CC BY
8
UDC 378.1
THE STATiSTiCAL MONiTORING AND ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMiC AUTONOMY OF THE HiGHER EDUCATiON iN EUROPEAN COUNTRiES AND REGiONS
© 2017 AKSONOVA I. V.
UDC 378.1
Aksonova I. V. The Statistical Monitoring and Assessment of Academic Autonomy of the Higher Education
in European Countries and Regions
The article is aimed at assessing and analyzing the level of academic autonomy of the higher education systems in the countries (regions) of Europe and determining the peculiarities of academic autonomy of universities of these countries based on the results of monitoring and research by the European University Association (EUA). The factors determining the academic autonomy have been considered. Based on the data of monitoring the status of the academic autonomy of the higher education systems in the countries (regions) of Europe, a list of indicators, measures, and weights of each measure by the indicator of academic autonomy has been provided and a comparative analysis of the education systems of specified countries (regions) according to these indicators has been carried out. The educational systems of the countries (regions) with different level of academic autonomy have been allocated and the basic characteristic of each system in this sphere has been presented. Prospects for further research in this direction is clustering of educational systems of countries (regions), including Ukraine by the level of autonomy, defining the representing country by each cluster, allocating advantages and disadvantages for each system, increasing and inhibiting the formation of autonomy of universities, with a view to a sound management of the process of autonomization of Ukrainian universities. Keywords: university autonomy, academic autonomy, the European Association of Universities, factors of academic autonomy, indicator, measure of autonomy. Fig.: 1. Tbl.: 4. Bibl.: 15.
Aksonova Iryna V. - PhD (Economics), Associate Professor of the Department of Statistics and Economic Forecasting, Simon Kuznets Kharkiv National University of Economics (9a Nauky Ave., Kharkiv, 61166, Ukraine) E-mail: ivaksyonova@gmail.com
УДК 378.1
Аксьонова I. В. Статистичний мошторинг та оцнювання aKadeMi4H0i автономП' вищо)' освти европейських кран та регiонiв
Мета cmammi полягае в оцнЦ й анал'зi р'вня академ'нноi автономП систем вищоi ocBimu кран (регштв) £вропи та визначенн особли-востей академiчноi автономП ВНЗ цих краш на тдстав'> результат'ю монторингу та досл'джень Европейсько; асо^ацП утверситет'в (European UniversityAssosiation - EUA). Розглянуто фактори, що обумов-люють академiчну автономiю. На тдстав'1 даних монторингу стану академiчноi автономП систем вищоi освти краш (регютв) £вропи ви-д'шено перел'ш шдикатор'в, показнит та вагу кожного показника за 'тдикатором академiчноi автономП та проведено пор'вняльний анал'в осв'ттх систем даних краш (регютв) за даними показниками. Видь лено осв'тт системи краш (регштв), що мають рзний р'вень акаде-мiчноi автономП, й надано основну характеристику кожно: системи в данй сферi. Перспективами подальших доМжень у даному напрямi е проведення кластеризацП осв'ттх систем краш (рег'ттв), включаючи Украшу, за р'внем автономП, визначення за кожним кластером крани-репрезентанта, вид'шення для неiпереваг i недолтв, що пiдвuщують та стримують формування автономност'> ВНЗ, з метою обфунтова-ного управлння процесом автономiзацП укранських утверситет'в. Ключов слова: утверситетська автономiя, академiчна автономiя, Европейська асо^а^я утверситет'в, фактори академiчноi автономП, шдикатор, показник автономП. Рис.: 1. Табл.: 4. Ббл.: 15.
Аксьонова 1рина Вiкторiвна - кандидат економiчнuх наук, доцент ка-федри статистики та економiчного прогнозування, Хармвський наць ональний економiчнuй утверситет !м. С. Кузнеця (пр. Науки, 9а, Харщ 61166, Украна)
E-mail: ivaksyonova@gmail.com
УДК 378.1
Аксенова И. В. Статистический мониторинг и оценка академической автономии высшего образования европейских стран и регионов
Цель статьи заключается в оценке и анализе уровня академической автономии систем высшего образования стран (регионов) Европы и в определении особенностей академической автономии вузов этих стран на основе результатов мониторинга и исследований Европейской ассоциации университетов (European University Assosiation -EUA). Рассмотрены факторы, обусловливающие академическую автономию. На основе данных мониторинга состояния академической автономии систем высшего образования стран (регионов) Европы выделен перечень индикаторов, показателей и вес каждого показателя по индикатору академической автономии и проведен сравнительный анализ образовательных систем данных стран (регионов) по данным показателям. Выделены образовательные системы стран (регионов), имеющих различный уровень академической автономии, и представлена основная характеристика каждой системы в данной сфере. Перспективами дальнейших исследований в данном направлении является проведение кластеризации образовательных систем стран (регионов), включая Украину, по уровню автономии, определение по каждому кластеру страны-репрезентанта, выделение для нее преимуществ и недостатков, повышающих и сдерживающих формирование автономности вузов, с целью обоснованного управления процессом авто-номизации украинских университетов.
Ключевые слова: университетская автономия, академическая автономия, Европейская ассоциация университетов, факторы академической автономии, индикатор, показатель автономии. Рис.: 1. Табл.: 4. Библ.: 15.
Аксенова Ирина Викторовна - кандидат экономических наук, доцент кафедры статистики и экономического прогнозирования, Харьковский национальный экономический университет им. С. Кузнеца (пр. Науки, 9а, Харьков, 61166, Украина) E-mail: ivaksyonova@gmail.com
In the modern world universities play an important role in the development of interstate cooperation in the field of education, science, culture, social and economic relations. National higher education systems are very sensitive to changes in the external environment. Thus, the development of technologies affected the institutional functioning of higher education institutions (HEIs) making them intro-
duce elements and principles of market relations into their management, which allowed HEIs to become more flexible and adapt to the needs of the surrounding world. Expectations from modern universities are constantly increasing: consumers of educational services prefer to receive quality education, employers expect graduates to possess competencies necessary in the current labor market, the state
Б1ЗНЕС1НФОРМ № 11 '2017
www.business-inform.net
considers universities as their social partners. Under such conditions, universities become the organizations in which principles of market management are combined with academic values. The analysis presented in the article testifies to the fact that governance of an HEI is increasingly becoming a matter of its own concern, and the degree of institutional autonomy of a higher education system depends on the degree of development of HEIs' rights.
In the modern practice of both the national and foreign higher education systems, there are discussions concerning the concepts and content of university autonomy and academic freedom. According to the provisions of the Lima Declaration [3], academic freedom is defined as the freedom of members of the academic community in the pursuit, development and transmission of knowledge through research, study, discussion, documentation, production, creation, teaching, lecturing, and writing.
At the same time, in comparison with the concept of academic freedom, the term "autonomy" of HEIs, which is understood to mean a complex characteristic that reflects an autonomous and independent activity of universities in terms of granted freedoms, is becoming widespread. That is, the content of the concept "academic autonomy" is broader than that of the category "academic freedom'. So, it can be noted that autonomy of an HEI is considered more often as its external self-identification, while academic freedom - as the leading principle of the internal organization of its activities.
Problems and tendencies in the development of professional education, directions of reforming the system of higher education, prospects for the autonomization of universities, methods and approaches to monitoring indicators of HEI autonomy and assessing its degree are considered in works of many scientists, including A. F. Pavlenko [4], M. V. Martynenko [8], M. R. Terovanesov, A. M. Terovanesov [12], L. V. Lebedeva, A. S. Mytrofanova [5], A. V. Salo [10], I. V. Stankevych [11], I. V. Aksonova [1], V. S. Ambarchyan [2], Ya. V. Lisun [6], O. V. Lynovytska [7], V. M. Moklyak [9]. At the same time, there remain urgent the issues of studying and clarifying the essence, dimensions and degrees of autonomy of higher education systems in terms of organi-
zational, financial, staffing and scientific and educational activities; specification of indicators for assessment of the degree of autonomy by the four basic dimensions: organizational autonomy, financial autonomy, staffing autonomy, academic autonomy.
The aim of the article is to evaluate and analyze the degree of academic autonomy of higher education systems in countries and regions of Europe and reveal special features of autonomy of HEIs functioning on these territories based on the results of the monitoring and studies of the European University Association (EUA).
As the analysis of the existing studies shows, academic autonomy reflects the effectiveness of academic freedom and is determined by the factors presented in Fig. 1.
The monitoring and analysis of institutional autonomy of HEIs in European countries in general as well as academic autonomy in particular is carried out by the European Association of Universities (EUA) and involves 47 European countries (regions). The EUA promotes the system and integral development of universities and offers a number of tools for diagnosing the degree of autonomy of higher education systems.
The methodology developed by the EUA to assess the degree of autonomy of HEIs comprises four dimensions corresponding to the basic aspects of university autonomy: organizational; financial; staffing; academic one [13]. Each dimension of university autonomy contains a relevant system of indicators and restrictions, the values of which are determined by the expert method with consideration for weighting factors.
Let us examine in more detail the composition of a set of indicators of academic autonomy and analyze its state in accordance with the EUA methodologyconsidering each individual indicator. For the analysis, 26 European countries were selected (29 higher education systems, sincein some countries higher education systems are different in certain regions, in particular, Belgium - Flanders and Wallonia, Germany - Brandenburg, Hesse, North Rhine). Tbl. 1 shows the list of academic autonomy indicators, a set of restrictions for each indicator, and the score assigned by the experts to each restriction characterizing the indicator [15].
External factors
which are conditioned by the degree of the state regulation of educational activity
Degree of provision of academic freedom by the current legislation Political system
Legislation in the sphere of education Level of public funding
Features of the educational environment of HEIs
Internal factors
which are conditioned by the desire of the subjects of educational process to act autonomously
Professional autonomy of the academic staff
Stimulation of autonomy of students and their readiness for independent and responsible learning activity Way of organizing activities of HEIs.
Fig. 1. Factors determining academic freedom
BI3HECIHQOPM № 11 '2017
www.business-inform.net
Table 1
List of restrictions for indicators of academic autonomy
Restrictions foreach indicator Non-weighted score
1 2
1. Overallstudentnumbers
HEIs decide independently on the number of study places 100
HEIs decide on the number of fee-paying students (studying on a contractual basis), while the number of state-funded study places is determined by an external authority (or HEIs negotiate it with an external authority) 60
An external authority decides on the number of study places 40
Free admission 0
2. The admission procedure
2.1. Admissions procedures at Bachelor level
Admission criteria are set by HEIs 100
Admission criteria are co-regulated by HEIs and an external authority 60
Admission criteria are entirely regulated by an external authority 0
2.2. Admission procedures at Master level
Admission criteria are set by HEIs 100
Admission criteria are co-regulated by HEIs and an external authority 60
Admission criteria are entirely regulated by an external authority 0
3. Introductionand termination of degree programs
3.1. Introduction and termination of programsat Bachelor level
HEIs can open programs without prior accreditation 100
A minority of new programs must be submitted to prior accreditation 60
All new programs/courses must be submitted to prior accreditation to be funded 40
All new programs/courses must be submitted to prior accreditation 0
Other restrictions 80
3.2. Introduction of programs at Master level
HEIs can open programs without prior accreditation 100
A minority of new programs must be submitted to prior accreditation 60
All new programs/courses must be submitted to prior accreditation to be funded 40
All new programs/courses must be submitted to prior accreditation 0
Other restrictions 80
3.3. Introduction of programs at doctoral level
HEIs can open programs without prior accreditation 100
A minority of new programs must be submitted to prior accreditation 60
All new programs/courses must be submitted to prior accreditation to be funded(only some HEIs or academic units can open new degree programs) 40
All new programs/courses must be submitted to prior accreditation 0
Other restrictions 80
3.4. Termination of degree programs
HEIs can terminate degree programs independently 100
The termination of degree programs requires negotiation between HEIs and an external authority 60
The termination of degree programs occurs on the initiative of an external authority 0
Other restrictions 40
4. Language of instruction
4.1. Language of instruction at Bachelor level
HEIs can only offer degree programs/courses in the national language 0
HEIs can choose the language of instruction for all programs 100
<
m o o
<
S
w
End of the Table 1
1 2
HEIs can choose the language of instruction for certain programsor the number of degree programs/ courses taught in a foreign language is limited by an external authority 83
The number of degree programs/courses taught in a foreign language is limited by an external authority 50
HEIs can choose the language of instruction only if the program is also offered in the national language 83
HEIs can choose the language of instruction but will not receive public funding for foreign-language programs 67
4.2. Language of instruction at Master level
HEIs can only offer degree programs/courses in the national language 0
HEIs can choose the language of instruction for all programs 100
HEIs can choose the language of instruction for certain programsor the number of degree programs/ courses taught in a foreign language is limited by an external authority 83
The number of degree programs/courses taught in a foreign language is limited by an external authority 50
HEIs can choose the language of instruction only if the program is also offered in the national language 83
HEIs can choose the language of instruction but will not receive public funding for foreign-language programs 67
5. Selection of quality assurance mechanisms
HEIs can select quality assurance mechanisms freely according to their needs 100
HEIs cannot select quality assurance mechanisms 0
6. Selection of quality assurance providers
HEIs can choose the quality assurance agency freely according to their needs (including agencies from other countries) 100
HEIs can only select between national quality assurance agencies 80
HEIs cannot choose the quality assurance agency 0
7. Capacity to design content of degree programs
HEIs can freely design the content of programs and courses 100
Authorities specify some content of programs or courses 60
Authorities specify all content of programs or courses 0
Other restrictions 40
Analyzing the composition of the set of academic autonomy indicators and the score for each restriction for the individual indicator (see Tbl. 1, [6; 14]), it is appropriate to single out the following degrees of academic autonomy (Tbl. 2).
If a restrictionfor any indicator of academic autonomy has a value of more than 60%, then it is considered an advantage of the HEI in the overall autonomy of the higher education system of a country (region), and if its value is less than 60%, then it presents a disadvantage. Thus, it is possible to identify the factors that affect autonomy of higher education systems in each country (region).
Based on the EUA information [15], there conducted a comparative analysis of countries (regions) of Europe in
terms of indicators/restrictions of academic autonomy, the results of which are presented in Tbl. 3.
Let's make a detailed analysis of the degree of development of each academic autonomy indicator forhigher educationsystems of European countries [14] based on the data presented in Tbl. 3.
1. Capacity to decide on the number of university students.
In Europe there used the following models for deciding on the overall number of students (see Tbl. 1):
+ independent decision of HEIs on the number of first-year students;
Table 2
Degrees of academic autonomy
Degree of academic autonomy Score, % Cluster
Statecontrol (lowautonomy) 0-40 Low - L
Semi-autonomy (a medium low autonomy) 41-60 Medium low - ML
Semi-dependence (a medium high autonomy) 61-80 Medium high - MH
Independence (high autonomy) 81-100 High - H
EKOHOMIKA OCBITA I HAYKA
Comparative analysis of higher education systems in countries and regions of Europe in terms of indicators/restrictions of academic autonomy
S
W
e o
"O
NJ O
Indicators Higher education systems by countries
Austria Flanders (Belgium) Wallonia (Belgium) Croatia Denmark Estonia Finland France Brandenburg (Germany) Hesse (Germany) North Rhine (Germany) Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg The Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Serbia Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom
1. Overall student numbers 0 0 0 60 60 100 60 0 60 60 60 60 60 100 100 60 60 100 0 100 60 60 60 60 60 40 100 0 100
2.1. Admissions procedures at Bachelor level 0 0 0 60 60 100 100 0 60 60 60 0 100 100 100 60 0 100 60 60 100 60 100 0 60 60 60 0 100
2.2. Admission procedures at Master level 60 60 0 60 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 100 100 100 100 60 100 100 60 0 100
3.1. Introduction of programsat Bachelor level 80/100 0 0 40 80 80 80 40 80 80 0 0 80 100 0 80 0 100 40 100 100 0 0 0 40 0 80/100 100 100
3.2. Introduction of programs at Master level 80/100 0 0 40 80 80 80 40 80 80 0 0 80 100 0 80 0 100 40 100 100 0 0 0 40 0 80/100 100 100
3.3. Introduction of programs at Doctoral level 80/100 80/100 0 0 100 80 80 0 100 100 100 0 80 100 0 80 40 100 100 100 80 0 0 0 0 0 80/100 100 100
3.4. Termination of degree programs 60 100 100 100 100 100 60 100 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4.1. Language of instruction at Bachelor level 100 83 83 67 100 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 83 100 100 67/83 83 100 100 100 100 100 100 83 100 67 100 100 100
4.2. Language of instruction at Master level 100 83 83 67 100 100 100 83 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 67/83 83 100 100 100 100 100 100 83 100 67 100 100 100
5. Selection of quality assurance mechanisms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6. Selection of quality assurance providers 100 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0
7. Capacity to design content of degree programs 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 60 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
+ the split model, when the state establishes the number of students to be admitted to state-funded places, and universities decide on the number of fee-paying students, orthecooperative model, in which the plan for admission of first-year students is determined on the basis of negotiations between the state and HEIs; + the number of study places is only decided by state authorities;
+ the free admission model, when the decision on the number of study places is not regulated at any level.
According to the data featured in Table 3, universities independently determine the number of first-year students in Estonia, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and the UK.These countries represent a minority of countries where decisions on recruitment are freely made. The intermediate or cooperative model, which implies negotiations between HEIs and state authorities, is observed in higher education systems of most European countries (in 15 higher education systems). Some higher education systems applythe split model, according to which state authorities decide on the number of state-funded places, and HEIs determine the number of self-funded study places.This model is used in Croatia, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania and allows universities of these countries to influence the overall number of students. The situation with the number of students that is determined exclusively by the state is observed only in the higher education system of Serbia. Finally, six higher education systems implement the model of free admission based solely on the completion of secondary education.
2. Capacity to select students.
All higher education systems require candidates to have a secondary education qualification or pass examinations in certain disciplines. In most cases this is the main criteria for admission to HEIs to acquire higher education. Admission criteria are usually specified in the national legislation.
Models of admission can be divided into three groups:
+ admission criteria are established by the university; + admission criteria are developed jointly by the university and an external authority; + admission is fully regulated by an external authority.
The conducted analysis (see Tbl. 3) demonstrates thatin European higher education systems there basically coexist, both at Bachelor and Master levels, the opposite models: the criteria foradmission to an HEI are established either by theuniversity itself or jointly with an external authority. Only in Austria, Flanders, France, Hungary, Lithuania, Slovenia (at Bachelor level) and in Wallonia and Switzerland (at Bachelor and Master levels) admission criteria are fully regulated by an external authority.
The most common model of admission at Bachelor level is the one when the admission criteria are developed and regulated by the university and an external authority. At the same time, there observed a change in the admission
model at Master level, when the criteria are set by a HEI itself, which gives universities more freedom to recruit students.
3. Capacity to open and terminate academic programs.
In general, the introduction of a new academic program requires a certain approval of the relevant ministry or another government agency. However, specific procedures for the introduction of new academic programs at Bachelor, Master and doctoral levels in European higher education systems are characterized by five main restrictions (see Tbl. 1).The analysis of the data presented in Table 3 shows that in 15 higher educationsystems out of 29 HEIs have a high degree of independence in introducing new programs, and in 14 of them - a low one. A higher autonomy is observed in the higher education systems in opening programs at doctoral level, but, in general, the rules for opening new master and doctoral programs do not significantly differ from the regulation of opening programs at Bachelor level.
There should be noted countries whose higher edu-cationsystems have the lowest degree of autonomy in opening programs at all levels. These include Belgium, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Serbia, where the state determines the academic sphere or educational activity of universities.
In such countries as Croatia, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Spain, new academic programs must be submitted to prior accreditation to receive public funding. If in introducing a program the university uses private funding (for example, as in the Netherlands), a voluntary accreditation is required, since it is considered to be a sign of a high quality of the program.
As concerns the termination and closure of educational programs, in the analyzed higher education systems (see Tbl. 3) there singled out two mechanisms: independent decision of HEIs on the termination of educational programs, which is characteristic for 26 of 29 countries;termination of programs on agreement with an external authority, which is observed only in three countries (Austria, Finland and Germany (Brandenburg).
4. Capacity to choose the language of instruction.
The freedom in choosing the language of instruction
is important in the context of institutional strategies for the internationalization of HEIs.
As shown by the analysis of Tbl. 3, most European universities can freely choose the language of instruction. The exception is Iceland, Lithuania and France, where HEIs can choose the language of instruction only for some pro-grams.It should be noted that France is the only country where there is a restriction on the offer of educational programs in a foreign language at Bachelor level: universities can offer programs only in the national language.In Flanders (Belgium) and Latvia universities can teach programs in a foreign language, but their number is limited by an external authority. In Croatia and Serbia teaching can be conducted in any language, but HEIs do not receive public funding for teaching programs in a foreign language.In Wallonia (Belgium) and Slovenia HEIs can choose a foreign language for teaching academic programs only if the programs are also offered in the national language.
5. Capacity to select quality assurance mechanisms.
The analysis of the capacity of universities to select
appropriate quality assurance mechanisms indicates that only in Germany universities can freely select quality assurance mechanisms in accordance with their needs. In 26 higher education systems HEIs cannot select quality assurance mechanisms. However, in some countries positive changes in this direction take place. Thus, new systems of mandatory institutional accreditation have been established in Iceland and Switzerland; Flanders (Belgium), Denmark, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, the Netherlands and Sweden are in the process of preparing for changes in this direction.
6. Capacity to select quality assurance providers.
As regards the selection of a particular quality assurance agency, the higher education systems of the analyzed countries fall into two categories. In Austria, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary and Switzerland universities can use quality agencies on their own choice. They can also select an agency from other countries.In higher education systems in other countries and regions, universities are not able to select a specific quality agency. However, in a number of them, HEIs may seek additional suppliers of external quality assessments, other than the mandatory quality assurance.
Though quality assurance mechanisms are the most important strategic tools, the processes associated with them can be cumbersome and bureaucratic. Therefore, universities should be flexible in choosing the quality regime of the training and educational process.
7. Capacity to design content of educational programs.
The analysis of Tbl. 3 demonstrated that in a significant majority of higher education systems (26 higher education systems), universities can freely decide on the academic content of educational programs, except for such regulated professions as medicine.
Only in three countries (Italy, Latvia and Lithuania) universities should adhere to the "standard of academic education" and "professional standard", i.e., some content of educational programs (basic set of disciplines, duration of practices) is regulated by an external authority. It should be noted that universities of these countries perceive this fact as a significant obstacle to diversification, innovation and increase of their competitiveness.
The analysis of the seven indicators of academic autonomy makes it possible to group the higher education systems of European countries (regions) by the degree of their academic autonomy and conduct their rating and ranking. According to the degrees of academic autonomy presented in Tbl. 2, all the higher education systems of the analyzed countries (regions) are characterized as presented in Tbl. 4. The comparative analysis of the countries' higher educationsystems is based on the data on the monitoring of academic autonomy of European universities, which was conducted by the European Association of Universities in 2011-2012 and 2016-2017 [13-15].
Table 4
Comparative analysis of the degree of academic autonomy of the higher education systems of European countries (regions)
in 2011 and 2017
<C
QQ O O
< £
s
u
Higher education system 2011 2017
Rank of the country Score, % Cluster Rank of the country Score, % Cluster
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Austria 8 72 MH 12 72 MH
Flanders (Belgium) - - - 28 35 L
Wallonia (Belgium) - - - 29 32 L
Croatia - - - 21 50 ML
Denmark 14 56 ML 11 75 MH
Estonia 4 92 H 1 98 H
Finland 5 90 H 2 90 H
France 20 37 L 27 37 L
Brandenburg (Germany) 10 67 MH 8 87 H
Hesse (Germany) 9 69 MH 6 88 H
North Rhine (Germany) 9 69 MH 6 88 H
Hungary 18 47 ML 16 58 ML
Iceland 6 89 H 10 78 MH
Ireland 1 100 H 3 89 H
Italy 13 57 ML 18 56 ML
Latvia 15 55 ML 23 45 ML
Lithuania 19 42 ML 26 42 ML
Luxembourg 7 74 MH 3 89 H
End of the Table 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
The Netherlands 17 48 ML 22 48 ML
Norway 2 97 H 9 83 H
Poland 12 63 MH 14 68 MH
Portugal 16 54 ML 20 54 ML
Slovakia 14 56 ML 18 56 ML
Slovenia - - - 25 44 ML
Spain 13 57 ML 17 57 ML
Serbia - - - 23 46 ML
Sweden 11 66 MH 15 66 MH
Switzerland 8 72 MH 12 72 MH
United Kingdom 3 94 H 3 89 H
As shown by the analysis of Table 4,in 2011 in terms of the indicators of academic autonomy among the higher education systems of European countries (regions), there can be singled out six countries: Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway and the United Kingdom, which formed the top cluster. Universities of these countries had a high degree of autonomy.The leader in this cluster was Ireland (100% autonomy), whose universities could freely decide on all aspects of academic autonomy. In 2011 the cluster with a high degree of academic autonomy included 24% of Europe's higher education systems.
The group of higher education systems with thede-gree of academic autonomy below 40% in 2011 comprised 4% and included only France withits high degree of state control in higher education.
Over the past 5 years, European universities have made a significant step to enhance their independence. So, the degree of academic autonomy of 5 higher educationsys-tems in such countries as Denmark, Germany, Luxembourg has increased.
In 2017 a high degree of academic autonomy of HEIs is observed in Estonia (98%); Finland (90%); Ireland, Luxembourg and Britain (89%); Germany (87-88%); Norway
But, despite the tendency to increasing the degree of autonomy of higher education systems, in 2017 the largest weight (38%) have higher educationsystems in the countries where the degree academic autonomy is from 41% to 60%, i. e,belonging to the medium low cluster.It should be noted that the countries that have just begun implementing principles of autonomy in governance of their higher education systems (Slovenia, Serbia and Croatia) also have a degree of academic autonomy from 44 to 50%.
The countries in the medium low cluster are characterized by using mixed models, through which universities and external authorities interact.
CONCLUSIONS
In general, higher education systems in European countries (regions) continue the process of increasing the degree of their academic autonomy. The analysis once again confirms the advisability of increasing the degree of univer-
sity autonomy thatcontributes to more flexible adaptation of HEIs to the needs of the modern labor market and preferences of other consumers of educational services, which increases the economic efficiency of university corporations.
University autonomy is recognized as an important prerequisite for the success of higher education systems in fulfilling their mission under conditions of building an innovation society. Prospects for further research in the field of assessing academic autonomy are clusterization of higher education systems of countries (regions), including Ukraine, in terms of autonomy;identification of a representative country for each cluster, determination for its higher education system of advantages and disadvantagesthat contribute to or restrain the formation of autonomy of universities for the purpose of sound management of the process of autono-mization of Ukrainian universities. ■
LITERATURE
1. Аксьонова I. В. Аналiз свггового досвщу формуван-ня ушверситетсыкоТ автономи. Економ'ша розвитку. 2017. № 2. С. 21-29.
2. Амбарчян В. С. Оцшка ступеня автономи системи вищоТ освп'и УкраТни за методикою £вропейсыкоТ асо^аци ушвер-сите^в. В'сник Кивського национального ун'шерситету техноло-г'ш та дизайну. 2016. Спецвипуск «Ефектившсты оргашзацшно-економiчного мехашзму шновацшного розвитку вищоТ освгги УкраТни». C. 54-64.
3. Волосникова Л. М. О принципе академической автономии. URL: http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/566/222/1218/44-49.pdf
4. Дошдницык ушверситети: свгговий досвщ та перспек-тиви розвитку в УкраТш: монографiя/А. Ф. Павленко, Л. Л. Ан-тонюк, Н. В. Василыкова та ш. КиТв: КНЕУ, 2014. 350 с.
5. Лебедева Л. В., Митрофанова А. С. Проблеми комер-цiалiзацN системи вищоТ освiти в УкраТн за умов формування постшдус^алыного ладу. Б'знес 1нформ. 2017. № 2. C. 65-71.
6. Лкун Я. В. Теоретико-методолопчш основи дiагнос-тики автономи ВНЗ: свропейсыкий досвщ. В'сник Кивського национального ун'шерситету технолоай та дизайну. 2016. Спецвипуск «Ефектившсты органiзацiйно-економiчного мехашзму шновацшного розвитку вищоТ освгги УкраТни». C. 410-418.
7. Линовицька О. Академiчнi свободи та ушверситет-сыка автономiя. Вищаосв'та Укроти. 2011. № 3. С. 27-31.
8. Martynenko M. Institutional changes in vocational education in conditions of European integration of Ukraine. Економ'чний часопис-ХХ1. 2015. № 3-4 (1). P. 113-116.
Б1ЗНЕС1НФОРМ № 11 '2017
www.business-inform.net
9. Мокляк В. Автономия як форма академично! свободи вищого навчального закладу. Педагогiчнi науки. 2014. № 61-62. С. 97-101.
10. Сало А. В. Концептуальш засади розвитку вищо! освн ти в УкраМ Б'анес 1нформ. 2015. № 10. C. 91-96.
11. Станкевич I. В. Оцшювання якосп вищо! освiти та навчально-виробничо! дiяльностi освiтнiх органiзацiй на основi акредитацiйних критерпв. Б'знес 1нформ. 2016. № 6. C. 119-125.
12. Терованесов М. Р., Терованесов А. М. Основы на-прями вдосконалення управлшня системою вищо! освiти. Б'з-нес 1нформ. 2017. № 4. C. 157-162.
13. University Autonomy in Europ E II The Scorecard. URL: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications/University_Autonomy_ in_Europe_II_-_The_ Scorecard.pdf?sfvrsn=2
14. University Autonomy in Europe III The Scorecard 2017. URL: http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications/online-transversal-report-17-05-2017
15. University Autonomy in Europe. URL: http://www.uni-versity-autonomy.eu/dimensions/academic/
REFERENCES
Aksonova, I. V. "Analiz svitovoho dosvidu formuvannia uni-versytetskoi avtonomii" [Analysis of world experience in the formation of university autonomy]. Ekonomika rozvytku, no. 2 (2017): 21-29.
Ambarchian, V. S. "Otsinka stupenia avtonomii systemy vy-shchoi osvity Ukrainy za metodykoiu Yevropeiskoi asotsiatsii uni-versytetiv" [Assessment of the degree of autonomy of the higher education system of Ukraine by the methodology of the European Association of Universities]. Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho univer-sytetu tekhnolohii tadyzainu. Special issue «Efektyvnist orhanizatsi-ino-ekonomichnoho mekhanizmu innovatsiinoho rozvytku vysh-choi osvity Ukrainy» (2016): 54-64.
Lebedeva, L. V., and Mytrofanova, A. S. "Problemy komert-sializatsii systemy vyshchoi osvity v Ukraini za umov formuvannia postindustrialnoho ladu" [Problems of commercialization of the higher education system in Ukraine in the conditions of postindustrial system formation]. Biznes Inform, no. 2 (2017): 65-71.
Lisun, Ya. V. "Teoretyko-metodolohichni osnovy diahnos-tyky avtonomii VNZ: yevropeiskyi dosvid" [Theoretical and methodological foundations for the diagnostics of university autonomy:
European experience]. Visnyk Kyivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu tekhnolohii ta dyzainu. Special issue «Efektyvnist orhanizatsiino-ekonomichnoho mekhanizmu innovatsiinoho rozvytku vyshchoi osvity Ukrainy» (2016): 410-418.
Lynovytska, O. "Akademichni svobody ta universytetska av-tonomiia" [Academic Freedom and University Autonomy]. Vyshcha osvita Ukrainy, no. 3 (2011): 27-31.
Martynenko, M. "Institutional changes in vocational education in conditions of European integration of Ukraine". Ekonomich-nyi chasopys-XXI, no. 3-4 (1) (2015): 113-116.
Mokliak, V. "Avtonomiia yak forma akademichnoi svobody vyshchoho navchalnoho zakladu" [Autonomy as a form of academic freedom of a higher educational establishment]. Pedahohichni nauky, no. 61-62 (2014): 97-101.
Pavlenko, A. F. et al. Doslidnytski universytety: svitovyi dosvid ta perspektyvy rozvytku v Ukraini [Research Universities: Global Experience and Development Prospects in Ukraine]. Kyiv: KNEU, 2014.
Salo, A. V. "Kontseptualni zasady rozvytku vyshchoi osvity v Ukraini" [Conceptual framework for the development of higher education in Ukraine]. Biznes Inform, no. 10 (2015): 91-96.
Stankevych, I. V. "Otsiniuvannia yakosti vyshchoi osvity ta navchalno-vyrobnychoi diialnosti osvitnikh orhanizatsii na osnovi akredytatsiinykh kryteriiv" [Evaluation of the quality of higher education and educational and production activities of educational organizations on the basis of accreditation criteria]. Biznes Inform, no. 6 (2016): 119-125.
Terovanesov, M. R., and Terovanesov, A. M. "Osnovni napri-amy vdoskonalennia upravlinnia systemoiu vyshchoi osvity" [Main directions of improvement of management of the system of higher education]. Biznes Inform, no. 4 (2017): 157-162.
"University Autonomy in Europ E II The Scorecard" http:// www.eua.be/Libraries/publications/University_Autonomy_in_Eu-rope_II_-_The_Scorecard.pdf?sfvrsn=2
"University Autonomy in Europe III The Scorecard 2017". http://www.eua.be/Libraries/publications/online-transversal-re-port-17-05-2017
"University Autonomy in Europe". http://www.university-autonomy.eu/dimensions/academic/
Volosnikova, L. M. "O printsipe akademicheskoy avtonomii" [On the principle of academic autonomy]. http://ecsocman.hse.ru/ data/566/222/1218/44-49.pdf
<
m о о
<
S
ш
182 Б1ЗНЕС1НФОРМ № 11 '2017
www.business-inform.net
