Dromedario en paro

Parece que Etxabarri se está convirtiendo en territorio de secano...¿será el cambio climático? el caso en que en vez de burros, ahora hay dromedarios. Y elefantes en vez de gatos. Y cerdos en vez de patos (lo digo por las bolsas que había en el suelo que he tenido que camuflar haciendo réplicas de la pajilla de alrededor).

Le Cirque de la Vie...en HDR.

y por esto...chocolates, presidentes, capitalismo, amigos y montes...bienvenidos a St. Gallen

The University of the future: Everybody’s Business

The world we live in is a world of constant change. There is no doubt about that. However, in recent years, these changes have accelerated in part as a result of globalization and the advancement of science and new technology, leading to new crises and debates in various fields of socio-economic world order. In this scenario of globalization and increasing competence, where international cooperation and openness are claimed to be necessary, however, national specificities and physical, political and cultural differences are of great significance.

In fact, the theory of endogenous development states that the productivity of cities, regions and nations is determined by the synergy among a series of mechanisms (diffusion of innovation, flexible organization of production, agglomeration economies and institutional thickness) that are basically rooted in the regional/national level and that should be encouraged “from downwards-upwards” by the local agents (Vázquez-Barquero, A. 2005). Thus, globalization is a back-and-forth process. It both affects the economic dynamics of the territories and is affected by the decisions of local economic agents and by the attracting mechanisms of the territories.

In this context of increasing competence and new threats it is necessary that the nations and regions, but also the individual agents rethink their missions and objectives, and assess their strengths and capacities in order to take advantage of arising opportunities. In other words, it is essential enhance the creation and thickening of those mechanisms that permit to overcome the decreasing capital yields and to increase productivity.

The institutional framework is a key factor that affects the efficiency of a society. It is essential that appropriate institutions capable of fostering the creation and dissemination of new knowledge exist, providing the services and the certain environment that the society requires.
The world we live in is a world of constant change and the institutions that provide the “rules of the game” need to follow the swing and adequate to the new winds, and Higher Education Institutions (HEI) are no exception. In fact, HEI can either promote a conservative culture and act as a brake on innovation or, on the contrary, can encourage creativity, collaboration among different players in the national system of innovation, knowledge transfer etc, acting as drivers of technological progress (Mokyr, J. 2002).

Because they play a key role in the creation and diffusion of knowledge, it is important that universities redefine their missions and their role in society, but doing so it is important not to forget that they are rooted in a specific society and a complex environment and that there is a need to combine the strengths of each institution with the opportunities provided by the globalization process. In other words,

"Universities present an inherently unique cultural paradox which requires the ongoing reconciliation of the "accumulated heritage" on one hand an that of the "modern imperatives "on the other" (Kerr, C. 1987).

The University of the 20th century

The shifts universities are experiencing are many and, as a result, competition among institutions has increased. In fact, there are many factors, such as the trend towards interdisciplinary work, the drop of public funding of universities, the emergence of new institutions, the rapid advances in science and technology and the rapid obsolescence of knowledge, that have made traditional university lose its classical mission an its monopolistic position. This has been reflected on the search for new students and researchers, but also on the search for private funding and connections with the industry and competitive public funding (Schoen, A. et al. 2007). Moreover, HEI are becoming aware that these resources increasingly have no single geographical locus, and are beginning to adapt to this new reality (Bartell, M. 2003). Besides, competition in higher education is ruled by a university hierarchy based mainly in international prestige (Marginson, S. 2006: 25).

In addition, the new understanding of knowledge production and knowledge diffusion and the greater importance of networks, dynamic interactions and other concepts such as absorptive capacity, have influenced the role that universities play in society. The missions they fulfill have changed and the importance of connections between universities and their environment has increased both in an economic and a social sense (Laredo, P. 2007). This kind of relations, that connect the academic world with the non-academic outside (industry, public authorities and society), conform the so-called third mission of university, which complements the other two traditional missions: education and research. Universities are today multimission and multipurpose institutions (Bonaccorsi and Daraio, 2007).

These shifts have lead to many debates related to issues such as the third mission, the process of internationalization universities are experiencing, the changes in the government and autonomy of Universities, the need to introduce new models of assessment for greater comparability, transparency and social responsibility (Cañibano, L. and Sánchez, M.P. 2008). By the same token, the widely acceptance of the importance of University-Industry collaboration in generating new technologies and innovative capability has lead to the emergence of new theories, such as the Triple Helix Model (Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. 2001) or "Mode 2" Production of Knowledge (Gibbons, M. et al. 1994).

However, the factors that have led to these shifts in HEI are many and they pressure some universities in a greater manner than others, depending on their especial characteristics: i.e. the organizational culture of the institution affects the process of problem-solving, the sensitivities to globalization forces are different for private and public institutions and the perception of third mission will be influenced by the specificity of their territorial embedding. Besides, not only among universities but also within them, factors such as structure, strategy, field of study and culture are determinant in the understanding and application of these shifts.

Marginson (2006) compresses this situation saying that higher education is a "complex combination of: 1) global flows and networks of words and ideas, knowledge, finance, and inter-institution dealings; with 2) national higher education systems shaped by history, law, policy and funding; and 3) individual institutions operating at the same time locally, nationally and globally".

Even though the interpretations of the changes are not uniform, there is a consensus on the need of universities to adapt to the new scenario, and to conciliating their heritage with the modern imperatives. But this is no “easy-going” process.

Overcoming resistance to change

As mentioned before, the existence of appropriate institutions capable of responding to the new needs of society is crucial for ensuring the sustainable development of a territory. In fact, they constitute one of the mechanisms needed to dynamize the territories and to create the adequate environment for innovation.

Nevertheless, the adequacy of such institutions is dependant of their capacity to adapt to the changes and to evolve properly and efficiently. But the institutional change is a slow and incremental (North, D. 1993). The explanation for this sluggish evolution is that knowledge-systems, such as universities and other institutions, are affected by enormous initial costs and learning effects and thus they are influenced by path-dependance processes. Even a priori there exist multiple possible equilibrium, once the institution is created it is very difficult to move from the equilibrium. Any move will be strongly opposed (Mokyr, J. 2002).

In the case of HEI, there are many examples of the opposition of those forces exerted to keep the rules unchanged and those seeking to establish a refreshed view of University, which will be able not only to survive but to actively participate in the society and in the new environment.

One example of the inconsistency between some past structures and the new needs is related to the governance of universities. In this sense, it has been widely suggested that autonomy and the development of strategic capabilities are the most important issue for the updating of European universities (Schoen, A. et al. 2007). However, some authors have claimed that the traditional collegiate structures of governance are incompatible with the need for increasing autonomy (Sánchez, M.P. et al. 2006).

In addition, the calls for a greater control of the outcomes of universities have recently increased, in terms of productivity and efficiency, coupled with the increasing competition for the attraction of public funding; but there is also a strong opposition to this accountability due to different reasons (i.e. many departments would be threatened by the evidence of their lower efficiency).

The controversy arisen from the Bologna process and the many protests emerged over the last months also constitute a clear example of the resistance to change.

Mokyr (2002) says that the resistance to change is necessary so that the Higher Education System does not degenerate into anarchy but, at the same time, change is the key for the progress of the system. For this change to be made in the desired direction, it is essential to enhance the debate and the reflection about the fundamental issues concerning modern universities.

Getting benefits from a back-and-forth process

The course of globalization has increased the economic and political interdependence and the flows of people through migration and tourism, and, consequently, has intensified international competition. Of course this challenges the traditional “rules of the game” and the university structures, and national systems can only be partially insulated from the new pressures.

On the other hand, there is also a positive face of the coin, and modern universities can be enriched by the creation of new relations, by international collaborations, by the intercultural exchange, and so on.

The need of universities to adapt to the new scenario is clear and many experts call for the adaptation to these shifts through the internationalization of higher education, which involves the integration of an international dimension into all areas of research, teaching and service. “It is an ongoing, future-oriented, multidimensional, interdisciplinary, leadership-driven vision that involves many stakeholders working to change the internal dynamics of an institution to respond and adapt appropriately to an increasingly diverse, globally focused, ever-changing external environment" (Ellingboe, B.J. 1998).

In order to take advantage of these opportunities, however, it is important to have in mind that each university faces a different situation, given its specific “complex combination” of historical, cultural, territorial, structural, functional and funding circumstances. Because of this reason, when defining the “desired direction” of change, each institution should select the objectives that better suit with its culture and that is consistent with its environment. In fact, "without accompanying culture change, most organizational changes fail or remain temporary" (Cameron, K.S. and Freeman, S.J. 1991).

Consequently, each university should rethink its existence, and decide how it wants to serve society, define its functions and reaffirm its missions, define its relations with the region and outline its international dimension. Since no institution can survive on its own, it should also define its strategic relations and strategic partners.

In order to be efficient and optimize their social-benefit potential, these strategies need to be aligned with those defined by the other organisms that determine the dynamism of the regions and territories. Moreover, they should also be aligned with the objectives followed by regional and national governmental institutions, in order to get benefit from the synergy among all the pursued objectives.

Apart from the claim for institutional thickness, the theory of endogenous development emphasizes the role played by the diffusion of innovation, the existence of a flexible organization of production and the agglomeration economies (networks, cities…) in the sustainability of the regions. But the synergies among these mechanisms and the emerging interrelations are even more important.

For that reason, universities need to remember what they are and to define what they want to be. They need to decide which contributions they want to make in terms of teaching, in terms of research, in terms of entrepreneurship, and in terms of transmission of knowledge to society. They have a wide room of maneuver to decide the concrete steps they want to walk, but it is necessary that they remember that, as part of it, they need to walk in the same or at least similar direction than the rest of the society.

These essential questions need to be broadly discussed, with a high participation of the whole society, because universities are cornerstones in the creation and diffusion of knowledge and, since we live in the knowledge-society, the definition of the Higher Education System is, at the end, the definition of our future.

References:
Bartell, M. (2003): Internationalization of universities: A university culture-based framework, Higher Education 45: 34-70
Bonaccorsi A., Daraio C. (2007a), eds, Universities and Strategic Knowledge Creation. Specialization and Performance in Europe, Edward Elgar Publisher, Cheltenham, PRIME Series on Research and Innovation Policy in Europe.
Cameron, K.S. and Freeman, S.J. (1991): Cultural congruence, strength and type: Relationships to effectiveness, Research in Organizational Change and Development 5, 23-58. Taken from Bartell (2003): 54
Cañibano, L. and Sánchez, M.P. (2008): Intellectual Capital Management and Reporting in Universities and Research Institutions, Estudios de Economía Aplicada, vol.26-2, 2008: 1-18
Ellingboe, B.J. (1998): Divisional strategies to internationalize a campus portrait: Results, resistance, and recommendations from a case study at a U.S. university, in Mestenhauser, J.A. and Ellingboe, B.J. (eds.), Reforming the Higher Education Curriculum: Internationalizating the Campus. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx Press, pp. 198-228. Taken from Bartell, M. (2003).
Etzkowitz, H. and Leydesdorff, L. (2001): The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations”, Research Policy, nº 29 (2), pp. 109-123.
Gibbons, M., Limonges, C., Nowonty, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. And Two, M (1994): The New production of Knowledge: the dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage Publications, London. Taken from Cañibano and Sánchez (2008).
Kerr, C. (1987): A critical age in the university world: Accumulated heritage versus modern imperatives, European Journal of Education 22, 183-193. Taken from Bartell, M. (2003): 52.
Marginson, S. (2006): Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education, Higher Education, 52: 1-39
Mokyr, J. (2002): The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy, Princeton University Press, 2002
North, D. (1993): Instituciones, cambio institucional y desempeño económico, [1990], Mexico, FCE
Laredo, P. (2007): Revisiting the Third Mission of Universities: Toward a Renewed Categorization of University Activities?, Higher Education Policy, Volume 20, Number 4, December 2007 , pp. 441-456(16)
Sánchez, M.P., Elena, S. y Castrillo, R. (2006): Informe sobre la gestión de la investigación y el gobierno de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid
Schoen, A., Laredo, P., Bellon, B. and Sánchez, P. (2007): Observatory of European University, PRIME Position Paper
Vázquez-Barquero, A. (2005): Las fuerzas del desarrollo, Ed. Antoni Boschi, Barcelona