Transcript What kind of universities in Greece invited external

31st Annual EAIR Forum
23 to 26 August 2009
What kind of universities in
Greece invited external
evaluation (EUA-IEP)?
Antigoni Papadimitriou
CHEPS/University of Twente & Aristotle University, Greece
Don F. Westerheijden
CHEPS/University of Twente, The Netherlands
1
CONTENTS





2
Objectives of the Study
Content analysis of EUA-IEP’s reports
Findings:
Isomorphism through the eyes of EUAIEP evaluators
Comparison between EUA-IEP adopters
and non-adopters
Conclusions
Objective of the study
Was to understand the pressures
(coercive, normative, mimetic) that
Greek universities felt, in the absence
of any national quality performance
monitoring system (until 2006) and
invited the EUA-IEP.
And the university characteristics that
influence the adoption (or lack of
adoption)
3
Theoretical framework





4
This study relies upon a conceptual
framework created from a thorough review
and synthesis of the literature:
in systems theory
neo-institutional theory
universities’ characteristics : vision,
mission, size, location, age, type of studies,
leadership
quality management
Content analysis of EUA-IEP’s
reports






5
8 EUA reports
Total length of the 8 reports varied from 17 to 25
pages
The reports covered the period from 1999 to 2005
Each of the eight reports was written by different
EUA teams.
Thematic analysis.
Data analyzed by following Miles and Huberman
(1994), Boyatzis (1998) and Creswell’s (2003)
suggestions
Isomorphism through the eyes of
EUA-IEP evaluators

6
EUA-IEP invited as a results of :
1. normative pressure
2. mimetic pressure may have
occurred but could not be proven
3. coercive pressure was noticeably
absent
Universities’ Characteristics




7
U1, U2, U3, U4: old, medium-size,
peripheral, multidisciplinary
U5, U6: new, medium-size, peripheral,
multidisciplinary
U7: old, large-size, urban,
multidisciplinary
U8: old, medium-size, urban,
multidisciplinary
Analysis in comparison to the
rest of the 21 universities
University Age
EUA
Non-EUA
Total
Old: 1837–1982
New: 1982–2005
8
Old
6
9
15
New
2
4
6
Total
8
13
21
University Size
EUA
Non-EUA
Total
Small Medium
7
8
4
8
11
Large
1
1
2
Small:< 1000 freshmen students
Medium: 1001-3000 freshmen students
Large: > 3000 freshmen students
9
Total
8
13
21
University Location
EUA
Non-EUA
Total
10
Urban
2
8
10
Periphery Total
6
8
5
13
11
21
Type of studies
EUA
Non-EUA
Total
11
Monothematic
Multi
8
8
8
5
13
Tota
l
8
13
21
Conclusions

12
Normative pressure was visibly detected in this study
-stem primarily from professionalization:
1. rectorate’s management commitment
2. 8 universities participated in a professional
association, i.e. the EUA.
3. peer review team’s profession, Greek rectors, felt
probably more “secure” with the idea that international
colleagues performed the review process.
“communication and affiliation of specialists in
professional networks”
(Van Vught, 1989 in Maassen & Potman,
1990)
-2



Universities invited the EUA-IEP due to mimetic pressure
is based on university characteristics: location
All of EUA-IEP “inviters” were located outside of Athens
Theoretically speaking, these universities would desire to
invite the EUA-IEP to validate the “quality” of their
institution.
It is possible that Athenian universities were perceived as
“elite” within the Greek higher education system.
“Pioneer universities in quality assurance practices were
not from elite universities”.
Banta (1993) and Westerheijden (1999)
13
-3


14
For universities on the periphery of Greece it is
possible to “grab” EUA-IEP as a compensating policy
to gain prestige/legitimacy in absent of any
differentiation among Greek universities.
It is possible to “borrow” European/international
legitimized practices from other actors in their field.
Practice such as EUA-IEP may initially be invited to
solve problems such as prestige and “the sleepy
peripheral university was becoming more Europeminded” (paraphrasing Powell & DiMaggio, 1991, p.
70).
-4

15
Another argument pleading for the prevalence of mimetic
pressure in all of 8 cases, could be that none of them
participated in the follow-up evaluation, to maintain some
(normative) pressure on the universities for quality
enhancement.
The universities’ rectors statements about their interest in
performance improvement, therefore, which we interpreted
as mirroring normative pressure, may then well have been
either socially desirable answers to mask mimetic
isomorphism—or may indicate that Greek university
rectors were not powerful enough to make a turnaround in
their universities on their own.
-5



16
Leadership was the other important university
characteristic for having invited the EUA-IEP.
Mission and decision-making were the same for
all 21 universities
Vision was regarded by the evaluators’ teams as
a missing element for most of the EUA
participants.
The lack of vision in the majority of the 8
participants in the EUA-IEP indicates that it is
possible to suggest mimetic behavior.
-6

17
EUA-IEP was invited once by non-Athenian
multidisciplinary universities
Under the 2005 QA law, Greek higher education
institutions are required to participate in the
evaluation process so that coercive pressure is
supposed to strongly encourage universities to
develop quality management systems for quality
enhancement beyond just the legal requirements.
Thank you!
Questions –
Comments?
[email protected]
[email protected]
18