Autonomy, but for whom?

27 November 2011

By Simon Smith

The European University Association recently published its second survey of university autonomy in Europe (the first survey came out in 2009). It ranks countries (or in the case of Germany, states) using four sets of indicators that are supposed to measure organisational, financial, staffing and academic autonomy. Essentially what they've done is looked at the legislation in each of these areas.

What we seem to get (though I admit I haven't read the full report) is a predictable picture of northern European autonomy versus southern European lack of autonomy, with a varied and inconsistent picture in central and eastern Europe. I say predictable because a political scientist would probably recognise in these tables a 'map' of the strength of the state's historical role in society.

Basically, the EUA scorecard works like this: does the state regulate the employment conditions in universities? Yes? That means low ‘staffing autonomy‘. Are there national restrictions on tuition fees? If there are, you get marked down on ‘financial autonomy‘. Or do universities have to get degree courses accredited by a central body? If not, you win points for ‘academic autonomy‘. And so on.

My point is that you read these tables very differently depending on whose perspective you take. For institutional autonomy doesn't necessarily translate into faculty or departmental autonomy, let alone into individual academic autonomy. Sometimes, indeed, there might be an inverse correlation. French researchers reacted angrily to the 2007 ‘Law on the autonomy and responsibilities of universities’ because (among many, many other reasons!) it undermined their civil servant status and freed up universities to make greater use of short-term contracts. Slovak researchers campaigned earlier this year for changes to the country’s higher education law that would make it easier to gain tenure. At present, the law exempts universities and research institutes from general employment legislation banning the repeated use of short-term contracts, and it typically takes 15-20 years to acquire the credentials to apply for tenure. Tellingly, their petition referred to the American Association of University Professors’ Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, which says that job security is a key condition for exercising academic freedom.

The EUA report concedes that it only presents a partial picture of autonomy, and one which does not take into account the freedom to decide about research topics, aims or methods (they say this was too tricky to assess). While I’m a believer in decentralising power from the state to self-governing bodies including universities, we have to recognise that they are also centres of power, that EUA is a body that groups national associations of rectors and exists to represent the interests of universities, and that sometimes it's in the interest of the individual to have more, not less, regulation. This is a worthwhile project, but indices of autonomy ought also to take into account to what extent universities are able to provide the conditions for the individuals and groups within them to research and teach freely.