting from organizational and legal autonomy. With pressure to accommodate more students, more financial resources were needed. In 2000, a series of reforms, mainly in Anglo Saxon countries, looking into increasing accountability were introduced. A transfer of power from the researcher and the state into intermediate bodies -sometimes known as ‘buffer bodies”- mainly for funding allocation through competitive mechanisms were introduced. These changes came with increased institutional autonomy, and allowed governments to use different governing instruments, such as resource allocation, to promote their policies. The use of these competitive tools, aligned with the “New Public Management” reforms, helped Universities to transition into more entrepreneurial organizations, and thus enabling them to widen their capacity for generating revenues. The AWI/CMI Program on Universities as Key Institutional Partners to promote Good Governance The Arab World Initiative is one of the six strategic themes underpinning the World Bank’s Group work to support inclusive and sustainable globalization. It provides a platform for the Bank to respond to the MENA regional development agenda, leveraging demands from MENA countries with the Bank’s knowledge and investment resources.

The Marseille Center for Mediterranean Integration (CMI) is a multi-partner collaborative arrangement to facilitate access to best knowledge, practices, and support among public and independent institutions to improve cooperation, enhance sustainable development, and promote policies towards greater integration in the Mediterranean region. It offers a platform to promote knowledge sharing and dissemination, as well as joint learning to inform policy making.

One of the CMI Clusters is Skills, Employment and Labor Mobility (SELM). The main objective of the SELM cluster is to promote cooperation between European and MENA countries to stimulate job creation and economic growth to absorb the rapidly growing and more educated labor force in MENA countries. To effectively address such a complex issue, a multi-sectoral approach is needed, involving policies encompassing the education system, labor market institutions, as well as the social insurance system. From the Education Sector, one of the key programs is to Build a Regional Approach to Improve Quality and Governance in Tertiary Education. This program is Financed by the AWI and implemented at the CMI and seeks to Improve Higher education management and provision of Quality Assurance (QA) in Higher Education in the MENA countries, to enable them to participate in the mutual recognition of International Qualifications and Standards. To launch this Program a Seminar on UNIVERSITIES AS KEY INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS FOR DEVELOPING GOOD GOVERNANCE PRACTICES IN MENA took place in December 16-17, 2009. The Program of the Seminar was built around key topics concerning Governance of Tertiary Education:

Lessons learned on University Governance from a Global Perspective as well as from OECD countries,

University Autonomy and Central Governments, How to strike a balance?

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

4

University Governance and Quality Assurance: Where do they meet?

Governance and Quality Assurance: Sharing External Evaluation Results and how to enforce implementation of recommendations

University Autonomy and Financing: How to provide Equitable High Quality Higher Education?

Balancing University Autonomy and Accountability and the role of Central Governments vis-a-vis Private Universities,

The Program for the Seminar was built collectively with the participation of Partner Institutions such as OECD, ANQAHE, the International Comparative Higher Education Finance and Accessibility Project, NY State University, International Centre, Aarhus University in Denmark, CIEP in France, ANECA in Spain, The Business School in Algeria (ESAA), and Country Delegations from Iraq, Bahrain, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Yemen, Morocco and Tunisia.

Among the recommendations of the seminar the suggestion to continue the program and build a community of good practice was made. The thrust to build this community will come from the following recommendations for how to continue this work:

To Develop a set of Governance Indicators to be used to conduct a base line survey, a

mechanism to monitor their progress, and develop bench marking exercises

To develop Guidelines for Governance Internal and External Evaluation to be used by Quality Assurance and Accreditation Agencies

To Develop a Network of Practitioners, using ANQAHE as a basis, and adding other organizations and institutions, in order to disseminate good practices, promote learning and exchange of expertise.

To promote on-line sharing of information and knowledge, and use dissemination tools such as a newsletter, and other on-line and web-based tools

Objective The objective to Develop a University Governance Screening Card comes from the suggestion emerged from this Seminar, to develop Governance Indicators, conduct a baseline survey and develop tools to monitor and benchmark University Governance. The University Governance Screening Card is a tool that will be able not only to assess to what extent Universities in the MENA Region are following good Governance practices aligned with their Institutional Goals, but also will enable them to monitor their progress, as well as compare themselves with other institutions. The University Governance Screening Card is being developed taking into account other benchmarking tools, such as the Australian Universities Benchmarking tools, the European Autonomy Score Card, the UK Good Practice Code as well as the Governance Guidelines reviewed by OECD. The Governance Screening Card will incorporate lessons learned from the use of some of these tools, and will provide a mechanism for monitoring changes introduced in Governance practices and structures. It will also allow MENA Universities to compare themselves with Universities around the world. The University Governance Screening Card will be the first step into developing a more comprehensive tool to monitor University performance. Governance being one important dimension, this would then lead into assessing other dimensions such as quality assurance, student learning outcomes, quality of teaching and research, and employability of graduates.

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

5

How to measure University Governance University Governance is a multidimensional issue. To facilitate its analysis, based on the wide literature on the subject, and the Guidelines and Good Practice Codes that have been revised by OECD, the European University Association, the CUC in the UK, the Australian Universities, the West Coast Guidelines, we have proposed to use six dimensions: Overall Context, Mission and Goals; Governance Structures; Management; Autonomy; Accountability and Participation. Below we define each of these dimensions.

Overall Context, Mission and Goals A key element in defining University Governance is the overall framework of the System and the interaction between the Institution and the State. For Public Universities, where the main source of funding is coming from the State, it is common that the Legal framework for Universities is defined centrally by a National Law. In the Public System the law defines the legal status of Universities and it can go as far as determining institutional goals. The tendency is to give more autonomy to Universities to allow them to manage their resources and in some cases to define their goals. In many cases, the law defines their ability or inability to own the land and buildings where they operate as well as their abilities to accumulate surplus, to sue and be sued, and to conduct financial operations in the financial system. Defining the university or university system mission and goals, or more accurately the appropriate mission mix: for example is the mission to be focused on applied as opposed to basic research, or is the focus to have an international as opposed to local or regional emphasis, or the mission is to train scholars and academics as opposed to the training of productive workers/employees or the education of the young adult for citizenship and his or her place in society. The establishment and the occasional alteration of mission is a classic governance function that is most often shared between the academic staff, sometimes only the regular faculty, or even only the regular senior faculty, but sometimes shared as well with professional staff and even students and the government. In turn, the government with which this governance function is shared may be a ministry of higher education, a parliament or legislative body, a powerful head of state, or one or more of the above-mentioned buffer bodies, such as an institutional or system governing board, a national council, or an accrediting agency. The delicate balance of authority usually involves a negotiation among the academic staff of the university or of the academic council or senate, depending on the system, the university management in the person of a rector, president, vice chancellor, or dean; the ministry of higher education; the ministry of finance (if there are resource implications); and one or more of the quasi-public governing entities such as a university governing board, a system governing board, or one or more off the several quasi-public agencies charged with assuring that the institutional resources are adequate to the proposed mission expansion or alteration, and that a larger public purpose will be served (which sometimes calls for an assessment of the effects on other competing public universities or university colleges).

University governance also entails the establishment (and occasional modification) of the institutional and programmatic management structures to carry out these several missions:

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

6

that is, the assemblage of schools, faculties, department, institutes and the like, as well as the lines of authority and accountability to be employed throughout these structures to achieve the institutional and or system goals. Part of governance is securing, insofar as possible, the resources required to carry out these goals as well as monitoring and holding accountable the performance of institutional managers at the highest level. Finally, university governance is responsible for appointing, assisting, defending, and if necessary removing, those at the highest levels to whom is entrusted the management of the institution or system of higher education.

The governance of public universities and systems of higher education differs by country and by the traditions of its universities, as well as by the prevailing politics and currently ascendant ideologies, particularly the degree to which these follow an Anglo American liberal tradition, with its orientation to markets and privatization, or, as in most of the Mediterranean regional countries, a more Francophone centrally governed, with its orientation to strong central governments and public universities as agencies of the state. Accordingly, university governance differs by the legal form of the university as an organization: that is, whether it is akin to all other governmental agencies, or is a special form of governmental agency accorded measures of autonomy not accorded other agencies, or is a public corporation. University governance also differs within countries by whether the institution is a research university in the classical Western, or Humboldtian, mode, oriented mainly to research and the training of scholars and generally featuring very strong faculty authority and considerable institutional autonomy, or is in reality more of a training institution (even if it be called a “university”) with generally stronger controls from both government and management.

Governance Structure If the focus is upon governance of the university as an institution (as opposed to the university as a system of more-or-less separate and distinct institutions, or to the total set of public institutions in a country), the determination of mission, or the appropriate mix of missions, will largely determine: (a) the nature of academic talent that is appointed and rewarded; (b) the array of academic degree programs and the kinds of students admitted to them; (c) the internal substructures of governance and management (e.g. the various departments and institutes within the university); (d) the allocation of resources among these programs and subunits; (e) the way in which the university is to be managed (e.g. how a president, rector, or vice chancellor is to be appointed); and finally (f) the actual selection of a governance structure. This refers to the Head of the University and the available Governing Bodies, their composition, the process for selection or appointment of its members, the role and responsibilities of the Governing bodies, their reporting lines, accountability measures and the time of their assignment. Heads of Universities are known as President, CEO, Chancellor or Rector, depending on the system and their role vis a vis the Governing Bodies varies wildly. For example in Systems were there are strong and diverse governing boards, the Head reports to the Governing Board. In the dual system, where there is an External Governing Board, and an internal Council, Senate or Academic Board, the Head is accountable to the External Board, and is usually the Chair of the Council/Senate. The role of the Head/CEO is sometimes purely

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

7

representative, depending on the powers given to the Board. In most cases he/she is responsible for the day to day management and for the implementation of the goals. Therefore in this dimension the key indicators are related to the Governing bodies, the process for defining them, their composition, the process followed for appointing their members, the clarity on their mandate, the alignment of mandate with mission, goals and legal framework, the accountability measures for governing bodies, and mechanisms for measuring governing bodies performance.

Management

Management, refers to the day-by-day (but nonetheless critical) decisions of operating the institution: the admission, registration, and certification for degrees of students; the appointment, remuneration, and promotion of the academic and other staff; the construction and maintenance of the facilities; the scheduling of classes and the assignment of staff to these classes and laboratory spaces; the securing of resources to carry out the complex (and expensive) mission of the institution; and the all-important allocation of resources among the very many different claimants on what is inevitably an insufficiency of total resources. Management is sometimes underestimated and contrasted with leadership, which is generally portrayed as more visionary and more likely to alter the fundamental trajectory of the institution than mere management. In truth, however, the distinction is a fine one and its significance often over-estimated. Vision and the capacity to fundamentally change a university (or any institution or organization) requires the ability to institutionalize change and to effectively create new resources by the efficient use of the resources at hand as well as the difficult managerial decisions of resource reallocation. Effective governance and effective management, then, are inextricably bound together. Management without vision cannot adapt; leadership without effective management remains, well, visionary (Johnstone 2010).

Under the Management dimension, indicators are the type of Leading or Head Position to Manage the University, is it a President, Rector or CEO, and the Process for appointing him/her; the roles and responsibilities that are assigned including the legal functions, what lines of accountability there are, and what are the mechanisms for evaluating his/her performance. Likewise, under this dimension the Management Structures, Departments or Units and their Roles, responsibilities, accountability lines, mechanisms for evaluating their performance are also indicators. To be able to get a good picture of what is the Management Structure of the University, the most critical Departments/Functions are taken into account such as Human Resources, Budget and Accounting, Academic, Procurement, and Legal . For Universities that do have a research department and or Science and Technology transfer departments, this can be an optional area to look at.

Autonomy

In 2006, the European Commission marked as a priority the creation of new frameworks for universities, characterized by improved autonomy and accountability. Based on this mandate, the European University Association (EUA) has further developed the concept of University Autonomy and has defined four dimensions of autonomy: academic, financial, organisational and staffing. We are using the

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

8

financial, academic and staffing autonomy EUA definitions. We have not taken the organisational autonomy, as this overlaps with our Governance Structure and Management dimensions.

Financial autonomy is thus defined by indicators such as the ability of universities to set tuition fees, to accumulate reserves and keep surplus on state funding, to borrow money, and to invest money in assets whether financial or physical, or their ability to own and sell the land and buildings they occupy and to deliver contractual services. Academic autonomy takes into account the responsibility for the design of the curricula, the extent to which the universities are autonomous to introduce or cancel degree programs, in determining the academic structures, whether they are able to decide on overall number of students, and admission criteria as well as admission per disciplines, evaluation of programs, evaluation of learning outcomes, and using teaching methodologies. Staffing autonomy relates to the recruitment procedures related to the appointment of senior academic staff, the status of employees (whether considered civil servants or not) and the procedure for determining salary levels, none salaries incentives and workloads, HR policies, career development policies, performance management, etc.

Accountability

As governments and ministries around the world are relaxing their controls over public universities, particularly in the realm we have identified as university management, the price to pay is frequently more demand for accountability. And the demands for accountability are increasingly in the form of measurable demonstrations of achievement and progress on the university’s goals. If a goal is advancing scholarship in basic science, then a measurable goal might be the number of articles accepted in internationally recognized, peer reviewed journals in the university’s own self-proclaimed fields of scholarly emphasis. If a goal is applied scholarship, then measures of output or achievement might be the number and amount of consulting contracts awarded through the university, or the awarding of grants in, .e.g. techniques of dry lands agriculture, or the numbers of patents applied for and/or awarded.

Accountability in the university’s professed teaching mission is even more difficult and subject to the vagaries of sub optimization and unintended consequences. For example, if the state over emphasizes the number of students admitted as a measure of success, then the universities may respond by admitting more, but with little concern for their programs of study or their progress or completion. The unintended consequences, then, may be too many students admitted into low cost programs for which there is little public need, along with a high number of drop outs. If the metric for success is degree completion, then the universities may admit only the most academically well prepared and ambitious, whose completions are statistically most likely, and admit few of the more high risk students, whose secondary school preparations may be weak because of poor schools, socio-economic background, or poor language instruction. And if the metric is gainful employment, success may be distorted by the state of the economy and the vicissitudes of the job market.

On the other hand, to not require some metrics of success, whether in teaching or research, may be to reward, however inadvertently, whatever is most comfortable for both the faculty and the university management without taking into account outcomes. As governments provide more management flexibility and autonomy, universities need to be held accountable to some measures of success in what they claim their missions to be. And these metrics should be used not simply at a point in time, but over time, in order to reward improvement.

Therefore, under this dimension, the indicators proposed are related to the following:

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

9

Clarity in definition of accountability lines at all levels: academic staff, managerial staff, administrative staff, governing bodies; Process for evaluating completion of institutional goals; Dissemination of Information: Institutional goals, student achievements, insertion in the labor market of graduates, institutional evaluations (internal and external), accreditation; Methods use for evaluating performance of students, teaching staff, administrative staff, managerial staff; Financial Auditing: process for auditing university accounts; and Process for Risk Management and Dealing with Misconduct.

Participation In this dimension we propose to analyse to what extent the different stakeholders are taken into account in the decision making process. There is a wide range of Stakeholders that have interest in University matters, depending on the type of institution as well as on the overall framework of the system. Most common stakeholders included in decision making are students, academic staff, government, industry representatives, donors, community associations, unions and alumni.

Methodology for Building the University Governance Screening Card For each of the six dimensions, we identified a set of indicators. The total list of indicators is found in Annex 1. Thus for Overall Context, Mission and Goals, we identified as indicators, the availability of clear mission and goals, the process for their definition and the actors involved in this process, and the alignment between mission, goals and legal framework. For Governance Structures we identified the role and composition of Governing Boards, the process for appointing its members, their reporting authorities, and so on. For Academic Autonomy we included the process for defining academic structures, student admission policies, assessment of teaching quality, of learning outcomes, quality assurance mechanisms, and employability of graduates. In total we identified 60 indicators, roughly 10 per dimension. Each of the six dimensions gets a scoring based on the set of questions that were developed to measure the indicators. Building the instruments We are developing a questionnaire to be administered to a range of stakeholders from participating institutions. We are doing this in phases and in collaboration and participation of our partners. During a workshop that will take place in June 14 and 15 in Marseille, we will discuss with our partners and beneficiaries, the proposed methodology. This will include a discussion on the six dimensions and the proposed set of indicators for each of them. For the draft questionnaire available we will do a pilot test with a sample of Universities in four countries. Once the instruments are finalized we will conduct a baseline survey by applying the questionnaire to a wider number of institutions in the MENA region, and among those members of the ANQAHE. Participation on this baseline survey will be on a voluntary basis, using as a point of reference the Universities that participated in the December Workshop and those that will participate in June. We are developing a methodology for data collection and any efforts to discuss and or disseminate findings with ANQAHE and the Arab Association of Universities. Weighing the scores We are in the process of defining the scoring of questionnaires in order to build the methodology to arrive at an indication of where institutions stand per each dimension. This will be done taking into account the proposed indicators and the number of questions per indicator in the questionnaire. For some of the dimensions we will have quantitative measures, and for others we will have qualitative

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

10

measures. We are in the process of evaluating the best way to weight the different scores, to arrive at one Card that presents the results per institution, and that will allow as well to present aggregate scores. Presentation of the results To present the results and arrive at a Screening Card, we propose to use a Spider Chart. Although we will use both quantitative and qualitative data, we are proposing to use a color code mechanism to present the results. This will allow showing the “score” in each of the dimensions of Governance, and will facilitate to identify different typologies, as well as the strengths and weaknesses per institution. Using color coding as opposed to a quantitative scale we would avoid having negative reactions to the assessment, as well as entering into defining a “Best Governance” score. Once there is a critical mass of institutions participating in the survey, screening cards per country can be produced. To illustrate what a University Screening Card will look like, below is an example.

3 7

3

47

5

Context, Mission and Goals

Governance Structure

Management

Autonomy

Accountability

Participation

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

11

Annex 1

Proposed Dimensions and Indicators

Context, Mission and Goals

Mission and Goals: Clarity and focus in their definition, process for defining them, roles and responsibilities of those in charge of defining them, alignment between Mission and Institutional Goals Legal Framework: Clarity in the legal definition, alignment between legal definition and mission and goals, transparency and inclusiveness in the definition of the legal framework

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE Governing bodies: process for defining them, composition, process for appointing their members, clarity on their mandate, alignment of mandate with mission, goals and legal framework, accountability of governing bodies, mechanisms for measuring governing bodies performance

MANAGEMENT Head of University: Process for appointing him/her, roles and responsibilities, legal functions, lines of accountability, mechanisms for evaluating performance Management Structures, Units: Roles, responsibilities, accountability lines, mechanisms for evaluating performance (HR, BUDGET, PROCUREMENT, LEGAL Duties)

AUTONOMY Academic: Autonomy in determining academic structures, in student admission policies, in quality assurance mechanisms, introduction of new programs, admissions per programs, evaluating learning outcomes, and evaluating teaching methodologies Financial: Autonomy to generate revenue, to deliver contractual services, to own buildings and assets, to obtain debt, Staffing: HR Policy, roles and responsibilities of those in charge, ability to recruit staff, (academic and administrative), career development policies, performance management, mechanisms to assess performance,

ACCOUNTABILITY Clarity in definition of accountability lines: academic staff, managerial staff, administrative staff, governing bodies Process for evaluating completion of institutional goals Dissemination of Information: Institutional goals, student achievements, insertion in the labor market of graduates, institutional evaluations (internal and external), accreditation, Methods use for evaluating performance of students, teaching staff, administrative staff, managerial staff Financial Auditing: process for auditing university accounts Risk Prevention Mechanisms to deal with misconduct

Participation Mechanisms for stakeholders participation in decision making process: students, academic staff, industry leaders, research community, donors, others

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

12

Bibliography AGB (Association of Governing Boards). 2007. “AGB Statement on Board Accountability”. Washington, DC: Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

Alden, J. and G. Lin (2004). “Benchmarking the Characteristics of a World-Class University: Developing an International Strategy at University Level”. London: The UK Higher Education Leadership Foundation.

CHE (Council for Higher Education). 2004. “Guiding principles, incorporation of Universities”. Jerusalem.

CHEPS (Center for Higher Education Policy studies). 2007. “The extent and impact of Higher Education Governance Reform across Europe”. Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente.

Clark, B. R. 1983. “The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective”. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Clark, B. R. 1998. “Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation”. Issues in Higher Education Series XVI. Oxford: IAU Press.

CUC (Committee of University Chairs). 2006. “Governance Questionnaire”. Bristol: CUC Publication.

CUC (Committee of University Chairs). 2009. “Guide for Members of Higher Education Governing Bodies in the UK”. Bristol: CUC Publication.

DEST (Department of Education, Science and Training). 2000. “Benchmarking: A Manual for Australian Universities”. Canberra.

DEST (Department of Education, Science and Training). 2008. “Commonwealth Grant Scheme Guidelines N: 1”. Canberra: 13-21.

ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education). 2007. “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area”. Helsinki.

EUA (European University Association). 2009. “University Autonomy in Europe I: Exploratory Study”. Brussels: EUA Publication.

Eurydice, the Information Network on Education in Europe. 2008. “Higher Education Governance in Europe: Policies, structures, funding and academic staff. Brussels: Eurydice European Unit, European Commission.

Fielden, J. 2008. “Global Trends in University Governance”. Education Working Paper Series, N° 9. Washington, DC: World Bank.

HEA (Higher Education Authority) & IUA (Irish Universities Association). 2007. “Governance of Irish Universities: A Governance Code of Legislation, Principles, Best Practice and Guidelines”. Higher Education Authority and Irish Universities Association. Dublin.

IGOPP (Institute for Governance of Private and Public organizations). 2007. “Report of the Working Group on University Governance”. Montreal.

Building a University Governance Score Card- AWI/MCI Program

13

IUQB (Irish Universities Quality Board). 2007. “A Framework for Quality in Irish Higher Universities: Concerted Action for Institutional Improvement”. Dublin.

Johansen, L. N. et al. 2003. “Recommendations for Good University Governance in Denmark”. Committee University Boards in Denmark. Copenhagen.

Johnstone, D. B. 2010. “Autonomy and Accountability: The Search for Balance in University Governance and Management”. State University of New York at Buffalo [unpublished].

NWCCU (North West Commission on Colleges and Universities). 2003. “Accreditation Handbook”. Redmond.

OECD. 2005. “Guidelines for Quality Provision in cross-border Education”. OECD/UNESCO. Paris.

Saint, W. 2009. “Guiding Universities: Governance and Management Arrangements around the Globe”. Human Development Network. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Salmi, J. 2007. “Autonomy from the State vs. Responsiveness to Markets”. Higher Education Policy, Vol. 20, No. 3, Palgrave MacMillan: 223-242.

Salmi, J. 2008. “The Challenge of Establishing World-Class Universities”. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

Salmi, J. 2009. “The Growing Accountability Agenda in Tertiary education: Progress or Mixed Blessing”? Education Working Papers Series N° 16. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Schofield, A. et al. 2008. “A Guide for New Clerks and Secretaries of Governing Bodies of Higher Education Institutions in the UK”. Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. London.

Singh, M. 2007. “The Governance of Accreditation”. Higher Education in the Word 2007 – Accreditation for Quality Assurance. GUNI Series on the Social Commitment of Universities 2. Global University Network for Innovation: 96-108.

Tavenas, F. 2003. “Quality Assurance: A Reference System for Indicators and Evaluation Procedures”. Brussels: EUA Publication.