The ethical underpinnings of world class universities

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Article

The ethical underpinnings of world class universities

S. P. Heyneman, International Journal of Educational Development

Abstract

The public benefits of higher education have long been recognized. Higher education contributes to the public consensus; it transmits knowledge and attitudes toward the role of the citizen; and it may model good behavior in the face of controversy and sometimes intellectual acrimony. Great universities, perform these functions very well. This is among the reasons why attention has been paid to the characteristics of world class universities [1-3] as well as to the threats to university quality in the form of corruption in higher education. Attention has focused on the definition of corruption, the degree to which corruption occurs, and its economic impact [4-7].

This paper combines these lines of scholarship and explores the degree to which world class universities exhibit ethical qualities. The study defines `ethics' in the management of a university. This includes mission statements which mention ethical issues, transparency in governance and fiscal affairs, codes of conduct for faculty, administrators and students, procedures for adjudication of infractions, and other elements. It then proposes a rating for the ethical infrastructure elements. Universities have been divided into two groups. First are universities listed on the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) international ranking. The second are random samples of universities in countries which use English, Korean, Japanese, Georgian, Chinese, and Russian languages as the medium of instruction.

The paper poses three questions. First, how common is it for internationally-ranked universities to exhibit ethical characteristics on their websites? The answer is unambiguous: 98 % of the world class universities have established an ethical infrastructure of some kind. Second, which areas of the world are more likely to have universities which exhibit a depth of ethical infrastructure elements on their websites? In terms of countries, the most comprehensive ethics infrastructure can be found in Britain, the U.S., and Japan. Lastly, what is the relationship between the level of international ranking and the depth of ethical ingredients? The strength of the relationship is weak, suggesting that the depth of ethnical infrastructure is not an important determinant of ranking. However given the fact that virtually all ranked THES universities, across 40 counties, mentioned ethical infrastructure elements, suggests that having an ethical infrastructure is an important ingredient associated with other elements in a university's reputation.

Keywords: higher education, infrastructure, ethics, administration, corruption, university management

Introduction

management university international rank

Higher education helps contribute to the public good in several ways. It helps provide knowledge about social and legal contracts, what they mean, why they are important. It helps provide behavior which is expected under social contacts, behavior of trust in part through the heterogeneous experiences which the young have while they are students. Higher education also helps provide an understanding of the expected consequences for breaking social contracts [4]. As one specialized group studying the issue put it:

Educated people clearly have many effects on society: educated people are well positioned to be economic and social entrepreneurs, having a far-reaching impact on the economic and social well being of their communities. They are also vital to creating an environment in which economic development is possible. Good governance, strong institutions, and a development infrastructure are all needed if business is to thrive - and none of these is possible without highly educated people [8, p. 39]. These constitute some of the rationales for public investment in higher education. Excellent universities perform these functions well. This generates attention to the best of these institutions, defined as `world class' universities. World class universities can be defined in many ways, but there is general agreement that they exhibit: (i) a concentration of talent from around the world in terms of students, faculty and research interests; (ii) abundant resources from multiple private and public sources, research awards, contracts, endowment and tuition, and (iii) enabling internal governance with supporting regulations, autonomy, academic freedom, and professional management [2, 1]. To this list a new set of characteristics concerning an enabling macro-policy environment have been added. These included: state incentives to improve quality and diversity, independence of licensing and accreditation agencies, open competition for scientific research in which universities participate, exception from taxation, clear title to university property, autonomy from governmental managerial regulation, institutional differentiation in mission, and permission to garner a wide variety of income [3].

On the other hand, it has been noticed that many universities are threatened by problems of corruption. Higher education can be corrupt through the illegal procurement of goods and services; cheating in the provision of normal functions (admissions, grading, graduation, housing); professional misconduct (favoring family members, sexual exploitation, bias in grading, research plagiarism); and cheating in the payment of taxes and the use of university property [4-6]. Student surveys of Bulgaria, Moldova and Serbia have revealed that between 35 and 45 percent believed that the official selection process could be by-passed. Approximately one if five admitted to having bribed a university official; in Moldova the figure was two in five. Within universities a wide variation exists in the propensity to bribe. Disciplines in highest demand - economics, finance and law - have higher compensation for entry, higher tuitions and fees, higher potential for graduate earnings, and hence higher stakes. These disciplines are more likely to be corrupt [7].

Main material

Corruption has a negative effect on quality. The university becomes a high-priced, low-quality good if officials admit or give high grades to the less qualified. Instead of increasing international competition, corruption limits it. Since honesty rests on the proof of a lack of violations, a university suspected of being corrupt reduced the power of its graduates in the labor market. With the private sector and particularly with companies that draw from international labor markets, the effect of having a reputation for corruption may be more serious than with local governments and state-owned enterprises.

Corruption negatively affect both private and public social economic returns to investments in education. If students can purchase grades they have less incentive to earn learn. An employer does not know whether the student completed the degree on the basis of academic ability or because he or she bribed university officials. The signaling value of a university degree is reduced. Employers reduced risk by avoiding graduates from suspect institutions and by putting into place testing, internship, and other filtering mechanisms. Graduates need to accept significantly lower salaries until they can demonstrate their economic value through on-the-job experience. Graduates from universities suspected of corruption are not likely to be considered for technical and professional jobs. If they sort into government jobs where the potential for bribes is high (customs, police, etc.) the private income costs of corruption are reduced, but the social costs remain [7, 6].

Key to understanding the pernicious effect of higher education corruption is to understand that, unlike a criminal case, universities are `guilty' unless they can prove their innocence. Universities which claim to have no problem are not free of the perception of being corrupt, but the opposite. This is why many universities, including my own, require administrators, faculty and students to sign a code of conduct and, in the case of administrators and faculty, to sign a conflict of interest statement annually (Annex one). Incoming students are not only asked to sign a code of conduct, but their names are posted on the wall of the student union displaying their signatures. Students, faculty and administrators are reminded periodically of the need for integrity and what to do when there are infractions (Annex 2). There is a student-run system of honors councils to hear cases of infractions and recommend sanctions. There is a similar faculty-run system to hear cases of faculty infractions. Annual reports from the honors council are publicly available. These reports will list the infractions by category, the decisions and sanctions in each case. Names of accused are kept confidential. Mission statements may include the definition and recognition of `harmful activity' to the university. This may include fraud, waste or abuse of resources, misuse of grant money, research fraud, violations of athletic or medical regulations, theft or embezzlement, conflicts of interest, procurement fraud, threats to personal safety, discrimination or harassment, academic misconduct, standards of conduct, and violations of data privacy (Annex 2). We were curious if this sort of attention to ethics was common to universities in other countries.

We began by creating a list of possible ethical elements. These included whether or not a university had:

A mission statement

An honor code for students

An honor code for faculty

An honor code for administrators

A system of adjudication in the case of infractions

A statement of non-bias in hiring

A statement of the criteria used in faculty promotion

A statement on fairness in admissions

Transparency in budgets and accounting

Adjudication procedures in case of infractions

Faculty handbook

Reported ethical infractions\

Results of ethical infractions

Other elements uncovered as the project progressed

We also noted whether a university was affiliated with a religious institution, public or private, for profit, its language of instruction, location, and whether in addition to offer a first degree, whether it offered post graduate degrees (Annex three)

Since we had no access to internal documents we decided to base our assessment solely on the basis of a university's public information displayed on its website. Of course a university may have an ethical infrastructure not mentioned on its website, and universities which do mention ethical elements on its website is no guarantee that the university is free of corruption.

We began by gathering and training research assistants capable of working in languages in addition to English (Annex four). We divided the research assistants into country (not language) teams. These included teams to work on Japan, Korea, the Peoples Republic of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Armenia, Russia, Georgia, Germany, Britain, the United States, Canada, Australia, and France. The first task of each country team was to locate a complete list of the nation's higher education institutions. Once a country's master list was approved, a random ten percent sample was chosen and the websites of that ten percent sample were analyzed (Annex five). Separately, we used the Times Higher Education Supplement of 400 highly-ranked universities as our source for World Class Universities. http://www.timeshighered- ucation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/ top-400.html From the THES list we took a ten percent random sample and analyzed their websites (Annex six).

Results

Universities differ dramatically in their propensity to mention ethical issues or to describe elements of their ethical infrastructure on their websites. In Kazakhstan, Gabon, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia ethical infrastructures were absent altogether from university websites. In Britain, Canada, Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Korea they were universal, nearly universal in Australia (91 %), and very high in Georgia (84 %), the U.S. and Germany (79 %) (Table 1).

Table 1 - Universities with Ethical Infrastructures

* Times Higher Education Supplement

** Chinese websites usually cited the general law on corruption across all sectors

Knowing the portion of university websites mentioning one ethical infrastructure element may not be as revealing as the number of elements mentioned. These ranged from 9.5 in Britain and 8.3 in Canada, 2.8 in Russia and zero in Armenia, Kazkahstan and Kyrgyzstan. Germany has a surprisingly low number of elements mentioned, perhaps on grounds that the internal websites would be more explicit than those open to the public (Figure 1). Both Russia and Belarus had a high percentage of their universities which mentioned an ethical issue on their websites (80% and 77 %), but neither included much more detail. The average number of infrastructure elements was 1.4 in Belarus and 2.8 in Russia. This suggests that the emphasis on ethics may have been more for pro forma reasons than a genuine concern. In terms of languages, the highest number of infrastructure elements can be found in universities using Japanese, English and Korean (Figure 2).

Ranked universities appearing on the Times Higher Education Supplement were situated in over 40 countries. Virtually all of them (97.5 %) mentioned ethical elements on their websites. The typical THES university mentioned 9.2 different elements, higher than any nation's universities save Britain. The correlation between the number of elements mentioned and the level of THES ranking (r=0.14) was neither strong nor statistically significant. This suggests that the number of ethical infrastructure elements is not a factor in the level of ranking. However, the more important question may be whether candor about an ethics infrastructure is associated with attaining any THES ranking. Given the fact that virtually all ranked THES universities, across all 40 counties, mentioned ethical infrastructure suggests that it is an important ingredient associated with other elements in a university's reputation.

Fig. 1 - Average number of ethical infrastructure elements bycountry

Fig. 2 - Average number of ethical infrastructure elements by language

Among THES universities, the most common elements to mention were regulations pertaining to academic integrity and the goals of diversity and equity in enrollment and employment (82.5 %) budgetary transparency and non-bias in hiring (77.5 %), and codes for student conduct and research ethics (75 %). Less common were results of ethical infractions (12.5 %) and portion of ethical infractions found to be justified (10 %) (Figure 3).

Focus on the United States

Of the 205 universities which fell into the 10 % sample from the United States, 49 offered specialized degrees in technology, law or religious studies (Table 2). About one in three of these were for-profit.

institutions. These specialized institutions tended to have a lower number of ethical infrastructural elements (3.7). For-profit colleges stand out among this group and against the general tendency of non-profit higher education institutions. Although vocationally-oriented for-profits had a higher number of ethical infrastructure elements in the medical field, in the arts, law, and especially in technology, they did not. In technology-oriented institutions the average number of ethical infrastructure elements was 5.5 among non-profits and only 0.3 in for-profit institutions. This suggests that for-profit institutions which specialize in technology are particularly divergent from their nonprofit rivals in their concern over ethics. In general, for-profit institutions tended to have a very low number of ethical infrastructure elements (3.6) (Table 3).

If one excludes for profit and vocational institutions, the average number of ethical infrastructure elements typical on the websites of American universities (9.6) is higher than any other country in the sample and higher than the average institutions in the THES ranking. This suggests that for-profit institutions are simply not as interested in combating education corruption as non-profit institutions.

Summary

To combat education corruption a university will need to do more than mention ethical behavior

Fig. 3 - Presence of ethical infrastructure Elements (THES) (%)

Table 2 - American Higher Education Institutions with specialized vocational functions

Table 3 - American Higher Education: Average Number of Ethical Infrastructural Elements: for profit and non-profit institutions

on its website. But university concern for ethics is unlikely to be effective without mentioning the ethics problem on its website. Virtually all highly ranked universities are concerned with ethics; they mention more ethical elements on their websites than other universities, and they are more likely to be transparent as to the annual number and type of ethical infractions.

On the other hand, there a re un iversitie s situated in sample countries such as Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Gabon where the typical university mentioned nothing about professional ethics on their websites. What does that suggest about them? Circumstantial evidence would suggest that the universities which are silent on the issue of professional ethics are also universities which are widely perceived to be corrupt. They tend to be situated in countries where education corruption is known to be high [9-11] and where the business climate is characterized by a high degree of corruption. Kazakhstan for instance is ranked 120 and Kyrgyzstan 164 out of 182 countries in the corruption index of Transparency International [12]. These data from our small study would suggest that universities which do not mention professional ethics on their websites are at the highest risk of being corrupt themselves.

References

1. Altbach P G. The costs and benefits of world-class universities. Academe 90 (1, January-February), 2004. (In Eng.).

2. Salmi J. The challenge of establishing world-class universities. Washington D. C., The World Bank, 2009. (In Eng.).

3. Heyneman S. P. and Lee Jeongwoo. «World Class Universities: the Sector Requirements», in Shin J. C. and Kehm B. (eds.) Institutionalization of World Class Universities in Global Competition. New York, Springer Publishers (forthcoming), 2012. (In Eng.).

4. Heyneman S. P «Defining the Influence of Education on Social Cohesion», International Journal of Educational Policy, Research and Practice, 2004, 3 # 4 (Winter), pp. 73-97. (In Eng.).

5. Heyneman S.P. The Concern with corruption of ethnics in higher education, pp. 13-27 in Tricia Bertram Gallant (Ed.) Creating the Ethical Academy: A Systems Approach to Understanding Misconduct and Empowering Change New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 2010. (In Eng.).

6. Heyneman S. P. The Corruption of Ethics in Higher Education, International Higher Education, 2011, No. 62 (Winter), pp. 8-9. (In Eng.).

7. Heyneman S. P., Anderson K. A. and Nuraliyeva Nazym. The Cost of Corruption in Higher Education, Comparative Education Review, 2008, Vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 1-25. (In Eng.).

8. Task Force on Higher Education and Society. Higher Education in Developing Countries: Peril and Promise. Washington D. C., The World Bank, 2000. (In Eng.).

9. Silova Iveta, Johnson Mark and Heyneman S. P Education and the Crisis of Social Cohesion in Azerbaijan and Central Asia, Comparative Education Review, 2007, Vol. 51, No. 2 (May), pp. 159-180. (In Eng.).

10. Heyneman S. P. Three Universities in Georgia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan: the Struggle Against Corruption and For Social Cohesion, UNESCO Prospects, 2007, No. 3 (September), pp. 305-318. (In Eng.).

11. Heyneman S. P. Higher Education and Social Cohesion: A Comparative Perspective, 2007 pp. 55-79 in Higher Education in the New Century: Global Challenges and Innovative Ideas Philip Altbach and Patti McGill Peterson (eds.) Rotterdam: Sense Publishers in conjunction with UNESCO (with Richard Kraince, Nancy Lesko and Michael Bastedo) (June). (In Eng.).

12. Transparency International 2011 Perception of Corruption Index 2011, available at: http://cpi.transparency. org/cpi2011/results/ (accessed: 10.08.2019). (In Eng.).

Размещено на Allbest.ru