Content uploaded by Thanda Soe
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thanda Soe on Jan 31, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
University Autonomy: a Multi-Dimensional Perspective on University of Mandalay
1
Dr Thanda Soe,
2
Dr Sann Myint
University autonomy is multi-dimensional. In countries where centralized education is experiencing transitions
to less centralized and more autonomous nature, there are variations in the level of autonomy achieved: some
universities have high levels of autonomy in some dimensions whereas, in others, autonomy is constrained by
interests and interest groups. With University of Mandalay, autonomy is initial, experimental, and pioneering,
and if successful, can serve as a model for other arts and science universities in Myanmar aspiring to become
autonomous. This research explores the dynamics and interconnections between the eight dimensions, namely
university governance and organization, management of student affairs, staffing and human resource
management, financial autonomy, teaching and learning, research and publications, internationalization, quality
assurance and academic standards and policies in practicing autonomy in University of Mandalay.
Introduction
Background of the research
Since September 1, 2020, a total of 16 universities in Myanmar have been granted autonomy
as part of a pilot project, including two arts and science Universities, namely Yangon
University and Mandalay University. University autonomy was not new to Yangon
University in Lower Myanmar, which was founded in 1920, and to Mandalay University in
Upper Myanmar established as Mandalay College, an affiliated college of Yangon
University, in 1925. Mandalay College was upgraded to Mandalay University College in
1947 and eventually named Mandalay University in 1958. In the same year, Mandalay
University became autonomous in accordance with the Mandalay University Act, 1957,
having ownership in managing organizational, financial, staffing and academic matters until
1962.
With the leadership and management of the Mandalay University Council which was formed
in accordance with the Mandalay University Act, 1957, Mandalay University had achieved a
relatively high degree of university autonomy in most of the four dimensions namely
organizational, financial, staffing and academic freedom. Rectors of Yangon University and
Mandalay University were not appointed by the government (Bho Thein 2016). The
universities were allowed to keep their own funds which came from the donations by the
alumni and had the right to manage their own funds, their own staff and students and the
language of instruction was English. The quality of education offered was satisfactory
enough to attract many students in Southeast Asia to come and study. Yangon University was
supervised by the university council which included representatives from the government,
alumni of Yangon University and representatives of Yangon University Student Union (Bho
Thein, 2016). The education system in Myanmar was one of Asia's best until the military
took over in 1962. The high degree of autonomy in MU and YU along with academic
freedom and accompanying progress in research ground to a halt with a coup staged by
military dominated Revolutionary Council at the behest of Ne Win in 1962, which placed the
universities under the central government with language of instruction changed from English
to Myanmar effectively terminating autonomy in universities.
1
Professor, English department, University of Mandalay
2
Facilitator, TREE (the British Council)
2
As governments were formed and systems transitioned between different ends of the political
spectrum – from the parliamentarian democracy before 1962 to an ill-disguised communism
camouflaged as Burmese Way to Socialism due to dislike for Chinese Communist Party’s
support for Burma Communist Party – trends in education changed as the winning parties
attempted to influence Myanmar people. The education system in Myanmar was greatly
influenced by the different political parties (The Burma Socialist Programme Party
(BSPP),and the junta in two different guises the military State Law and Order Restoration
Council (SLORC) and , the State Peace and Development Council, (SPDC) which the
country experienced for a period of half a century (1962 – 2011). The standard of Myanmar
education system plummeted, under a "highly centralized and top-down" management (Weil,
2013) "in a much-weakened state" (Hayden and Martin, 2013).
After a long period of the military rule, Myanmar has been undergoing a major political shift
(from direct military rule to a quasi-civilian 'hybrid' regime and then to a liberal democratic
country) which has impacted education. In 2011, semi-civilian government led by U Thein
Sein (a retired general) started reforms in many sectors. For instance, the Ministry of
Education (MOE) has undertaken a Comprehensive Education Sector Review (CESR) in
collaboration with development partners with the aim of developing the existing education
system, identifying strengths and weaknesses and prioritizing key areas for reform. Initial
reforms to be introduced to Myanmar universities will take the form of institutional
autonomy to be granted to higher education institutions.
In 2015, with the help of Open Society Foundations, an international expert team from
Central European University conducted a two-day workshop on Autonomous University
Governance in Myanmar: learning from International Experience in Mandalay University,
introducing the concept of university autonomy in Myanmar, sharing their experience in all
areas relevant to governance and management of autonomous universities from Europe,
USA, and ASEAN regarding the internal regulations in support of institutional autonomy and
discussing recent developments with regard to strategic development planning and promotion
of the university autonomy in Myanmar. Since then Mandalay University has been taking the
preliminary and essential steps towards achieving a certain degree of autonomy initially and
to become a leading national research university, embarking on a project developing the
Master Plan 2025, a roadmap for the University's strategic transformation, with the aim of
shaping a new identity and bringing about significant transformations by its Centennial in
2025 that would allow it to develop, excel and thrive as an autonomous national research
university in Myanmar, with a strong local and national role and international presence.
Therefore, since 2018, with the help of external partners, especially the expert team of
Central European University, the development of the University of Mandalay Master Plan
has been mandated by the Ministry of Education which will encompass the following:
- introduction of autonomy
- new structure, policies and practices in government and management
- full commitment to academic freedom
- design of functional, efficient and transparent internal quality assurance framework
- strengthened and empowered leadership that fully represents the faculty, staff and
students
3
To implement the above plan, the university has identified five key priority areas: Priority
Area 1: Advancement of University Autonomy, Priority Area 2: Transition to Student-centred
learning to meet the challenges of the 21st Century, Priority Area 3: Building capacities for
world-class Research and becoming a national research university, Priority Area 4: Improved
service to community and Priority Area 5: Friendly, functional and vibrant campus
University autonomy is currently for University of Mandalay a top priority believed to be a
key for further development and success of the university.
On September 1, 2020,16 universities in Yangon and Mandalay Regions were granted
autonomy as part of a pilot project. University of Mandalay is in this initial list of universities
where partial autonomy will be introduced to increase potentials to enhance its teaching and
research.
Autonomy is not new to Myanmar universities, to University of Mandalay (UM) and
University of Yangon (UY) in particular, but after the military coup followed by decades of
centrally controlled and run education system with little room for creativity and adaptation to
emerging needs, administrators and educators alike are apprehensive of impending changes
preferring instead the predictable routines and procedures of a centralized system.
With increasing awareness of the limitations imposed on education and the damage done to
creativity and productivity by a centrally controlled system, stakeholders have realized the
need for autonomy in education for a long term progress and sustainability. To enable
universities to cater for emerging needs of the job market and communities, a certain level of
initial autonomy is advisable: the ingrained habits of controlling all aspects of the
teaching/learning enterprise despite the awareness of its shortcomings will need to be
eliminated incrementally given the autocratic nature Myanmar education has assumed over
the years. Administrators are not yet prepared to give up their control citing relative lack of
experience by educators who have been intentionally starved of consistent professional
development: these educators have been sent haphazardly to universities and institutes all
over Myanmar. They are uprooted time and again after a few months, a year or a few years
to be assigned elsewhere with little consideration of what benefits the mobility brings to
education and its stakeholders.
An inevitable outcome of such mindless and haphazard exercises in transfers is that educators
have no time to hone their teaching skills or improve at the personal and professional levels.
This lack of or prevalent weakness in continuous professional development is the very reason
cited by opponents of autonomy for educators’ unpreparedness to assume more autonomous
roles. The ill-concealed intent of current managers to exercise restraint in granting autonomy
is made abundantly clear by their relentless efforts to restrict freedom in many guises. To
explore potential avenues for providing solutions to this dilemma with a centrally controlled
management system determined to retain control of the system on the one hand and an
education force committed to attaining a certain level of autonomy on the other – it has
become necessary to listen to the voices of stakeholders – the administrators and the
educators involved in the process themselves.
There is, therefore, a need to explore the extent the autonomy is granted to the university and
listen to the voices of UM Master Plan Development Team comprising the rector, pro-rectors
and department heads, who are involved in formulating and drafting the Master Plan, the
4
future direction for UM. To the best of the researchers' knowledge, the present study is the
first pioneering research on university autonomy in the context University of Mandalay.
University autonomy is defined by many scholars in different ways depending on the culture
and context where it is practised. Sawyer (1966) defines university autonomy as the self-
government of higher education institutions in regulating their affairs in enrolment criteria,
promotion and discipline of faculty and staff. Dlamini Sc (1996) stated that autonomy is
concerned with its independent status as an institution in relation to other external institutions
including the government, the church, the organised industry and business and other
organizations. Academic freedom, on the other hand, is concerned with the working
conditions and conditions of service of staff and students as regards teaching, learning,
research, the expression of opinions and the publication thereof. It entails the freedom of an
academic to perform his functions without unnecessary restrictions. An autonomous
university characteristically is a higher education institution in which its day-to-day
operations and curriculum are exercised independently (Noor, 2017). It is generally
associated with universities, institutions and implies that the funding agency or state does not
have control over academic matters.
There have been a number of notable studies conducted on university autonomy. Basheer Al-
haimi, Daing Nasir Ibrahim, and Ab Hamid MR (2019) investigated the Malaysian public and
private universities degree of independence and autonomy from the government and other
external forces. The extent of an institute's autonomy is measured based on their
independence in appointive, academic, administrative, and financial matters. It was found
that the majority of the components under academic matters, administrative and financial
matters are considered high autonomy with less interference of the government over those
institutions. Autonomy related to the appointment of the vice- chancellors and dismissal of
rectors and vice-chancellor is still under government control. They concluded that autonomy
development at public and private universities in Malaysia has been engaged in a long
journey that enabled it to compete and to progress well at the global level. Actually Malaysia
is a developing nation that strives for a high performing economy and education system. If
the degree of autonomy in universities in such a country is considered as a long journey, it is
worth investigating to find out the degree of autonomy in Mandalay University, which is at
an early stage. IIEP (2013) analysed the nature of autonomy and its effect on selected HE
institutions in five Asian countries: Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan and Viet Nam over
the period 2009 – 2011. All the case study countries demonstrated a high degree of
governmental control. The five countries are actually at different states in the process, with
some being quite advanced, while others are at earlier stages. Viet Nam is still at a relatively
early stage but government resolutions have built upon each other forming a clear sequential
process.
Considering the needs to be fulfilled and resources required, forces influencing the process,
stakeholders involved and desired outcomes based on individual universities' vision and
mission, the concept of university autonomy is "highly complex and multidimensional"
Iwinska & Matei, 2015. The European University Association (EUA) defines four
dimensions of university autonomy: organizational autonomy, financial autonomy, staffing
autonomy, and academic autonomy whereas Matei and Iwinska (2015) outlined a list of
dimensions for university autonomy namely 1) Internal governance and organization; 2)
5
Curriculum, program design and teaching methods; 3) Research and publications; 4) Quality
assurance and academic standards; 5) Student-related issues; 6) Staff-related issues (both
academic and non-academic university staff); 7) Finance and administration; and 8)
Internationalization-related topics.
For individual dimensions, specific areas/aspects will be studied:
Dimension 1:
Internal Governance and
Organization
a. Freedom to set up internal governance structures (including
governing bodies and external members
b. Freedom to determine internal academic structures
c. Freedom to select institutional leadership
d. Legal status of universities
Dimension 2:
Curriculum, program
design and teaching
methods
a. Freedom to design academic content
b. Freedom to introduce new degree programs
c. Freedom to choose language of instruction
d. Freedom to organize and take part in academic events
Dimension 3:
Research and publications
a. Freedom to publish and monitoring for research publication
quality
b. Freedom to carry out international research collaborations
Dimension 4:
Quality Assurance and
academic standards
a. Freedom to choose quality assurance mechanisms
b. Freedom to select a quality assurance agency
Dimension 5:
Student-related issues
a. Deciding on the overall student numbers
b. Student selection process and admission
Dimension 6:
Staff-related issues
a. Staff recruitment
b. Freedom to decide on staff salaries
c. Freedom to decide on dismissals and promotions
Dimension 7:
Finance and
administration
a. Allocation of public funding
b.The right to keep a surplus
c. Income-generating activities (diversification of income
sources)
d.The right to charge tuition fees
e. The right to own buildings
f. The right to borrow money
Dimension 8:
Internationalization-
related topics
a. The ability of universities to independently enter & decide on
international cooperation schemes
b. Branch campuses
Iwinska & Matei (2014: pg 41)
Given potential challenges in acquiring autonomy in the above areas along with existing
limitations in resources – human, material and financial – and not least the bureaucratic and
autocratic mechanism inherent in the currently practiced system, there is a need to identify
6
and measure the extent of autonomy to be gained by University of Mandalay with reference
to relevant dimensions and aspects.
The present study aims to analyse the autonomy dimensions and aspects presented and
detailed by Iwinska & Matei (2014). As a newly autonomous university, it is not clear to
what extent the university will be autonomous in what areas. Moreover, this study will
explore the voices of the administrators and heads of the departments across the disciplines,
identifying issues and challenges they encounter when in an autonomous University of
Mandalay. Therefore, to achieve this aim, two objectives are set as follows:
1) to explore the degree of autonomy in University of Mandalay
2) to bring forth voices of academics of University of Mandalay on university autonomy
and academic freedom
Method
For this study, a combined quantitative-qualitative design was adopted. It included analysis of
dimensions and aspects and interpretations of data from the semi-structured interviews and
the questionnaire survey. The report on the SHARE Institutional Assessment (2018) by a
group of panel appointed by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) and the
European University Association (EUA) and the AUN-QA Self-Assessment Report (SAR,
2020) were employed to analyse the 8 dimensions and indicators. The former was based on
an external assessment conducted from 22 - 23 February 2018 by the panel supported by the
DAAD’s SHARE team and the latter was generated by the Internal Quality Assurance Team
of Mandalay University led by the Pro-rector, which investigated each and every department
from July 10 – July 18 2020, strictly adhering to guidelines in the AUN_QA criteria
requirements for BA/BSc Programme. The use of frequency count and percentage in
analysing the survey questionnaire of the participants is presented in the tabulated form.
However high statistical instruments were not used in the study due to the initial and
exploratory nature of the study, identification and classification of response to the
questionnaire was followed by data analysis. There were 23 participants in the study, the Pro-
rector and 22 heads of Natural and Social Science Departments of Mandalay University. Data
collection was conducted between October 2020 and December 2020, one month after the
announcement of the autonomy, based on a questionnaire and responses to the semi-
structured interviews. The questionnaire was a modified survey questionnaire which was
adapted from the questionnaire designed by Taira (2004). The questionnaire includes 8
survey questions and 12 question items with 5 point Likert scale, all written both in the
English and Myanmar languages. The survey questions focus on the respondents’
expectations about the changes in University of Mandalay after gaining autonomy, their
awareness of changes oriented towards achieving academic freedom with some examples,
anticipated challenges, their planned contributions to a fully autonomous university, their
roles and perceptions on academic freedom in University of Mandalay. The interview was
conducted with the Pro-rector and selected department heads, which lasted 30 minutes per
session. Interview questions basically include their understanding, expectations and how they
can contribute to university autonomy. The question items with 5 Likert scale ask the
respondents' perceptions on academic freedom.
7
Findings
A synthesis of four sources, comprising two documents – a SAR report and the SHARE
Institutional Assessment Report by a group of panel appointed by the German Academic
Exchange Service (DAAD) and the European University Association (EUA) and two
research tools, namely a questionnaire survey and a semi-structured interview, provides data
for analysis. As with universities previously dependent on a centrally controlled system,
University of Mandalay experiences numerous restrictions in its effort to become an
autonomous university. Eight dimensions identifying a university as an autonomous entity
were used to determine the extent of autonomy or the extent to which restrictions have been
imposed resulting in challenges in developing an autonomous status.
The restrictions on indicators of each dimension were identified based on the two reports
generated by the external and internal Quality Assurance Team, immediate stakeholders’
responses to the questionnaire survey and semi-structured interviews. At the current stage of
UM’s autonomy, in-depth data collection cannot yet be conducted and the collected data
reflects the existing conditions – inherent strengths as well as weaknesses of the university –
and initial opinions and attitudes of the respondents.
Analysis of Dimensions with reference to responses from the questionnaire survey
Aspects for each dimension are presented in the tabulated form as follows:
Table 1: Dimension 1 (Governance and Organization)
Indicators
Restrictions
a. Freedom to set up internal
governance structures (including
governing bodies and external
members)
b. Freedom to determine internal
academic structures
c. Freedom to select institutional
leadership
d. Legal status of universities
UM cannot decide the inclusion of external members.
approval from DHE is needed for key decisions
has a standard organizational structure guided by DHE
still appointed by MOE
still a Government-managed University and practices Top
down policy (centralized system), and DHE/ MOE
approval is needed for all key processes and activities
As seen in Table 1, degree of freedom in all aspects of Dimension 1 is low or non-existent.
The establishment of a University Council comprising external members, for instance,
government representatives, industry professionals (employers), alumni, civil society
representatives, and the key new university units that ensure effective and sustainable
institutional development is a crucial initial step towards autonomy. Establishing Office of
International Affairs, External Relations, Development and Communications Office, Office
of Quality Assurance and Institutional Research is one of the strategic objectives in the UM
8
Charter which has not been approved yet. Therefore, so far, in terms of Governance and
Organization, UM has enjoyed a very limited degree of autonomy. On the issue of
governance, 72% of the respondents, a significant majority, agree that higher education
institutions should, apart from the senate, have a board composed of a majority of external
experts, and not just academics hand-picked by DHE, competent to confirm decisions on
strategic issues.
Table 2: Dimension2 (Teaching and Learning: Curriculum, Program Design and
Assessment)
Indicators
Restrictions
a. Capacity to design academic content
b. Capacity to introduce new degree
programs
c. Capacity to choose language of
instruction
d. Capacity to organize and take part in
academic events
Textbooks, course books, references are approved by
Board of Studies but flexible to use extensive materials,
teacher-centred approach is still dominant, same
assessment system is used, Same course contents decided
by BOS are still used.
All new degree programmes/ courses must be submitted to
MOE.
In theory medium of instruction is English but in practice
the Myanmar language is mainly used.
Needs approval from MOE
Table 2 indicates that apart from the ability to design the content of courses (what is taught),
and teaching methodologies (how is taught), there is little or no autonomy in the remaining
aspects, for instance, assessment system for which MOE’s approval is still required as with
many other academic aspects. With the support of Open Society Myanmar, whose
participation needs MOE’s sanction, UM faculty have been undertaking a project named
"Reshaping the University of Mandalay as a student-centred University" which will enhance
pedagogies of faculty in UM. In the SHARE assessment report (2018), the assessors stated
that the experience of teachers using a variety of teaching methods is appreciated by the
students. UM has, to some extent, freedom to choose teaching methodologies, materials and
references while the ability to format testing – examinations and questions – is still severely
restricted with a central control from Board of Studies (BOS) which has a final say on what is
taught at government universities. In response to the questionnaire survey, 94 % agree that
the University should have authority to open new programs depending on local requirement
and existing capacity and the same percent of respondents (94%), an overwhelming majority
agree that the University should be able to offer both courses as (a) courses conducted in
English and (b) courses conducted in Myanmar which underscores the requirement to deliver
lesson content and lectures in a medium of instruction students are able to appreciate and
understand.
Table 3: Dimension 3 (Issues related to research and freedom to publish)
Indicators
Restrictions
a. Freedom to publish and monitoring
for research publication quality
Research journals can be freely published.
Monitoring on journal publication is carried out by ERC of
9
b. Freedom to carry out international
research collaborations
the University.
Needs MOU which is controlled by MOE
As seen in Table 3, academics are free to publish their research results whereas there are
some limitations on international research collaborations which need approval from MOE.
All the respondents (100%) strongly agree that the University should have freedom to
participate in research meetings, conferences and workshops abroad. An additional issue
related to publication of research papers is research’s relevance to local needs and the
international research context: research papers are submitted and accepted but more often
than not their results are seldom applied in the practical context. This lack of practical
relevance and doing result-oriented research with little attention to practical application can
lead to UM’s development into a nominal research university – just in name and not in
practical aspects.
Table 4: Dimension 4 (Issues related to quality assurance)
Indicators
Restrictions
a. Capacity to choose quality assurance
mechanisms
b. Capacity to select a quality assurance
agency
UM cannot select quality assurance mechanisms
UM cannot select a quality assurance agency
UM has its internal QA team but its internal quality assurance system with an internal quality
assurance unit has not been placed appropriately in the organization. According to the
SHARE assessment report (2018), the university staff were aware of the importance of a
quality assurance system during the interviews and there were instances of a culture of
participation and a cooperative process at all levels striving for quality in their own areas of
responsibility; however, not in a systematic manner.
Table 5: Dimension 5(Students related issues)
Indicators
Restrictions
a. Deciding on the overall student
numbers
b. Student selection process and
admission
The student number of an intake is determined by
Academic Board (Senate) of the university based on the
number of teaching staffs, classrooms and other
resources such as laboratory and IT resources.
For Bachelor Degree Courses, the selection process is
based on Matriculation Marks. For post-graduate
courses, the selection process is through the entrance
exam.
The set admission criteria for undergraduate program are based on the Matriculation marks
whereas the process of how postgraduate students are selected is done through entrance
exams. Decisions on the overall student numbers and the selection process are made by
10
respective department heads. The Academic Board’s ability to make decisions on student
intake is relatively new: distribution of students for a particular intake was and still is being
determined by DHE, formerly for all universities and presently for all universities except 16
which have been initially and partially granted autonomy. Assigning students to a particular
course of study with little or no consideration of their propensity and preferences has resulted
in graduates who are ill-equipped to face the challenges of their chosen professions after
university.
Table 6: Dimension 6 (Staff employment issues (academic and non-academic staff))
Indicators
Restrictions
a. Staff recruitment
b. Capacity to decide on staff salaries
c. Capacity to decide on dismissals and
promotions
Staff (Academic) recruitment and appointment
are conducted according to the guidelines set by
MOE. Administrative staff recruitment is not
within the University’s authority.
According to the preset salary bands like other
public organizations fixed by Union Civil
Service Board.
Academic Staff promotion is implemented by
DHE or MOE.
The university has freedom to recruit academic staff but must comply with Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) developed by the university itself whereas it has no freedom to
recruit administrative staff. In response to this issue posed in the questionnaire survey, 78%
agree that the dean/head of department should come from within the faculty/department, and
academic staff should be able to exercise decisive control over his/her nomination, election
and appointment. If and when academic staff are empowered to select their respective deans
and heads of department, it will set a precedence for academic freedom in which only the
qualified and deserving staff will be selected to senior positions based on a democratic voting
system. Yet it is still necessary to supplement voting capable academics to leading position
with equally capable and qualified staff who can provide their respective deans and heads of
department with a strong academic support which will in turn lead to enrichment and
improvement of academic quality for both staff and students.
Table 7: Dimension 7(Institutional autonomy to decide about finances and
administration)
Indicators
Restrictions
a. Allocation of public funding
b. The right to keep a surplus
c. Income-generating activities
Not the right to allocate the budgets for public
(government) funding
Not the right to keep a surplus
Getting funds from loans, grants, gifts and
income generating program needs approval from
11
(diversification of income sources)
d. The right to charge tuition fees
e. The right to own buildings
f. The right to borrow money
the Government. Apart from government
funding, some universities running HRD
Programs could earn about 60% of revenue for
equipment and honorees.
Tuition fees for regular classes are set by MOE
while tuition fees for HRD programs are
proposed by University and approved by MOE.
The University does not have authority to choose
desirable building designs and facilities.
Not allowed to build new and maintain old
buildings and facilities with financial
contributions from the private sector, alumni and
stakeholders
UM does not have the right to borrow money.
As seen in Table 7, restrictions on the use of finances and administration pose considerable
obstacles for UM in its effort to become an autonomous university. The university is not
allowed to allocate its budget, to keep a surplus, to get fund, to charge tuition fees, to
construct own buildings or to borrow money: all these activities need MOE’s approval
without which official actions can be taken against parties who exercise freedom in financial
or administrative matters.
Table 8: Dimension 8 (Institutional autonomy related to internationalization)
Indicators
Restrictions
a. The ability of universities to
independently enter & decide on
international cooperation schemes
b. Branch campuses
Needs approval from MOE (research collaborations,
signing MOU, academic collaborations, etc.)
No previous policy or practice for Myanmar government
run universities
In response to the questionnaire items on considerations for promotion, institutional
autonomy/internationalization and appointment for the dean or head of the department, all the
respondents (100%) agree with the items "In my higher education institution, assessment of
performance is too dependent on years of teaching experience", "The University should have
freedom to participate in the research meetings, conferences and workshops abroad" and "The
dean/head of department should come from within the faculty/department, and academic staff
should be able to exercise decisive control over his/her nomination, election and
appointment". Respondents are apparently not satisfied with criteria for promotion not based
on meritocracy but on random and complex criteria which leaves much room for abuse. They
are also obviously not pleased with lengthy processes in getting approval from MOE for
international collaborations which have also left many academics and administrative officers
disenchanted with the system as permissions are either granted at the last minute just before
deadlines making the process effectively null or not granted at all. As regards selection of
dean or head of the department, they believe that academic staff should be able to exercise
decisive control over his/her nomination, election and appointment.
12
Figure 1: Perceptions on assessment of performance Figure 2: Perceptions on participation in research
activities
Figure 3: Perceptions on selection of the dean/ head of department
Responses to the interview questions
In their responses to questions on expectations about the changes that would take place at a
newly autonomous University of Mandalay, all participants express high expectations for
academic freedom, ie., freedom to make decisions on academic issues including curriculums
suitable to the local needs and needs of students, instructional materials, pedagogy, freedom
to do research in any area without any constraint, freedom to recruit staff, freedom to select
and apply for scholarships and freedom to manage individual financial matters. All the
respondents share the belief that university autonomy would bring quality education.
Regarding the changes oriented towards achieving academic freedom, one respondent replied
that the voices and needs of academic staff are taken into considerations in matter of
promotion and transfer. Some changes the participants have observed in University of
Mandalay are introduction of curriculum reviews, freedom to select references, certain
modifications the content of the syllabus for undergraduate programme, the assessment
system for some modules, setting own criteria for student enrollment, freedom to select staff,
0
100
0 0 0
Assessment of performance is too dependent on
years of teaching experience
Strongly Agree
Agree
I don't know
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
72.22
27.78
0 0 0
The university should have freedom to
participate in the research meetings,
conferences and workshops abroad
Strongly
Agree
Agree
I don't know
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
22.22
77.78
0
0
0
The dean/head of department should come from
within the faculty/department, and academic staff
should be able to exercise decisive control over
his/her nomination, election and appointment
Strongly Agree
Agree
I don't know
Disagree
13
staff recruitment, changes in teaching pedagogy, and the right to use the university mail
address, all of which were previously nonexistent. One of the professors suggested following
the practice of credit transfer system for student exchange programmes and keeping a balance
between formative and summative assessment in their own ways while adhering to the 20/80
assessment system laid down by BOS. Some heads of departments said that they invited local
as well international fellows as guest speakers to offer students a more detailed insight into
the subjects they are studying and new perspectives on the topics they are learning.
On the potential for UM to make positive contributions, the respondents believe that UM will
be able to contribute to the development of quality education and quality research outputs
applicable to industries, organizations, etc. Of no less importance is the academics’ and
researchers’ right to conduct their studies without undue interference, arbitrary rules and
inflexible institutional regulations. One respondent strongly believed that UM will produce
highly qualified human resources when such obstacles are removed. On the questions of the
respondents' roles in in promoting academic freedom for teachers and learners of Mandalay
university and beyond, responses varied; the administrator promises to practice good
governance, some academics want to take part as researchers, others academics and one
professor refers to the motto, “Education plays a vital role in building the modern developing
nation”, saying he wants to become a hardworking academic teaching staff and keen
researcher to serve the university as well as the nation.
When requested to give comments on academic freedom in their departments and institution,
respondents express their opinions on academic freedom with reference to collaborative work
with international universities, teaching staff scholarship for double degrees, listening to the
voices of stakeholders, reducing administrative workload and considerations for producing
highly qualified human resources. For the respondents, ability to engage in the above
activities without interferences is an indicator of academic freedom. One of the respondents
pointed out that universities cannot function well if they cannot enjoy a reasonable degree of
autonomy. He argued that absolute autonomy does not exist in any university in the world,
but a reasonable degree of autonomy and a balance between centralization and
decentralization are important ingredients in a university. One respondent lamented that after
decades of isolation, Myanmar universities suffer from lack of capacity to develop
management style and build international ties and additionally, the universities are choked
with the culture of authoritarianism beginning with MOE and DHE whose bidding university
administrators have to follow to the letter. This respondent described the challenges teachers
are currently facing, e.g., rote learning is rooted in the education system and transforming
teacher-centred approach to student-centred and aligning priorities of institutions with the
nation's economic and social goals are some examples. One respondent described the
challenges they will encounter such as, insufficient facilities, improvement of ICT, research
funding, budget allocation for education, etc.
Discussion and conclusion
Based on the autonomy dimensions and aspects presented and detailed by Iwinska & Matei
(2015), the present study explored the degree of autonomy in University of Mandalay and the
voices of the administrators and heads of departments across the disciplines. The nominal
14
autonomy granted as of the present moment is barely three months old and data collected in
surveys and interviews are mostly initial impressions of stakeholders who have never
witnessed or experienced autonomy themselves.
Analysis of the collected data based on the eight dimensions reveals a very limited degree of
autonomy in University of Mandalay in most of the aspects whereas there is reasonable
degree of autonomy in some aspects in Dimension 2 (Teaching and Learning: Curriculum,
Program Design and Assessment), Dimension 4 (Issues related to research and freedom to
publish), and Dimension 6 (Staff employment issues (academic and non-academic staff)).
Regarding Curriculum, program Design and Assessment, as a member of pilot project, each
department of UM can have discussion on choices of textbooks, course books, references,
required materials. UM needs to liaise only with UY at this stage before full academic
autonomy is achieved. Each department is reviewing the syllabus for upgrading the course
content and reconsidering the assessment system. UM does not yet have autonomy to
introduce new degree programmes though there are less restrictions on the course content
and, to some extent, some instances of autonomy in incorporating textbooks and references
to the current syllabus.
However, organizing and taking part in academic events both at the national and international
levels, such as workshops, symposiums, conferences, etc. still requires approval from MOE
who apparently wants to restrict academics' exposure the international practices . There is no
freedom to organize and take part in academic activities at the international level which,
according to Iwinska & Matei (2014) is "a basic aspect or dimension of institutional
autonomy" and the freedom for academic to take part in academic events, national or
international, are part of both academic freedom and institutional autonomy. All the
respondents to the questionnaire survey agree that UM should have freedom to participate in
research meetings, conferences and workshops abroad without complex bureaucratic
procedures to hinder academics from enriching their knowledge and experience which will
ultimately contribute to progress in education.
As regards Dimension 4, research and freedom to publish, the academics of UM have
freedom to select research topics, research designs and to publish the results on the condition
that they do not deal with politically sensitive materials – which itself is open to a wide range
of interpretations. If UM were to gain genuine autonomy, such vague restrictions need to be
eliminated and academics given higher freedom in deciding what area to deal with and how
they interpret the results so long as they make tangible contributions to the society. Criteria
employed by Myanmar universities in selection and admission of students largely depend on
the matriculation exam results. All students who complete secondary education can enter the
tertiary level education based on the matriculation exam results and not based on their
interest which invariably resulted in mismatches between students’ aspirations and subject
areas chosen for them by DHE based on marks and not an interest, strength and preference.
Among universities in Myanmar, medical universities demand the highest test scores;
therefore, most ambitious parents who usually consider the medical profession to be most
prestigious impose rigid and intensive study regimes on their children so that they eventually
qualify for medical universities. Similar trends can be seen with parents and guardians
demanding extreme efforts from children who are expected to pass Grade 11 with
15
distinctions in all six subjects with the aim of attaching students to universities they consider
prestigious.
With regard to Dimension 6, Staff employment issues, in an effort to systematize procedures
for recruiting senior academics such as associate professors and professors, standard
operating procedures (SOP) or guidelines are used in UM. Overall recruitment procedures
and basic qualifications for associate professors and professors are outlined, i.e.,
requirements for a minimum of two publications to one’s credit for promotion to the ranks of
professors or associate professors. 100% respondents overwhelmingly welcome autonomy in
University of Mandalay as indicated by their answers in interviews. They all believe that
university autonomy will help enhance quality of higher education, cultivate institutional
quality culture, contribute to the positive development and positive image of the university
and sharpen the ability to function well in the global community in spite of the issues and
challenges involved. Although many respondents agree that academic autonomy and all that
it entails will breathe a new life into Myanmar education, they voice their concerns about
how the needs of an upwardly mobile generation of students can be satisfied with immense
online and offline resources at their disposal and high expectations of what universities can
do to fulfill their needs. Many of these students, both at the basic and tertiary levels, have
been systematically coached outside the official system in language and other relevant skills
and find the performance of the system and educators less than satisfactory.
The scope of the current study is limited to the perspectives of administrators and heads of
departments. Studies of larger scales which take into consideration perceptions of all the
stakeholders on autonomy in University of Mandalay will be able to offer wider and more
varied perspectives. Moreover, other studies can focus on interconnections between different
dimensions to examine how they are systematically linked to each other in a linear manner in
the context of University of Mandalay.
Universities are currently undergoing dramatic transformations in the areas of teaching and
learning, research, etc. to catch up with the fast moving world. Universities cannot stand
alone; networking with other universities for academic collaborations is important. It is hoped
that possibly after one or two years, UM will develop has a reasonable degree of autonomy
and capacity to implement more dimensions of autonomy; that also is the vision and mission
of the administrators and heads of the departments of University of Mandalay. As autonomy
and academic freedom are essential pillars in developing functional, progressive and
advanced universities, achievement of full autonomy - and no less – is the answer to many
issues facing Myanmar education.
16
References
Basheer Al-haimi, Daing Nasir Ibrahim, and Ab Hamid MR (2019) An Investigation of the
Current Autonomy Status of the Malaysian Public and Private Universities: An
Empirical Result
Dlamini, C.R.M. 1996. Human rights in Africa. Which way, South Africa? Durban:
Butterworth.
Don Anderson & Richard Johnson (1998) University Autonomy in Twenty Countries
EUA REPORT (2018) Transition to University Autonomy in Kazakhstan
Transition to University State of play of university governance and recommendations
for the reform process
Hayden, M., & Martin, R. (2013). Recovery of the education system in Myanmar. Journal of
International and Comparative Education, 2
http://crice.um.edu.my/downloads/1Hayden&Martin.pdf.
IIEP policy brief (2013), Increased autonomy for universities in Asia: How to make it work?
International Institute for Educational planning,
Iwinska, J., & Matei, L. (2014.). University autonomy: A practical handbook. Budapest:
Central European University.
Iwinska, J., & Matei, L. (2018). Diverging Paths? Institutional Autonomy and Academic
Freedom in the European Higher Education Area
Joanne Y. Taira (2004), Autonomy in Public higher Education: A case study of stakeholder
perspectives and socio-cultural context,
Karran, T., Beiter, K., & Appiagyei-Atua, K. (2017). Measuring academic freedom in
Europe: A criterion referenced approach. Policy Reviews in Higher Education,
Kori, Edmore (2016) Challenges to academic freedom and institutional autonomy in South
African universities
Noor, M.M (2017) https://nation.com.pk/16-May-2017/university-autonomy
Orosz, Kata (2018) Interconnected Dimensions of University Autonomy in Europe, European
Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies
Pruvot, E. B. & Estermann, T (2017) University Autonomy in Europe III The Scorecard 2017
European University Association 2017
Sawyer, A., (1996) “Academic Freedom and University Autonomy: preliminary thoughts
from Africa”, Higher Education Policy, 9(4): 281-287.
Vuokko Kohtamäki & Elizabeth Balbachevsky () University autonomy, From past to present,
www.tsv.fi/tunnus
Weil, C. (2013, April). The current political and higher education context in Myanmar.
Institute of International Education (Eds.), Investing in the future: Rebuilding higher
education in Myanmar, A briefing paper from IIE’s center for international
partnerships. New York.
Bho Thein,(2016), University autonomy and student union
17
