Certificate: View Certificate
Published Paper PDF: View PDF
Shweta Mishra
Independent Researcher
Uttar Pradesh, India
Abstract
This study undertakes an in‐depth exploration of the dynamic interplay between institutional autonomy and accountability mechanisms within the governance of higher education. Across the globe, universities and colleges are granted increasing independence over key functions—curriculum development, financial management, recruitment, research priorities, and strategic planning—to foster innovation, responsiveness to market and societal needs, and greater operational flexibility. However, such autonomy introduces the imperative of accountability: the obligation to demonstrate responsible stewardship of resources, adherence to quality standards, transparency in decision making, and alignment with stakeholder expectations, including students, faculty, alumni, employers, regulators, and the public. The tension between these dual forces—autonomy enabling entrepreneurial growth versus accountability ensuring ethical, equitable, and sustainable practice—forms the core focus of this research.
Drawing on governance theory, comparative studies, and empirical data from a targeted survey of 100 faculty members, department chairs, and senior administrators across diverse public and private institutions in India, the United Kingdom, and Australia, this manuscript probes multiple dimensions of governance: perceived levels of decision‐making freedom, the design and efficacy of accountability frameworks, and the experiential impacts on institutional culture, trust, and academic outcomes. Quantitative findings indicate that higher autonomy correlates positively with robust accountability practices, challenging the view of a zero‐sum relationship. Qualitative thematic analysis reveals nuanced stakeholder perceptions: autonomy is celebrated for enabling rapid curricular updates, interdisciplinary program creation, and agile resource allocation; yet without proportionate, context‐sensitive accountability processes, stakeholders report confusion, data fatigue, and diminished confidence in reported metrics. Similarly, overly prescriptive accountability regimes—characterized by dense data reporting, frequent external audits, and narrow performance indicators—are perceived as bureaucratic burdens that detract from teaching, research, and strategic innovation.
Key contributions of this study include a refined conceptual model of “Balanced Governance,” which advocates co‐designed accountability measures, tiered oversight calibrated to risk and impact, and narrative‐driven reporting to complement quantitative indicators. Practical recommendations are offered: establish inclusive governance councils with transparent roles; develop stakeholder‐informed dashboards that contextualize metrics; streamline review cycles to minimize administrative overhead; and invest in capacity building for data literacy among faculty and administrators. By synthesizing theory with real‐world practitioner insights, this research advances understanding of how higher education institutions can navigate the autonomy–accountability nexus to achieve both academic excellence and public trust, ensuring sustainable, innovative, and socially responsible governance.
Key words
Autonomy, Accountability, Higher Education Governance, Governance Balance, Survey
References
- Altbach, P. G., & de Wit, H. (2018). Global perspectives on higher education. Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Quality in Higher Education, 6(2), 165–179.
- Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
- De Boer, H. (2013). The Europeanisation of higher education: The Bologna process and its effects. Studies in Higher Education, 38(1), 64–73.
- El‐Khawas, E. (1999). Managing higher education in the 21st century: The recent reform experience. UNESCO.
- Henkel, M. (2000). Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment. Higher Education Policy, 13(4), 349–370.
- Moore, M. (2019). Evaluating governance effectiveness in universities. Oxford University Press.
- (2020). Education at a Glance 2020: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing.
- Stergiou, D., & Airey, J. (2009). Accountability and audit: Promoting quality, diminishing knowledge? Planet, 22(1), 22–25.
- Tierney, W. G. (2004). Campus governance in the United States. Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Tight, M. (2018). Higher education governance. Routledge.
- Wallace, M., & Marchant, T. (2001). Institutional autonomy in practice: Comparing Australian and UK universities. Higher Education Quarterly, 55(2), 174–190.