Global experience in university governance has witnessed changes in the locus of power across different stakeholders. Such dynamism in governance models is essential for the development, action, monitoring and review of universities’ learning, teaching, research and social-engagement strategies. Indian higher education system requires a calibrated model providing space for policy makers, education providers, learners and consumers to operate in participative unison depending on the institutional character. There needs to be a prescriptive mix for different types of institutions, and the UGC proposal for graded autonomy is a welcome move in this direction.
Indian higher education has also been influenced by the 3Ms—massification, marketisation and managerialism. The extent of influence is not uniform as the institutions’ character is diverse. However, at a time when the unit of resource is falling and competitive, and with the pressure on public funds, social sector such as education needs a robust and rigorous system that can assure quality while universities are expected to perform far more with far less funds.
Global experience has provided lessons from different governance models—Oxbridge (Oxford-Cambridge), Scottish, Humboldtian, American, the UK’s Higher Education Corporation, the National University Corporation Act of Japan, etc. The Jarratt Report (1985), Croham Report (1987), McNay model (1995), Lambert Report (2003), Shattock study (2013), etc all comprehensively dealt with different models. China has initiated an attempt in that direction and the present concept of graded autonomy is a welcome move to suit a diverse Indian higher education ecosystem.
The challenge in the Indian higher education ecosystem originates from the diversity across all layers. To address this complex diversity, a global guiding model that touches on each layer in fair measure is needed. This can be the starting point for the proposed graded autonomy. Dopson & McNay (1996) provides a university framework that identifies four key organisational cultures with one or two dominating and interplaying with the others at the background. The four organisational cultures are Collegial (Coll), Bureaucratic (B), Entrepreneurial (E) and Corporate (Corp).
The B model lays down the broad rules and regulations which are reasonable, and allow institutions to follow the Coll or Corp model to operationalise the day-to-day running and strategise the short-, medium- and long-term planning. The Coll model would suit the private institutions that are promoter-led, and the Corp the promoter-less public institutions.
E model is a common trait that is driven by self-initiatives, and institutions that are not matured to fit into above three, may directly fall under the B model. Graded autonomy shall create multi-tiered institutions based on a prescriptive mix:
Tier 1: B (10%) + Coll/Corp (40%) + E (50%)
Tier 2: B (25%) + Coll/Corp (25%) + E (50%)
Tier 3: B (50%) + Coll/Corp (25%) + E (25%)
Tier 4: B (75%) + E (25%)
The selection mechanism can be based on three criteria:
1. Universities/institutions accredited by NAAC/NBA (all programmes) with A-grade for two consecutive cycles.
2. Universities/institutions figured in any two of the recently announced Times Higher Education (Global or Asian) or QS (BRICS-250 or Global) or AWRU rankings.
3. Universities/institutions placed in the Top 50 of NIRF in at least two categories: overall/university and engineering or management or pharmacy.
Varsities/institutions meeting all the above will be in Tier 1 (full freedom), any two in Tier 2 (reasonable freedom), any one in Tier 3 (restricted freedom), and none will be in Tier 4 (no freedom). Graded autonomy is an idea whose time has come.
S Vaidhyasubramaniam
Dean, Planning & Development, SASTRA University
vaidhya@sastra.edu