Presentations can be downloaded by clicking on the title of the preseantation.
Parallel session presentations are available here.
Keynote presentation can be downloaded in one file by clicking here.
Jonathan R. Cole is the John Mitchell Mason Professor of the University at Columbia University. He served as its Provost from 1989 to 2003, after being its Vice President of Arts and Sciences. His work has focused principally on the sociology of science and knowledge and on features of higher education. He has published widely in these research areas and lectured on them around the world. He is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Council on Foreign Relations, and an associate member of the National Academies of Sciences. He has and still serves on many non-profit Boards, most recently as a member of the Board of Trustees of the Central European University.
A Path Toward A Great 21st Century Research University
How did the American research university system rise to preeminence among the world systems of higher learning? What must the European system, which for many decades before World War II dominated the world of scholarship and the production of new knowledge, do to reassume its position of true distinction among seats of learning in the 21st century? What ought the elite public and private American universities do now to enhance their quality in order to maximize their true potential and continue to be the engines of discovery and innovation in the United States and the world – while also furthering the quality of its mission to transmit knowledge to undergraduate, graduate, post-doctoral and professional school students? How can we continue to change the world for the better and further the values of an open society? What are some of the forces that are acting to prevent the realization of these goals? Drawing upon three of his recent books, The Great American University: Its Rise to Preeminence, Its Indispensible National Role, Why It Must Be Protected (2011), Who’s Afraid of Academic Freedom? Ed. (2015) and his most recent book, Toward A More Perfect University (2016), Jonathan Cole will address aspects of these large questions in his talk and then welcome discussion of alternative points of view as well as different ideas about what will make a university truly great in the 21st century.
Malcolm Gillies is a Visiting Professor at King’s College London and Mathias Corvinus Collegium (Budapest), and an Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University. During the last decade he was Rector of City University London and London Metropolitan University, with special interests in university governance, assessment policy, access education, and research impact.
Governance structures of universities reflect their societies’ views about appropriate ownership of these institutions. The question of “whose universities are they?” leads to legal list of technical ownership or responsibility, to a wider list of those with a stake in the institution (stakeholders), and on to deeper questions about academic freedoms, international knowledge networking, even human rights. The stakeholder question, perceived as crucial to the effective working of the so-called “shared governance” model of Anglo countries, is underplayed in traditional European-style governance, yet at the very heart of communitarian governance in Latin America, and, peculiarly important in community-based models of private education, particularly in East Asia.
This paper pursues several themes raised in Gabriella Keczer’s “University Governance in Western Europe and in the Visegrád Countries” at the 2015 CEHEC Conference. It considers this international range of stakeholder representations mainly in relation to “external” forms of higher education governance and against the backdrop of recent changes in continental Europe, notably Eastern Central Europe. Gillies traces the rapidly changing relative stakes of faculty and staff, the state, business, students and alumni in times of rapid shifts in financial responsibility and institutional authority. The paper concludes with observations about the effectiveness of different forms of “external” governance, in relation to their societies’ needs.
Marek Kwiek, Professor (full) and Director of the Center for Public Policy Studies (since 2002), and Chairholder, UNESCO Chair in Institutional Research and Higher Education Policy, University of Poznan, Poland.
His research interests include university governance, welfare state and public sector reforms, the academic profession, and academic entrepreneurialism. He has published about 150 papers and 12 books. A higher education policy expert to the European Commission, USAID, OECD, the World Bank, UNESCO, OSCE, and the Council of Europe. Apart from about 25 international higher education policy projects, he has participated in about 20 international (global and European) research projects. An editorial board member in Higher Education Quarterly, European Educational Research Journal, and European Journal of Higher Education, and a general editor of a book series HERP: Higher Education Research and Policy for Peter Lang International Scientific Publishers.
The presentation discusses the increasing stratification of the academic profession in Europe: there seem to emerge several parallel segments of academics in universities. They have different academic roles, diversified academic attitudes and sharply different contributions to the global academic knowledge production. The dividing line between the haves and the have-nots in research achievements tends to be correlated with international research collaboration. The presentation provides a (large-scale and cross-country) corroboration of the systematic inequality in knowledge production. Highly productive academics studied are similar from a cross-national perspective, and they substantially differ intra-nationally from their lower-performing colleagues. The presentation is based on the empirical material drawn from a large-scale academic profession survey conducted in 11 European systems (CAP/EUROAC, N=17,211), combined with 500 semi-structured interviews. In particular, the patterns of differences between Poland and the 10 Western European countries are shown and policy implications for Central Europe are drawn.
Liudvika Leisyte is Professor of Higher Education at the Center for Higher Education Studies at the Technical University of Dortmund. She received PhD from CHEPS, University of Twente in 2007 and held a postdoctoral fellowship at the Center for European Studies at Harvard University in 2008/09. Leisyte has widely published on changing academic work, higher education and research governance and management, with the paper on professional autonomy winning the Early Career Best Paper award in PRIME conference in 2008.
This paper presents insights into the situation of (incoming) academic staff mobility in the peripheral higher education systems of Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The main research question is: What are facilitating factors and barriers to attracting academic talent in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries?
This study has been informed by existing literature on academic staff mobility, including motivations and barriers to mobility, and the role of institutional and governmental strategies and policies for mobility (e.g. Cradden, 2007; Teichler, 2015). We compare the situation in different CEE countries (Lithuania, the Czech Republic, and Estonia) regarding the main patterns of international academic mobility and conditions facilitating and obstructing it. For this purpose we have conducted a literature and document review of the national framework conditions for academic mobility in these countries, interviews in the Czech Republic and Lithuania with policy makers, university administrators as well as local and international academics.
All countries included in this study have had traditionally closed higher education systems, have slowly been opening up since the early 1990, and have become part of the European Union as well as signed the Bologna declaration. All of the studied systems perform relatively poor with regard to incoming academic staff mobility while at the same time- all of them are part of the European Research Area where mobility imperatives are high and instruments like Blue Card are at their disposal. We have found significant differences between the studied systems with regard to the existence of national and institutional policies and strategies that promote academic staff mobility as well as with regard to the international openness and transparency of recruitment processes within these systems. Data analysis further shows that for incoming academics the main facilitator for mobility is personal/family related across the studied countries. Main barriers to mobility included low salary levels, a lack of availability of research funding, and limited knowledge of local language.