A bimonthly publication of AQU Catalunya

39

November 2008

On 16 and 17 October, the tenth edition of the AQU Catalunya workshops for reflection and discussion were held at the Technological Park of the University of Girona. Under the theme "University teaching staff in 2015: profile, length of service and assessment", the agency decided to put forward university teaching staff as a topic for discussion. With a current context characterised by a complex structure, AQU Catalunya identified questions such as the following:

• To what extent is management of teaching staff in terms of figures, mechanisms, recruitment processes and remuneration conditioned by the current legal framework?
• Are current accreditation mechanisms and entrance competitions most suited to ensuring the best lecturers? Could any alternative models exist?
• Spain is one of the few exceptions in Europe where external bodies are used to assess university teaching staff. To what extent should this task be redistributed among agencies and universities?
• The implementation of the European Higher Education Area has a direct bearing on education in terms of both methods for learning and for teaching. Are there enough educational elements to deal with this new model?

The workshop was organised into two major areas. The first – examples of profiles, length of service and assessment of university teaching staff in Europe – involved the presentation of teaching staff management experiences from the United Kingdom and Germany. The second – model of university teaching staff in 2015: policies, management and assessment – involved three round tables where outlooks for the future of teaching staff were put forward from various spheres – assessment bodies, teaching staff and the political field – prior to a final debate open to all those in attendance in order to reflect on the questions raised during the workshop.

More than 130 people from Catalan universities took part in the conference which also involved prominent figures from the university system, the Catalan administration and the national administration.

The lectures, presentations and discussions led to the following conclusions:

International examples

• The experiences from the United Kingdom and Germany that were presented bear a common denominator: funding linked to the achievement of results is the key to promoting change in the teaching staff policy. In the case of the United Kingdom, the pressure to gather resources for research has given rise to full-time contracts for teaching, research or both. Along these lines, in the context of Spain it would be appropriate to establish a link between university funding, among other areas, and the results (in academic, research or transfer terms) achieved by universities.
• Another common factor in the international experiences presented is the fact that students play a vital role in the quality policy. Students’ results should be an indicator laying the foundations for quality policies. For students to achieve good results it is necessary to redefine teaching activity and, by extension, relations between students and lecturers. Accordingly, instruments need to be set up to gather evidence on the quality of teaching in institutions.

University policy

• The current regulatory framework, which is complex owing to the various levels of regulation (national and autonomous regional) and owing to the various assessment agents, constitutes a major conditioning factor to teaching staff policies implemented by universities and agencies. Even so, a new outlook of significant changes is beginning (the reform of the Catalonia University Law – LUC, the new statute for research and teaching staff, the redefinition of the Serra Húnter plan) which constitute an opportunity that must be used in order to strengthen the quality of university policy.
• Reporting, transparency and assessment are requirements in university independence, which is an asset backed by universities as a means for setting up their own model and having a bearing on the regulatory reforms currently underway. Moreover, quality assurance entails allocating the financial and human resources needed.
• There is clear tension between the notions of diversity and uniformity, and excellence and competitiveness when applied to the public university model. The current process of changes taking place in the regulatory framework must be capitalised in order to make the Catalan university system more appealing, whereby each university will find its niche because standing out is a key aspect. In this regard, universities cannot be excellent in all areas: goals need to be set and prioritised since there are just not enough resources.
• As far as the Serra Húnter plan is concerned, there is a clear political will to redefine it in order to reach original goals for recruiting highly qualified teaching staff, so as to amass and retain international talent. The plan took on a specific sense – lending stability to teaching staff – in the current context of application of the national accreditations system. The outlook has changed with the new legal framework. To a certain degree, the possibility of benefiting from an independent body has disappeared and the civil service system has been camouflaged. Universities want to be given a hearing within this redefinition process.

Teaching staff policy

• The ongoing changes to legislation and various reforms have not been fully taken on and assimilated by the system. Indeed, there is a need for greater efficiency in university organisation that will make it possible to overcome current tensions/inadequacies among current figures on existing teaching staff and academic activity. For instance, there is a lack of specialists for day-to-day teaching activities and the mechanisms available to academic managers to enable them to exercise their authority do not make it possible to achieve good results.
• Teaching and research must be jointly boosted and the model adopted must allow for one or the other to be heightened according to the chosen profile. However, nowadays research is practically the only driving force for teaching staff. There is a need for a well-defined academic career – whether linked to teaching, research or both – based on principles of merit and ability which offers the same opportunities for professional promotion regardless of its nature.
• The teaching staff policy of each institution is the key to being able to define the university’s individual profile. Accordingly, flexible instruments must be established on the basis of the goals of said teaching staff policy. The current regulatory framework places more trust in universities giving them greater responsibility. Even so, what would be the inevitable consequences of not choosing the best possible candidates?
• As far as remuneration is concerned, there is a clear need to lend prestige to the function of university lecturers in terms of salaries pursuant to the social responsibilities taken on by the institution, in keeping with the remaining countries of the European Union. This must make it possible to amass and retain talent. Indeed, there is a need to progress towards suitable remuneration incentives, such as horizontal bonuses, since the current system for permanent teaching staff only allows promotion from tenured professor to full professor. Nonetheless, remuneration must be linked to the quality of merits and results.
• The existence of many filters when it comes to access to teaching duties and the virtual non-existence of a mechanism for reporting on the work of teaching staff is identified as a paradox.

Assessment of teaching staff

• The principles of assessment and reporting are fully taken on by the university community, even if it is important to make processes and procedures simpler. However, where should the responsibility of assessing teaching staff lie? Should it be down to agencies or should the process be conducted within the university itself? The current situation bears the hallmark of a lack of trust by the system in universities, which should take on a more prominent role in this process. In this respect, it would be ideal for an individual assessment method and a joint assessment method for institutions to be in place by 2015.
• Assessment of teaching activity is essentially incumbent on universities themselves based on pre-determined criteria agreed on by the agencies. As opposed to the case with research, this assessment cannot be performed from a distance and it must be carried out taking into consideration qualitative rather than simply quantitative criteria. The impact of assessing research activity (research evaluated in six-year block periods) over the 20 years for which it has been carried out may be an excellent benchmark for the desired impact of the assessment of teaching that was implemented in Catalan universities in 2003. Even so, more time is needed to gauge its impact and, accordingly, lend prestige to teaching brackets.
• Assessment of research activity (brackets) is formal (non-primary) assessment based on quality indicators and signs. The research brackets are not related to “excellence”; however, this has become an indicator with many more purposes than originally envisaged.
• It is necessary to reach a consensus regarding points of reference for assessment of teaching staff (research dissemination mediums), particularly in spheres such as social sciences and humanities, and also in the manner in which technology transfer is assessed. Moreover, it is necessary to guarantee criteria for gender equality and balance when forming the various teaching staff assessment committees.
• Agencies provide minimum levels of accreditation but recruitment of teaching staff is conducted by the university. Accordingly, agencies assess minimum levels and the assessment is not primary in nature since the process is conducted on the basis of data identifying evidence such as publications and projects, it is a distance process and it is not contextualised. Universities must establish their own mechanisms for recruiting teaching staff.

Assessment agencies

• Transparency and reporting on actions of agencies are two fundamental principles. Quality assurance agencies act with complete independence, in line with the applicable legal framework at any given time. However, it is important to highlight that the first agents bearing responsibility for quality are the universities (Bergen Declaration, 2003).
• During the early stages of quality assurance policies, agencies may have taken on more functions and there is a need to return the main role in quality assurance back to universities. Agencies must give universities a hearing and uphold constructive dialogue enabling a flexible approach to be adopted and emphasis to be placed on diversity, whilst avoiding red tape in the quality assurance policies established.
• There is a need to progress towards mechanisms for mutual acknowledgement among agencies, particularly in relation to principles and areas of focus. However, the procedures are far too complex to be able to balance them. Can various forms of accreditation exist within the same system? How should work be divided up among all the agencies existing within the same state?