Developing An Ideal University Model Using Present/Absent Qualitative Comparative Terminology: Implications For Standard University Models.

Standard university models

There are several types of university models depending on where the institutional emphasis is. Some university models are clearly student oriented as they set as their goals to attract the best students available in the market. Others are faculty oriented as they aim at attracting and retaining the most qualified faculty possible. And some attempt to balance out the quality of faculty and students they can attract. While the working of all these types of universities may be different, they have something in common: they are modelled as a system where students and faculty interact constantly in their search for new knowledge and scientific challenges. They also have in common the belief that they can achieve ideal conditions without the need to make major changes in their internal structures and without the need of defining a desirable point of reference.

The practice of comparing standard university models

In the absence of an a priory well defined ideal university model, the normal practice is to compare one standard university model with another and determine this way how to become better. While the information produced through these comparative analysis may be relevant to all universities involved, no links can be established between the conditions found in these standard university models and those of ideal models.

The missing measuring link

The absence of an ideal university model makes the measurement of progress taking place in standard university models more difficult to make as there is not ideal goal to be targeted. Just knowing how good or bad a standard university is compared to others is not good enough. We also need to know how far from ideal conditions that academic progress is.

The need to measure progress toward ideal conditions

Today's sustainable development/sustainability discourse requires the move from sustained university systems to sustainable ones. A prerequisite for this move is the definition of the ideal university model so that efforts toward it can be channelled more efficiently and progress toward it can be constantly measured. However, in order to define an ideal university model, we need to determine its nature and characteristics first.

The goals of this paper

This paper has three general goals. One objective is to derive the different forms and structures of all possible university systems using a simple desirable university model. The second objective is to compare all these types of models in terms of seven characteristics: dominance, desirable goal, participation, accountability, compatibility, external monitoring, and sustainability index. And the third objective is to point out what needs to be done so that the most common standard university model, the faculty dominated model, can approximate the ideal model as much as possible.

Methodology

First, using qualitative comparative terminology, the different possible types of universities are derived and their main characteristics described. Then, the relation of each of these models with respect to specific characteristics are summarised in a table. And finally, based on the information generated, some conclusions are presented related to the importance of linking the most common standard university model to the ideal university model.

The University Model

A University model based on a system approach containing the two main elements of a university system, advisors and students, can be stated as follows:

U = P* + E*

Where;

U = Desirable University Model

P* = Academic Advisor with the desired characteristics present.

E* = University Student with the desired characteristics present.

The above desirable university model(U) indicates that when the desirable characteristics of advisors(P*) are present or when the desirable characteristics of students(E*) are present or when both are present, then the conditions for a specific type of desirable university exist. When both the desirable characteristics of both, advisors(p*) and students(e*) are absent, we have an undesirable university system.

Therefore, based on the quality(present and absence of desirable characteristics) of the two elements of the system, universities can be classified in four groups:

i) Bad universities: universities with low quality students and low quality faculty.

U1 = pe ;

Where, U1 = Bad university

p = Advisor without desirable characteristics.

e = Student without desirable characteristics.

ii) Faculty driven universities: universities where efforts are focused on hiring the best faculty only.

U2 = P*e

Where, U2 = Faculty driven university

P* = Advisor with desired characteristics

e = Student without the desired characteristics.

iii) Student driven university: universities where efforts are directed

at attracting the best students only.

U3 = pE*

Where, U3 = Student driven university

p = Advisor without the desired characteristics.

E* = Students with the desired characteristics.

iv) The ideal university: the university which focus on hiring both the best faculty and on attracting the best students available. Hence, in this case both elements of the system have the desirable characteristics.

U4 = P*E* = U*

Where;

U* = The ideal university

P* = Advisor with required characteristics

E* = Student with required characteristics

Comparing the structure of all university models

Table 1 below shows how the structure of each type of university model looks when related to specific characteristics such as dominance, desirable goal, participation, accountability, compatibilities, external monitoring, and sustainability index, which is described below.

Structure of the bad university model(U1 = p*e* )

Column 1 in Table 1 indicates that the nature of the seven characteristics being considered is unclear as this model is made up of faculty and students without the desirable characteristics, which implies that this system is in a state of chaos. This is consistent with the sustainability index of zero displayed by this system as shown in this Table 1.

Structure of the faculty dominated university model(U2 = P*e*)

Column 2 in Table 1 indicates that this model is characterised by the following characteristics: it is a model dominated by faculty power; it aims at maximising the generation of new knowledge from faculty sources; it displays partial participation as the student role is assumed passive; it displays partial accountability as only student accountability it is well defined; it displays partial compatibility concerns as only faculty compatibility is maximised; it is subjected to non-binding external monitoring when facing faculty induced system failures; and it has a sustainability index of 0.5 indicating that it is a sustained system, not a sustainable one.

Structure of student dominated university model(U3 = p*E*)

Column 3 in Table 1 presents that the student dominated model is characterised by the following aspects: it is a system dominated by student power; it aims at maximising the production of new knowledge from student sources; it shows partial participation as faculty role is assumed passive; it indicates partial accountability as only faculty accountability it is well defined; it shows partial compatibility aims as only student compatibility is maximised; it is subjected to non-binding external monitoring when dealing with extreme student induced system failures; and it has a sustainability index of 0.5 indicating that it is too a sustained system, not a sustainable one.

Structure of the ideal university model(U4 = P*E*)

Column 4 in Table 1 describes the structure of the ideal university model, which are summarised as follows: there is no dominance here as both faculty and students concerns are incorporated into the decision making process; the desirable goal of this model is the optimisation of both faculty and student produced new knowledge; it allows for full participation as both faculty and students participate actively in the university affairs; it permits full accountability as the consequences for system failure for both faculty and students are very clearly stated; it optimises faculty and student compatibilities creating an excellent research and academic environment; it is subjected to binding external monitoring so as to restore sustainability quickly in case of system failures; and finally, it has a sustainability index of 1 which indicates that the ideal university model is sustainable.

The gap between the faculty dominated model and the ideal one.

The comparison of column 2 and column 4 in Table 1 shows what it needs to be done in order to move from the sustained faculty dominated model(M2) to the ideal model(M4): we need to take steps to move from faculty domination to faculty cooperation; we need to move from maximisation goals to optimisation goals; and we need to move from partial participation, accountability and compatibility to full conditions; we need to move from non-binding external monitoring to a binding one. All the above indicates that we need to move from sustained conditions(SI2 = 0.5) to sustainable ones(SI4 = 1).

Conclusions

Using faculty and students as the two main components of university systems, four types of universities can be derived.

The seven characteristics used to point out the internal structure of each university model show their differences and similarities. The most common university model is the one called here the faculty-dominated model, which it is a sustained model, not a sustainable one as shown. The closing of the sustainability gap between the faculty dominated model and the ideal model requires a movement from non-optimal conditions to optimal ones. Not surprisingly, the characteristics of the ideal model indicate that it is a model that requires that all characteristics must be in optimal form for the ideal conditions to prevail.  

----------------------------------------------------------------

Table 1 Detailed structure of each university model

----------------------------------------------------------------

characteristics [U1 = p*e*] [U2 = P*e*] [U3 = p*E*] [U4 = P*E*]

----------------------------------------------------------------

Dominance [Unclear ] [Faculty ] [Student ] [None ]

----------------------------------------------------------------

Desirable goal [Unclear ] [Maximum ] [Maximum ] [Optimum ]

----------------------------------------------------------------

Participation [Unclear ] [Partial ] [Partial ] [Full ]

----------------------------------------------------------------

Accountability [Unclear ] [Partial ] [Partial ] [Full ]

----------------------------------------------------------------

Compatibilities [Unclear ] [Partial ] [Partial ] [Full ]

----------------------------------------------------------------

External [Unclear ] [No-binding][No-binding][ Binding ]

Monitoring

----------------------------------------------------------------

Sustainability [ 0 ] [ 0.5 ] [ 0.5 ] [ 1 ]

Index(SI)

----------------------------------------------------------------

SI = # of active components / # of components

For example, if U1 = p*e* ; then SI1 = 0 / 2 = 0

-----------------------------------------------------------------