LITERATURE REVIEW - The Relationship between University Governance and Female Students’ Academi

This chapter provides an overview of the literature on the theme of this study. The author begins by going through the definition of University governance. Elements such as University governance models, University governance issues and University governance in Burkina Faso, factors affecting students’ academic success and failure are reviewed here. In addition to that, a presentation of the University of Koudougou is provided.

Definitions of University Governance

University governance refers to the structure and process of authoritative decision making across issues that are significant for external and internal stakeholders of a university (Gayle, Tewarie, & White, 2011, p. 1).

University governance is concerned with the determination of values inside universities, their systems of decision-making and resource allocation, their mission and purposes, the patterns of authority and hierarchy, and the relationship of universities as institution to the different academic worlds within and the worlds of government, business and community (Marginson & Considine, 2000, p. 25).

For the Panafrican Institute of University Governance, university governance aims to: Identify and share good practice in university; strengthen the capacity of schools and help strengthen the leadership of the institutions managers; develop tools for collection and analysis of reliable and recent data, design and implement awareness and training actions to university governance; develop a professional culture of university governance; develop on a voluntary basis assessment tools for the governance of higher education institutions and more generally of all its players.

Kohler and Huber (2006) proposed an approximate definition of (good) higher education governance as “a method of reaching agreement on valid objectives and orientations of higher education (fitness of purpose) and of developing strategies and instruments to implement them in practice. In order to accomplish this aim, it should offer a space for the negotiation of interests of the diversity of stakeholders respecting the multiple mission of higher education to best serve the interests of the whole of society and should be a participative process as well as a model of and preparation for life as an active citizen in a democratic society. Such a process should be based on transparent procedures and tasks and contain the capacity to reach, win acceptance for and implement decisions (legitimacy and efficiency) and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to diverse contexts on the basis of common principles’’ (p. 13).

Effective university governance provides institutional purpose, clarifies strategic direction, identifies priorities, and exerts sufficient control to manage outcomes. The attitudes and values of individual leaders, together with the underlying organizational culture, are at least as important for governance as institutional structure (Gayle, Tewarie, & White 2011).

The three first definitions (Gayle, Tewarie, & White, Marginson& Considine and PIUG) are much dominated by a shareholder approach. They are applicable and useful in universities where private shareholders are involved. Most of the conflict will be between the shareholders and chairman of the university.

For the other definitions, governance is centred on the leader. However, this partnership approach integrates all parties to achieve the objectives and expected results. considering the context of Africa, there is a lack of private funding in universities; funds that support the functioning of the university are provide by the state and its partners.

In conclusion, all these definitions are inadequate in so far as most African public universities are concerned; they are applicable to universities that would have private shareholders. In the case of our study, it is a public university without private funding.

However, the panafrican institute of university governance (PIUG) which is responsible for proposing a model of university governance in francophone Africa has a timid approach. Its proposal tends to search for particularly best practices centred on the "leader" without actually involving students in university governance.

Charreaux (2004) offered a cognitive theory of governance considering that the governance is a set of mechanism that has the potential to create value through learning and innovation. Taking inspiration from this approach, the researcher suggest that university governance must be assessed not only by taking into account the degree of organization and its efficiency, but also and especially based on criteria such as transparency, participation and shared responsibilities between the different actors and involved parties (students, professors, non-teaching staff and administration).

To this end and for students’ success, University governance is the set of factors that contribute to students’ academic success. Thus, it is based on three components:

social governance, administrative and financial governance and academic governance.

Models of University Governance

Balbridge (1971, pp. 2-7) investigated models of University governance and gave the bureaucratic, collegial and political models.

The bureaucratic model (p. 2), is defined bureaucracies as networks of social groups dedicated to limited goals, organized for maximum efficiency, and regulated according to the principle of legal-rationality (rules, regulations, and careful

procedures), rather than friendship, loyalty to family, or allegiance to a charismatic leader. He said that the bureaucratic model tells much about authority, but not much about the other types of power-power based on non legitimate threats, on the force of mass movements, on expertise, or on appeals to emotion and sentiment. In addition to that, this model explains much about the formal structure, but very little about the processes that give it dynamism. A description of the static institutional arrangements may be interesting but it does little to explain the institution in action. Besides, the bureaucratic paradigm deals with the formal structure at anyone point in time, but do not explain how the organization changes overtime. Finally, the bureaucratic model does not deal extensively with policy formulation, it explains how policies may be carried out in the most efficient fashion after they are set, but says little about the process by which a policy is established in the first place. And it does not deal with political issues, such as the struggles of groups within the university who want to force policy decisions toward their special.

The collegial model (p. 4) is based on the need to establish a dialogue between faculties in order to define the educational system. According to this concept, the community of scholars would administer its own affairs, having few dealings with bureaucratic officials. The second thread of the collegial argument has to do with the professionalization of the academic community. The argument for adopting a collegial form of organization, is given strong support by the literature on professionalism, which emphasizes the professional's ability to make his own decisions and his need for freedom from organizational restraints. He found that the collegial model fails to deal adequately with conflict. The author argued that, both bureaucratic and collegial models, offered some helpful suggestions about the organizational nature of the university, but at the same time each missed many important features. For him universities have been managed according these two models that revealed themselves ineffective and then and developed a new model, the political model.

This political model (p.7) is characterized by the existence of a complex social structure of the university which generates conflicts; many forms of power and pressure that affect the decision makers; a legislative stage in which these pressures are translated into policy and a policy execution phase which eventually generates feedback with the potential for new conflicts. He said that the social structure is a configuration of social groups, which may have basically different life-styles and

political interests. Often the differences lead to conflict, since what is in the best interest of one group maybe in the worst interest of another. The university has a particularly complex pluralistic social structure because many groups inside and outside are applying pressure according to their own special interests. Interest articulation is the expression of values and goals in a way persuasive enough to obtain favorable action by decision-making bodies.

Trakman (2008) gave five models of university governance: University governance by the academic staff, corporate governance, trustee governance, stakeholder governance and amalgam models of governance models (pp. 66-74).

University governance by the academic staff, the most traditional model of university governance assumes that universities should principally be governed by their academic staff which is sometimes identified with collegial governance. He said that, this usually occurs either by granting expansive governance powers to university senates or by significant faculty representation on boards of governors, or both. He added that a pervasive reason for this model is that academic staff ordinarily is best equipped to understand the academic goals and aspirations of a university and how to achieve them.

Corporate governance is based on a business-case model for universities. It is grounded in the captivating rationale of corporate efficiency, in reaction to the criticisms that public universities are poorly managed or fiscally inefficient and on the assumption that modeling on corporate governance can redress these deficiencies. He said that supporters of the corporate governance model insist that universities should be governed by professionals who are trained and experienced in corporate policy and planning, and able to direct management efficiently. The author finally concludes that universities need to be ‘’corporatized’’ to some degree if they are to be governed responsibly. The extent to which universities choose to adopt a corporate governance model depends on the context. For him the issue is to determine the governance model that best suits the context, knowing that a model suited to one context may be ill-fitting in others.

Trustee governance, according to the author, is different from shared governance.

The author highlighted that shared governance sometimes described as collegial governance is based on the representational notion that universities ought to be run collegially by those with a stake in it. Trustee governance is not directly concerned with stakeholder representation in governance. Rather, it refers to the manner of governance,

specifically governance through a trust relationship. This trustee model is articulated structurally through the mechanism of trust duties.He said that in reality, the trustee model is vague at best. There are few instances of it serving as a pervasive model of governance in public universities, although trusteeship is often invoked to stress how a particular university fulfills its fiduciary duties towards its students, staff, government and the public at large.

Stakeholder model of governance, identified variously with collegial and representative governance, occurs when governance is vested in a wide array of stakeholders including, among others, students, academic staff, alumni, corporate partners, government and the public at large. The author said that this model is different from corporate governance. Stakeholder governance conceives of governance authorities as broadly representative as distinct from professional and business focused boards; and the stakeholders’ mandate extends beyond the efficient management and fiscal responsibility of corporate governance boards. The author found that the problem with stakeholder governance is in determining which stakeholders ought to be represented on governing bodies, the manner of their representation and the extent of their authority. At its most polarizing, stakeholder governance regresses into an ineffective talking shop in which stakeholders falsely assume that they are responsible to the constituent interests that elected or nominated them rather than to the university as a whole. Despite these deficiencies, public universities generally employ some form of stakeholder governance, notably having nominated or elected members of academic staff, students, or government representatives on their boards. However, they diverge significantly in the composition of those boards, as well as in the authority accorded to disparate stakeholders

Amalgam model of governance includes some combination of academic staff, corporate, trustee and stakeholder governance. The amalgam model usually involves a readiness to experiment with innovation in university governance, such as by providing for extensive consultation on public interest decisions, varying from equity in admissions to environmental protection. The author found that the benefit of this model is that, it is able to incorporate the strengths of different governance models to suit the specific needs of a university. He said that universities may also benchmark their governance models on other institutions, so long as they recognize the need to adapt them in light of their own particular histories, needs and practices. Governance models need to be responsive to the governance context in which they are applied, though not

being subjugated by that context. Governance models may also grow tired and would need repairing or replacement. Universities that are attuned to these changes may be able to remodel their governance structures incrementally, accommodating evolving relationship between those who govern and those who are governed and in response to cultural, social, political and economic change. In modifying governance models, a first principle is to determine which is sought through that model and as a matter of application how and when to do so. These considerations require an understanding of what the pre-existing governance model lacks and what a particular modification might accomplish. Governance models may function differently in response to divergent institutional cultures. The author also proposes to modify the governance models in practice. He said that evaluating the sufficiency of a governance model requires consideration of its structure, operational efficiencies and ways of remedying its deficiencies. Modifying the structure of governance may be required in response to an external crisis, such as to a cutback in government funding or a crisis of confidence in leadership.

The author concludes that the success or failure of governance models often depends on relationships such as between a governing board and a president.

University Governance Issues

Bationo (2011) conducted a research on contribution of board of directors in university governance, at the end of his studies in master development, he proposed in his thesis to transfer a model of a board of directors of a Canadian university to the University of Koudougou, the author states that he found a series of social crises (strikes by teachers and students) which stemmed from bad governance, including poor organization and administration. He had analyzed the various governance bodies (Board of Directors, The Council of Training and University Life, the Scientific Council, the Presidency of the University). He believes that the board of the University of Koudougou does not have enough autonomy. Then he analyzed the transformation of French and British universities that brought them progressively to autonomy and a governance model focused on the enterprises. The author has carefully analyzed the functioning of the board of the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi in Canada to conclude the transfer of the North American model in Burkina Faso. From this, the

author assumes university governance as a division of powers and responsibilities between shareholders, managers and the board of directors.

The current researcher thinks that it is true that African universities have switched into the system Bachelor Master phD programs (BM phD) but the autonomy of public universities have not been acquired because the economic and industrial environment do not allow this revolution. In a Canadian university, which is self-governing there is a massive influx of private capital for its operation. The social and economic status of Koudougou’s region does not favor the contribution of private sector in the university budget. The state provides the budget which explains its right of inspection and the semi-autonomy. The transfer of the Canadian model in the context of Burkina Faso is inapplicable.

Barakonyi (2007) published university governance and made a critical analysis of the Hungarian university system. From a multitude of facts and situations he shows that the mass (significant increase student numbers) and the increasing number of faculties and activities have changed universities in small cities. The author found that universities have been forced to outsource some of their services in order to maintain the quality offered to users. This leads university governance to be defined as a new paradigm that should resolve institutional problems first and secondly academics problems. Thus, university governance is not only academic governance but the treatment and management of environmental challenges. From this observation, the author assumes university governance as a division of powers and responsibilities between shareholders, managers and the board of directors. According to him, one of the most important developments is the appearance of the university governance paradigm, which originated from the corporate world. He concluded that in the complex changing and hostile environment, only university governance could help universities to survive.

Hussein and Assimirian (2007) published an article on university governance and developmental autonomy of the university in Malaysia. University governance is largely about guiding the university towards achieving its vision and goals as an institution of professionalism, scholarship, research, and knowledge advancement. The authors show that university governance takes into account shareholders, students and government. While retaining its freedom, it allows working and getting good results for all. According to them, uuniversity autonomy may be viewed as the degree of

independency or dependency of the university, vis-à-vis the power holders, to self-determine the direction and extent of its growth and development, ranging from curriculum matters to student matters. In private universities, governance is given to the founder who works with the board of directors to ensure the development of the institution. The authors, however, found that external factors such as regulations of the State, the selection of directors, the organization of the university and various negotiations on the board .influence university governance. Thus, university governance is not static; it is dynamic because it adapts itself to societal, environmental demands to reach its objectives.

In conclusion, they retain that initially the university was conceived as ivory tower (enclosed within an internal system) for teachers and students but nowadays with the progress of humanity, the university has become pragmatic and opens to the external environment for the development of the countries.

University Governance in Burkina Faso

University of Koudougou

The University of Koudougou is a public university of Burkina Faso created by the decree of 31 August 2005 in an attempt to decentralize and decongest overstaffed research and training units of the university of Ouagadougou. The university is located at 140 km at the west of Ouagadougou and is associated to the higher normal school of Koudougou (HNSK). Based on the data provided by the Ministry of Higher Education, the University of Koudougou hosts actually nine hundred eight thousand eighty five students (9885 students including 6916 male students and 2969 female students) and has two research and training units including the Institute of Technology and the Higher Normal School.

The researcher has chosen to conduct this study at the University of Koudougou for the fact that, this city is known in Taiwan because of the presence of an important mission for cooperation in the medical field; Chinese Hospital of Koudougou and also, recently Taiwan sponsored new important infrastructures by building amphitheaters (large auditoriums at the university of Koudougou and President Maurice Yameogo

national vocational high school. All these factors have motivated the researcher to choose this city to conduct her research in this city.

In Burkina Faso, the current governance of public universities stems from the French model after the Savary Act of 1984. Two main pillars (uniformity and superposition of a large number of elected councils) make up the base of the university governance. Uniformity requires that whatever the nature of the institution, its personality, its history and its environment, the organization and funding system result

在文檔中 The Relationship between University Governance and Female Students’ Academic Success: A Case of the University of Koudougou in Burkina Faso (頁 14-30)