1. Research methodology of the survey
The study was conducted at national level by surveying universities from both the state and the private sector regarding the reform in higher education in Romania. From the total 141 universities existent in Romania in 2002, there were included in the survey 37, representing 26.2% from the total number. There were selected 19 state universities and 18 private universities representing 33.3% of the total number of state universites and 21.4% of the total number of private universities. Table 4.1. presents the universities that have been addressed in the survey.
Table no. 4.1. The universities included in the national survey
|
No |
State universities |
No |
Private universities |
|
1. |
|
1. |
|
|
2. |
Alexandru Ioan Cuza |
2. |
|
|
3. |
Aurel Vlaicu |
3. |
|
|
4. |
Lucian Blaga |
4. |
|
|
5. |
Constantin Brancusi Targu Jiu |
5. |
|
|
6. |
Valahia Targoviste |
6. |
|
|
7. |
Babes Bolyai Cluj |
7. |
|
|
8. |
|
8. |
C-tin Brancoveanu University Pitesti/Braila/Ramnicu Valcea |
|
9. |
|
9. |
|
|
10 |
|
10 |
|
|
11 |
|
11 |
|
|
12 |
|
12 |
|
|
13 |
|
13 |
The Romano-Catholic Teological Institute |
|
14 |
|
14 |
|
|
15 |
|
15 |
|
|
16 |
Dunarea de Jos University Galati |
16 |
|
|
17 |
|
17 |
|
|
18 |
Petroleum and |
18 |
|
|
19 |
|
|
|
At the level of each university included in the sample there were envisaged all academics in managerial positions: rectors, vice-rectors, deans and vice-deans, considered to be the individuals the most informed about the higher education reform and its implementation at the level of university. Consequently, the total sample of potential respondents was 609, with 423 academics from state universities and 186 from private universities as presented in table no. 4.2.
Table no. 4.2. The total sample of academics included in the survey
|
Position |
STATE |
PRIVATE |
TOTAL |
|
Rectors |
19 |
18 |
37 |
|
Vice-rectors |
64 |
22 |
86 |
|
Deans |
173 |
98 |
271 |
|
Vice-deans |
167 |
47 |
214 |
|
TOTAL |
423 |
186 |
609 |
It can be noticed that academics included in the sample from state universities represent 69.5%, while those from private universities represent 30.5% of the total sample. In spite of the fact that the number of private and state universities included in the sample was similar, the different proportions of individuals is explained through the different sizes in the managerial teams in the included universities. However, this propostion corresponds to the structure of students enrolled in public (70%) and private (30%) higher education at national level, their opinions and answers about the reform being representative to the number of students they enroll.
The data collection instrument was the questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed based on the findings from the case studies. The most relevant aspects related to the reform (as they resulted from the case studies) were included in the questionnaire designated to the national survey. The questionnaire had 8 sections in which the questions were divided according to the topic they relate to, as follows: classificatory data, the higher education reform, the academic and the financial autonomy, aspects related to the academic activity, aspects related to the budget, aspects related to the human resource activity, other aspects (corruption, comparison state/private higher education) and the characterization of the university. Both multiple choices and open ended questions were included in the questionnaire in order to get more insight into the refom problem from the nation wide sample of respondents.
As contact method was used mainly mailing through regular mail. There were two phases in which the questionnaires were sent to respondents: after the first phase only 35 out of the 609 academics included in the sample answered. Therefore, it was organized a follow up by sending again the questionnaire to all those who did not respond in the first phase. After the second phase, the overall response rate was 16.2%, as there were received back 99 questionnaires. From these, 2 were excluded from analysis, by being incomplete and the final response rate remained 15.9% with 97 respondents. Table no. 4.3. presents the structure of respondents and the response rate on different positions.
From the 609 academic managers included in our study, we managed to obtain the email addresses of 15%. These academics were addressed both via email and via regular mail. We received 5 completed questionnaires via email.
Given the fact that usually in Romania, people are not used to answer to mail questionnaires and are more prone to respond to requests that come from personal acquintances, the personal contact was also used as a collection method. Two high positioned persons intervened to a number of academic managers from different universities (state and private) included in the sample, whom they knew personally in order to encourage them to participate in the study. Surprisingly, there was no succes through this method. Not even one questionnaire was received in our study as a result of a personal request. All the respondents sent the completed questionnaires via regular mail or email, and all participated because they were interested to. Given the difficult situation of surveying by mail in Romania on the one hand, the fact that all our respondents are busy people, the response rate is considered to be acceptable (as also overpassed the 12% response rate that is considered acceptable for making statistical generalizations) and gives enough space for drawing conclusion.
Table no. 4.3. The response rate on managerial positions
|
Managerial position |
TOTAL |
STATE |
PRIVATE |
||||||
|
No. of questionn. |
No. of respond. |
Response rate |
No. of questionn. |
No. of respond. |
Response rate |
No. of questionn. |
No. of respond. |
Response rate |
|
|
Rectors |
37 |
3 |
8.1% |
19 |
0 |
0% |
18 |
3 |
16.6% |
|
Vice-rectors |
86 |
9 |
10.4% |
64 |
6 |
9.3% |
22 |
3 |
13.6% |
|
Deans |
271 |
48 |
17.7% |
173 |
33 |
19% |
98 |
15 |
15.3% |
|
Vice-deans |
214 |
30 |
14% |
167 |
26 |
15.5% |
47 |
4 |
8.5% |
|
Others |
|
7 |
|
|
6 |
|
|
1 |
|
|
TOTAL |
609 |
97 |
15.9% |
423 |
71 |
16.7% |
186 |
26 |
13.9% |
The response rate at high managerial levels (rectors and vice-rectors) was higher in private universities, while for state universities, the response rate was higher in the case of managerial positions at the level of faculty (deans and vice-deans), but on overall responses from state universities were slightly higher that those from private universities (16.7% as compared to 13.9%).
Even though the questionnaires were addressed only to the four managerial positions mentioned (rector, vice-rectors, deans and vice-deans), there were received questionnaires completed by individuals on other positions, such as cancelars, head of departments or administrators.
Looking at the structure of respondents on academic position (see table no. 4.4.) and on managerial position (see table no. 4.5.), it was noticed that this was similar in respect to the academic position and somewhat different in respect to the managerial position in state and private universities.
Table no. 4.4. Structure of respondents on academic position
|
Position |
Total No. |
% |
State
|
Private
|
||
|
|
|
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
Professor |
65 |
67,0% |
49 |
69,0% |
16 |
61,5% |
|
Senior-lecturer |
23 |
23,7% |
15 |
21,1% |
8 |
30,8% |
|
Lecturer |
6 |
6,2% |
4 |
5,6% |
2 |
7,7% |
|
Others |
3 |
3,1% |
3 |
4,2% |
0 |
0,0% |
|
N.r. |
0 |
0,0% |
0 |
0,0% |
0 |
0,0% |
|
TOTAL |
97 |
100% |
71 |
100% |
26 |
100% |
There were a number of difficulties encountered during the data collection stage and we will try to shortly discuss them here:
1. There were no available data bases with the names of all individuals on managerial positions in universities at the country level. As far as the managers from state universities are concerned, there is a list at MER with the names of all of them, but access to it is highly restrictive as we received the answer from MER :”We have only 3 copies, one stays with the
Table no. 4.5. Structure of respondents on managerial position
|
Managerial position |
Total No. |
% |
State |
Private
|
||
|
|
|
|
No. |
% |
No. |
% |
|
Rectors |
3 |
3,1% |
0 |
0,0% |
3 |
11,5% |
|
Vice-rector |
9 |
9,3% |
6 |
8,5% |
3 |
11,5% |
|
Dean |
48 |
49,5% |
33 |
46,5% |
15 |
57,7% |
|
Vice-dean |
30 |
30,9% |
26 |
36,6% |
4 |
15,4% |
|
Others |
7 |
7,2% |
6 |
8,5% |
1 |
3,8% |
|
N.r. |
0 |
0,0% |
0 |
0,0% |
0 |
0,0% |
|
TOTAL |
97 |
100% |
71 |
100% |
26 |
100% |
Minister, another one with the Secretary of State ….., so we can not provide them to you”. What should have been public information is kept very strictly at the level of MER.
As far as the managers of private universities are concerned, MER had no evidence at all as they explained „Private universities did not send us anything, any name ….”. Consequently, we had to form our own data bases, by searching the presentation web pages of different universities and by extensively calling the universities and asking the names of the individuals on the positions we were interested in.
2. As we said, for most of the private universities, we had to phone them up to find out the name of the persons to be included in our sample. In a few occasions (in the case of about 5 universities), the secretaries refused to give us the names of all members of the managerial teams occasionally receiving explanations such as „It is more wise this way …. This is the diplomatic way of doing it ….We don’t want to upset Mr. Rector”. This is an indication that in some private universities decision power is very concentrated, being in the hand of one person who tries to control the flow of information and/or, that even if there are persons on high managerial positions they actually have no real decision power. We have sent the questionnaires to be completed to those persons whose names we have been offered.
3. As we already mentioned the high degree of conservatorim regarding mail surveys in general in Romania influenced in a negative way our study. Other unfavourable factors were: the fact that our respondents are people with busy schedules; the high degree of suspiciouness of some and of conservatorism of others.
4. Generally speaking private universities were more suspicious regarding the use of the information they will be providing, many of them preferring to not participate in the study. Their main concern related to the financial information. Even from the ones who did participate in the study many preferred to not answer to most of the questions in the „Budget Section”, giving explanations such as „We are a private university, we don’t have to report this”. This section included information such as the level of tuition fees that is public anyhow. An explanation can be related to the fact that private universities generally feel as being „chased” by the MER from both academic and financial point of view. The financial aspect is even more sensitive and they are reluctant to declare any amount of income, so that they will not be asked any extra-taxes by the MER (if the amount does not fit the income corresponding to the declared number of students).
5.
In the case of state
universities we encountered two diametrally opposed situations: we had the
cases of two state universities that declared that they have discussed our
request in their Senates and the answer was negative, given „the high
confidentiality of data required that can be offered only to MER”. However, in
the case of one of those universities some academics on lower positions did
answer to our questionnaire, showing in this way the bad communication between
the top managemement and its subordinates within that particular university. At
the other end we had the request of one vice-rector from Cluj who emailed us to
ask „when will be the results available, as he intends to use them as a basis
for decision making in the university”.