Peder Saether Symposium (March 9-10, 2000)
Dr. Ladislav Cerych Presentation
Dr. Ladislav Cerych, Director, Education Policy Center, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
New Information and Communication Technologies and Universities: Policy Implications
The impact of new information and communication technologies (NICT) on the future of universities is, to a large extent, the central focus of the Peder Sæther Symposium. In this brief paper, I wish to reflect on the policy implications of this impact and development. What I have in mind are policy implications on the system level, i.e., policies to be pursued -- if any – by the state or federal authorities, which in Europe means principally the central government and/or the ministry of education.
The key question can be formulated as follows: what is, or what should be, the role of central authorities in the development and use of NICT within and by universities? In fact, should and can they in this respect have a significant role at all, and if so, what should this role be?
There are surely several possible answers to this question, depending on the national context and traditions as much as on personal opinions. Moreover, what does "significant role" mean? steering, coordination, or merely facilitating and stimulating (through appropriate legislative measures or financial support)? Let us briefly examine the two extreme positions and arguments supporting answers to these questions.
Central authorities should have no (or only a very minimal) role. The development should be left to individual and especially institutional initiatives; in other words, to a bottom-up process. In fact, this is unavoidable because of the complexity of the whole development and because of the speed of technological progress with which no central authority can really cope. If it tries to, it can only retard or even block the most creative and imaginative innovations and solutions. Additionally, this could dangerously limit the necessary autonomy of universities.
Central authorities should play a key role. This applies in particular to countries where the bottom-up approach is less developed or very weak. It can be argued that, in this case, the need for central support and even central steering are indispensable. The same might be true in countries with a long tradition of centralised (state) administration and governance. Furthermore, the argument can apply even in cases where individual and institutional initiatives exist, or more or less prevail, but where they lead to chaotic situations and quality deterioration as well as a great lack of equity in the provision of existing opportunities for different social groups.
There are, of course, many "intermediary" solutions both in theory and in practice. Rarely, if ever, will one of the above extreme positions be defended and implemented: no role at all for the central authorities or, on the contrary, a dominating if not an exclusive role for them. The real question then becomes, what role, however small or large, should central authorities have, and what policies concerning NICT and universities should they pursue?
In one way or another, this role relates to two broad potential aims of central intervention: support and incentives concerning the development of NICT in connection with universities; quality control and some coordination of individual and institutional initiatives, including, if necessary, an improved information of the public (students in particular) on the available opportunities and offers.
The first of these two aims -- support and incentives – can, of course, be achieved trough several means. The most obvious of them is certainly financial support: grants for the necessary equipment (computers, internet connections, necessary software, and the like), but also cost of expert advice and even part of the management costs (of the new institutions and/or of the networks to be established), of scholarships for participants in the new NICT-related schemes, etc.
A more complex form of support -- often as important as the purely financial one – is legislation in the broad sense of the term: legislation or decrees recognizing and accrediting the new patterns of NICT-linked higher education, of degrees and diplomas awarded within its framework. Clearly, in some countries this is not necessary or appropriate because the corresponding problems will be solved by the universities themselves or by inter-university agreements. In others, especially in continental Europe, and even more so in central Europe, such centrally steered and initiated measures can be essential because of the legalistic tradition of these countries ("Only what exists through law or is backed by law can exist at all"). At the same time, legislative measures in these countries represent a powerful incentive which is linked to a larger issue, namely the relation between the new (NICT-based) and traditional forms of higher education (see below).
The role of central authorities in supporting or even initiating NICT–university links (including new forms of higher education generated by these links) does not need in any way to limit the autonomy of universities or block their initiatives. It should be viewed as their stimulus which, we would argue, is particularly necessary in some countries. In others, the universities themselves, their consortia and/or private corporations and professional associations will assume this role. But even there, central authorities often can be faced with situations which might make their involvement highly desirable, if not indispensable. Such situations are, for instance, cases where institutional initiatives (the bottom-up process or, in a sense, the market forces), however powerful they might be, leave certain blanks on the map – of geographic areas not covered, of social or ethnic groups not benefiting from the new opportunities.
This then is linked to what we have defined above as a second main aim of the central authorities' role in the development of NICT–university relations: their role in quality control and coordination.
The emerging multitude of initiatives, not just in the use of NICT by universities but also in patterns or institutions of higher education more or less based on NICT, can be considered as a positive phenomenon in and of itself, although in many cases this poses a problem.
In fact, this multitude can, and often does, create chaotic situations in which many NICT-based institutions or programs do not imply sufficient or even a minimum of guarantees concerning the quality of their educational offers and services. A system of a more or less central evaluation and accreditation might consequently be indispensable. A good example and analogy in this respect is the rapid development of private higher education institutions in Eastern Europe (e.g., Romania or Ukraine) after 1989. Several hundred emerged within a few years, but it rapidly appeared that most of them were universities but in name. Unavoidably, authorities had to make it clear that only a minority (in Romania close to one tenth) deserved this name and recognition.
It can, of course, be argued that a truly competitive environment, as it exists for example in the US, leads sooner or later to an elimination of the "unworthy" ones. However, such an environment does not exist in many countries and/or is distorted by different lobbies or purely commercial interests, if not corruption. In that case, only some central regulations can prevent the negative consequences (e.g., with regard to access conditions for socially underprivileged groups) and contribute to a more desirable use and spread of NICT-based higher education.
Another role of central authorities relates to the availability of information about existing NICT-based higher education. Obviously, new technologies, such as the Internet, can provide such information, but in a sense there is too much of it. The problem is the selection of relevant information, including indications about the quality and academic and labor market standing of existing offers. The development of such an information system can be, of course, entrusted to an independent agency, but central authorities at least have to initiate the necessary process and provide the necessary support.
Finally, central authorities are in some countries the only instance which can ensure and regulate the transferability of qualifications and degrees acquired in NICT-based higher education to its more traditional forms. Such a transferability is often essential for the new patterns to acquire the necessary prestige and recognition.
This role is probably not indispensable in some countries where transferability problems are solved on the basis of inter-institutional agreements, or simply by decisions of the institutions concerned. In most of Europe, at least, a push from the center is required. This becomes even more true in light of the 1999 Bologna declaration, one of the most important recent documents in the development of European higher education. This declaration, signed by the ministers of education of 29 countries, strongly recommends the generalization of a credit system which would facilitate international student mobility. Implicitly, this system should eventually apply to NICT-based higher education as well. Here again, the intervention of central authorities might be necessary in some countries.
The final point to be stressed concerns, in particular (although not exclusively), countries of Central / Eastern Europe where the demand for admission to higher education is far from being satisfied. In the Czech Republic, for example, over 50% of applicants do not find a place, even if qualified, to enter into one of the existing institutions. NICT in general, whether special distance universities, full virtual universities, or as a mere tool to cope with increased student numbers within traditional universities, represents without any doubt a potentially powerful tool towards solving the problem of unsatisfied demand. But this will happen only if adequate policies and support exist at the national level. In other words, NICT-linked higher education might represent not just a more or less spontaneous response to technological progress, but also a centrally initiated and implemented means of meeting the goal of widening access to higher education of both traditional (young) and non-traditional students.
© 2006 UC Regents
Last modified: 15 April 2006 | e-mail