In this post I raise and theorise on a question that is perhaps best deliberated on at the national higher education sector level in my country Papua New Guinea (PNG). The question is: Is there a best practice model of governance for PNG universities?
If there is an existing ideal model or one that is being envisioned, then it may have been alluded to last November by Sir Rabbie Namaliu, a former prime minister of Papua New Guinea PAU
Sir Namaliu singled out two specific points for praise, one, high ethical standards and two, prudent management of limited funds. Public appraisal such as this seems to advance a model of governance that is primarily external in referencing. This model, it can be concluded, is one that is accountable and best deals with environmental uncertainty particularly funding uncertainty.
Sir Namaliu’s commendation was also noteworthy as it was made on the back of a recent review of the tertiary sector by a joint PNG and Australian governments’ committee chaired by Prof Ross Garnaut, which included Sir Namaliu himself.
As an insider of one of the two universities commended, DWU, I would like to share my view of its governance model. In the process of preparing for the resumption of the 2011 academic year later this month, I recently reflected on DWU’s theme for 2011: Matching Higher Education to the Labour Market. Adopting an annual theme around which to plan activities and measure outcomes for the year is one of DWU’s practices that perhaps epitomises its model of governance. DWU’s president expounds on the thinking behind the practice of adopting an annual theme:
Any institution which has a clear vision and Strategic Plan needs to have a driving force which focuses on specific tasks during each academic year that is pointed out by a theme. DWU has a very clear direction, thus each year, the University theme is assisting us to achieve our set of objectives and measure them accordingly.
Dwelling on the topic of university governance reminds me of the illustration (see below) I had developed for my PhD thesis. [My thesis titled: Exploration of a University Culture: A Papua New Guinea
It can be concluded from the illustration that multiple models of university governance exist at the same time. However, to ensure survival, different models have to negotiate and accommodate two competing realities, the uncertain fast changing external environment on the one hand, and the more stable deeply embedded internal operative principle of academic freedom on the other. The type of governance at the either end of the continuum is likely to exclude one reality to the detriment of the organization. The pure collegial model being predominantly influenced by the internal operative principle of academic freedom and closed off to the external environment can not survive in the current context. Either irrelevancy or sustained resource deprivation will kill it off. The entrepreneurial or market model at the other end of the continuum, by being too market-driven, may be stigmatized for non-conformity to some accepted ideal of a university.
Returning to my opening question of whether there is a common best-practice model of university governance in PNG, the answer is that there probably is none at this stage. As to the governance model adopted by DWU, with a structure that places a Governing Council and executive managers at the apex of decision making and with practices epitomised in management practices such as by strategic planning, quality assurance and market-driven rhetoric, DWU is located at the newer end of governance-models’ continuum. Decision-making centralized at executive management continues to ensure that DWU deals with the uncertainty in the external environment. However, tensions between managers and academics suggest that negotiating how to best accommodate academic freedom is an ongoing challenge.
