The Slovak Higher Education System and its Research Capacity An EUA System Evaluation Report

Presentation for the Conference

“Sector Report on the State of Higher in the Slovak Republic”

19th of February 2008

INTRODUCTION

A System Evaluation in the Context of

THE INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION PROGRAMME OF THE EUA

The Slovak System Evaluation

EUA was mandated by the Slovak Ministry of Education, jointly with the Slovak Rectors’ Conference, to evaluate the universities and higher education institutions during 2005-2007, with respect to Organisation and structures for carrying out the main missions of higher education institutions. Effectiveness of internal quality processes and their relevance in decision-making and strategic

planning. Perceived gaps in the internal mechanisms and frameworks and recommendations for

resolving them.

With a particular focus on the research capacity of the HE system.

Aim: to support Slovak higher education institutions in their continuing development in order to meet best standards and practices, taking the high aspirations of the Slovak Higher Education system seriously, including the frequently expressed wish to take part in international competition

The analysis reaches across the whole publicly funded higher education sector (all Slovak public and state higher education institutions = 23)

Dual Approach

Bringing institutional perspective together with system

perspective

Two kinds of products: 23 institutional reports for the institutions

and their development and 1 system report

Institutional reports: what can the institutions do to improve their

own capacity to change and to realise their own aims

System report: what are the challenges for the whole system in

an international context and what can the system do to address

these challenges

INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION PROGRAMME

Contribution to the dynamic of change of a University

Evaluation of What is the Institution trying to do? How is the institution trying to do it? How does the institution know it works? How does the institution change in order to improve?

Methodology: Examination of the short and long term objectives Examination of the external and internal constraints, as well as the

strengths and weaknesses Suggestion of strategies to improve the quality of the institution

INSTITUTIONAL EVALUATION PROGRAMME (2)

Steps Self-evaluation 2 visits: preliminary and main Oral report (on the spot) Written report + dissemination by the institution Follow-up

Evaluators Team of rectors, vice-rectors and higher education analysts

(acting as rapporteurs) For Slovak evaluations: 56 experts from 24 European countries

Non remunerated service to colleagues

Input needed for System Evaluation

23 Reports: common issues, key challenges, framewrok conditions, convergences and divergences

systems site visit (May 2007) interviews with: the rectors’ conference the Minister for education and research and the Director General as well as

representatives from the ministry of finance representatives from the academy of sciences the directors of the main funding agencies others stakeholders (e.g., Union of employers) university representatives.

Data and report provided by Evaluation Group of Slovak Rectors Conference

Not enough international comparative data -- additional sources used: European Commission Country Report (regarding Lisbon aims), OECD data and international publication data

THE CONTEXT

A Changing International Environment

Increasing recognition of Universities as key actors in shaping European knowledge society and economy more demands and more investments

Creation of more transparent and more internationally open Higher Education and Research Areas

Increasing international competition for resources and individuals, especially among research driven universities

Increasing cost of research

Increasing concentration of excellence

Increasing importance of cross-border alliances

Increasing importance of interdisciplinarity (= challenge to traditional institutional structures)

New and expanded grant opportunities at European Level (European Research Council, 7th Framework)

Structural Funds as major opportunity for raising competitiveness (successful examples: Spain, Ireland, Northwest England, Brno Region)

Bologna Reforms becoming Reality

Structural reforms completed in most countries

Some countries and institutions have reformed approaches to

teaching as well (student centered learning, attention to

competences)

European Quality Assurance Standards and Guidelines have

stressed institutional reponsibility for Quality Assurance and

Quality Assurance as a institutional attitudes and culture (rather

than external control procedures)

Enhanced student mobility is being noted in many institutions

New focus of reform attention: enhancement of doctoral

provision all over Europe

Lisbon Agenda revived in 2005

26 Member States have set more attainable targets for their R&D

expenditures as percentage of GDP.

Lisbon Agenda to be integrated more closely with national policies

EU’s latest annual progress report Time to Move up a Gear

(Jan.2006): Most urgent challenges were identified as: investment for higher education (under “upgrading skills”), innovation, foster business support for research (only 55% in EU, even lower in

SR) cutting down bureaucracy and overregulation, improving the enterprise environment and bringing people to the workforce.

Commission’s 2006 Annual Report on Slovakia

Agreement with the Slovak National Programme’s identification of the business environment, R&D and innovation information society

as the key challenges

Criticism: despite the low starting point in terms of overall investment in R&D (0.58% of GDP in 2003), the National Reform Programme does not set national targets.

Recommendation: Slovak national policy could focus more explicitly on R&D and innovation in Small and Medium Enterprises (including early stage

financing), increasing the impact of the high level of foreign direct investment in R&D and

innovation and more and better leveraged public spending on R&D and innovation.

CHALLENGES

Slovak Republic: Great National Achievements in last 2 decades

Introduction of academic freedom

Transition from an undemocratic centralized system towards strong emphasis on democracy at all decision levels, Since 2002 (university act): legal entity exclusively at university level (though still strong independence of faculties)

Enlarged university autonomy and global budget

Establishment of the accreditation commission ensuring minimal common quality standards

Enormous increase of student participation rate: from 60,000 to 168,000 in just 16 years (1989 - 2005); percentage of new entrants to tertiary study rose from 27.2% to 61.4% of all 18 year olds (two thirds as full time students)

Introduction of BA and MA already in 2002

Rapid expansion of number of PhD students (600 in 1990 to 10,400 in 2005

Adoption of Lisbon objectives with detailed action plan on how to build up research at universities

Research Output

Lack of funds, scientific infrastructure, competitive funding, and institutional strategic power makes it very difficult for institutions to strengthen their most competitive research areas further, in order to be able to compete internationally

Limited but increasing impact

Remaining obstacles for international competitiveness

Poor overall level of HE financing, especially for research, competitive funding greatly increased in recent years but still insufficient

Fragmented research landscape (HE institutions and research institutes)

Scientific infrastructure not up to international standards

Unattractive career structures (no independence, low salaries in international comparison (and compared with business)

Overregulated HE environment, e.g. legal constraints regarding governance (academic senate leading decision body, faculty decision making entities and composition prescribed)

Role of faculties too strong, central level too weak to allow for interdisciplinary ventures and synergies

Strong preference for democratic decisions creates slow decision-making processes, preventing strengthening of strengths, leading to lowest common denominators rather than forward-looking decisions

Constraints and Opportunities in Detail

1. National Structures and Conditions: Research funding Institutional structures for research Autonomy and Governance Framework Quality Assurance

2. Institutional Structures and Conditions Institutional development: strategy and quality development Governance and internal organisation Teaching and learning approaches Research and doctoral training Recruitment and human resource development Relations with external stakeholders

Research funding

The Research Funding Gap

Research funding gap

Funding Mechanisms

Greater part (SKK 1 744 million) of the overall national research budget spent on the “government sector” (Academy (SKK 1 481 million) with its 56 research institutes and 20 research institutes that under direct responsibility of individual ministries (HEI: SKK 1 305 for research and development)

Largest part of state funds for higher education are distributed to the universities based on the input (student numbers)

Only 20% of university budget is based on research performance (30% in the near future)

Significant attention in recent years to increasing competitive and performance-based allocation of institutional grants and individual grants for researchers, but scope should be increased

Need for more effective and less fragmented funding channels (bureaucratic, too many small grants)

More funding for competitive scientific infrastructure needed (link with competitive projects) – structural fund opportunity should be used!

Fragmentation of Research Landscape

More forceful instruments which would favour a step-by-step integration between the Academy and the university research sectors should be developed. More permanent and forceful institutional links needed, e.g. in the form of common professorships based at universities, with more

research time than is currently available at the universities but with more influence on training the next generation than currently guaranteed at the Academy;

common research training or graduate schools which would not just put the administrative burden on the universities but would build more integrated research environments between relevant units in both sectors;

more far-reaching incentives for common project proposals; more possibilities for universities to differentiate the teaching duties

between and within institutions, to the extent of different profiles for different professorial chairs;

possible real mergers of individual Academy institutes with relevant partner universities especially at those places where the entities involved are small.

A greater proportion of competitive funding for larger research projects would foster cooperative structures both within universities but also between researchers of the universities and Academy institutes.

Institutional Differentiation

Considerable variety in size and disciplinary orientation among universities

Significant number of specialised institutions, now enlarging into „semi-comprehensive“ ones – some mergers may prove mutually advantageous

Academic, professional and vocational programmes offered by same institutions

Lots of small institutions, some with very distinct profile and clientele, regional roles

Inspite of homogeneous mission, great variety in terms of research intensity (within and between institutions)

New institutional types introduced by law in 2002, but not implemented, modified in 2007, brings distinct types -- Challenge: how to foster distinct institutional profiles and critical mass, and centers of excellence without rigidifying the system -- through competitive funding rather than rigid categories

Differentiated incentives are needed for differentiated high performance (research, teaching, entrepreneurial initiative, innovation, public service)

Autonomy

Slovak Institutions are autonomous with respect to: Selection of students, admission criteria; Decisions on the academic rights and duties of students; Awarding the degrees of “docent” and “professor”; Course content and organisation, research, education and development

activities; Number and structure of the staff; Establishment, changes and termination of labour relations; Economic and asset management; Election of representatives of self-government

Slovak Institutions have limited autonomy over: Tuition fees: limit is fixed at 10% of the average sum of total operating

expenses Study programmes: ex-ante accreditation Internal organisation : many details prescribed especially with respect to

faculty structure

Quality Assurance

Dominance of methodologies of external control of minimal

standards – fostering compliance mentality rather than

promoting innovating spirit and initiative to self-improve

Recommendation: introduce a more trust-based and more

systematic approach to quality assurance within higher

education institutions = internal improvement-oriented

processes of quality enhancement.

Quality improvement requires resources to address the need for

improvement wherever it is identified.

Such a change will be vital for building self-reinforcing quality

culture at Slovak higher education institutions.

Institutional Development and Governance

Little central power to steer and initiate, very limited discretionary funds at central level

Only very few universities with ability to drive the institution forward strategically

Very slow decision mechanism processes -- consensus culture putting a brake on needed innovations and quality enhancement measures,

Very rigid faculty boundaries, strong territorialism

Incapacity to form inter-faculty centers of excellence, to restructure

The law should leave more autonomy to institutions to design their own decision-making structures

Governance : Recommendations for Institutions

Strategic plan: set priorities instead of wishes with measures and resources attached

Create action plan with milestones and timetable and criteria for success

Be courageous about priorities which favour one unit over another in view of long term instructional goals and opportunities

Strengthen the leadership at the rectorate’s level, their interaction with the deans’ level

Reduce the rigidity of faculty boundaries, inefficiency of subdivision present in many faculties (e.g. doubling subjects in languages, business), systematic attention to cross-faculty initiatives, courses

Reduce the number of bodies at all levels to facilitate and accelerate the decisions processes

Rethink the composition of these bodies to reduce territorialism

Teaching and Learning

Rapidly changing industrial and employment structure in Slovakia increasing mobility and international orientation of the country’s key employment sectors

At most universities, the deeper challenge of shifting attention to the diverse needs of the learners and the competences they need to excel in tomorrow’s working environments has not yet been addressed.

Time has come to take the challenge of competence orientation seriously at all universities, in terms of dialogue between universities and employers. Some institutions have

developed very good practice in this respect. in the approaches to teaching and learning within higher education

institutions – didactic professional development of university teachers needed

Teaching and Learning

Too much ex cathedra teaching, too many contact hours, too few possibilities for interaction with teachers, too little independent study.

Limited exposure to international state of the art of the discipline in some faculties.

Insufficient teaching material and lab infrastructure in some faculties and disciplines preventing students from receiving state of the art teaching in technology

Some teachers not up-dated in their knowledge of the fields – insufficient access to international research in the field.

Insufficient language teaching and competences

Student body very mixed, with few possibilities to respond to different levels of qualifications and interests

Too much of the teaching load is shouldered by the PhD students.

Research Training and Research Careers

Too few and insufficient doctoral stipends part-time work

Insufficient access to international research community (conferences, mobility)

Insufficient attention to career-relevant skills (academic writing in English, presentation and team skills), incl. attention to diverse career paths.

Need to embed specialised PhD research in larger interdisciplinary horizons.

Insufficient independence of young researchers (limited funding incentives, opaque bureaucracy of grant submission procedures)

Major generation change ahead (average age of active professors in medicine ranges from 61 to 55 at different faculties, in the natural sciences average at most other institutions is over 56 years).

Hiring procedures, too much “academic inbreeding” with most candidates coming from within the institution.

Competitive conditions needed to attract qualified researchers and teachers: dramatically low salaries professorial appointments made when people are already comparatively prevent hiring

qualified academics from abroad but also make academic careers uncompetitive in comparison with industry careers in many branches.

Need for Good Basic and Applied Research

Many research groups which conduct more industry-oriented research at the technical universities may have different priorities from excelling in international research competition. These priorities may be just as important for the overall research landscape of Slovakia.

Both are generally recognised as being complementary and dependent on each other:

Only in a research context in which internationally competitive basic research may thrive, will industry choose to base its own knowledge-intensive activities.

At the same time, industry also needs university researchers who are willing to invest their time and efforts into applied research, in order to remain technologically competitive.

Both academia and industry need bright innovative people with good research and entrepreneurial skills.

Obstacles hindering Competitive Research

Low base budget provided through institutional grants implies: Scarce money for starting up new research activities; Scarce money for investing in new equipment and improvement of facilities; Insufficient funds to support mobility of students and staff. For international mobility,

even to attend conferences which is a basic ingredient of a researcher’s life, researchers have to apply for special (VEGA) grants;

Low investment in new books, international journals and other resources in the library, i.e. reduced access to necessary information;

Low income of researchers resulting in comparatively low public recognition of a research career in society.

Low time budget which university researchers have at their disposal.

Low correlation between research performance of a given research environment and the number of PhD positions.

Access to other research institutions seems to be less open than in other university research environments, where best qualified PhD candidates tend to choose the best possible research environment for their research training (mobility as a source of intellectual enrichment).

Obstacles for University-based Business Innovation Activities

1. Industry representatives point to the problem of the age structure of the research staff, namely that there are not enough younger people.

2. Poor quality of scientific equipment makes it difficult to develop state-of-the art technology. (incentives for joint labs?).

3. Industry executives feel the need for university leaders who are able to profile the faculty, making its strengths apparent and convincing industry leaders that they are investing into a winning environment.

4. Traditional institutional fragmentation originating from pre-2002 and overly vertical organisation prevent universities from being able to work across disciplinary boundaries solution of problems often impossible since the latter tend to be interdisciplinary.

5. Small size of the research groups is often too small to respond to the industrial research challenges.

6. Slow response of universities.

Environment for Innovation

Business R&D investment has declined from 0.3% of GDP in 2000 to 0.2% in 2004.

Support services needed to identify the right expertise for given industry needs (Structural Funds).

Entrepreneurial thinking is not rewarded enough within university activities and careers.

Too few technically educated graduates; more diverse tracks of technical training are needed

Not a supportive environment for venture capital investments (e.g. a pool of risk capital, tax treatment of venture capital, etc.).

Closer cooperation between ministry officials: vital for the success of innovation policies that sufficient understanding of commercialisation of the R&D results comes together with sufficient understanding of universities and university research structures coherent innovation policy framework