Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

How to Remain Collegial When Pressure for Change is High?

2023; Emerald Publishing Limited; Linguagem: Inglês

10.1108/s0733-558x20230000087002

0733-558X

Audrey Harroche, Christine Musselin,

Social Sciences and Governance

Abstract The French higher education system has experienced reforms since the 2000s that gradually emphasized the executive power of universities and the centralization of decision-making. This culminated with the excellence initiatives (Idex) that concentrated 7.7 billion euros on only nine institutions to create “world-class” universities and made their leaders responsible for the local allocation of this substantial endowment. The universities’ executives had four years to complete changes in governance in order to see their institution permanently awarded the title and the funding of Idex. The hiring process is one of the elements that this policy impacted the most within these universities, enabling leaders to create new kinds of positions and control the hiring process. However, by looking at the hiring practices within three different Idex, we will show that collegiality did not disappear but rather it evolved: in the three cases, the closest colleagues have been marginalized but decision-making remained collective and in the hands of academics chosen by the university executives. Variations in the intensity of this evolution could be observed according to two dimensions. First, the scientific reputation of the university: the higher it is, the less collegiality is transformed. Second, the level of external pressures: the less collegial universities have relaxed their hiring practices after the evaluation that permanently granted them the label of Idex. Keywords Top-down and bottom-up collegiality France Universities Academic recruitment Policies of excellence Academic leaders Citation Harroche, A. and Musselin, C. (2023), "How to Remain Collegial When Pressure for Change is High?", Sahlin, K. and Eriksson-Zetterquist, U. (Ed.) Revitalizing Collegiality: Restoring Faculty Authority in Universities (Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Vol. 87), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 29-50. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20230000087002 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2024 Audrey Harroche and Christine Musselin License These works are published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of these works (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode. 1. Introduction Hiring new academics is a crucial decision in universities. While the renewal or creation of a position and the affiliated profile might, in many institutions, result from a negotiation between the hiring department or laboratory and university leaders,1 the selection of the candidate generally remains a collegial decision in the hands of the closest colleagues. Therefore, peer review for promotion or hiring is often considered to be a fundamental characteristic of collegial governance (Gerhardt et al., 2023, Vol. 86; Sahlin & Eriksson-Zetterquist, 2016, p. 3). The recent French excellence initiative offered the university leaders of the few institutions that have been selected as “excellent” and labeled “Idex” (Initiative d’excellence) the possibility to become much more involved in these processes and to challenge the role of their closest colleagues. In most of the Idex, specific positions (called “chairs2”) have been created and funded by the budget received from having this label of excellence. Even if the creation and management of these “chairs” are just one of the many aspects that Idex universities have announced in their applications, it is worth studying for the following two reasons. First, because hiring processes are often considered to be a central indicator for collegiality as mentioned above. Second, because these new positions have now been generalized to all institutions and the ministry has promised to create 2000 of them within the next 10 years, along with the traditional positions. The Idex thus paved the way for the introduction of new career paths (Musselin, in press). These positions deter from the usual academic positions at French universities – that are civil servant positions – and generally take the form of tenure track positions. Moreover, we often observed that their profiles have been imposed by the university leaders, who also set up the hiring committees. These new positions rely on dedicated hiring processes, and finally, they give access to better working conditions and to a research package. This involvement of executive teams in such hiring decisions seems to challenge collegiality as the peers traditionally involved in these processes are frequently bypassed. This is the issue that will be addressed and investigated in this paper. Three main points will be discussed, building on the empirical work conducted on three institutions labeled Idex. First, we will look at what remains of the traditional collegial hiring system with the implementation of the Idex. In the literature on universities as collegial organizations, two main positions prevail. Some authors consider collegial governance and hierarchical management to be contradictory and that it is an either/or situation, while others observe more hybrid forms when some aspects of collegiality may coexist with more hierarchical forms of management. Do the new positions replace collegiality by hierarchy or combine both? Second, research on university governance and reputation has shown that higher education institutions with a strong research reputation are more collegial (less managerial). In order to test this assumption in our case, we decided to study three Idex with different statuses. One of them already had a strong international reputation and a large and constituted research sector. For the other two, the Idex was an opportunity to become world-class, but they were not there yet. We compared how they introduced the new positions and managed them. Finally, the Idex are good empirical cases to address the reversibility of collegiality decrease. Most studies look at how collegiality can be weakened but very rarely question whether a reverse dynamic is possible. As will be explained below, the Idex was first selected for a four-year period, at the end of which they had to pass an evaluation and convince the jury that they achieved what they planned in their applications. Some Idex succeeded (two out of the three Idex under study), some had their probation period extended and had to pass another evaluation (one in our case), while others failed entirely. From this, we could observe whether the management of the chairs has evolved after the Idex successfully passed the evaluation. Before developing these three points, we will briefly present the French university system and the call for Idex, outline our theoretical framework and our methodology, and present our findings. In the last section, we will discuss these findings. 2. The French Higher Education System: Recent Trends, The Initiative of Excellence and Academic Recruitments Since 2005, the French system is experiencing a vast movement of reforms aimed at increasing its performance and its visibility. We will highlight two that are particularly relevant to our study. We will present them before describing how academics are hired for civil servant positions. 2.1. More Institutional Autonomy But Still a Collegial Governance The autonomy of universities has increased with the 2007 act entitled Freedom and Responsibility for Universities. Academic leaders have been empowered (Chatelain-Ponroy et al., 2012; Mignot-Gérard, 2019; Musselin et al., 2012) and management tools have developed in French universities. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that the governance of French universities still shares many of the characteristics that define collegial organizations. For instance, university presidents and deans are still elected and not appointed, and they take over leading positions for a limited period (two terms of a maximum of four years each for university presidents). They do not have a pure hierarchical position even if they have to make decisions, set priorities, and are seen primarily as leaders. It is also interesting to note that most French university presidents chose to have a large number of vice-presidents (frequently more than 10) who are mostly academics expected to deal with a specific sector (for instance, human resources, research, internationalization, budget, digitalization, etc.). The vice-presidents must (or should) work hand in hand with the administrative office in charge of the same specific sector and are expected to defend academic perspectives in the domain they are in charge of and to relay information from the bottom to the top. Their role is even more important because in France the relationships between the deans and the president are traditionally difficult, the former rarely playing the role of intermediaries between the top and the bottom of the university (Chatelain-Ponroy et al., 2012; Mignot-Gérard, 2006). Finally, the role of the deliberative bodies remains important in French universities and their composition, even if narrower since the 2007 act, still aims to be largely representative. 2.2. The Search for Excellent Universities Second, since 2009 the French government has launched an excellence initiative (called Programme d’Investissement d’Avenir, PIA). Four waves of highly selective calls for proposals have been initiated between 2010 and 2022. The first wave focused on excellence in higher education and research. It entailed calls for research labs of excellence (Labex), research equipment of excellence (Equipex), and calls for excellent institutions (Idex). The later call has been organized to identify excellent universities (that are labeled “Idex”) and provide them with an important complementary budget. Up to €7.7 billion were allocated through the four rounds of this Idex call.3 Excellent scientific performance was a necessary condition for an institution to be qualified as an Idex but the transformation of governance was the real decisive factor. The Idex call served the on-going restructuring of the French university landscape. No individual institutions, but only consortia of institutions (universities and/or grandes écoles) located on the same territory were allowed to jointly apply for this call, and they were expected to propose a strong governance of the consortium. Until 2019,4 this strong governance meant setting priorities and implementing them, adopting an integrated management of the consortium that most of the time resulted in a merger. However, it did not mean changing the statutes of the university, the mode of designation of the president and deans, or the role and composition of the deliberative bodies. The applying university leaders should convince the jury that the future institution will reach a “critical” size and will be a complete university with all the disciplines; while many French universities have a strong disciplinary orientation, either in humanities and social sciences or in experimental sciences and medicine. They also have to demonstrate how they will implement this strong governance and be able to identify priorities and make decisions. Currently, eight of the nine confirmed Idex are new institutions born from the merger of the member institutions from the former applying consortium. These double expectations have sometimes led to universities being labeled Idex which were not the most scientifically predominant within the French higher education system. Some were even selected over some of the most renowned Parisian establishments. In order to secure the additional funding attached to this label the selected consortia had to prove, after four years, that a new integrated institution had been created and that it benefited from a strong governance. The scientific priorities announced in the Idex project must have been set and specific devices developed in order to selectively allocate the Idex budget to those considered to be the best researchers, or those proposing the best teaching programs. The labeling of some universities as Idex is thus expected to increase the differentiation of the French system by the concentration of supplementary resources on a few institutions as well as the internal differentiation within each Idex (Harroche, 2021). Because the internal selective allocation of resources must reflect the Idex strategic priorities, the leaders of these universities are expected to make top-down decisions. We therefore expect collegiality to be challenged and the range of decisions made by consensus among peers to be reduced. Especially in the case of hiring processes when new types of positions have been created. 2.3. Traditional Collegial Hiring Processes Before describing what we observed in the three Idex, it is necessary to detail the traditional processes that were used until recently to recruit academics at French universities. These processes concern civil servant positions as maîtres de conférences (first permanent stage in their career) or professors. They follow different steps. First, there must be a decision to open or create a position and define its profile. Reopening an academic permanent position is a decision made at the departmental level most of the time, rarely discussed or changed when it is presented to the university council. Nevertheless, these positions have to be negotiated if the university leadership wants to reallocate a vacant position to a new department. It is also the case for creations that are negotiated at the dean or presidency levels (Musselin, 2005/2009, Chapter 1). These arbitrations are usually made based on the teaching needs of the faculties. The positions are advertised with information on the courses that need to be given and on the expectations of the research unit the new academic will join. The maîtres de conférences are selected if they fit with the teaching and research needs. Then, an ad hoc hiring committee is set by the concerned department. This committee is made up of a 50/50 split between academics from the recruiting university and academics from other higher education institutions. This composition must be approved by the university council but it generally agrees. When the committee meets, it first selects some candidates on their applications and invites a few of them for an interview, before ranking them. This ranking is submitted to a university council that in theory can refuse it but the conditions for doing so are so limited that it rarely happens. The first ranked candidate is invited to join the university and, if they accept, the process is over because there is no negotiation about the working conditions or the salary: the candidate is hired as a civil servant according to a national salary scale. We will show that the new positions created by the Idex largely depart from this traditional process. 3. Theoretical Background We will draw on two important contributions from the literature on collegiality. The first deals with vertical collegiality and the codes of governance (Sahlin & Eriksson-Zetterquist, 2023, Vol. 86). In the literature observing the decline of collegiality in academia, it is common to oppose collegial and hierarchical relationships (empowerment of academic leaders, bureaucratic rules replacing professional norms, etc.) or to point at the introduction of competition and market-based regulation (selective allocation of resources, rankings, etc.). Both hierarchy and market go hand in hand with an increase in managerial instruments and behaviors threatening collegial norms. Most of the time, collegiality is thus presented as distinct from hierarchy, market, or managerial governance. Some authors (for instance, Deem et al., 2007; Tapper & Palfreymann, 2010) consider that collegiality is incompatible with other forms of governance, that is, the more hierarchical/managerial, or market-based the governance is, the less collegial it becomes. But others (Mignot-Gérard et al., 2022; Whitley, 2008) observe that hybrid forms of governance emerge and that combinations – rather than oppositions – in modes of governance should be considered. Within this second group of authors, Lazega and Wattebled (2011) suggest introducing another possibility between hierarchical/managerial and collegial governance, which they call top-down collegiality in contrast with bottom-up collegiality, that is, when peers meet together and take decisions among equals. Top-down collegiality occurs in situations when leaders are entitled to make decisions on their own but seek legitimacy. In their study of a diocese, the two authors observed that the bishop, who also is a priest and therefore a peer but holds a hierarchical position, involves some priests he has chosen as counselors in the decision-making process. The recourse to selected peers is thus expected to legitimize the decisions vis-á-vis the peers at the bottom of the diocese. Looking at the specific case of academic hiring, we will explore whether traditional collegiality (or bottom-up collegiality in Lazega & Wattebled terms) has been reduced, and whether it has been replaced by hierarchical/managerial, or top-down collegial governance. The second contribution deals with the relationships between the degree of collegiality in the hiring processes and the position and ambition of the different Idex within the higher education field. As mentioned above, although the strengthening of governance has played a major role in the selection of the Idex, they all have a strong scientific reputation, albeit some stronger than others. Some Idex are composed of institutions that have a long tradition of excellent academic reputation and were already well-ranked on the international rankings. Others only had a national reputation and thanks to the Idex aimed to become world-class: they consider their selection as an opportunity that they cannot miss.5 According to different authors, collegiality should be more threatened in these less recognized institutions (Paradeise & Thoenig, 2013; see Gumport, 1993, for the USA; see Camerati Morrás, 2014, for the UK). One of the common explanations they provide for this is linked to the weight of research in more prestigious institutions and the power of negotiation of reputed academics, the ones providing the institution with their reputation but also attracting third-party resources. Imposing decisions against their will could be detrimental to the university because they could try to leave for another organization and this would be detrimental to the reputation of the institution. In less reputed institutions, the power of the faculty staff is lower, and they are more dependent on the university leaders. We would therefore expect the less reputed of the Idex to exhibit less collegiality in their hiring decisions than the more reputed ones. Building on Camerati Morrás (2014) who also stressed that collegiality is more at threat in institutions seeking a higher reputation, we will investigate whether the level of collegiality varies when reputation evolves. In studying the impact of the research assessment exercise (RAE) on four UK university departments, Camerati Morrás (2014) observed that the governance of these departments had become managerial in all cases but also noted variations. The heads of departments adopted a managerial-hierarchical governance when they aimed to improve their results in the RAE but they were managerial-collegial for the best-evaluated departments. He moreover observed that once a managerial-hierarchical department improved its RAE situation, it tended to become managerial-collegial. We thus expect that once an Idex aspiring to a higher status has been definitively labeled as an Idex and supplementary resources have been permanently attributed to it, the pressure for both the recognition of excellence and producing internal differentiation can reduce. At this point, more collegial governance may be again introduced. 4. Methodology Interviews have been conducted in three Idex. We will call them Middle-Range 1, Middle-Range 2 and High-Status. Middle-Range 1 has been studied by Audrey Harroche for her PhD (Harroche, 2021). One of her chapters precisely deals with these new positions and her results suggested to look at the same issue in two other Idex in order to compare with what she observed at Middle-Range 1. Therefore, interviews have been conducted at Middle-Range 2 and High-Status in 2022. The research lead at Middle-Range 1 helped to identify who should be interviewed in the two other Idex to address the questions we had on the introduction of chairs. They have been conducted with the university presidents, the Idex administrative staff, the human resources heads of department, research laboratory directors, excellence chair laureates, and for High-Status the directors of the grandes écoles of this university. In the three cases, the interviews have been complemented with various written sources (application calls, letters of acceptance or rejection, different council’s reports etc.). It is important to note that the three universities are the product of a merger. It was clearly an objective in the applications that Middle-Range 1 and Middle-Range 2 submitted in response to the Idex call. High-Status applied with a less ambitious institutional transformation but when they went through the evaluation after four years, the international jury extended the probationary period until they went for a merger. Middle-Range 1 has a solid research reputation but was ranked quite low in the Shanghai rankings. Even if its selection as Idex was not completely surprising, other more reputed institutions were more expected to be included than Middle-Range 1 on the final list but they finally failed or have not been confirmed after four years. At Middle-Range 1, the ambition of the presidents of the three universities that merged to create the new institution was crystal clear. They had been working together for quite a long time before the Idex call, and they were collectively pushing for the merger and the transformation of their institutions into one international research university. The team at the head of the merged university and in charge of the Idex project was particularly engaged in the project and couldn’t envisage that their institution would not be confirmed four years later. To stack all the odds in their favor, they carefully followed the implementation of the project they had announced in their application. Middle-Range 2 shows rather similar characteristics. The institutions that formed this university were on the verge of merging when they applied for the Idex call and the leaders also very carefully followed all the implementation processes of their project during the probationary period. As it was for Middle-Range 1, the merger was completed very quickly after the university was selected as Idex. This merger only involved three universities and that has probably facilitated the implementation of an integrated governance. The situation is rather different for High-Status, the merger concerns a reputed university and some grandes écoles. It took quite a long time to conduct this process and this explains why High-Status was not among the first selected Idex, despite its very robust scientific reputation, and resulted in a longer probationary period. Some of the institutions of this Idex had been present among the 100 first institutions of the Shanghai ranking from its creation. Its scientific capacity is extremely strong. This Idex has finally been confirmed by the international jury. The interviews were led chronologically in order to collect data starting from the conception of the human resources strategy within the Idex application call framework, up to how the positions were managed at the time of the interviews. In doing so, the introduction of new positions and their evolution over time was traced. The questions enquired about how the hiring process was designed in each project, how the first positions were filled once the universities obtained the Idex label and endowment, how the other positions followed and were managed, what role they played in the Idex evaluation and how these positions were managed after that. The interviews with the laureates of the chairs were also led chronologically asking about their perspective on the recruitment process from how they heard about the position, to their current occupation. The data mining was done according to what type of actors were involved in the hiring process and making the decisions, the type of processes put in place, the criteria applied to select the candidates, the evolution of these variables over time, and the presence of resistance. Through the study of new hiring practices in these three Idex universities, we’ll see how this policy may affect collegiality bearing in mind their temporal aspects given the precise Idex timeframes. 5. Three Different Ways of Implementing New Positions As mentioned above, all Idex took the opportunity that arose from their success to create positions (called “chairs”) that are not ruled by the French civil servant status and do not follow the process described above. They took different names (chairs of excellence in some cases, “red carpet” chairs in others, etc.) and do not follow exactly the same rules in each Idex although they all aim to attract “excellent” academics. The creation of these chairs and the new hiring processes were announced in the applications for the Idex calls but had never been discussed in the universities’ collective bodies, even in institutions where the local culture was described as particularly collegial (Mignot-Gérard, 2012). This is because the university leaders were under pressure timewise to send applications6 but also wanted to preserve the confidentiality of their ideas. We will describe what we observed in each case, starting with the more extreme situations, those where the hiring decisions were the more centralized and controlled by university leaders. 5.1. Middle-Range 1: The Chairs of the University President At Middle-Range 1, the three universities merged, and a foundation was created to receive and manage the Idex funding. Only the university leaders and external partners of the Middle-Range 1 project were included in the foundation governing bodies. The deans are excluded as well as the representatives of staff and students. All the Idex resources are allocated by the foundation through application calls: the Middle-Range 1 foundation activity is dedicated to the design, management, and evaluation of projects for funding. This foundation has set up a new recruitment circuit. Two types of positions have been created: the chairs of excellence and the rising star chairs, leading to new hiring processes. The first ones aim to attract internationally recognized researchers by giving them resources to settle themselves and their team, within a local research center. These chairs are appointed for a period of two years and are renewable once. At the end of the contract, a permanent position is provided as long as the laureates reach the expected performances. The "rising stars" application calls are kept for more junior researchers with 5–10 years of experience after their PhD. These positions also come with resources dedicated to research activities for two years, renewable once. They are less well-endowed than the chairs of excellence and do not systematically lead to a proposal for tenure position, even if this possibility is mentioned in the application calls. The Middle-Range 1 foundation board meeting design the application calls for chairs and advertise them in English in order to reach a foreign audience. Most of the time, these calls were completely open. However, because the executive teams had control over the positions’ profiles, they sometimes defined the disciplinary profiles according to the priorities set in the Idex application in order to make sure that they would be able to deliver what they announced when the evaluation takes place after four years. Once they received the candidatures, a selection committee was set up. Half of the members were external, but they also included members of the university governance. Some local academics were designated; however, they did not include the faculty deans and/or the laboratory directors systematically. Colleagues that the laureates were supposed to join were also excluded. The following extract from the Middle-Range 1 project shows that emphasis is put on the committee being external to the local community: junior and/or senior fellows will be hired on the basis of an open and competitive procedure: implementation of a “headhunting committee,” job description and international advertising (calls for proposals), selection of candidates by selection committees composed of external academics and with an external chair, invitation of the preselected candidates to give an oral presentation within the university. The Steering Committee will ultimately decide on the allocation of such packages, on the basis of the recommendation of the selection committee, interesting salaries and work conditions can be negotiated in the framework of a temporary contract. After a result-orientated final contract period evaluation, these fellows may get permanent positions as lecturers, professors or researchers within the university or the other IdexF partners, after passing the public recruitment procedures in line with legal regulations. The position levels and salaries will be individually examined and adjusted with incentive and adjusted with incentive awards in order to retain the most promising talents. The univers