Research paper / Artículo científico

WAKE-UP CALL for Ecuador’s universities

Una LLAMA= DA DE ATENCIÓN para las universidades ecuatorianas

<= /o:p>

Jan Feyen <= /span>

Pro= fessor Emeritus, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.

Cor= responding Author: jan.feyen @kuleuven.be

Fecha de recepci= ón: 10 de noviembre de 2019 - Fecha de aceptación: 29 de noviembre de 2019

ABSTRACT

The definition of wake-up call is something that alerts people to an unsatisfactory situation and drives them= to remedy it. In this sense, toda= y's publication of QS World University Rankings 2020 can be seen as a wake-up c= all for Ecuador’s universities, SENESCYT, CACES and CES. First, the article assesses the performance of Ecuador’s universities using the QS World University Rankings 2020 method. The analysis reveals that the group of Ecuadorian universities with better performance is extremely small and, in addition, most of the institutions included in the 2020 QS ranking saw their ranking declined with respect to their ranking in 2019. Parallel to the QS ranking, the publication record in SCOPUS journals of 11 better ranked Ecuadorian universities was analyzed for the period 2009-2019. The average annual number of published papers increased drastically in this period from 22.2 to 192 (873%), although the surveyed institutions saw their annual publication record raising, some of them were not able to maintain their position. The second section of the manuscript highlights what the Ecuadori= an universities ought to do to improve their performance and their contributio= n to the progress of society. According to the author, universities must urgently invest in quality, take advantage of the potential of modern learning metho= ds, make research a mature and equivalent component, stimulate cross-border collaboration at all levels and convert the spin-off into hubs of innovatio= n. Doing so requires not only a changing attitude of the authorities, but of t= he entire academic community of professors and researchers, administrative and technical personnel, but most importantly of the government administrations= in charge of higher education. To convert public HEIs into institutions that a= re capable of offering graduates who possess the knowledge and skills necessar= y to face the challenges of today and tomorrow while ensuring sustainable econom= ic growth in harmony with the environment, universities must be reengineered i= n a straightforward way. The institutional pillars subject for renewal are described in the third section of this article. To convert the reengineerin= g of the university into a feasible project, it is essential that the ones that = make the decisions open their mind and realize that universities in the 21st cen= tury require a completely different governance. Additionally, the noses of all personnel should be turned in the same direction, personnel cooperate intensely, and corruption, collusion and nepotism are eliminated.

Keywords: University ranking, 21st century challenges, reengineering of HEIs, shared governance, multidisciplinary nature of problems, inter-faculty and inter-university cooperation.

RESUMEN

Una llamada de atención es una alerta sobre una situación insatisfactoria que impulsa a las personas a remediarla. En este sentido, la reciente publicación del QS World University Rankings 2020 puede verse como una llamada de atención para las universidades de Ecuador, SENES= CYT, CACES y CES. En primer lugar, el presente trabajo evalúa el desempeńo de las universidades ecuatorianas utilizando el método QS World University Rankings 2020. El análisis revela que el grupo de universidades ecuatorianas con mej= or desempeńo es extremadamente pequeńo y, además, la mayoría de las institucio= nes incluidas en el ranking vieron bajar su posición con respecto al ańo 2019. = Para el período 2009-2019 también se analizó el registro de publicaciones en SCO= PUS de las 11 universidades ecuatorianas mejor calificadas. En dicho período el número promedio anual de artículos publicados aumentó drásticamente, de 22.= 2 a 192 (873%); sin embargo, algunas instituciones perdieron posiciones en el ranking a pesar de un aumento en su registro anual de publicaciones. La seg= unda sección del manuscrito describe lo que las universidades ecuatorianas deber= ían hacer para mejorar su desempeńo y contribución al progreso de la sociedad. Según el autor, las universidades deben invertir urgentemente en calidad, aprovechar el potencial de los métodos de aprendizaje modernos, hacer de la investigación un componente maduro y de vinculación con la sociedad, estimu= lar la colaboración inter e intrainstitucional en todos los niveles y convertir= la escisión (spin-off) en centros de innovación. Hacerlo requiere no solo un cambio de actitud de toda la comunidad académica -autoridades, profesores, investigadores, personal administrativo y técnico-, sino también, y más importante, de las instancias gubernamentales a cargo de la educación super= ior. Las IES públicas deben ser rediseńadas de manera directa para convertirlas = en instituciones capaces de ofrecer a los graduados los conocimientos y las habilidades necesarias para enfrentar los desafíos presentes y futuros, a la vez que garanticen un crecimiento económico sostenible y en armonía con el medio ambiente. La tercera sección de este artículo describe los pilares institucionales que requieren renovación. Para que la reingeniería de la universidad sea un proyecto factible, es esencial que los tomadores de decisiones abran sus mentes y se den cuenta de que las universidades en el = siglo XXI requieren cambios sustanciales de gobernanza. Además, las narices de to= do el personal deben girar hacia la misma dirección, lo cual significa una int= ensa cooperación, en la que cualquier rastro de corrupción, colusión o nepotismo, sea eliminado.

Palabras clave: ran= king universitario, desafíos del siglo XXI, reingeniería de IES, gobernanza compartida, naturaleza multidisciplinaria de los problemas, cooperación ent= re facultades y universidades.

rank 35-400; and -without rank- = the Universidad Andina Simon Bolívar= (UASB) and the Cambridge School of Langu= age (https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/ country/ecuador).

The overall score of the 11 Ecuadorian universities classified in the top 200 Latin American universiti= es varies from 54.9 (USFQ) to 15.6-19.6 (UCSG). From UC downward, the universi= ties do not receive a unique total score since by lack of institutional data not= all indicators could be calculated for those universities. Under those conditio= ns, the QS system classifies the universities in an approximate range. An additional observation of the 2020 ranking compared to 2019 is that 70% of = the universities in Latin America dropped in ranking. Among the 11 surveyed institutions in Ecuador, EPN, UTPL, and UEES improved in 2020 their ranking with respect to their 2019 ranking (EPN and UTPL considerably), ESPOL and UDLA maintained t= heir position, while USFQ, PUCE, UCE, UC, ESPE and UCSG dropped in ranking.=

In most classification systems, = the scientific capacity of a university is measured based on the number of arti= cles published in impact journals, for which the general rule is articles publis= hed in journals registered in ISI Web of Science (WoS) and SCOPUS. In the follo= wing example, 11 Ecuadorian universities were classified based on their annual publication record in journals registered in SCOPUS in the period 2009-2019. SCOPUS has one of the largest journal databases, covering 36,377 titles (22= ,794 active titles and 13,583 inactive titles) of approximately 11,678 editors, = of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in high-level thematic areas, such = as life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences, and health sciences.

Table 2 presents the annual rank= ing of the 11 selected Ecuadorian universities (EPN, ESPE, ESPOL, PUCE, UC, UCE, UDLA, UG, UPS, USFQ, UTPL) on the number of articles published in journals registered in SCOPUS. The lower part of the table shows the sum of the annu= al number of publications of the 11 universities, the minimum and maximum numb= er of records at university level, the average score of the 11 universities and the standard deviation. The last column offers the classification of the 11 universities according to the total number of articles published in a journ= al registered in SCOPUS, from the first published article to the present. Tabl= e 2 depicts the change in the position of the 11 universities based on the institution’s record in SCOPUS registered journals. UPS for example improved its position from the 11th (in 2009) to the 6th rank (in 2019), PUCE’s position declined from the 1st to the 5th rank over the same period, and UC declined in ranki= ng from the 6th position to the 9th, and most importantly this institution’s position declined linearly from 2014 onwards. Figure 1 shows the average production level of articles in peer-reviewed international journals of the= 11 selected Ecuadorian universities over the period 2009-2019 versus the production of scientific articles in SCOPUS by KU Leuven[1] in the period 1965-1974. The average annual production level of SCOPUS registe= red publications for the 11, publication-wise most productive, Ecuadorian universities is very similar to the annual production of KU Leuven, but 45 years ago. This institution is today the first Belgian university in the QS World University Ranking 2020 and occupies the 80th rank worldwide.

This brief analysis is only related to the institution's ability to publish research results in international peer-reviewed journals registered= in the SCOPUS journal database. To obtain a complete image of the scientific production in the format of articles of Ecuador’s HEIs, a similar analysis = of research results published in national and international journals of a lower level is necessary, for example, in journals registered in Latindex, DOAJ, Redalyc, REDIB, or even local journals not even registered in journal databases. This will not be that easy to accomplish given the large number = of active and inactive magazines each institution publishes. Another interesti= ng metric to measure the research level of an institution, but also not so eas= y to achieve, is the total number of citations. Probably, a simpler inventory co= uld consist in conducting a survey of the citation index of the professors and researchers of each institution.

Figure 1. Average number of articles published in journals registered in the SCOPUS database by the top 11 Ecuadorian universities (EPN, ESPE, ESPOL, PU= CE, UC, UCE, UDLA, UG, UPS, USFQ, UTPL) in the period 2010-2019 and the number = of articles published by the KU Leuven in journals registered in SCOPUS in the period 1965-1974.

The title of an article publishe= d on the 27th of May 2019 in the newspaper EL MERCURIO [2] mentions that “Ecuador is 20 years behind its scientific innovation environment”. It is the conclusion of a team of national and international experts in the field of scientific innovations who debated in Quito about t= he need for Ecuador to advance in terms of technological innovation, especially when it is 20 years away from the surrounding countries. According to the experts in the meeting, Ecuador has not made the “leap” that marks a positi= ve impact on the productive sector, despite the introduction in 2008 of the National Secretariat of Science, Technology, and Innovation (SENESCYT), with the aim of promoting the spin-off of investigation. Although, the creation = of SENESCYT, translated in number of patents submitted by Ecuadorian residents= , is considerable and resulted in an increase of 268% between 2009 (19 patents) = and 2018 (51 patents), the number of patents remains low in comparison to Ecuad= or’s neighboring countries. Experts in the meeting also indicated that Ecuador in 2014 only dedicated 0.44% of GDP to research and development, while the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OEC= D) dedicated 2.4% of GDP. Investment in research and innovation in Ecuador amounted in 2014 $50.84 per capita; for the years following no information = is available, not allowing to assess if the country increased investment in research and innovation. An additional observation, made in the meeting, is that the resources for R&D are very inefficiently used, due to (i) the enormous fragmentation of resources over a large number of public (30) and = private (49) institutions; (ii) the weak cooperation between HEIs and industry, bet= ween researchers belonging to several units within an institution and between institutions; and (iii) the overall low research level of most universities. One of the conclusions of the experts meeting is that Ecuador needs to chan= ge "drastically" because, otherwise, a "drastic, complex and dark" future could occur.

The analysis sh= ows clearly that whatever classification system used, Ecuadorian universities a= re lagging behind, the HEIs ought to take and implement drastic political and strategic decisions to correct the dramatic backlog in certain areas of the academy.

2.&n= bsp; CHANGE COURS= E

According to Öszoy (2008) higher education provides an important form of investment in human capital development, and is it rightly regarded as the engine of development in the 21st world economy. This author summarizes the contribution of higher educa= tion to development as follows: (i) the provision of manpower to the society with professional, technical and managerial skills; (ii) the provision of not ju= st educated workers, but knowledge workers; (iii) the provision of a new generation possessing the capacity to make possible attitudinal changes necessary for the socialization of individuals and the modernization and overall transformation of societies; (iv) HEIs help through teaching and research in the creation, absorption and dissemination of knowledge, in the formation of a strong nation-state and in globalization; and (v) last but n= ot least higher education allows people to enjoy an enhanced ‘life of mind’ offering the wider society both cultural and political benefits.=

Analysis of the QS World Univers= ity Rankings® 2020, as outlined in prev= ious section, clearly illustrates that a range of HEIs for several reasons do not score well, particular in the middle-income and less developed countries. T= he latter countries, due in part to the lack of well performing HEIs, have a l= ow to medium Human Development Index, and are still struggling to establish it= self in all fronts and make itself sovereign. So to move to the status of “devel= oped country”, an important tasks of the lesser developed countries is to create and/or transform the HEIs to well-functioning engines assisting the society= in evolving step-by-step to the status of a country having an acceptable stand= ard of living, health care, industry, infrastructure, transportation, communica= tion and technological advancement, higher per capita income, increase in life expectancy, etc. The question is what a country needs to do for evolving fr= om the current less developed status to a more prosperous society for every individual and the community as a whole? Similarly, what must the HEIs do to improve their entrepreneurship towards society? If the HEIs can improve the= ir role in the society, they will automatically improve their ranking at natio= nal and international level. With respect to the Ecuadorian HEIs, the question = can be raised if they possess the capacity and means to reduce the gap in ranki= ng with the more performing Latin American universities, let alone with the majority of universities in the northern hemisphere. Can Ecuador’s HEIs turn the tide?

In the following, based on the analysis of the ample literature on this subject (Reichert, & Tauch, 20= 04; Bryde & Leighton, 2009; Underwood, Williams, & Thurairajah, 2009; J= iju, Krishan, Cullen, & Kumar, 2012; Cardoso, Tavares, & Sin, 2015; Heit= or, & Horta, 2016; Prakash, 2018) an attempt is made to define what universities today ought to do to improve their performance and contributio= n to society’s progress, and in parallel their ranking. It is complex and challenging, but essential for the regional and country’s development. Actions to be taken are:

1. <= /span>Invest in quality. Programs should be frequently evaluated as to continuously improve their quality. Quality programs requir= e a curriculum that is reviewed and refreshed with emerging content. In fact, learning goals ought regularly to be re-examined and strengthened in tandem with the human capital needs of the society and economy. Foregoing comes do= wn to linking study programs to jobs, involving the linking between universiti= es, the local and international private sector and policymakers.

2. Harness the potential of modern learning approache= s, such as activity and experimental based learning, blended learning, online learning, personalized learning, the blending of disciplines, the integration of artificial intelligence technologies, and so on. Social sciences should not be forgotten in the overall picture of educa= tion; there are too many stories of technological developments not serving. Cross boundary education programs are more than ever needed. Independent of the s= tudy field, teaching should involve more and more the active interaction between docents and students, as to prepare students to the conditions in the workplace.

3. <= /span>Make research an essential and mature component of higher education. Students when involved in research-based learning will learn more and better than when they would wit= hout the integration of research. Doing so, will automatically improve the overa= ll quality of the thesis projects students are supposed to make before graduat= ion, and might lead to a gradual transfer of a classical dissertation to a resea= rch or technical note, or even an article, which in turn will contribute to an improvement of the institution’s visibility. Further on, teachers in collaboration with researchers should be actively involved in research, and contribute group-wise to innovations fueling local development and economic growth. The latter also involves a strong synergy between academia and industry.

4. Stimulate collaboration within the institution bet= ween disciplines and across institutions. A claim often made is that by lack of funding and human resources cutting-edge teaching and research tackling problems related to the local a= nd regional needs cannot be accomplished. Forming collaborations at local level between disciplines and among scientists in different universities might en= able to make progress. Similarly, universities should strive making strong links with the private and public sector. For example, businesses can partner with local universities to create high quality STEM or STEAM curricula[3= ]. Additionally, businesses could help faculties to design and deliver courses that equip students with both a deep understanding of science and technolog= y, as well as practical skills for the workplace.

5. <= /span>Develop innovation hubs where students of different fields, including social sciences, and research staff are engaged in experi= ments pertinent to what their world of work would look like. Hubs will not only contribute to an improvement of the institute’s prestige, but also stimulate the public and private sector to invest in spinoffs and start-ups.

The implementation of those and other measures will not only require a fundamental change of the policy and management of the institution’s academic authority, but requires most proba= bly an even more adjustment of the philosophy and policies of the government administrations, in charge of the funding, control and evaluation of the pu= blic higher education institutes, and the quality control of private universitie= s. The question that should be raised is if in Ecuador, administrations like SENECYT, CACES and CES, did line-up their regulations with what universities stand for and how they should fulfil their role in the technological driven knowledge society of the 21st century? That universities can play their rol= e, shall not only depend from the funding level, but also and perhaps even to a greater extent, of the quality of the regulations applied by these administrations. As an example, the limited success of the costly PROMETEO program is likely due to the fact that the program was not adjusted to the today needs and operation of Ecuador’s HEIs. It will be without doubt beneficial for the challenging tasks of the HEIs should administrations, li= ke SENESCYT, CACES and CES, fine tune their policy and regulations to what the society expects from higher education; how higher education can be made more performant and contributing to the overall well-being of the society.<= /o:p>

A major concern of the 30 public universities, with the exception of a few institutions, is the uncertainty = in government financing, which led to numerous manifestations in the past. It = is classical towards the end of the year, the beginning of the new calendric y= ear that rumors surge that the government intends lowering the university’s bud= get, primarily because the university not completely spent the budget of the past year, to which the university replies that they could not do so because government funding was transferred late. However, whatever the reason, it is evident that the public universities will use the uncertainty and late tran= sfer of government funding as an excuse of not being able to improve their performance, and as such not being able to improve their ranking at national and international level. However, from economic point of view the question could be raised if it makes sense to invest public funding in universities = with a low score in national and international ranking systems. With reference to the HEIs listed in Table 1, only 6 of the 17 universities, or 35.3%, are pu= blic institutions, representing only 20% of the 30 public Ecuadorian HEIs. Given= the relatively large spread in the performances, perhaps a logic decision of the government could be linking funding to the institution’s ranking, and to increase government’s allowance only when the university shows being capabl= e of moving up in ranking. Of course, the QS ranking system cannot be used for s= uch an exercise since it is not adapted to Ecuador’s reality; it would involve = the selection of a ranking system adjusted to the Ecuadorian conditions. But as illustrated in several countries (Burke, 2002; Herbst, 2007; European Commission, 2014; de Boer et al., 2015) coupling of funding to the institutions’ performance stimulates HEIs to work on improving their performance. Of course, given the overall modest economic situation of the country, the Ecuadorian government could eventually decide to reduce the nu= mber of public HEIs, and redistribute the current package of financial resources= for higher education over a smaller number of institutions, as a result of which the allowance per institution, whether or not coupled to the institutions performance, will increase and enable the institutions to work on improving their performance. The latter option is probably politically not feasible, neither in the short nor the long term.

Although, Ecuador’s better performing universities project themselves as HEIs with national and international recognition for its excellence in teaching with research and relationship with the society, in line with regional and national developme= nt plans and with a positive impact on the society, based on their position in= the QS ranking system and the fact that most of those institutions dropped in ranking (see Table 1), the authorities of the institutions in cooperation w= ith the contingent of employees ought to take the actions that will result in a gradual improvement of the institution’s performance. In essence this comes down to transforming a mainly teaching university to a full-fledged, resear= ch and job-oriented educational institute; in other words, turning the university into a higher education institute capable of delivering graduates that possess the knowledge and skills needed to cope with today's= and tomorrow's challenges; it is producing graduates that are able in cooperati= on with all societal actors to improve the well-being of the people at local, regional and country level while assuring sustainable economic growth in harmony with the environment. It is evident, that modernization of the university or bringing the university in line with the requirements of the = 21st century is not only the responsibility of the authorities but also of the cohort of academic, technical and administrative personnel. It is a very complex process, all the more as a result of the backlog of the institutions compared to the more advanced universities in Latin America and the economic more developed countries.

In the following section an atte= mpt is made to concretize what exactly can -need to- be done to improve the ove= rall performance of the university to a successful conclusion in the long term.<= o:p>

3.&n= bsp; REENGINEERING THE UNIVERSITY IS ESSENTIAL TO ADVANCE

In principle, monitoring and measuring the efficiency and effectiveness of education, both at the lowest and the highest level= s, is a continuous task of the government administration responsible for educa= tion as to guarantee that graduates are prepared in the best and most efficient = way for the continuous changing challenges of society. There is great evidence = that education has a high impact on a country’s economic development. According = to Dumciuvienea (2015) depends the growth and welfare of a society more and mo= re on knowledge-intensive industries and services, involving an increasing num= ber of personnel with higher education qualification. Economic and social effec= ts and human welfare are directly related to the quality of the educational system, it not only positively affects earnings at the personal level but a= lso non-monetary outcomes, such as health, the health of family members, the schooling of one’s children, life choices made, fertility choices and infant mortality. A good educational system also has a positive effect on the environment and has a strong influence on crime reduction. Based on the regression of the socio-economic situation of several countries in Latin America and the overall medium to low ranking of the majority of its higher education institutes is a clear sign that the current educational system is= not producing the graduates the society needs to turn the tide. Likely previous= is partly due to the allocation of insufficient government funding to educatio= n. Given the current country context, the question can be raised what need to = be done as to wake up the Ecuadorian higher education platform.

As the first ca= use of the medium to poor performance of higher education, the authorities gene= rally indicate that the financial means are insufficient to implement the necessa= ry changes. As stated earlier, the cause of this might be that the government budget for higher education is distributed over too many HEIs, a total of 30 public universities for a country population of 17.4 million residents; whi= ch amounts to one public higher education institution per 0.59 million residen= ts. A hypothetical reduction in the number of public universities, will likely automatically result in a higher funding for the remaining institutions but= at the same time in a higher influx of students, such that it is not that like= ly that the financial resources per student will significantly increase. It ma= y be probably more obvious for the public universities to conduct a thorough investigation into the efficiency with which the available resources are us= ed, in order to create room for interventions that result in an improvement of = the institution's performance and ranking.

Before enumerat= ing a series of measures, it is recommended to first design a global plan in collaboration with the various actors and then submit it to the wider acade= mic community for discussion. Based on the discussions, the plan may or may not= be adjusted and/or expanded. The reason for this approach is obvious because of the interaction between the measures to be taken. The overarching goal of t= he plan ought to improve the educational, research and outreach profile of the institution, and at the same time a strengthening of the interaction between the three profiles. It means, a professor should be involved in teaching and research, and both activities ought to be closely related to the real world; similarly, students should receive an integrated package of learning materi= al and practice that prepare them best for life after the university. An impor= tant aspect thereby is that during the education all students are forced to cultivate the pursuit of lifelong learning. In contradiction to the past, learning does not stop at graduation; the dynamics of today’s society requi= res continuous schooling during the professional career. This is not only true = for the students, even more for the academic staff and researchers. They should= be ahead and being able to integrate all new technological and sociological de= velopments in the study material. Important side aspects that ought to be included in = the renewed learning process are the knowledge of the English language, the development of the culture of reading and writing, the working together amo= ng students and the lecturer, and the connectivity and interaction with the society.

Main shortcomin= gs in the current system, most often a consequence of unrealistic and poor government regulations, is that the primary task of academic staff is teach= ing, with a teaching schedule varying between 16 and 24 hours in a week, leaving extremely little time left for other academic tasks such as research and the supervision of students. Supervision of students in their reading, writing = and learning is super-important, because that is the way that the attitude of self-learning emerges and strengthens. It is really old fashion such a heavy teaching load at university level. Even more old fashion is the government regulation that the number of alumni in the class should not exceed 30 to 4= 0 students, as a result of which the method of education at the university reduces to t= he educational approach at high school level, where the professor transfers knowledge to the students spoonwise. The learning process must be organized= in such a way that students make the greatest effort and the teacher mainly ac= ts as a coach of the learning process. In order to get the students to take control of the learning process themselves, many modern learning techniques= can be used, such as blended learning being self-study combined with group discussions, distant learning, etc. The step needed to reduce the number of teaching hours consists in either the organization of teaching in large lec= ture rooms with a capacity between 150 to 500 students equipped with audio and o= ther technological devices enabling the lecturer to interact with the students, = or the WOW[4] Room concept, being today the mo= st advanced lecturing approach that breaks with the traditional onsite, blended and online education models. The lecturer stands in a virtual classroom (ht= tps://www.timeshighereducation.com/world -university-ranks/ie-university), with a curved wall of screens, displaying= the images of up to 80 participating students, who are joining the class from different places. During the lecture students can contribute and join the debate. High level courses of the institution can in this way be followed by students of other universities and will contribute to an improvement of the prestige of the institution from where the class is broadcasted. Indirectly= , it might stimulate team lecturing, whereby academicians from different discipl= ines work together in the development of advanced lecturing material. This evolu= tion will lead to the organization of common courses over the boundaries of facu= lties, and with the use of modern teaching technologies will strongly reduce the teaching load of the contingent of professors, creating hours the academic staff can devote to research and other academic activities. The evolution on lecturing approaches in the near future will be enormous and according to Hauptfeld-Göllner (2016) it is to be expected that in 2030 eighty per cent = of lecturing will be delivered by massive open online courses, online courses, video and video-call sessions from experts in the field, methods that do not require attendance in class. Not to run after the evolution in lecturing, Ecuador’s universities be better prepared and stimulate staff to master the= new developments in lecturing and stimulate them to apply the new technological= -based lecturing methods step-by-step in their teaching.

The hours that are released as a result of the reorganization of teaching provides the opportunity to academ= ic staff dedicating time to research, which in the long term will result in an increase in the production of scientific articles positively affecting the institution’s ranking, and social and technological contributions to the society, essential with regard to the justification of the public financial resources HEIs consumes. Getting into rese= arch when the main academic activity has been teaching is not that easy; this also applies to the new generation of graduates when their education is still ba= sed on the old approach, i.e. essentially passive absorption of knowledge. For students it is a must to be actively involved in research during their study and, in addition, trained in the reading and analysis of research papers, preferably related to the subject of specialization. Not only scientific articles in their mother tongue, but also the reading and analysis of artic= les in English should be mastered, because the English scientific literature co= ver a broader view of the scientific developments around the globe.<= /span>

In preparation = of the dissertation, students should also be trained in academic writing, and = this from the early years of the program onwards. Foregoing requires that solid research groups are present in the institution, yielding research applicati= ons suitable to be analyzed and handled by students, and this during the development of the undergraduate and/or graduate thesis project. It is fundamental that the thesis project not only reduces to a scientific exerci= se such as the review of literature, but deals with technological and societal developments and the finding of appropriate economic solutions for the broad spectrum of societal problems. Previous can only be realized given research groups be in touch and cooperate with the various actors of the society.

To get the staff with low to moderate experience in research actively engaged in investigati= on it is essential that coherent and well-functioning research groups are pres= ent in the university, to which they can be associated. The latter can only exi= st and survive given academic personnel and researchers work together. Working together becomes very important given the complexity and multidisciplinary nature of the problems the society is confronted with. The effectively and success with which solutions are generated might even increase when coopera= tion links are established between scientists belonging to different national and international institutions. Working together, over the borders of the facul= ty and the institution, in connection with the society becomes every day more essential to make progress, something that seems to be very difficult and n= ot very common in the Ecuadorian society. To train the young generation in thi= s, it is imperative to organize during the program project-oriented activities= in which the students are trained in group work, a skill very much needed in professional life. In a modern HEI ought teaching and research, both with a connection to practice, to be interwoven and students are supposed to play = an entrepreneurial role.

What without do= ubt obstructs the operation of public universities is the awkward and cumbersome hassling of documents. For every activity or action, a set of documents nee= d to be prepared and signed at different levels of the administrative hierarchy;= for example, contracted staff have to prepare every fortnight or month an outstanding report of their activities, reports that are seldom or even not read. Enormous time is lost in the passing of documents from one level to another level. The continuing dominance of the administration is also likely the consequence that professors by tradition possess a very individual atti= tude and do not have attention to emerge as a coherent front to rise in rebellio= n, and urge the administration to modernize, to be an aid in teaching, research and outreach, not an obstacle. The nature of the role of the administration should be supporting the authorities, professors, researchers and students = in the organization and handling of administrative matters rather than to take= the lead and overload the institution with needless and inefficient bureaucratic matters, for the simple reason as to stay in control of the strings. Time is running out, the administration of public HEIs ought to shift the focus of control to service.

Furthermore, typical for the public institutions is the development of regulations; for = each new initiative an agreement is made subject to approval at the different le= vels of the hierarchical ladder. Similarly, the handling and financial processin= g of research projects are complex and it is not exceptional that for this reason academic staff does not want to initiate research activities. The complex nature of the administrative procedures should not be surprising, given the bureaucratic character of government services. The working method contrasts sharply with the procedures at overseas universities. There, the emphasis l= ies on the approval of the project, and once approved, it is the responsibility= of the project coordinator to implement the project in terms of content and received financial means. Usually, the project coordinator, a professor or appointed researcher, has an institutional online bank account on which the project funds are deposited, and he/she can manage the financial resources = in accordance with the specifications in the approved project proposal. In the event of deviations in the use of financial resources, the coordinator must request prior permission from the donor. The online research accounts are so designed that the project coordinator cannot spend more than the awarded gr= ant. Such an approach simplifies considerably the administrative control and handling of research projects. It is the responsibility of the project coordinator to submit a financial and substantive report to the donor for approval upon completion of the project. The nowadays available digital and innovative technologies should be applied in a responsible way to streamline and simplify all bureaucratic processing, not only the bureaucratic handlin= g of research projects but also the administrative processing of all services. T= he administrative services in public universities absorb a considerable fracti= on of the annual budget, and by their upgrading more means could become availa= ble for teaching, research and extension, the primary objectives of higher education.

The most diffic= ult problem to deal with in the reengineering exercise of academic institutions= are the authorities, who have been in charge of the management of the university for decades. The question can be raised if they are really preparing the institution for the 21st century, taking into account that most of the time they operate and manage the institution with 20th century thinking (O’Brien, 2008). It is fair to ask if the governance structure of today is suited for= the complexities of higher education in the 21st century? As formulated by Santa Ono (2017), the 15th President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bri= tish Columbia[5] “Do the participants in governan= ce – the Consejo Universitario – have the expertise, the discipline, the authori= ty, and the accountability necessary to cope with the powerful social, economic, and technological forces driving change in the society and its institutions= ?”. Today’s challenging academic environment demands a = new way of governance. Governance in most of the public higher education institutions in Ecuador is top-down and geared to remain in control of powe= r. The University Council – the so-called democratic decision organ of the university – in which, in addition to the authorities, the deans and vice-deans, the directors of a number of administrative services participat= e, are organized bi-weekly and discusses usually for hours on regulations, fac= ulty and other matters, but seldom a debate is held how the institution should evolve, adapt, and governed. From a small nuclei of governance, the governa= nce system urgently needs to evolve to “Shared Governance”, consisting of a dialogue among boards, directors, deans, faculties, administrative services, staff and student unions, etc. It is even desirable to include into the boa= rd of the institution highly representatives of public and private institution= s, as to be well informed of the socio-economic situation in the field. It is complicated yet it is a much-needed path, and more and more discussion arou= nd the globe are taking place on shared governance. Important issues to be tac= kled by the authorities are the delegation of authority, responsibility and deci= sion making, controlling that the government at the different levels is free and remains free from corruption, collusion and nepotism, continuous updating of the institution’s mission, evaluation if the institution fulfills its missi= on effectively now and in the future, and if necessary taking sound, corrective and effective measurements.

= 4. = CONCLUSIONS

The performance= of the Ecuadorian universities is, according to the QS World University Ranking system, not so excellent, only 4 HEIs of the 30 public and 49 private institutions are among the 1000 worldwide highest ranked universities. At t= he level of Latin America, 11 universities rank among the top 200 institutions, and a total of 17 institutions are within the top 400 HEIs. Publication-wise accumulate Ecuador’s top universities a tremendous backlog of the order of = 45 years in comparison to educational institutions belonging to the world 100 = best ranked institutions. The main focus of most public and private HEIs in Ecua= dor is on teaching and the governance of the institutions is still very much al= ike as the way higher education institutions were governed in the 20th century,= it is a top-down governance. To improve the institutions performance and beneficial effect towards the society, universities should teach students t= o be successful in a 21st century knowledge-based economy, train the students heavily in entrepreneurship, self-learning and discovery, be more involved = in research preferably in close cooperation with the economic and social actor= s of the society, evolve from the 20th century type of governance to shared governance consisting of a delicate balance between faculty and staff participation in planning and decision-making, on the one hand, and the authorities and administration on the other hand. Improvement of the institutions’ performance is possible given: (i) the authorities wake-up and realize that a modern university requires a different governance and management, a system in which the academia instead of the administration governs; (ii) individual professor’s to the whole system work on fostering basic academic values (academic freedom, autonomy, excellence, university community, and so on); (iii) a proper environment and institutional mechani= sms (formal and informal) are in place; (iv) a transparent cooperation in teach= ing, research and outreach over the borders of the faculties and institutions at national and international level is pursued; and (v) staff and employee nomination and promotion is based on employee’s performance. The regulation= to recognize and reward teaching and research contributions through nomination= or promotion enables the university to achieve its strategic teaching and rese= arch goals, while simultaneously advancing and sustaining its community of acade= mics and research scholars and their professional standing in the national and international environment.

REFERENCES

Bryde, D., & Leighton, D. (2009). Improving HEI productivity and performance through project management. Educational Manage= ment Administration & Leadership, 37(5), 705-721. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209339649

Burke, J. C. (2002). Funding public colleges and universities for performance. = Birmingham, Alabama, USA: Rockefeller Institute Press.

Cardoso, S., Tavares, O., & Sin, C. (2015). The quality of teaching staff: higher education institutions’ compliance with t= he European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance – the case of Portu= gal. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 27, 205-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-015-9211-z

Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015). From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for enhancing engineering & technology education. Internati= onal Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 5(2), 37-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v5i2.4458

de Boer, H., Jongbloed, B., Benneworth, P., Cremon= ini, L., Kolster, R., Kottmann, A., Lemmens-Krug, K., & Vossensteyn, H. (201= 5). Performance-based funding and performance agreements in fourteen higher education systems. Report for the Ministry of Education, Culture and Scienc= e, 164 pp. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, Universiteit of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Dumciuviene, D. (2015). The impac= t of education policy to country economic development. Procedia – Social and Behaviorial Sciences, 191, 2477-2436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.04.302

El Mercurio (2019). Ecuador está 20 ańos por detrá= s de su entorno en innovación científica. Disponible en https://ww2.elmercurio.com.ec/2019/05/27/ecuador-esta-20-anos-por-detras-de= -su-entorno-en-innovacion-cientifica/

European Commission (2014). Performance agreements= and their relationship to funding in higher education. The Hague, The Netherlan= ds: ET2020 country workshop.

Hauptfeld-Göllner, P. (2016). Five ways the lecture halls of 2030 will be different. The 28th Conference of the European Association for International Educators (EAIE). Liverpool, UK. Available at https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/europ= ean-association-for-international-education-eaie-conference-2016-five-ways-= the-lecture-halls-of-2030-will-be-different

Heito= r, M., & Horta, H. (2016). Refor= ming higher education in Portugal in times of uncertainty: The importance of illities, as non-functional requirements. Technological Forecasting and Soc= ial Change, 113(Part B), 146-156. https://doi.org/j.techfore.2015.09.027

Herbst, M. (2007). Financing public universities: = the case of performance funding. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Jiju, A., Krishan, N., Cullen, D., & Kumar, M. (2012). Lean Six Sigma for higher education institutions (HEIs). Challenges, barriers, success factors, tools/technique= s. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(8), 940-948. https://doi.org/10.1108/1741040121177165

Król, A. I., & Dziechciarz-Duda, M. (2013). On the non-monetary benefits of tertiary education. Ekonometria, 41, 78-94.

Leach, A. (2015). 15 steps closer to quality higher education in Africa. The Guardian. Available at https://www.theguardian.com= /global-development-professionals-network/2015/aug/10/15-steps-closer-to-qu= ality-higher-education-in-africa

Madden, M. E., Baxter, M., Beauchamp, H., Bouchard, K., Habermas, D., …, et al. 2013. Rethinking STEM education: An inte= rdisciplinary STEAM curriculum. Procedia Computer Science, 20, 541-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.316

O’Brien, J. (2008). Are we preparing young people for 21st century citizenship with 20th century thinking? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. [Online serial], 8(2), Retrieved from https= ://www.citejournal.org/volume-8/issue-2-08/social-studies/are-we-preparing-= young-people-for-21st-century-citizenship-with-20th-century-thinking-a-case= -for-a-virtual-laboratory-of-democracy

Özsoy, C. E. (2008). The contribution of higher education to economic development. In: Ciampi, F., & Gupta, A. (Eds.). Proceedings of the 8th Global Conference on Business & Economics, 1354 = pp. Lynchburg, Virginia, USA.

Prakash, G. (2018). Quality in higher education institutions: insights from the literature. The TQM Journal, 30(6), 732-748. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-04-2017-0043

QS World University Ranking (2020). The top 200 universities in Latin America. 64 pág. Disponible en https://www.topuniversities.com/universities/country/ecuador

QS World University Ranking (2020). Who rules? The world’s top universities in 2020. 56 pág. Disponible en https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankin= gs/2020

Reichert, S= ., & Tauch, C. (2004). Reforming Europe”s higher education area: As the fog clears, new obstacles emerge. International Educator, 13(1), 34-41.

SCOPUS-Reed Elsevier. (2019). Disponible en https://www.scopus.com/

Underwood, J., Williams, A., & Thurairajah, N. (2009). Improving performance through HEI-industry engagements in the built= environment. Industry & Higher Education, 23(1), 39-49.

Walker, M. (2015). Imagining STEM higher education futures: advancing human well-being. Higher Education, 70, 417-425. htpps:/= /doi.org/10.1007/s10734-014-9843-