-HIGHEREDUCATION PERGAMON

-POLICYHigher Education

Policy 11 (1998) 217-228

Recent changes in the governance of higher education institutions in Norway

Aasmund Dimmen,* Svein Kyvik
Buskerud College, Faculty of Education in Business Administration, 3500 Hiincfoss, Norway

Abstract Great changes have recently taken place in the governance of universities and other higher education institutions in Norway. From 1996, all institutions are regulated by a common act, more emphasis is put on stronger academic and administrative leadership of institutions, and a clearer division of responsibility between academic and administrative leaders has been introduced. 0 1998 International Association of Universities. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

During the last decade, several initiatives have been undertaken to strengthen academic and administrative leadership in Norwegian higher education. These efforts materialised in a new act for higher education institutions which came into effect in 1996. In addition to regulating the relationship between central authorities and the institutions, the Act on Universities and Colleges gives a common framework for the organisation and governance of universities, university-level colleges, and nonuniversity-level state colleges. Until 1989, most universities and university-level colleges were regulated by separate acts, while the state colleges were guided by cabinet or ministerial regulations. Within the college sector, only teacher training was regulated by law. In 1989 parliament passed an act covering the four universities and the six university-level colleges. By and large this act gave more autonomy to the universities by delegating decision-making authority on a number of issues to the individual institutions. This process of making universities and colleges more responsible

*Corresponding 0952-8733/98

author

$19.00 0 1998 International Association of Universities. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

All rights reserved PII: SO952-8733(98)0000&7

218

A. Dimmen,

S. KyiklHigher

Education Policy I1 (1998j 217-228

for the results of their activities has been extended in the 1996 Act. In this context, the two most important changes in relation to former steering principles are more emphasis on stronger academic and administrative leadership of institutions (referred to as managerialism), and a clearer division of responsibility between academic and administrative leaders (referred to as divided leadership). Managerialism in this context means that the board and rector of an institution have more power and authority, as well as stronger academic leadership roles for elected deans and chairs. In addition, the administrative director has been given a stronger formal role in management of an institution, and now has regulative authority over its administration at all levels. The objective of a clearer governing system, with definite boundaries between administrative and academic activities and the principle of divided leadership, implies that institutions now have two leaders, an academic and an administrative one. Academic leaders have less administrative responsibility than they had before, and a stronger political role within the governing system. This change is no coincidence, but is similar to recent regulations of the governing of municipalities and counties. The Act on Universities and Colleges with regard to the structure of the governing and management system is formulated completely similar to the municipal laws. In principle, the political governing system is quite separate from the administrative system. While changes in governing structures and management procedures were relatively modest for the universities, the principle of divided leadership represents a totally new way of organising the governance of the majority of the colleges. The change in institutional governance structure is a result of two concurrent processes which are partly interwoven: (1) A demand for better quality, higher education institutions. (2) The introduction of a national greater relevance and improved effectiveness of

modernisation

programme

in civil service.

At the end of the 1980s Norwegian central authorities expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the functioning of the higher education system. Many politicians seemed to regard universities and colleges as slowly adapting institutions which lack the ability to adjust to new social needs. Such attitudes were widespread, not only in Norway, but in most European countries (OECD, 1987; Gellert, 1993). The general discontent led to the establishment of a Royal Commission in 1987 to assess the goals, organisation and priorities of higher education towards the years 2000-2010. Influenced by concurrent international trends, the Commission proposed a wide range of measures to improve academic and administrative leadership functions at universities and colleges. These proposals have, to a large degree, been followed up in the Act on Universities and Colleges of 1996, and in the reorganisation of the college sector in 1994, when a total of 98 non-university-level colleges were amalgamated into 26 state colleges (Kyvik and Skodvin, 1996). This reform, which aimed at creating larger academic and administrative units was a precondition for the introduction of a common law for universities and colleges. The increased emphasis on a managerial governing system within higher education is also closely tied to the implementation of the Governments 1987 programme for

A. Dimmen, S. Kyuik/Higher Education Policy 11 (1998) 217-228

219

renewal of the civil service, based on new public management ideas. Universities and colleges are, in principle, regarded as ordinary state institutions subject to the same planning, budgeting and auditing systems as all public agencies within the civil service. In this connection the rapidly increasing student numbers in the 1990s as the driving force behind growth in the higher education sector, has provided a powerful argument for a managerial approach in handling the expansion of the system (Bleiklie, 1994). The new public management ideology includes increased emphasis on an agencys ability to produce the expected results with a minimum of resources, decentralisation of authority from the government to individual institutions, less emphasis on rules and standard procedures in the steering of subordinate agencies, and more weight on objectives, application of performance indicators and evaluation of results, and increasing emphasis on values like quality and relevance of work (Bleiklie, 1996). All state institutions, including universities and colleges, were instructed to introduce result-oriented planning from 1990 (Larsen and Gornitzka, 1995). This measure included greater emphasis on objectives and results as governing criteria at all organisational levels of an institution. Universities and colleges as well as their individual faculties and departments, were asked to outline the plans for their activities on the basis of objectives set by higher authorities and to make annual reports of the results achieved to these authorities. The purpose behind this planning and reporting system is, according to the government, to ensure as far as possible that universities and colleges educate enough students, that education and research are of good quality, and that the costs of education and research are kept as low as possible without a loss of quality (Aamodt, Kyvik and Skoie, 1991). The condition for the implementation of these governmental objectives was that the governance and management system at individual higher education institutions be strengthened. In this respect, Norwegian higher education policy is more or less in line with similar trends in most other European countries (Neave and van Vught, 1991; Goedegebuure et al., 1994) although the development of new governance and management models has taken different forms in the various countries. 2. The Act on Universities and Colleges

The new Act on Universities and Colleges became effective on 1st January 1996, while governance regulations for the new colleges were put into effect temporarily from 1st August 1994 in accordance with the Acts regulations. The Act states that each institution is to be governed by a Board and an advisory University or College Council together with an administrative Director. The basis for the steering regulation is that all institutions should have a responsible and effective governing body which can be delegated authority from the Ministry of Education, Research and Church Affairs (see Fig. 1 below). 2.1. The Board An institutions Board Rector, the Pro-rector, shall have 9, 11, or 13 members. The Board consists of the two to five members elected from among the academic staff,

220

A. Dimmen,

S. KyuiklHigher

Education Policy 11 (1998) 217-228

one or two members elected from among the technical and administrative staff, two or three members elected from among the students, and two to four external members. The University or College Council determines the size of the Board and its specific composition. The Board shall have a majority consisting only of members of the academic staff or of members of the academic staff and students. A major part of the conditions for effectiveness in relation to the size of the Board was introduced in the University Act of 1989, where the large collegiate organs were replaced by a smaller Board. Members of the Board who hold posts at the institution are elected for three years. Separate elections are held for academic staff and for technical and administrative staff. Student members are elected for one year. External Board members are appointed by the Ministry upon nomination by the institutions Council and by the County Council of the county in which the institution is located. In relation to previous Acts, the duties of the Board have been specifically stipulated (paragraph 4):
l

The Board is an institutions highest governing body. It is responsible for maintaining a high standard of academic activity and for seeing that the institution is run effectively and in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations and rules and the limits and targets laid down by the authorities. The Board shall draw up a strategy for the institutions educational, research and other academic activities, and lay plans for its scientific development in accordance with the goals established by the authorities for the sector and the institution. The Board is responsible for seeing that the financial resources and property of the institution are used in accordance with the relevant provisions issued by the Ministry, and with the regulations regarding allocations of funds or other binding decisions. The Board is responsible for seeing that the internal organisation of activities is appropriate, cost-effective, and in accordance with the rules and limits laid down by the authorities. According to more detailed guidelines issued by the Ministry, the Board shall present an annual financial statement and report on the results of its activities, and shall propose a budget for the coming year.

2.2. Governing bodies offaculties and departments The Act states that academic activities at the institutions are to be organised in faculties. The institutions themselves may establish departments as a third formal governing level under the faculties. At each faculty and department, there shall be faculty and departmental boards which are delegated authority from the institutions Board. The Act does not delegate power and authority to these bodies directly. Decisions which are made by bodies other than those of an institutions Board are taken with authority delegated by the Board and on its behalf and responsibility. Concerning the relationship between a university or college Board and a faculty and department board, the delegation model which the Act builds upon entails that the Board can reverse a delegation resolution,

A. Dimmen, S. KyuiklHigher Educution Policy II (1998) 217-228

22L

make decisions itself in regard to specific matters which originally were under delegation, instruct a subordinate board on how to decide upon particular matters, and reverse a resolution to the same extent as it could if it had made the resolution itself. The delegation of authority takes place in several ways, either by explicit formal resolutions, informal authority contained in other resolutions, or as a consequence of reorganisation and the distribution of tasks to bodies or persons. The Board determines the size and composition of the faculty and department board, which shall have a majority of academic staff, and can include external members. 2.3. The Council

According to the Act, the University or College Council advises the Board on matters which relate to the principle directions of an institutions activities. The Council shall have at least 15 members including both staff and students. The Council can deal with and comment on matters concerning: 0 long term planning of activities l guidelines and principles for the use of resources l long-term and annual budgets and other matters institution l development and coordination of courses of study l major changes in the organisation of an institutions 2.4. Academic leadership

of financial

importance

to an

activities.

According to the Act, elected academic leaders are rectors, deans and department heads. The Rector is the chairman of the Board. On behalf of the Board, the Rector has supreme responsibility for and manages and supervises the institutions activities. Similarly, the dean is the chairman of the faculty board, and the department head is chairman of the departmental board. These people have similar duties at their respective levels as the Rector has for the whole institution. Furthermore, the Rector is the institutions lawful representative and its spokesperson in relation to political authorities and the public. Other people may act as external spokespersons or representatives, but only if they are granted the authority to do so by the Rector. The elected leaders are not superior to administrative leaders at their level, and they do not have responsibility for preparing issues for their boards, nor is it their job to implement resolutions which have been taken. The Act does not give academic leaders direct decision-making competence or contain descriptions of the work to be preformed in addition to that which is connected to formal board leadership functions. The governing bodies are hierarchically ranked, but elected academic leaders are not legally superior or subordinate to each other. 2.5. The administration of institutions

In the same way as governing bodies are organised hierarchically in relation to each other, the administration of an institution is headed by an administrative Director

222

A. Dimmen, S. KyviklHigher Education Policy I1 (1998) 217-228

appointed by the Board. The Director has the authority to instruct and direct all administrative personnel. The authoritative competence of the Director in relation to the whole administration is a consequence of the fact that the Act considers the institution as one administrative unit and not a group of faculties, each with its own administration. The principles of the Act require that the administrative directors of faculties and departments are directly responsible to the Director. Governing bodies or academic leaders do not have authority to instruct or direct the activities of the administrative personnel or administrative leaders at their level. The Director has two-fold responsibilities: he/she is personally responsible in relation to external authorities (the Ministry/auditors, etc.), and is subject to the same acts, rules and regulations as a normal civil servant concerning personnel matters, the budget and economic administration. At the same time, the Director is responsible for preparing proposals for governing bodies meetings, and for ensuring that they are implemented in accordance with existing resolutions. Concerning faculties and departments, their respective administrative leaders are responsible for preparing documents for their boards and implementing resolutions upon delegation from the Director. The Act specifically stipulates that the Director is responsible for the total economy and assets, and for ensuring that the overall management of these is in accordance with the Ministrys general provisions concerning financial management and the conditions on which allocations are made. This economic responsibility cannot be overruled by governing bodies, and this means that the Director has the right and duty to make statements on every current recommendation undertaken by the governing bodies. The Director may bring the matter to the attention of the Ministry for a decision if he/she is in doubt whether the Boards decision is in accordance with the rules or conditions for allocations, etc. (see Fig. 1).

3. Changes in institutional

governance of universities

3.1. Changes in the governance

There are five central conditions in the 1996 Act on Universities and Colleges which represent important changes in relation to the 1989 University Act. (1) The work and responsibilities of the institutions Board have been expanded and made more visible through increased emphasis on academic leadership and academic policy steering functions. The Board now has the responsibility to see to it that academic activities retain the highest standards. In addition, the Board plans the strategy for the institutions academic activities and makes plans for academic development. (2) The new Act regulates the various steering bodies hierarchically under the Board according to a general administrative model of delegation. The Act stipulates that

A. Dirnmen, S. Kyl;ik/Higher

Educarion Policy 11 (1998) 217-228

223

Board

Council

Adm Director

I_iy(

Fig. 1. The governance

and administrative

system according

to the Act on Universities

and Colleges.

the Board must take responsibility for all decisions reached by other bodies to which authority has been delegated. Board now has from two to four external members. It is the (3) The institutions governments intention that the external members should add competence to the institutions and constructively contribute to the Boards work by increasing its professional, organisational and leadership competence. It is not necessary that the external members should represent particular ministries or political authorities. Directors position as head of the entire administration of the (4) The administrative

224

A. Dimmm,

S. Kyrik/Higher

Education Policy I1 (1998) 217-228

institution has been strengthened in relation to the 1989 Act. Administrative leaders at faculty and departmental levels are subordinate to the Director. (5) The previous regulation that elected academic leaders should be responsible for preparing documents for the governing bodies has now been discontinued. In addition, the academic leaders are no longer responsible for implementing resolutions. Responsibility for this has now been placed with the administration. Elected academic leaders are no longer administrative leaders, and they have no right to give the administration instructions in administrative matters. The elected leaders are, according to the provisions of the Act, representatives from the internal political decision-making system distinct from the administrative hierarchy. 3.2. Changes
in the gocernance

qf colleges

The new Act on Universities and Colleges has led to much greater changes for the colleges than for university governance. Between 1976 and 1994 ~ when the colleges were amalgamated - the approximately 100 colleges were governed by 17 regional boards. The main purpose in setting up regional boards was to decentralise decisionmaking authority and to ensure that planning, and the establishment and development of short-term higher education in a region were considered as a whole. The boards commented upon individual colleges proposals to the Ministry concerning budgets, the location and objectives for the different institutions, as well as the setting of priorities between various study programmes. The Ministry, however, had final decision-making authority in these matters. The boards had, until 1992, formal responsibility for employing personnel at the various institutions and allocating resources for adult education in the region. The regional boards, however, had limited power, and the college sector in each region remained nearly as fragmented as they were before the creation of these bodies in 1976. Most colleges found it more efficient to try to influence their situation by direct contact with the Ministry than by addressing the regional boards. Many colleges also had rather negative attitudes towards these boards. The Boards were often regarded as bureaucratic and superfluous organisations standing between the individual institutions and the Ministry. Many of the colleges and their affiliated professional organisations did not want to merge with other educational institutions in the region as they feared this would limit their autonomy (Aamodt, Kyvik and Skoie, 1991). Before the mergers, academic leadership and the management of the colleges were organised in various ways. At some colleges the practice was similar to university regulations with elected academic leaders and a permanent Director. Most of the colleges, however, were headed by a Rector who was appointed by the Ministry upon the recommendation of the regional board. The Rector thus was both the academic and administrative leader of the institution. The Rector was head of the economic section, the personnel supervisor, the leader of academic affairs and the administrative head at the same time. On the whole, the Rector was responsible to the Ministry, and also for representing the institution externally. At the end of the 1980s some colleges

A. Dimmen, S. KyvikjHigher Education Policy 1 I (1998) 217-228

225

appointed a Rector for a six-year period. However, most Rectors were permanently employed. The intention behind the introduction of elections for a term of years was to bring new blood into the management and to increase the institutions ability to reorganise its activities. All colleges now have separate academic and administrative leadership at the central and faculty levels. At the basic unit level, however, two different organisational models have appeared. The new college system builds upon two culturally different institutions: some of the previous colleges had a traditional academic basis with an emphasis on research, while the professional colleges put more emphasis on teaching and practice. Most colleges and faculties which have an academic teaching and research profile have established a third formal governing level with departments following the university model, while most colleges offering professional education have kept the traditional governing structure at the basic level and organised their activities around educational programmes headed by elected course directors. This is an informal organisational solution in relation to the Act. Course directors have no legal function, but they are elected by the staff affiliated to specific educational programmes. As opposed to department heads, they exert unified leadership more or less in the same way as they did at the previous colleges. However, in some faculties, the principle of divided leadership has been implemented at an educational level with a permanent administrator for teaching activities and an elected course director.

4. The effects of changes in the governing system The Act on Universities and Colleges came into effect for the universities in 1996, and it is therefore too early to draw any strong conclusions on the possible effects of the relatively modest changes in the governing system of these institutions. The reorganisation of the college sector in 1994 in accordance with the principles in the 1996 Act represented, on the other hand, a fundamental shift in the governing system of these institutions. Three years after the implementation of the reform it is thus possible to give some preliminary impressions based upon a large number of interviews with academic and administrative leaders in this sector.

4.1. Limited degree ofdecentralisation

of authority

A first impression is that the policy which intended to decentralise authority from the Ministry to the individual institutions has only been implemented to a rather limited extent, and that this policy has been followed by the introduction of new rules and regulations. The development of new study programmes has, as before, to be approved by the Ministry, and new detailed regulations have been introduced within the fields of economy, personnel, and student management. Apart from more leeway in budgetary matters, the common opinion among institutional leaders is that governmental steering and control of universities and colleges is stronger than before.

226

A. Dimmen,

S. KytiklHigher

Education Policy I I (1998) 217-228

4.2. Stronger administrative

leadership of institutions

A second impression is that the policy which intended to strengthen the leadership of the institutions has been more successful with regard to the administrative than the academic authority. This is also to be expected because administrative and academic leaders build their power and authority upon different norms and values ~ legal versus collegiate systems. Even though rectors, deans, and department heads have, according to the Act, been given wide responsibilities in academic affairs, the role of the academic leader in professional bureaucracies is, in general, difficult. Attempts at changing institutional life and policy without broad collegial support are most often deemed to fail. The administration of universities and colleges has, however, been considerably strengthened. The reform emphasised that the institutions are ordinary administrative bodies which needed to be strengthened for the necessary administrative delegation of work and responsibility from the Ministry. The new Act gives the administrative directors of universities and colleges more responsibility in relation to superior external authorities and to internal governing bodies. 4.3. Ambiguous divided leadership

A third impression is that the introduction of a legally based division of responsibility between academic and administrative leaders has bot yet been satisfactorily implemented at all levels in the college sector. For both administrative and academic leaders, the distinction between administration and academic management appears to be difficult, but less so at an institutional level than at a faculty level, and most difficult at a department level. Academic leaders at a faculty and department level think that they do too much work which is not formally part of their function. They use a lot of time taking care of economic matters, with administrative tasks and in preparing documents for board meetings. On the other hand, these leaders argue that the management of resources and the preparation of documents are important for academic leadership. Without a basis in administrative procedures and measures, it is difficult to be the head of a faculty or a department. This means that some academic leaders have interpreted the regulation on the supervision of activities as a way to regard administrative managers as subordinate to themselves. 4.4. Varied organisation of operative leadership

The amalgamation of the previous colleges with different objectives, activity profiles and cultures has led to the formation of institutions and faculties with different internal organisation at the basic unit level. Faculties within new institutions and with a basis in previous colleges with research traditions have established departments as the lowest organisational level, while faculties with a basis in professional educations, generally have educational programmes as the lowest level, with an informal organisational level with course directors. A fourth impression is that these course directors are in an organisational vacuum. They are elected as the heads of educational programmes, but they have no legal

A. Dimmen,

S. KyniklHigher

Education Policy 11 (1998) 217-228

221

function in relation to the Act. They are primarily concerned with academic management, but they do not have backing in any formal governing body or administrative apparatus at a programme level. Many experience this as problematic. In practice course directors carry out running administrative work and prepare documents for the administration. Senior administrators and course directors find the organisation of this confusing and not very satisfactory, among other reasons, because decisionmaking authority and responsibility is pulverised, and both students and faculty are unsure where they should seek help to solve actual problems. On the other hand, course directors do not find the distinction between administration and academic work very useful at an educational level. They think that it is necessary to handle many matters which are formally part of the work of administrators in order to be able to be responsible for running course programmes. The function of course directors thus challenges one of the objectives of the reform: the sharp distinction between administrative and academic leadership roles. 4.5. Limited effects A fifth impression is that the introduction of result-oriented planning in the higher education sector so far has had limited effects. The institutions seem to have implemented this reform in a modified version. Although most academic staff take part in this activity, result-oriented planning does not seem to have changed the academic culture in any important ways (Larsen and Gornitzka, 1995). 4.6. Superfluous councils At the universities, the Council had its background in the large academic collegium which until 1989 was the highest governing body. The collegium was replaced by a smaller board and reorganised as a Council. Before the new Act in 1996, the colleges had small governing bodies, and they did not have traditions for the newly established Council. The impression is clear that the colleges are having difficulties in getting the Council to function according to the intentions of the Act. It is perceived as a superfluous agency. The colleges have boards at at least two levels, and usually informal weekly meetings between the Rector and the deans, where all important matters are discussed. 4.7. Positive experiences with external board members Many of the colleges, especially professional colleges, have had external members in their governing bodies for a long time. These external members have often been associated with the fields towards which the education is directed. The colleges have not been as sceptical as the universities towards external representation in their highest governing bodies. It is our impression that the colleges view external membership in their boards as a valuable contribution. They remark that this gives the boards professional and organisational competence, and increases an institutions contacts and networks toward the labour market where its graduates will work. External

228

A. Dimmen,

S. KyvikjHigher

Education Policy I I (1998) 217-228

members can also influence the course of board meetings as they add additional perspectives to discussions over and above those which are introduced by internal members.

5. Conclusion Given the short time-period since the Act on Universities and Colleges was put into effect, it is too early to draw any final conclusion on how successful it will be as a basis for changing universities and colleges in the desired direction. The governance system of these institutions has been strengthened, and the administrative capacity has been increased, but there are few signs of a stronger academic leadership at the universities. In the college sector the picture is somewhat different, because the academic staff now elect their academic leaders - as opposed to the old system where a Rector was appointed by the Ministry. On the other hand, staff members at the state colleges complain about increasing bureaucracy and less influence in academic matters. They maintain that the central college administration has gotten too much power, and that too many decisions are taken at the central level to the detriment of the autonomy of educational programmes.

References
Aamodt, P. O., Kyvik, S. & Skoie, H. (1991). Norway: towards a more indirect model of governance? In G. Neave and F. A. van Vught (Ed.), Prometheus Bound. The Changing Relationship Between Gorernment and Higher Education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Bleiklie, I. (1994). The New Public Management and the Pursuit ofKnowledge. Bergen: Norwegian Research Centre in Organization and Management. Bleiklie, I. (1996). The Politics of University Governance. Scandinavian E.~periences 1960-1980. Bergen: Norwegian Research Centre in Organization and Management. Gellert, C. (Ed.) (1993). Higher Education in Europe. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Goedegebuure, L. et al. (1994). Higher Education Policy: An International Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Kyvik, S. & Skodvin, 0. J. (1996). From Functional Speciahsation to Regional Integration. The Reorganisation of Non-University Higher Education in Norway. In U. Dahlldf & S. Selander (Ed.), Expanding Colleges and New Universities. Selected Case Studies .from Non-metropolitan Areas in Australia, Scotland and Scandinavia. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Uppsala Studies in Education 66. Larsen, I. M. & Gornitrka A. (1995). New Management Systems in Norwegian Universities: the interface between reform and institutional understanding. European Journal ofEducation, 30. 347-361. Neave, G. & van Vught, F. A. (Ed.) (1991). Prometheus Bound. The Changing Relationship Between Government and Higher Education in Western Europe. Oxford: Pergamon Press. OECD. (1987). Universities Under Scrutiny. Paris: OECD.