Building Capacity for Structural Reform in Higher Education of Western Balkan Countries TEMPUS SM – 2010 ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLATED VIA STREW QUESTIONNAIRE - Overall Regional Report - Natasa Simic University of Belgrade

Sample structure Total sample – 190 participants 12 universities 7 HEAs

Importance of University Features FeaturesMSDSupport (%) Comprehensiveness Autonomy Being integrated Highest quality of research and teaching Right to award PhD degrees Being non-profit Responsiveness to social needs Accessibility Strong partnership with the 3 rd sector * M-mean; SD – standard deviation; Support – percentage of rates 4 and 5

Most valued general principles concerning HE Most valued principles are: The development of HE should be informed by a strategic and long- term vision, (M=4.79, SD=0.50) Quality assurance and improvement, external evaluation and accreditation are all areas of Regional importance to higher education institutions (M=4.64, SD=0.79) Public management and governance of higher education has to be fully professional (M=4.60, SD=0.89) Least valued principles are: New models for financially autonomous, professionally governed and managed non-state higher education institutions and bodies have to be introduced, e.g. foundation owned HEIs and bodies (M=3.59, SD=0.90) An adequate distance between higher education institutions and ministries have to be made through neutral expert intermediary bodies (M=3.92, SD=1.07)

Autonomy and legal status AUTONOMY should be on: Both University and Faculty level % University level % Faculty level - 5.9%. LEGAL STATUS should be associated to: University – 47.3% Both University and Faculty – 46.8% Faculty – 5.9%

Functions to be assigned to either University or Faculty Functions Percentages UniversityFacultyBoth 1. Enrolling students Employing staff Issuing diplomas/degrees Negotiating with government for funding Having development fund Having international relations office Having quality assurance office Having student support services Having information system Having students organizations Creating proposals of the content of study programmes Approving the content of study programmes

Administrative staff and information system Administrative staff: inefficient, uninformed, not motivated for professional development, low level of IT skills… University information system should be central (39.9%) Macedonia - satisfaction with administrative staff (M = 4.19) and information system (M = 4.79), vs. Bosnia and Herzegovina - administrative staff (M = 2.79) and Serbia - university information system (M = 2.44) MSD Importance that key members of university administrative staff have MA/PhD in relevant areas Level of satisfaction with university administrative staff Importance that university has an efficient and comprehensive information system Level of satisfaction with university information system

Importance of features of an integrated university FeaturesMSDSupport (%) To have central information system To have central services University being only legal entity Rector being appointed by advert and having full power Deans being appointed by rector AS being well qualified and competent AS playing important role in decision making Students unions - single university legal entity Students services - part of central university services Central management with the recourses Financial and ownership autonomy Rector has effective decision power Centralized university decision making Central development fund

Importance of features of an integrated university – comparison FeatureCountries with different results (Means) University being only legal entity Bosnia and Herzegovina (M=2.97) Macedonia (M=4.41) Rector being appointed by advert and having full power Albania (M=2.73) Bosnia and Herzegovina (M=3.52) Macedonia (M=4.74) Deans being appointed by rector Albania (M=2.00) Bosnia and Herzegovina (M=2.56) Macedonia (M=4.32) Central management with the recourses Bosnia and Herzegovina (M=3.81) Macedonia (M=4.60)

Universities in the country being integrated 3 (about to be integrated) – 34.6%, 4 (fairly integrated) – 29.7% 1 (loosely coupled) – 15.1% 5 (fully integrated) – 11.4% 2 (functionally integrated) – 8.6% 0 (totally disintegrated) – 0.5% Statistically significant difference between countries – Macedonia (M=3.67), Montenegro (M=3.58), Albania (M=3.56), Bosnia and Herzegovina (M=3.03) and Serbia (M=2.22).

Importance of features of university autonomy FeaturesMSDSupport (%) Right to restructure themselves internally as they see fit Right to negotiate common positions, projects and programmes with sister institutions, nationally and internationally Right to employ their own staff Right to vary salary scales and similar remuneration according to institutional needs Right to retain earnings from their own assets or from donations Right to have predictable long term funding framework with multi-year financial planning Right to set up holding companies (alone or with external partners Right to have diversified funding and particularly access to private funding Right to have budgetary autonomy

…university autonomy FeaturesMSDSupport (%) Right to have ownership autonomy Right to have access to private funding Right to withdraw from the state status if they want to Right to define their own strategic and long-term vision Right to respond effectively to increasing domestic and international competition Right to decide about curricula Right to decide about research subjects Right to determine tuition fees Right to have its own developmental fund Right to have classified internal information

…university autonomy – comparison FeatureCountries with different results (Means) Right to retain earnings from their own assets or from donations Serbia (M=4.17)Macedonia (M=4.85) Right to have predictable long term funding framework with multi-year financial planning Albania (M=4.19) Macedonia (M=4.89) Right to set up holding companies (alone or with external partners) Bosnia and Herzegovina (M=3.13) Macedonia (M=3.96) Right to decide about curriculaBosnia and Herzegovina (M=4.40) Albania (M=4.84) Right to decide about research subjectsMacedonia (M=3.92) Bosnia and Herzegovina (M=4.35)

Intermediary bodies 51.1% of participants are not familiar with the concept of intermediary bodies Intermediary bodies couldMSD Support (%) Provide detailed steering of HE system, broad policy framework Facilitate strategic development of the HE sector Safeguard and promote university autonomy Provide for a separation of functions Safeguard and promote academic standards Limit bureaucratic control and micro management Limit direct political involvement in HEIs Prevent inappropriate use of power

Preferences Trust in state universities (M=4.32); not-for-profit, either state or private (M=2.71) and for-profit universities (M=2.33) Preference – state university (42.0%) and university of excellence (40.9%) Certificates that could provide more confidence concerning the quality of HEI – international accreditation certificate (79.9%) and appearance in any of influential global rankings of HEIs (62.9%).