- Email: [email protected]
Academic oligarchy and higher education research. Implications for the reform of institutions of higher education in Austria
\ PERGAMON
—HIGHER— EDUCATION —POLICY— Higher Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
Academic oligarchy and higher education research[ Implications for the reform of institutions of higher education in Austria Erich Leitner Department for Educational Research\ University of Kla`enfurt\ Universitaetsstrasse\ A!8919 Kla`enfurt\ Austria
0[ Introduction Austrian higher education is going through a phase of comprehensive re!organisation[ The legal basis for this transformation is enshrined in two laws of 0882\ viz[ the {University Organisation Law "UOL#| "{Universitats!Organisationsgesetz|# and the {Fachhochschul Study Law "FSL#| "Fachhochschul!Studien`esetz#[ Once promulgated\ these laws will provide the Austrian system of higher education with a totally new structure which should be in place by the end of the century[ This change is an expression of a deep!rooted change in the Austrian policy of higher education which is closely associated with the period in o.ce of the Minister of Science\ Erhard Busek\ between 0878 and 0883[ Instead of the structures of demo! cratic self!government with their unclear responsibilities\ detailed state steering and administration of the institutions of higher education as prescribed by the socialist government in the UOL of 0864\ a slimmer administration with clear competencies for decision!making and responsibilities\ a larger autonomy of the universities vs the state\ an increased achievement orientation and more cost consciousness is anticipated "cf Die Neue Universitatsstruktur\ 0880#[ The Austrian universities\ previously often termed {protected workshops|\ are to develop into achievement and market oriented institutions[ The UOL of 0882 and the FSL of 0882 are the legal outcome of a political reform which is characterised by the following] 0[0[ The institutional diversi_cation of the hi`her education system Austria abandoned the concept of a {comprehensive university| which\ during the last 19 years\ concentrated a large part of scienti_c0 research and all academic course 0 The term {science| and its derivative are throughout being used in the sense of {Wissenschaft| which comprises also research and scholarship of the humanities and social sciences[
9841Ð7622:88:, ! see front matter Þ 0888 International Association of Universities[ Published by Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved PII] S 9 8 4 1 Ð 7 6 2 2 " 8 7 # 9 9 9 1 8 Ð 3
17
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
o}erings "basic studies\ doctoral studies\ short study courses\ undergraduate courses\ further and continuing education# within the {monopolistic| institution of the univer! sity[ Along side the universities and arts academies a system of study courses at Fachhochschulen "polytechnics# is emerging[ The latter are being set up and run by private providers\ with accreditation by an independent corporate agency\ the Fachhochschulrat "Fachhochschul Council#[ The new system distinguishes insti! tutionally and functionally between state universities "which are responsible for research\ the training of young scientists\ education through academic training\ and professional training# and privately conducted Fachhochschulen which provide prac! tically oriented higher education and scienti_c development as their major tasks[ 0[1[ The transition of direct state administration to a state control of hi`her education institutions This thrust can be seen in the strengthened autonomy of universities[ The admin! istration "including appointments and other personnel recruitment# has been trans! ferred from direct state decision!making to universities[ The rector elected by members of the universities on the basis of a proposal made by the academic senate\ will become the highest administrative authority[ The _nancial supporter of the universities "i[e[ the Republic of Austria# retains as administrative authority solely the approval of statutes\ the personnel structure and the _nancial framework as well as the implemen! tation or abolition of disciplinary provisions[ It may also be seen in the creation of an accreditation system to implement control and abolish Fachhochschul study!courses\ being conducted by the private sector\ even though they are predominately _nanced by the state[ Decisions concerning accreditation lie with the Fachhochschulrat\ which is composed in equal parts by academics and representatives of industry[ 0[2[ Achievement orientation and competition The aim is to bring about a market orientated competition between the universities and their de!centrally organised course o}erings\ between universities and Fach! hochschulen\ and also between the providers of Fachhochschul study!courses[ However\ the preconditions for competition between universities and Fach! hochschulen are rather distorted[ While universities are able to rely on a state!_nanced institutional and personnel infrastructure\ the emerging Fachhochschulen to some extent have to rely on private or regional modes of _nancing[ Furthermore\ conditions of admission to study at universities and Fachhochschulen are not equal[ While universities must admit every secondary!school leaver holding the requisite certi_cate "Matura# to any undergraduate degree course in keeping with the educational policy of open access to higher education\ the number of study places at Fachhochschulen is limited[ Applicants as a rule are selected "cf Leitner\ 0885#[ Although at _rst the reform of Austrian higher education primarily motivated by a critique of existing shortcomings\ it took on board additional suggestions and principles with arose from the international debate on the development of higher
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
18
education[ The introduction of modern management methods\ cost analysis\ achieve! ment and market orientation as well as evaluation have shaped internationally the innovative and reformist approaches within European higher education during the nineties[ The reorganisation of Austrian higher education system began in 0883 and is expected to be completed in its basic structures by the academic year 0887:88[ The UOL of 0882 was followed by a University Study Law "0886# and a new Personnel Law "Dienstrecht# for university teachers "0886#[ The implementation above all of the study laws seems likely to last until the next century\ since students who have begun their studies under the present conditions can complete them under the old rules[ In this article we shall analyse the reform discussion which led to the higher education laws of 0882 under two central aspects[ First\ we will describe the role and the relevance of {academic oligarchy| in the _nal stages of the discussion on higher education reform and particularly i[e[ parliamentary considerations and decisions[ Second\ we will clarify the role educational research played within the reform[ This is a preliminary to a thorough analysis of the Austrian higher education reform during the years 0880Ð82 and which so far is lacking[ The insights derived from the Austrian example cannot be transferred to other international higher eduction systems in a linear fashion[ But the impact of academic oligarchy and of educational research upon higher education reform may provide a suitable approach for a more general analysis of the processes in higher education reform[
1[ The analysis of higher education systems From which theoretical context higher education systems should be analysed as important segments of modern life\ is an issue that in recent decades increasingly has been subject to systematic re~ection "cf Clark\ 0872^ Cerych + Sabatier\ 0875^ Becher + Kogan\ 0880^ Goedegebuure et al[\ 0882^ Neave + van Vught\ 0883#[ The drive to better understand the structures and functions of higher education systems did not serve purpose!free scienti_c understanding[ Rather\ analysis of the conditions\ necessi! ties\ possibilities and limits of higher education systems has allied with the desire to provide scienti_cally sound expert knowledge on higher education development\ for which an internationally rapidly expanding market already exists[ The comparative orientation of such studies\ suggests that higher education devel! opment cannot\ given the globalisation of broad areas of life\ be reduced to narrow national frameworks[ National and global perspectives supplement each other and overlap in comparative research and development[ {{In analyzing states as well as culture\ the economy\ and educational systems\ however\ world system level approaches focus attention beyond the boundaries of the nation state||[ "Ginsburg\ 0880\ p[ 01# Comparative studies of higher education policy are today always pos! itioned in a global\ if not in a state!transcending {regional| framework[ Within an international context research on the complex topic of structures and functions of higher education systems has sought over the last few years to improve our under! standing of a systematic study of higher education by identifying the decisive variables[
29
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
Clark "0872# identi_ed three fundamental elements in the central area of each higher education system to wit\ the organised forms of knowledge[ These are {{the ways tasks are conceived and arranged [ [ [ belief\ the primary norms and values of the many actors variously located in the system [ [ [ "and# authority\ the distribution of the legitimate power throughout the system||[ "Clark\ 0872\ p[ 5f# Clark developed a typology for the analysis of higher education based around the so!called triangle of coordination\ itself consisting of three reference points] {state authority|\ {market|\ and {academic oligarchy|[ These in~uences determine through their interaction the mode of co!operation of higher education\ such that the emphasis within each respec! tive higher education system can be on one of these reference points of the triangle[ The positioning of a higher education system within this triangle of power is not static\ but is subjected to a permanent process of change\ as Goedegebuure et al[ have rightly pointed out "cf Goedegebuure et al[\ 0882\ p[ 02# The Austrian system of higher education so far has not been analysed within this theoretical framework[ Nor does the present contribution attempt to achieve this[ Rather\ it investigates one aspect of this analytic approach\ namely the in~uence of {academic oligarchy| on reform which led to the higher education laws of 0882[ It focuses on that segment of the {academic oligarchy| which combines academic status with political power\ as represented by elected members of parliament[ The term {oligarchy| describes the political phenomenon by which in an institution\ an organisation or political community\ a small group exercises power over a large group[ Clark de_ned the term of the {academic oligarchy| as follows] {{The imperialistic thrust of modes of authority is particularly striking in the way that personal and collegial forms\ rooted in the disciplinary bottom of a system\ work their way upward to have an important e}ect on enterprise and then _nally system levels[|| "Clark\ 0872\ p[ 011# The {scienti_c world| as Goedegebuure et al[ call the phenomenon of an {academic oligarchy|\ thus somewhat diluting the relevance of the concept "cf Goe! degebuure et al[ 0882\ p[ 02f[#\ forms a group the strength of which\ originates primarily from its knowledge!based authority\ but clearly reaches beyond the limits of science turning into an in~uential\ independent factor of politics on the national level[ Clark describes this situation as follows] {{Academics\ as emphasized\ have also transmuted local authority into national power in many systems\ with national academics thereby becoming worthy opponents of bureaucrats and politicians in putting hands on the levers of decision| "Clark\ 0872\ p[ 047f[#[ The term {oligarchy|\ whilst applied to institutions\ organisations as well as to society at large\ is usually contrasted with democratic principles\ and carries in various dictionaries a pejorative meaning[ The Standard Dictionary of the Social Sciences describes oligarchy as {{government or rule by a select few who exert control without regard to the interests of the ruled||[ "Koschnick\ 0882\ p[ 0932f[# The Worterbuch der Soziolo`ie de_nes oligarchy as {{domination of the few\ domination of a small group in a state framework or in an organisation||[ "Hillmann\ 0883\ p[ 529f[# The Metzler Philosophie Lexikon contrasts oligarchy and democracy\ and quali_es the term of oligarchy in general as {{all domination of a small group over the state|| "Prechtl: Burkard \ 0885\ p[ 258#[ Considering how controversial the in~uence of science has been on politics in
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
20
general\ especially when exercised by a fairly small group\ in parliamentary democ! racies\ how strong will its in~uence be in that realm where legislative decisions are taken in relation to scienti_c concerns< And how weighty must the power of science be in cases where its representatives assume in addition political o.ce and directly steer\ in their capacity as political _gures\ not only general state policy\ but more especially legislation for the state higher education system< The co!ordination triangle in such cases leans signi_cantly towards {academic oligarchy|\ which simultaneously weighs on the side of science as well as of state authority[ That market forces in Austria are less developed than elsewhere\ encourages this development further "because of high state participation in the economy\ Austria is not only `eo`raphically located between West and Eastern Europe#[ Clark|s typology has created\ particularly from a comparative perspective\ a kind of standardised approach to the analysis of higher education systems\ for the theory and methods of research and development in this _eld of educational research[ The in~uences which are exerted in each country on the structure\ function and devel! opment of higher education systems\ however\ cannot solely be described on the basis of abstract typologies[ The speci_c circumstances of each country in historical\ political\ cultural\ economic\ and social terms condition the aims\ methods and results of the analysis[ The requirement of compatibility of the results in a trans!national context\ on the other hand\ requires each country|s analysis to fall in with inter! nationally recognised schemes of analysis[ In keeping with this theoretical construct\ the interplay between in~uences and actors which occurred during the discussion of recent reform in Austrian higher education\ will be analysed in the following sections[
2[ The interplay of interests To take into account the factors which in~uence the development of the higher education systems\ it is not su.cient to consider the e}ects of single institutions\ political parties or societal groups[ In the interplay of interests\ above all\ single persons have their place[ The common ground for institutions\ groups and individuals is that all pursue their respective interests in reform according to the bene_t they expect from the success or failure of the reforming impulse\ ideally for the {res publica|\ less ideally in favour of speci_c groups or individuals[ Studies on the development of Austrian higher education\ covering broad periods*those of Richard Meister "0852#\ Susanne Preglau!Hammerle "0875#\ Walter Ho~echner "0877# and Josef Melchior "0882# for example\ are concerned with historical\ cultural and social!historical or socio!political approaches[ The question of direct in~uence by single exponents of science on the shaping of universities in the context of power!politics is only brie~y touched upon[ Individuals\ when they have a political mandate as well\ pursue interests which can to a large extent be concerned with their personal orientations[ Such intended political actions imply\ from the perspective of the public good\ strengths and weaknesses which contain success or failure to the same extent[ As\ for instance\ the neo!liberal economic theory has shown\ the behaviour and achievements of people in political
21
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
functions cannot be associated with other expectations or cannot in their results be evaluated di}erently than those in private market sectors[ Buchanan\ in his {public choice theory|\ argued that market and politics in their achievements can only be compared and evaluated\ if both are analysed in the light of the same theoretical assumptions "starting either from ideal or from real parameters#[ Thus\ he contrasted the theory of the failure of the market with a theory of the failure of the state and thus questioned the myth of the superiority of state decisions[ "Buchanan\ 0889\ p[ 12f[# Even though Buchanan developed his {public choice theory| in relation to processes of economic decision!making\ he later dem! onstrated that the theory\ in the form of Public Choice Analysis\ can equally be applied to actors in more complex political areas[ People do not change their nature when they act in a political rather than an economic context[ As elected politicians\ as academic functionaries\ as civil servants in academic administrations\ they are involved in {public choice actions| which have to be related to the total outcome which is observable[ {{The theory of public choice action attempts to bring about an understanding and an explanation of the complex institutional interactions which happen in the political realm|| "ibid[\ p[ 15#[ Basic units for the interpretation of political actions are\ therefore\ not only organisational units like political parties\ nations or institutions\ but selective\ speci_cally behaving\ acting individual persons who\ in the context of their political activities\ also seek respective personal advantage[ Since\ however\ political actions normally are not individualistic\ but occur in democratically organised communities primarily in groups "parties\ factions\ commissions\ committees#\ we may pose the question how the aims of the individual can be made compatible with those of a group[ If the interests of the majority of group members largely overlap\ we can also assume stable decision!making within groups[ Yet\ in the parliamentary process "with its committees and commissions# decisions can be taken in favour of a minority[ This is recognisable above all where only a few participating members are immediately concerned by the issues in question^ or\ when only a few posses the necessary speci_c knowledge\ which may reduce participation of the remainder and instill an attitude of passivity and disinterest with regard to the debate[ In the Austrian higher education discussion over the years 0880Ð82\ the spokesmen of the higher education system\ i[e[ the representatives of the academic oligarchy\ were signi_cantly advantaged through their speci_c knowledge about higher education and its functions\ compared to the remaining commission members none of whom were academics[ Decisions in favour of the exponents of the academic oligarchy were therefore pre!programmed[ In a democratic community like the Republic of Austria\ the mechanism of in~uence and decision!making in higher education legislation\ where the political will calls for implementation\ cannot be con_ned simply to the interests of actors in the political arena\ of legislative corporations or of government[ This mechanism\ apart from economic and social groups\ includes above all\ the providers of state services[ It includes the diverse representatives of interest in the area of science and the university\ and particularly civil servants of the science administration and university teachers themselves who in Austria are usually civil servants[ The latter are\ in the _nal analysis\
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
22
responsible for the realisation of the political decisions contained in the laws[ They have to live with these laws and therefore have a vital interest in them[ In the modern state\ both civil servants of the science administration and university teachers are\ on the one hand\ able to in~uence the work of the legislator through their position in central science administration "ministries# or through the university institution\ as well as through legal\ representative corporations "Rectors| Conference\ Professors| Conference\ the National Conference of Scienti_c Personnel\ Unions etc[#[ On the other hand\ they enjoy a considerable margin of decision!making in the implementation of laws in daily administration[ Since university teachers\ within the political reality of Austria\ are also represented in the legislative corporations\ the institutional idea of a separation of legislative and executive powers in the Austrian higher education policy is realised in all probability only to a limited extent[ The complex process of legislation involved in shaping Austrian higher education can then by no means be reduced to clearly circumscribed areas and aims[ Rather\ it can be viewed only as a network of institutional and individual constellations of interests within which individuals\ by their activities\ have been able to impose a highly individualistic component on the legislative process through articulating their own particular ideas as well as by advancing and utilising the intentions within these di}erent groups[
3[ The reform discussion The discussion on the reform of Austrian higher education which paved the way to the University Organisation Law and the Fachhochschul Study Law in 0882\ can be traced back as a political declaration of intention as early as 0878 "cf Stenographische Protokolle\ 0882\ p[ 04270#[ The discussion took place mainly during the years 0880Ð 82 and is closely associated with the reforming zeal of Erhard Busek who directed the science and research agendas of Austria from 0878Ð0883[ As chairman of the O Ý sterreichische Volkspartei and Minister for Science and Research\ his reform ideas had also to take account of the proposals for higher education policy of his coalition partner SPO Ý [ The SPO Ý had been responsible for the organisational status quo of the universities\ codi_ed in the University Organisation Law of 0864 and by a then approved absolute majority in parliament[ Formally\ the reform proposed to replace the codi_ed framework conditions of that law by a new legal enactment[ Both laws of 0882 became e}ective on 0st October 0883[ Problems of implemen! tation and the need to create supplementary laws "Study Law\ Personnel Law for University Teachers#\ reform in the university world has so far been prolonged[ Nevertheless\ we will concentrate primarily on the more narrowly de_ned phase of the reform\ that is\ on the period until 0882\ and mainly on the university sector[ For the Austrian discussion of universities reform\ there were several starting points[ First\ a broad discontent with the lack of e.ciency of Austrian universities made itself felt among students "mainly about excessively long periods of study and high drop!out quotas#\ {among university teachers "dissatis_ed with too much admin!
23
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
istration\ and too little space for research#^ among industry "about the quali_cations and the age of graduates at the time of entry into a profession#\ and among the public "the high cost involved and lack of e.ciency#[ Second\ a considerable amount of dissatisfaction existed about internal conditions of the universities "particularly with regard to their steering mechanisms# since the implementation of the University Organisation Law of 0864[ This criticism stemmed from some university teachers and from the coalition parties\ primarily the O Ý ster! reichische Volkspartei[ Third\ and _nally\ there was a growing awareness that the very comprehensive and detailed administrative steering tasks in universities undertaken by the Ministry for Science and Research\ were becoming unmanageable[ "cf Die Neue Univ! ersitatsstruktur\ 0880\ particularly p[ 7}[# The litany of complaints voiced by various sides for many years\ whilst it tools a political weight\ soon brought about diverging positions within the reform process[ Besides those groups desirous of keeping the status quo\ another direction of thinking emerged\ supported above all by representatives of university teachers\ which favoured a reform of the Organisation Law of 0864[ The third position\ supported particularly by the Minister of Science Busek\ by large parts of the Austrian economy\ by parts of the science administration and by some university professors\ brought about a total restructuration of the higher education system[ The primary aim of this group\ whose ideas had been set out in a working contract with the federal government\ the development of universities towards becoming autonomous institutions and inde! pendently responsible for their own achievements "cf[ Die Neue Universitatsstruktur\ Vienna\ 0880#[ During the discussion from 0880Ð82\ the following interest groups\ which had a mandate to formulate and decide\ were involved] * Government and parliament\ based on the political parties with their respective manifestos for science and higher education policies[ * Universities teachers and other tertiary institutions together with the legally con! stituted corporations of the universities\ consisting of the Austrian Rectors| Con! ference\ the Federal Conference of Academic Personnel\ the Federal Conference of University Professors\ the Austrian Students| Association "with all respective factions#\ and the Federal Section of Higher Education Teachers within the Union of Public Service[ * The economy "represented by the {social partners| and by the {Association of Austrian Industrialists|#[ * The science administration and its civil servants[ It has\ however\ not been the case that each of these groups would have from the beginning persued diverging interests within the reform process[ Consensus and divergencies in fundamental questions as well as in details transcending all those positions ~ourished\ and the possibilities to wield in~uence over the reform process did not exist to the same extent for all groups[ Furthermore\ individual persons were simultaneously active in di}erent committees[ University teachers\ in that they were functionaries in representative corporations
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
24
and academic committees\ possessed the means to inject their opinions into the reform process through their faculties\ their universities\ the Rectors|s Conference\ the University Teachers| Union or other {chamber|\ as the case may be[ The term {chamber| "{Kammer|# formally describes a public corporation which occupies pol! itically a level of decision!making amongst the social partners but preceding the legislative powers\ though on a personal level it is however closely bound up with the latter[ In higher education in Austria the following corporations "{Kammern|# are _nanced from public funds] , The Austrian Rectors| Conference^ , The Federal Conference of Scienti_c and Artistic Personnel^ , The Federal Conference of Professors^ , The Austrian Students| Association[ The University Teachers section within the Union of Public Service Workers has a particular role as social partner[ It is the negotiating partner of the employer in all contractual and _nancial matters[ A number of private associations "The University Teachers| Association\ The Association of Professors\ The Association of Lecturers# also participate tentatively in the political process[ A comparatively small group of individuals determined within the centre of the political decision!making process the legislation on higher education[ Amongst them those university professors represented in the National Council and in the Committee for Science and Research as well as high civil servants of the science administration holding a central position in the reform process as well and who at the same time taught at university[ Each had the opportunity to introduce their opinions via close political groups or social partners[ Decision!makers in the central committees were surrounded by a number of {chamber| functionaries\ with their respective group interests and their often quite personal ideas for reform[ The danger in this nexus was that the reform process could be dominated by a relatively small group of individuals\ so!called {multi!functionaries|[ The behaviour of these actors in the political process may be seen in the context of what Buchanan described as {public choice action|\ which we referred to above[ Each individual\ thought part of a particular group\ also acts according to personal pro_t maxi! misation[ He or she seeks to realise those proposals existing which will provide optimal working conditions in a particular working environment in the future[ That someone exercises a political function in a committee does not necessarily abolish the principle that decision!making and the perception of problems is very often in~uenced by individual interests[ Very often we are dealing with similar individual interest positions\ when we closely observe successful group opinions[ The phenomenon of {chambers| in higher education gives rise to incompatible group opinions and to the articulation of status interests which are primarily voiced by a group of functionaries[ Erhard Busek foresaw this danger and asked all Austrian higher education teachers in April 0880 to express their opinion on the reform[ This action commanded a wide response[ It was received very positively by a large majority of university teachers\ but rather unenthusiastically by representatives of the various political committees[ Thus\ ideas _gured in the discussion which had been expressed by people who were
25
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
not formally representative of particular corporations or who did not feel represented by their particular {chamber|[ With this strategy\ Erhard Busek\ successfully cut back the in~uence of the multi!functionaries and the decisions of their committees[ The legal initiative and therefore the _rst draft version of the law were co!ordinated by the Ministry of Science[ The Minister of Science\ the science bureaucracy and the parliamentary Select Committee for Science and Research formed the inner circle of power which made the essential political decisions and submitted them to parliament for _nal approval[ The decisive body for drawing up the University Organisation Law of 0882 was the Committee for Science and Research of the National Council of the Republic of Austria\ which consisted of 12 members[ Its chair was Klara Motter of the Liberal Party[ Her deputies were Christian Brunner\ Professor of Public Law at the University of Graz and the spokesman for science of the Austrian People|s Party "O Ý VP#\ and Johann Stippel\ the spokesman for science for the Social!Democratic Party of Austria "SPO Ý #[ Among the 12 members of the committee in 0882\ were six professors at Austrian universities "four from the O Ý VP\ two from the SPO Ý [ These were] Gerhart Bruckmann\ Statistics\ Vienna University^ Christian Brunner\ Public Law\ Graz Uni! versity^ Andrea Kohl\ Constitutional Law\ Vienna University^ Dieter Lukesch\ Econ! omic Theory\ Innsbruck University^ Ewald Nowotny^ Economic Theory and Policy\ Vienna Economics and Business University\ and Helmut Seel\ Education\ Graz University[ More than a quarter of the members of the Committee for Science and Research were employed as professors by those institutions for which the law was to be made[ This above average representation of the academic oligarchy was also visible in the full session of the National Council[ The six university above!mentioned professors came from a professional category which\ in 0882\ consisted of 0799 persons "cf Hochschulbericht 0882 vol[ 1\ p[ 62#[ Compared with the total population of 6[7 million\ this corresponds to a percentage of 9[14[ In the Austrian parliament with its 072 members\ on the other hand\ those six university professors accounted for 2[2 percentage\ and in the Committee for Science and Research with its 12 members the proportion toped 15 percent[ This calculation does not take into account the two presidents of the National Council who held honorary professorships at the University of Vienna\ nor those members of parliament employed by universities as assistants or academic civil servants[ No other professional group\ therefore\ enjoys in proportional terms such an enormously high representation in the Austrian parliament as university teachers[ Although professors belong to di}erent political parties\ they were usually unanimous in their ideas about the future shape of Austrian higher education[ This is not meant to be critical of going above the boundaries of party thinking[ Consensus on such aspects can no doubt be an advantage[ One should\ however\ note that the University Organisation Law of 0882 requires that internal decision!making structures should be restricted to professors\ while participation in decision!making processes of assistants and students\ which previously existed\ were largely done away with[ The penetration of academic oligarchy into the legislative corporation of the Repub! lic of Austria was a result\ on the one hand\ of its clear quantitative representation\ and\ on the other hand\ of the particular knowledge about the specialist agenda\ as can
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
26
be seen from the contributions of Professors Brunner\ Lukesch\ Seel and Bruckmann during the parliamentary discussion of 19 October 0882 "cf protocol of the 022rd session of the National Council of the Republic of Austria of 19 October 0882#[ This direct and forceful participation of university professors in developing the University Organisation Law of 0882 in itself is no reason to assess the legislative achievement of this group[ The quality of the law will become clear only in the course of implemen! tation[ The high proportion of the scienti_c!academic oligarchy participating in higher education legislation is primarily a formal!political illustration the better to under! stand the power relations surrounding the emergence of the higher education law[
4[ The contribution of higher education research to the reform agenda Research into higher education nowadays presents itself as an inter!displinary research area\ as a {_eld of study| as it is called in Anglo!American terminology\ in which researchers from such di}ering displinary origins as economist\ historians\ political scientists\ educationists\ philosophers\ legal experts\ sociologists and psychologists take part according to their respective knowledge and methodological perspectives[ From an international stand point\ two main approaches determine the research _eld] on the one hand\ are functionalist approaches\ particularly within empirical social research\ economics and organisational theory\ which attempt to in~uence scholarship and universities according to political\ _nancial and social criteria^ on the other hand\ are knowledge domains which see in the university above all a place of searching for truth\ as well as related teaching\ in order to provide a particular interpretation to the contents of ideas and to the historical dimension of the institution[ While historically orientated higher education research "History of Science# and a pedagogical higher education research "Higher Education Didactics and Sta} Devel! opment# are fairly well established in Austrian universities\ all other areas show only sporadic research activities[ Real institutionalisation is lacking[ The institutional weakness of Austrian higher education research goes hand in hand with a lack of academics\ continuously working in this area and who are involved in the international dialog of this research _eld[ Support for individual projects cannot compensate for this overall de_cit\ "cf[ Lassnigg + Pechar\ 0883\ p[ 46f[# Documentation from SOWIS shows that altogether between 0889 and 0881 there were only seven projects into higher education research[ "ibidem\ Table B7# However\ there are hardly any external investigations of Austrian higher education\ from a comparative perspective\ for instance[ The reform debate of the years 0880Ð82 could neither build upon a systematically available body of knowledge of Austrian higher education\ nor were researchers or research groups with expert knowledge in this area involved in the preparation of normative or empirical studies[ The debate was very quickly reduced to functional issues of higher education organisation and its implementation in the reform process[ Yet\ since 0877\ a group of university teachers within the Austrian research com! munity has continuously tackled questions of Austrian university reform[ Although not themselves higher education researchers\ they have\ as people directly concerned
27
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
by the dissatisfactory situation of universities\ regularly discussed the issue of reform at conferences since 0877\ and even put forward a reform proposal in 0880[ "cf Die Neue Universitat\ 0880# This group worked closely with the Minister of Science and followed the reform process from a position of knowledgeable practitioners[ The Minister of Science appointed a commission in 0881\ consisting of rep! resentative of committees of higher education teachers and students\ politicians as well as civil servants of the Ministry of Science[ It was intended to draw up proposals for the basic structures in the organisational reform of universities[ After a com! paratively short period\ proposals for university reform were set out in May 0881 and became the basis for further development[ The working group of the {Inter!University Institute for Inter!Disciplinary Research and Further Education| tackled the question of the idea and organisation of science from a group!dynamic perspective[ "cf Fischer\ 0882# In the course of these discussions\ the chairman of the Science Committee of parliament\ Christian Brunner\ sought to found an Institute for Higher Education Research\ to be directly under the control of the National Council\ an idea which apparently followed the realisation that scienti_cally based arguments\ were lacking[ Debate over the reform of Austrian universities between 0880 and 0882 was able\ only to a very limited extent\ to draw upon research _ndings from the Austrian Scienti_c community[ No attempts were made to use normative or empirical research results more extensively in the discussion[ The ground law therefore was based on the reform model of the Austrian Research Society and on the large data collections of the Ministry of Science and Research[ Nevertheless\ neither the universities themselves\ nor the founder of the universities were able to take stances within the reform process which had been determined by scienti_c debate[ Neither normative nor empirical investigations were systematically elaborated or subject to research inquiry[ Thus the reform process was largely reduced to organisational measures "structures or functional processes# the advantages and disadvantages of which were thrashed out at the appropriate political level[ From the stand point of scholarship\ this may well be deplorable\ since possible targets were not set[ But in the hierarchy of our ideals of order\ democracy is placed higher than scienti_c rationalism[ The political decision which has to strike a balance between particularistic interests and con~icts\ therefore\ has higher priority than scienti_c debate[
5[ Summary We have sought to describe the major steps in the Austrian reform discussion which let up to the University Organisation Law of 0882[ An account of Austrian higher education has been made\ followed by a brief description of various approaches to the analysis of higher education systems and a consideration of the interests involved in the reform of higher education\ including not only institutional\ but also individual\ levels of interest and views which deserved particular attention[ Within the complex _eld of political theory and legislation\ the academic oligarchy
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
28
assumed a central role\ due to an extraordinarily high proportion of university pro! fessors in the Austrian parliament[ University professors\ in their function as members of the Austrian National Council\ were more than a quarter of the members of the Parliamentary Science Committee and were able to in~uence the legislative process in the central advisory committee through their particular expert knowledge\ and also because of their particular interests[ The reform of Austrian higher education between 0880Ð82 occurred largely without reference to the normative or empirical results of higher education research[ Applied research related to reform existed only with regard to organisational and functional aspects[ The very limited part of Austrian higher education research in the reform discussion can be partly explained by the lack of appropriate resources[ On the other hand\ higher education reform is primarily a political act and the weight of its analysis has above all to be related to this basic fact[
References Becher\ T[ + Kogan\ M[ "0881#[ Process and Structure in Hi`her Education[ "1nd ed[# London and New York] Heinemann[ Buchanan\ J[ M[ "0889#[ Politische O Ý konomie als Verfassun`stheorie[ Zurich] Hofmann[ Bundesgesetz uber Fachhochschul!Studiengange "FHStG#[ "0882#[ Bundes`esetzblatt fur die Republik O Ý ster! reich\ 239\ 17[4[0882[ Bundesministerium fur Wissenchaft und Forschung[ "0880#[ Die neue Universitatsstruktur[ Reformkonzept\ Wien] Bundesministerium fur Wissenchaft und Forschung[ Materialien zur Hochschulreform 0[ Bundesministerium fur Wissenchaft und Forschung[ "0882\ 0885#[ Hochschulbericht\ 0882 :Bd 0\ 1^ 0885 :Bd 0\ 1[ Hg[ v[[ Wien] Bundesministerium fur Wissenchaft und Forschung[ Cerych\ L[\ + Sabatier\ P[ "0875#[ Great Expectations and Mixed Performance[ The Implementation of Hi`her Education Reforms in Europe[ Stoke!on!Trent] Trentham Books[ Clark\ B[ R[ "0872#[ The Hi`her Education System[ Academic Or`anisation in Cross!National Perspective[ Berkeley\ Los Angeles\ London] University of California Press[ Fischer\ R[ et al[ "Hg[#[ "0882#[ Ar`umentation und Entscheidun`] Zur Idee und Or`anisation von Wissen! schaft[ Wien\ Munchen] Pro_l[ Ginsberg\ M[ B[ et al[ "0881#[ Educational Reform\ Social Struggle\ the State and the World Economic System[ In M[ B[ Ginsburg "Ed[#\ Understandin` Educational Reform in Global Context[ Economy\ Ideolo`y\ and the State "pp[ 2Ð36#[ New York and London[ Goedegebuure\ L[ et al[ "0882#[ Hochschulpolitik im internationalen Ver`leich[ Gutersloh] Bertelsmann Stiftung[ Hillmann\ K[!H[ "0883#[ Worterbuch der Soziolo`ie\ uberarb[ u[ erg[ Au~[ Stuttgart] Kroner[ Hoe~echner\ W[ "0887#[ Die Baumeister des kunfti`en Glucks[ Fra`mente einer Geschichte des Hoch! Ý sterreich vom Aus`an` des 08[ Jahrhunderts bis in das Jahr 0827[ Graz] Publikationen schulwesens in O aus dem Archiv der Universitat Graz 12[ Huberman\ M[ "0883#[ The OECD:CERI Seminar on Educational Research and Development ] A Synthesis and Commentary[ In T[ M[ Tomlinson\ A[ C[ Tuijnman "Eds[#\ Education Research and Reform[ An International Perspective "pp[ 34Ð55#[ Washington DC] O.ce of Education[ Koschnick\ W[ J[ "0882#[ Standard Dictionary of the Social Sciences[ "Vol 1[# Munchen:u[ a[ Saur[ Lassnigg\ L[\ + Pechar\ H[ "0883#[ Bildun`sforschun` in O Ý sterreich[ O Ý sterreichischer Landerbericht zum 2[ Internationalen OECD*Seminar zur Bildun`sforschun` und!Entwicklun`[ 4Ð6 Oktober\ Wien[ Leitner\ E[ "0885#[ Unequal Competition] Access to Universities and Fachhochschulen in Austria between Open Policy and Selectivitity[ European Journal of Education\ 20"2#\ 48Ð60[
39
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
Meister\ R[ "0852#[ Entwicklun` und Reformen des osterreichischen Studienwesens[T[ 0\ 1[ Wien\ O Ý sterr] Akademie der Wissenschaften[ Phil[ !Hist[ Kl[ Sitzungsberichte 128[ Melchior\ J[ "0882#[ Die sozialen Patho`enese der osterreichischen Hochschulreform[ Eine `esellsch! aftstheoretische Rekonstruktion[ Baden!Baden] Nomos Universitatsschriften\ Politik 28[ Prechtl\ P[\ + Burkard\ F[!P[ "0885#[ Metzler Philosophie Lexikon Be`riffe und De_nitionen\ Stuttgart] Metzler[ Neave\ G[\ + van Vught\ F[ A[ "Eds[#[ "0883#[ Governments and Hi`her Education[ Relationships Across Three Continents] The Winds of Chan`e[ Oxford] Pergamon[ Preglau!Haemerle\ S[ "0875#[ Die politische und soziale Funktion der osterreichischen Universitat[ Von den Anfan`en bis zur Ge`enwart[ Innsbruck] Vergleichende Gesellschaftsgeschichte und politische Ideen! geschichte der Neuzeit 4[ Steno`raphisches Protokoll der 022[ Sitzun` des Nationalrates der Republik O Ý sterreich vom 19 Oktober 0882[ Universitaets! Organisationsgesetz[ "0882#[ UOG 82[ Bundes`esetzblatt der Republik O Ý sterreich Nr[ 794 v[ 15[00[0882[
—HIGHER— EDUCATION —POLICY— Higher Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
Academic oligarchy and higher education research[ Implications for the reform of institutions of higher education in Austria Erich Leitner Department for Educational Research\ University of Kla`enfurt\ Universitaetsstrasse\ A!8919 Kla`enfurt\ Austria
0[ Introduction Austrian higher education is going through a phase of comprehensive re!organisation[ The legal basis for this transformation is enshrined in two laws of 0882\ viz[ the {University Organisation Law "UOL#| "{Universitats!Organisationsgesetz|# and the {Fachhochschul Study Law "FSL#| "Fachhochschul!Studien`esetz#[ Once promulgated\ these laws will provide the Austrian system of higher education with a totally new structure which should be in place by the end of the century[ This change is an expression of a deep!rooted change in the Austrian policy of higher education which is closely associated with the period in o.ce of the Minister of Science\ Erhard Busek\ between 0878 and 0883[ Instead of the structures of demo! cratic self!government with their unclear responsibilities\ detailed state steering and administration of the institutions of higher education as prescribed by the socialist government in the UOL of 0864\ a slimmer administration with clear competencies for decision!making and responsibilities\ a larger autonomy of the universities vs the state\ an increased achievement orientation and more cost consciousness is anticipated "cf Die Neue Universitatsstruktur\ 0880#[ The Austrian universities\ previously often termed {protected workshops|\ are to develop into achievement and market oriented institutions[ The UOL of 0882 and the FSL of 0882 are the legal outcome of a political reform which is characterised by the following] 0[0[ The institutional diversi_cation of the hi`her education system Austria abandoned the concept of a {comprehensive university| which\ during the last 19 years\ concentrated a large part of scienti_c0 research and all academic course 0 The term {science| and its derivative are throughout being used in the sense of {Wissenschaft| which comprises also research and scholarship of the humanities and social sciences[
9841Ð7622:88:, ! see front matter Þ 0888 International Association of Universities[ Published by Elsevier Science Ltd[ All rights reserved PII] S 9 8 4 1 Ð 7 6 2 2 " 8 7 # 9 9 9 1 8 Ð 3
17
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
o}erings "basic studies\ doctoral studies\ short study courses\ undergraduate courses\ further and continuing education# within the {monopolistic| institution of the univer! sity[ Along side the universities and arts academies a system of study courses at Fachhochschulen "polytechnics# is emerging[ The latter are being set up and run by private providers\ with accreditation by an independent corporate agency\ the Fachhochschulrat "Fachhochschul Council#[ The new system distinguishes insti! tutionally and functionally between state universities "which are responsible for research\ the training of young scientists\ education through academic training\ and professional training# and privately conducted Fachhochschulen which provide prac! tically oriented higher education and scienti_c development as their major tasks[ 0[1[ The transition of direct state administration to a state control of hi`her education institutions This thrust can be seen in the strengthened autonomy of universities[ The admin! istration "including appointments and other personnel recruitment# has been trans! ferred from direct state decision!making to universities[ The rector elected by members of the universities on the basis of a proposal made by the academic senate\ will become the highest administrative authority[ The _nancial supporter of the universities "i[e[ the Republic of Austria# retains as administrative authority solely the approval of statutes\ the personnel structure and the _nancial framework as well as the implemen! tation or abolition of disciplinary provisions[ It may also be seen in the creation of an accreditation system to implement control and abolish Fachhochschul study!courses\ being conducted by the private sector\ even though they are predominately _nanced by the state[ Decisions concerning accreditation lie with the Fachhochschulrat\ which is composed in equal parts by academics and representatives of industry[ 0[2[ Achievement orientation and competition The aim is to bring about a market orientated competition between the universities and their de!centrally organised course o}erings\ between universities and Fach! hochschulen\ and also between the providers of Fachhochschul study!courses[ However\ the preconditions for competition between universities and Fach! hochschulen are rather distorted[ While universities are able to rely on a state!_nanced institutional and personnel infrastructure\ the emerging Fachhochschulen to some extent have to rely on private or regional modes of _nancing[ Furthermore\ conditions of admission to study at universities and Fachhochschulen are not equal[ While universities must admit every secondary!school leaver holding the requisite certi_cate "Matura# to any undergraduate degree course in keeping with the educational policy of open access to higher education\ the number of study places at Fachhochschulen is limited[ Applicants as a rule are selected "cf Leitner\ 0885#[ Although at _rst the reform of Austrian higher education primarily motivated by a critique of existing shortcomings\ it took on board additional suggestions and principles with arose from the international debate on the development of higher
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
18
education[ The introduction of modern management methods\ cost analysis\ achieve! ment and market orientation as well as evaluation have shaped internationally the innovative and reformist approaches within European higher education during the nineties[ The reorganisation of Austrian higher education system began in 0883 and is expected to be completed in its basic structures by the academic year 0887:88[ The UOL of 0882 was followed by a University Study Law "0886# and a new Personnel Law "Dienstrecht# for university teachers "0886#[ The implementation above all of the study laws seems likely to last until the next century\ since students who have begun their studies under the present conditions can complete them under the old rules[ In this article we shall analyse the reform discussion which led to the higher education laws of 0882 under two central aspects[ First\ we will describe the role and the relevance of {academic oligarchy| in the _nal stages of the discussion on higher education reform and particularly i[e[ parliamentary considerations and decisions[ Second\ we will clarify the role educational research played within the reform[ This is a preliminary to a thorough analysis of the Austrian higher education reform during the years 0880Ð82 and which so far is lacking[ The insights derived from the Austrian example cannot be transferred to other international higher eduction systems in a linear fashion[ But the impact of academic oligarchy and of educational research upon higher education reform may provide a suitable approach for a more general analysis of the processes in higher education reform[
1[ The analysis of higher education systems From which theoretical context higher education systems should be analysed as important segments of modern life\ is an issue that in recent decades increasingly has been subject to systematic re~ection "cf Clark\ 0872^ Cerych + Sabatier\ 0875^ Becher + Kogan\ 0880^ Goedegebuure et al[\ 0882^ Neave + van Vught\ 0883#[ The drive to better understand the structures and functions of higher education systems did not serve purpose!free scienti_c understanding[ Rather\ analysis of the conditions\ necessi! ties\ possibilities and limits of higher education systems has allied with the desire to provide scienti_cally sound expert knowledge on higher education development\ for which an internationally rapidly expanding market already exists[ The comparative orientation of such studies\ suggests that higher education devel! opment cannot\ given the globalisation of broad areas of life\ be reduced to narrow national frameworks[ National and global perspectives supplement each other and overlap in comparative research and development[ {{In analyzing states as well as culture\ the economy\ and educational systems\ however\ world system level approaches focus attention beyond the boundaries of the nation state||[ "Ginsburg\ 0880\ p[ 01# Comparative studies of higher education policy are today always pos! itioned in a global\ if not in a state!transcending {regional| framework[ Within an international context research on the complex topic of structures and functions of higher education systems has sought over the last few years to improve our under! standing of a systematic study of higher education by identifying the decisive variables[
29
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
Clark "0872# identi_ed three fundamental elements in the central area of each higher education system to wit\ the organised forms of knowledge[ These are {{the ways tasks are conceived and arranged [ [ [ belief\ the primary norms and values of the many actors variously located in the system [ [ [ "and# authority\ the distribution of the legitimate power throughout the system||[ "Clark\ 0872\ p[ 5f# Clark developed a typology for the analysis of higher education based around the so!called triangle of coordination\ itself consisting of three reference points] {state authority|\ {market|\ and {academic oligarchy|[ These in~uences determine through their interaction the mode of co!operation of higher education\ such that the emphasis within each respec! tive higher education system can be on one of these reference points of the triangle[ The positioning of a higher education system within this triangle of power is not static\ but is subjected to a permanent process of change\ as Goedegebuure et al[ have rightly pointed out "cf Goedegebuure et al[\ 0882\ p[ 02# The Austrian system of higher education so far has not been analysed within this theoretical framework[ Nor does the present contribution attempt to achieve this[ Rather\ it investigates one aspect of this analytic approach\ namely the in~uence of {academic oligarchy| on reform which led to the higher education laws of 0882[ It focuses on that segment of the {academic oligarchy| which combines academic status with political power\ as represented by elected members of parliament[ The term {oligarchy| describes the political phenomenon by which in an institution\ an organisation or political community\ a small group exercises power over a large group[ Clark de_ned the term of the {academic oligarchy| as follows] {{The imperialistic thrust of modes of authority is particularly striking in the way that personal and collegial forms\ rooted in the disciplinary bottom of a system\ work their way upward to have an important e}ect on enterprise and then _nally system levels[|| "Clark\ 0872\ p[ 011# The {scienti_c world| as Goedegebuure et al[ call the phenomenon of an {academic oligarchy|\ thus somewhat diluting the relevance of the concept "cf Goe! degebuure et al[ 0882\ p[ 02f[#\ forms a group the strength of which\ originates primarily from its knowledge!based authority\ but clearly reaches beyond the limits of science turning into an in~uential\ independent factor of politics on the national level[ Clark describes this situation as follows] {{Academics\ as emphasized\ have also transmuted local authority into national power in many systems\ with national academics thereby becoming worthy opponents of bureaucrats and politicians in putting hands on the levers of decision| "Clark\ 0872\ p[ 047f[#[ The term {oligarchy|\ whilst applied to institutions\ organisations as well as to society at large\ is usually contrasted with democratic principles\ and carries in various dictionaries a pejorative meaning[ The Standard Dictionary of the Social Sciences describes oligarchy as {{government or rule by a select few who exert control without regard to the interests of the ruled||[ "Koschnick\ 0882\ p[ 0932f[# The Worterbuch der Soziolo`ie de_nes oligarchy as {{domination of the few\ domination of a small group in a state framework or in an organisation||[ "Hillmann\ 0883\ p[ 529f[# The Metzler Philosophie Lexikon contrasts oligarchy and democracy\ and quali_es the term of oligarchy in general as {{all domination of a small group over the state|| "Prechtl: Burkard \ 0885\ p[ 258#[ Considering how controversial the in~uence of science has been on politics in
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
20
general\ especially when exercised by a fairly small group\ in parliamentary democ! racies\ how strong will its in~uence be in that realm where legislative decisions are taken in relation to scienti_c concerns< And how weighty must the power of science be in cases where its representatives assume in addition political o.ce and directly steer\ in their capacity as political _gures\ not only general state policy\ but more especially legislation for the state higher education system< The co!ordination triangle in such cases leans signi_cantly towards {academic oligarchy|\ which simultaneously weighs on the side of science as well as of state authority[ That market forces in Austria are less developed than elsewhere\ encourages this development further "because of high state participation in the economy\ Austria is not only `eo`raphically located between West and Eastern Europe#[ Clark|s typology has created\ particularly from a comparative perspective\ a kind of standardised approach to the analysis of higher education systems\ for the theory and methods of research and development in this _eld of educational research[ The in~uences which are exerted in each country on the structure\ function and devel! opment of higher education systems\ however\ cannot solely be described on the basis of abstract typologies[ The speci_c circumstances of each country in historical\ political\ cultural\ economic\ and social terms condition the aims\ methods and results of the analysis[ The requirement of compatibility of the results in a trans!national context\ on the other hand\ requires each country|s analysis to fall in with inter! nationally recognised schemes of analysis[ In keeping with this theoretical construct\ the interplay between in~uences and actors which occurred during the discussion of recent reform in Austrian higher education\ will be analysed in the following sections[
2[ The interplay of interests To take into account the factors which in~uence the development of the higher education systems\ it is not su.cient to consider the e}ects of single institutions\ political parties or societal groups[ In the interplay of interests\ above all\ single persons have their place[ The common ground for institutions\ groups and individuals is that all pursue their respective interests in reform according to the bene_t they expect from the success or failure of the reforming impulse\ ideally for the {res publica|\ less ideally in favour of speci_c groups or individuals[ Studies on the development of Austrian higher education\ covering broad periods*those of Richard Meister "0852#\ Susanne Preglau!Hammerle "0875#\ Walter Ho~echner "0877# and Josef Melchior "0882# for example\ are concerned with historical\ cultural and social!historical or socio!political approaches[ The question of direct in~uence by single exponents of science on the shaping of universities in the context of power!politics is only brie~y touched upon[ Individuals\ when they have a political mandate as well\ pursue interests which can to a large extent be concerned with their personal orientations[ Such intended political actions imply\ from the perspective of the public good\ strengths and weaknesses which contain success or failure to the same extent[ As\ for instance\ the neo!liberal economic theory has shown\ the behaviour and achievements of people in political
21
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
functions cannot be associated with other expectations or cannot in their results be evaluated di}erently than those in private market sectors[ Buchanan\ in his {public choice theory|\ argued that market and politics in their achievements can only be compared and evaluated\ if both are analysed in the light of the same theoretical assumptions "starting either from ideal or from real parameters#[ Thus\ he contrasted the theory of the failure of the market with a theory of the failure of the state and thus questioned the myth of the superiority of state decisions[ "Buchanan\ 0889\ p[ 12f[# Even though Buchanan developed his {public choice theory| in relation to processes of economic decision!making\ he later dem! onstrated that the theory\ in the form of Public Choice Analysis\ can equally be applied to actors in more complex political areas[ People do not change their nature when they act in a political rather than an economic context[ As elected politicians\ as academic functionaries\ as civil servants in academic administrations\ they are involved in {public choice actions| which have to be related to the total outcome which is observable[ {{The theory of public choice action attempts to bring about an understanding and an explanation of the complex institutional interactions which happen in the political realm|| "ibid[\ p[ 15#[ Basic units for the interpretation of political actions are\ therefore\ not only organisational units like political parties\ nations or institutions\ but selective\ speci_cally behaving\ acting individual persons who\ in the context of their political activities\ also seek respective personal advantage[ Since\ however\ political actions normally are not individualistic\ but occur in democratically organised communities primarily in groups "parties\ factions\ commissions\ committees#\ we may pose the question how the aims of the individual can be made compatible with those of a group[ If the interests of the majority of group members largely overlap\ we can also assume stable decision!making within groups[ Yet\ in the parliamentary process "with its committees and commissions# decisions can be taken in favour of a minority[ This is recognisable above all where only a few participating members are immediately concerned by the issues in question^ or\ when only a few posses the necessary speci_c knowledge\ which may reduce participation of the remainder and instill an attitude of passivity and disinterest with regard to the debate[ In the Austrian higher education discussion over the years 0880Ð82\ the spokesmen of the higher education system\ i[e[ the representatives of the academic oligarchy\ were signi_cantly advantaged through their speci_c knowledge about higher education and its functions\ compared to the remaining commission members none of whom were academics[ Decisions in favour of the exponents of the academic oligarchy were therefore pre!programmed[ In a democratic community like the Republic of Austria\ the mechanism of in~uence and decision!making in higher education legislation\ where the political will calls for implementation\ cannot be con_ned simply to the interests of actors in the political arena\ of legislative corporations or of government[ This mechanism\ apart from economic and social groups\ includes above all\ the providers of state services[ It includes the diverse representatives of interest in the area of science and the university\ and particularly civil servants of the science administration and university teachers themselves who in Austria are usually civil servants[ The latter are\ in the _nal analysis\
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
22
responsible for the realisation of the political decisions contained in the laws[ They have to live with these laws and therefore have a vital interest in them[ In the modern state\ both civil servants of the science administration and university teachers are\ on the one hand\ able to in~uence the work of the legislator through their position in central science administration "ministries# or through the university institution\ as well as through legal\ representative corporations "Rectors| Conference\ Professors| Conference\ the National Conference of Scienti_c Personnel\ Unions etc[#[ On the other hand\ they enjoy a considerable margin of decision!making in the implementation of laws in daily administration[ Since university teachers\ within the political reality of Austria\ are also represented in the legislative corporations\ the institutional idea of a separation of legislative and executive powers in the Austrian higher education policy is realised in all probability only to a limited extent[ The complex process of legislation involved in shaping Austrian higher education can then by no means be reduced to clearly circumscribed areas and aims[ Rather\ it can be viewed only as a network of institutional and individual constellations of interests within which individuals\ by their activities\ have been able to impose a highly individualistic component on the legislative process through articulating their own particular ideas as well as by advancing and utilising the intentions within these di}erent groups[
3[ The reform discussion The discussion on the reform of Austrian higher education which paved the way to the University Organisation Law and the Fachhochschul Study Law in 0882\ can be traced back as a political declaration of intention as early as 0878 "cf Stenographische Protokolle\ 0882\ p[ 04270#[ The discussion took place mainly during the years 0880Ð 82 and is closely associated with the reforming zeal of Erhard Busek who directed the science and research agendas of Austria from 0878Ð0883[ As chairman of the O Ý sterreichische Volkspartei and Minister for Science and Research\ his reform ideas had also to take account of the proposals for higher education policy of his coalition partner SPO Ý [ The SPO Ý had been responsible for the organisational status quo of the universities\ codi_ed in the University Organisation Law of 0864 and by a then approved absolute majority in parliament[ Formally\ the reform proposed to replace the codi_ed framework conditions of that law by a new legal enactment[ Both laws of 0882 became e}ective on 0st October 0883[ Problems of implemen! tation and the need to create supplementary laws "Study Law\ Personnel Law for University Teachers#\ reform in the university world has so far been prolonged[ Nevertheless\ we will concentrate primarily on the more narrowly de_ned phase of the reform\ that is\ on the period until 0882\ and mainly on the university sector[ For the Austrian discussion of universities reform\ there were several starting points[ First\ a broad discontent with the lack of e.ciency of Austrian universities made itself felt among students "mainly about excessively long periods of study and high drop!out quotas#\ {among university teachers "dissatis_ed with too much admin!
23
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
istration\ and too little space for research#^ among industry "about the quali_cations and the age of graduates at the time of entry into a profession#\ and among the public "the high cost involved and lack of e.ciency#[ Second\ a considerable amount of dissatisfaction existed about internal conditions of the universities "particularly with regard to their steering mechanisms# since the implementation of the University Organisation Law of 0864[ This criticism stemmed from some university teachers and from the coalition parties\ primarily the O Ý ster! reichische Volkspartei[ Third\ and _nally\ there was a growing awareness that the very comprehensive and detailed administrative steering tasks in universities undertaken by the Ministry for Science and Research\ were becoming unmanageable[ "cf Die Neue Univ! ersitatsstruktur\ 0880\ particularly p[ 7}[# The litany of complaints voiced by various sides for many years\ whilst it tools a political weight\ soon brought about diverging positions within the reform process[ Besides those groups desirous of keeping the status quo\ another direction of thinking emerged\ supported above all by representatives of university teachers\ which favoured a reform of the Organisation Law of 0864[ The third position\ supported particularly by the Minister of Science Busek\ by large parts of the Austrian economy\ by parts of the science administration and by some university professors\ brought about a total restructuration of the higher education system[ The primary aim of this group\ whose ideas had been set out in a working contract with the federal government\ the development of universities towards becoming autonomous institutions and inde! pendently responsible for their own achievements "cf[ Die Neue Universitatsstruktur\ Vienna\ 0880#[ During the discussion from 0880Ð82\ the following interest groups\ which had a mandate to formulate and decide\ were involved] * Government and parliament\ based on the political parties with their respective manifestos for science and higher education policies[ * Universities teachers and other tertiary institutions together with the legally con! stituted corporations of the universities\ consisting of the Austrian Rectors| Con! ference\ the Federal Conference of Academic Personnel\ the Federal Conference of University Professors\ the Austrian Students| Association "with all respective factions#\ and the Federal Section of Higher Education Teachers within the Union of Public Service[ * The economy "represented by the {social partners| and by the {Association of Austrian Industrialists|#[ * The science administration and its civil servants[ It has\ however\ not been the case that each of these groups would have from the beginning persued diverging interests within the reform process[ Consensus and divergencies in fundamental questions as well as in details transcending all those positions ~ourished\ and the possibilities to wield in~uence over the reform process did not exist to the same extent for all groups[ Furthermore\ individual persons were simultaneously active in di}erent committees[ University teachers\ in that they were functionaries in representative corporations
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
24
and academic committees\ possessed the means to inject their opinions into the reform process through their faculties\ their universities\ the Rectors|s Conference\ the University Teachers| Union or other {chamber|\ as the case may be[ The term {chamber| "{Kammer|# formally describes a public corporation which occupies pol! itically a level of decision!making amongst the social partners but preceding the legislative powers\ though on a personal level it is however closely bound up with the latter[ In higher education in Austria the following corporations "{Kammern|# are _nanced from public funds] , The Austrian Rectors| Conference^ , The Federal Conference of Scienti_c and Artistic Personnel^ , The Federal Conference of Professors^ , The Austrian Students| Association[ The University Teachers section within the Union of Public Service Workers has a particular role as social partner[ It is the negotiating partner of the employer in all contractual and _nancial matters[ A number of private associations "The University Teachers| Association\ The Association of Professors\ The Association of Lecturers# also participate tentatively in the political process[ A comparatively small group of individuals determined within the centre of the political decision!making process the legislation on higher education[ Amongst them those university professors represented in the National Council and in the Committee for Science and Research as well as high civil servants of the science administration holding a central position in the reform process as well and who at the same time taught at university[ Each had the opportunity to introduce their opinions via close political groups or social partners[ Decision!makers in the central committees were surrounded by a number of {chamber| functionaries\ with their respective group interests and their often quite personal ideas for reform[ The danger in this nexus was that the reform process could be dominated by a relatively small group of individuals\ so!called {multi!functionaries|[ The behaviour of these actors in the political process may be seen in the context of what Buchanan described as {public choice action|\ which we referred to above[ Each individual\ thought part of a particular group\ also acts according to personal pro_t maxi! misation[ He or she seeks to realise those proposals existing which will provide optimal working conditions in a particular working environment in the future[ That someone exercises a political function in a committee does not necessarily abolish the principle that decision!making and the perception of problems is very often in~uenced by individual interests[ Very often we are dealing with similar individual interest positions\ when we closely observe successful group opinions[ The phenomenon of {chambers| in higher education gives rise to incompatible group opinions and to the articulation of status interests which are primarily voiced by a group of functionaries[ Erhard Busek foresaw this danger and asked all Austrian higher education teachers in April 0880 to express their opinion on the reform[ This action commanded a wide response[ It was received very positively by a large majority of university teachers\ but rather unenthusiastically by representatives of the various political committees[ Thus\ ideas _gured in the discussion which had been expressed by people who were
25
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
not formally representative of particular corporations or who did not feel represented by their particular {chamber|[ With this strategy\ Erhard Busek\ successfully cut back the in~uence of the multi!functionaries and the decisions of their committees[ The legal initiative and therefore the _rst draft version of the law were co!ordinated by the Ministry of Science[ The Minister of Science\ the science bureaucracy and the parliamentary Select Committee for Science and Research formed the inner circle of power which made the essential political decisions and submitted them to parliament for _nal approval[ The decisive body for drawing up the University Organisation Law of 0882 was the Committee for Science and Research of the National Council of the Republic of Austria\ which consisted of 12 members[ Its chair was Klara Motter of the Liberal Party[ Her deputies were Christian Brunner\ Professor of Public Law at the University of Graz and the spokesman for science of the Austrian People|s Party "O Ý VP#\ and Johann Stippel\ the spokesman for science for the Social!Democratic Party of Austria "SPO Ý #[ Among the 12 members of the committee in 0882\ were six professors at Austrian universities "four from the O Ý VP\ two from the SPO Ý [ These were] Gerhart Bruckmann\ Statistics\ Vienna University^ Christian Brunner\ Public Law\ Graz Uni! versity^ Andrea Kohl\ Constitutional Law\ Vienna University^ Dieter Lukesch\ Econ! omic Theory\ Innsbruck University^ Ewald Nowotny^ Economic Theory and Policy\ Vienna Economics and Business University\ and Helmut Seel\ Education\ Graz University[ More than a quarter of the members of the Committee for Science and Research were employed as professors by those institutions for which the law was to be made[ This above average representation of the academic oligarchy was also visible in the full session of the National Council[ The six university above!mentioned professors came from a professional category which\ in 0882\ consisted of 0799 persons "cf Hochschulbericht 0882 vol[ 1\ p[ 62#[ Compared with the total population of 6[7 million\ this corresponds to a percentage of 9[14[ In the Austrian parliament with its 072 members\ on the other hand\ those six university professors accounted for 2[2 percentage\ and in the Committee for Science and Research with its 12 members the proportion toped 15 percent[ This calculation does not take into account the two presidents of the National Council who held honorary professorships at the University of Vienna\ nor those members of parliament employed by universities as assistants or academic civil servants[ No other professional group\ therefore\ enjoys in proportional terms such an enormously high representation in the Austrian parliament as university teachers[ Although professors belong to di}erent political parties\ they were usually unanimous in their ideas about the future shape of Austrian higher education[ This is not meant to be critical of going above the boundaries of party thinking[ Consensus on such aspects can no doubt be an advantage[ One should\ however\ note that the University Organisation Law of 0882 requires that internal decision!making structures should be restricted to professors\ while participation in decision!making processes of assistants and students\ which previously existed\ were largely done away with[ The penetration of academic oligarchy into the legislative corporation of the Repub! lic of Austria was a result\ on the one hand\ of its clear quantitative representation\ and\ on the other hand\ of the particular knowledge about the specialist agenda\ as can
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
26
be seen from the contributions of Professors Brunner\ Lukesch\ Seel and Bruckmann during the parliamentary discussion of 19 October 0882 "cf protocol of the 022rd session of the National Council of the Republic of Austria of 19 October 0882#[ This direct and forceful participation of university professors in developing the University Organisation Law of 0882 in itself is no reason to assess the legislative achievement of this group[ The quality of the law will become clear only in the course of implemen! tation[ The high proportion of the scienti_c!academic oligarchy participating in higher education legislation is primarily a formal!political illustration the better to under! stand the power relations surrounding the emergence of the higher education law[
4[ The contribution of higher education research to the reform agenda Research into higher education nowadays presents itself as an inter!displinary research area\ as a {_eld of study| as it is called in Anglo!American terminology\ in which researchers from such di}ering displinary origins as economist\ historians\ political scientists\ educationists\ philosophers\ legal experts\ sociologists and psychologists take part according to their respective knowledge and methodological perspectives[ From an international stand point\ two main approaches determine the research _eld] on the one hand\ are functionalist approaches\ particularly within empirical social research\ economics and organisational theory\ which attempt to in~uence scholarship and universities according to political\ _nancial and social criteria^ on the other hand\ are knowledge domains which see in the university above all a place of searching for truth\ as well as related teaching\ in order to provide a particular interpretation to the contents of ideas and to the historical dimension of the institution[ While historically orientated higher education research "History of Science# and a pedagogical higher education research "Higher Education Didactics and Sta} Devel! opment# are fairly well established in Austrian universities\ all other areas show only sporadic research activities[ Real institutionalisation is lacking[ The institutional weakness of Austrian higher education research goes hand in hand with a lack of academics\ continuously working in this area and who are involved in the international dialog of this research _eld[ Support for individual projects cannot compensate for this overall de_cit\ "cf[ Lassnigg + Pechar\ 0883\ p[ 46f[# Documentation from SOWIS shows that altogether between 0889 and 0881 there were only seven projects into higher education research[ "ibidem\ Table B7# However\ there are hardly any external investigations of Austrian higher education\ from a comparative perspective\ for instance[ The reform debate of the years 0880Ð82 could neither build upon a systematically available body of knowledge of Austrian higher education\ nor were researchers or research groups with expert knowledge in this area involved in the preparation of normative or empirical studies[ The debate was very quickly reduced to functional issues of higher education organisation and its implementation in the reform process[ Yet\ since 0877\ a group of university teachers within the Austrian research com! munity has continuously tackled questions of Austrian university reform[ Although not themselves higher education researchers\ they have\ as people directly concerned
27
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
by the dissatisfactory situation of universities\ regularly discussed the issue of reform at conferences since 0877\ and even put forward a reform proposal in 0880[ "cf Die Neue Universitat\ 0880# This group worked closely with the Minister of Science and followed the reform process from a position of knowledgeable practitioners[ The Minister of Science appointed a commission in 0881\ consisting of rep! resentative of committees of higher education teachers and students\ politicians as well as civil servants of the Ministry of Science[ It was intended to draw up proposals for the basic structures in the organisational reform of universities[ After a com! paratively short period\ proposals for university reform were set out in May 0881 and became the basis for further development[ The working group of the {Inter!University Institute for Inter!Disciplinary Research and Further Education| tackled the question of the idea and organisation of science from a group!dynamic perspective[ "cf Fischer\ 0882# In the course of these discussions\ the chairman of the Science Committee of parliament\ Christian Brunner\ sought to found an Institute for Higher Education Research\ to be directly under the control of the National Council\ an idea which apparently followed the realisation that scienti_cally based arguments\ were lacking[ Debate over the reform of Austrian universities between 0880 and 0882 was able\ only to a very limited extent\ to draw upon research _ndings from the Austrian Scienti_c community[ No attempts were made to use normative or empirical research results more extensively in the discussion[ The ground law therefore was based on the reform model of the Austrian Research Society and on the large data collections of the Ministry of Science and Research[ Nevertheless\ neither the universities themselves\ nor the founder of the universities were able to take stances within the reform process which had been determined by scienti_c debate[ Neither normative nor empirical investigations were systematically elaborated or subject to research inquiry[ Thus the reform process was largely reduced to organisational measures "structures or functional processes# the advantages and disadvantages of which were thrashed out at the appropriate political level[ From the stand point of scholarship\ this may well be deplorable\ since possible targets were not set[ But in the hierarchy of our ideals of order\ democracy is placed higher than scienti_c rationalism[ The political decision which has to strike a balance between particularistic interests and con~icts\ therefore\ has higher priority than scienti_c debate[
5[ Summary We have sought to describe the major steps in the Austrian reform discussion which let up to the University Organisation Law of 0882[ An account of Austrian higher education has been made\ followed by a brief description of various approaches to the analysis of higher education systems and a consideration of the interests involved in the reform of higher education\ including not only institutional\ but also individual\ levels of interest and views which deserved particular attention[ Within the complex _eld of political theory and legislation\ the academic oligarchy
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
28
assumed a central role\ due to an extraordinarily high proportion of university pro! fessors in the Austrian parliament[ University professors\ in their function as members of the Austrian National Council\ were more than a quarter of the members of the Parliamentary Science Committee and were able to in~uence the legislative process in the central advisory committee through their particular expert knowledge\ and also because of their particular interests[ The reform of Austrian higher education between 0880Ð82 occurred largely without reference to the normative or empirical results of higher education research[ Applied research related to reform existed only with regard to organisational and functional aspects[ The very limited part of Austrian higher education research in the reform discussion can be partly explained by the lack of appropriate resources[ On the other hand\ higher education reform is primarily a political act and the weight of its analysis has above all to be related to this basic fact[
References Becher\ T[ + Kogan\ M[ "0881#[ Process and Structure in Hi`her Education[ "1nd ed[# London and New York] Heinemann[ Buchanan\ J[ M[ "0889#[ Politische O Ý konomie als Verfassun`stheorie[ Zurich] Hofmann[ Bundesgesetz uber Fachhochschul!Studiengange "FHStG#[ "0882#[ Bundes`esetzblatt fur die Republik O Ý ster! reich\ 239\ 17[4[0882[ Bundesministerium fur Wissenchaft und Forschung[ "0880#[ Die neue Universitatsstruktur[ Reformkonzept\ Wien] Bundesministerium fur Wissenchaft und Forschung[ Materialien zur Hochschulreform 0[ Bundesministerium fur Wissenchaft und Forschung[ "0882\ 0885#[ Hochschulbericht\ 0882 :Bd 0\ 1^ 0885 :Bd 0\ 1[ Hg[ v[[ Wien] Bundesministerium fur Wissenchaft und Forschung[ Cerych\ L[\ + Sabatier\ P[ "0875#[ Great Expectations and Mixed Performance[ The Implementation of Hi`her Education Reforms in Europe[ Stoke!on!Trent] Trentham Books[ Clark\ B[ R[ "0872#[ The Hi`her Education System[ Academic Or`anisation in Cross!National Perspective[ Berkeley\ Los Angeles\ London] University of California Press[ Fischer\ R[ et al[ "Hg[#[ "0882#[ Ar`umentation und Entscheidun`] Zur Idee und Or`anisation von Wissen! schaft[ Wien\ Munchen] Pro_l[ Ginsberg\ M[ B[ et al[ "0881#[ Educational Reform\ Social Struggle\ the State and the World Economic System[ In M[ B[ Ginsburg "Ed[#\ Understandin` Educational Reform in Global Context[ Economy\ Ideolo`y\ and the State "pp[ 2Ð36#[ New York and London[ Goedegebuure\ L[ et al[ "0882#[ Hochschulpolitik im internationalen Ver`leich[ Gutersloh] Bertelsmann Stiftung[ Hillmann\ K[!H[ "0883#[ Worterbuch der Soziolo`ie\ uberarb[ u[ erg[ Au~[ Stuttgart] Kroner[ Hoe~echner\ W[ "0887#[ Die Baumeister des kunfti`en Glucks[ Fra`mente einer Geschichte des Hoch! Ý sterreich vom Aus`an` des 08[ Jahrhunderts bis in das Jahr 0827[ Graz] Publikationen schulwesens in O aus dem Archiv der Universitat Graz 12[ Huberman\ M[ "0883#[ The OECD:CERI Seminar on Educational Research and Development ] A Synthesis and Commentary[ In T[ M[ Tomlinson\ A[ C[ Tuijnman "Eds[#\ Education Research and Reform[ An International Perspective "pp[ 34Ð55#[ Washington DC] O.ce of Education[ Koschnick\ W[ J[ "0882#[ Standard Dictionary of the Social Sciences[ "Vol 1[# Munchen:u[ a[ Saur[ Lassnigg\ L[\ + Pechar\ H[ "0883#[ Bildun`sforschun` in O Ý sterreich[ O Ý sterreichischer Landerbericht zum 2[ Internationalen OECD*Seminar zur Bildun`sforschun` und!Entwicklun`[ 4Ð6 Oktober\ Wien[ Leitner\ E[ "0885#[ Unequal Competition] Access to Universities and Fachhochschulen in Austria between Open Policy and Selectivitity[ European Journal of Education\ 20"2#\ 48Ð60[
39
E[ Leitner:Hi`her Education Policy 01 "0888# 16Ð39
Meister\ R[ "0852#[ Entwicklun` und Reformen des osterreichischen Studienwesens[T[ 0\ 1[ Wien\ O Ý sterr] Akademie der Wissenschaften[ Phil[ !Hist[ Kl[ Sitzungsberichte 128[ Melchior\ J[ "0882#[ Die sozialen Patho`enese der osterreichischen Hochschulreform[ Eine `esellsch! aftstheoretische Rekonstruktion[ Baden!Baden] Nomos Universitatsschriften\ Politik 28[ Prechtl\ P[\ + Burkard\ F[!P[ "0885#[ Metzler Philosophie Lexikon Be`riffe und De_nitionen\ Stuttgart] Metzler[ Neave\ G[\ + van Vught\ F[ A[ "Eds[#[ "0883#[ Governments and Hi`her Education[ Relationships Across Three Continents] The Winds of Chan`e[ Oxford] Pergamon[ Preglau!Haemerle\ S[ "0875#[ Die politische und soziale Funktion der osterreichischen Universitat[ Von den Anfan`en bis zur Ge`enwart[ Innsbruck] Vergleichende Gesellschaftsgeschichte und politische Ideen! geschichte der Neuzeit 4[ Steno`raphisches Protokoll der 022[ Sitzun` des Nationalrates der Republik O Ý sterreich vom 19 Oktober 0882[ Universitaets! Organisationsgesetz[ "0882#[ UOG 82[ Bundes`esetzblatt der Republik O Ý sterreich Nr[ 794 v[ 15[00[0882[