"Diversity and Differentiation: The development of „Fachhochschulen? or university of applied sciences inAustrian higher education system Diversity and Differentiation: The development of‘Fachhochschulen’ or university of applied sciences inAustrian higher education systemThe primary activities of higher education like teaching, learning and research are undertakenin diverse institutional settings. These settings vary within countries as well as acrosscountries according to the tasks, functions and composition of the study programmes. Theaim of this paper is to examine diversity and differentiation in the Austrian higher educationsystem. The discussion narrows down on the horizontal differentiation within the highereducation system and the development of „Fachhochschulen?or University of appliedsciences in Austria.The concept of higher education and what constitutes the system has changed over time.Until the 1950s, with the focus on mainly economically advanced countries, a university wasdefined as a “doctoral degree-granting institutions characterized by a close link betweenresearch and teaching” (Teichler, 2015). Other institutions for example, teacher-traininginstitutions, with some features similar to universities were not considered as highly relevantentities of a university system. Since the 1980s, international organisations such as UNESCO,OECD and the World Bank have been using terms such as “tertiary education,” “post- secondary education” and “third-level education”(Teichler, 2015). The use of such termsimplies that any education for students beyond secondary education with predominantlyteaching function, with “varying levels of intellectual ambition and the link to scientificknowledge can be termed as „higher education?”(Teichler, 2015).Diversity of higher education became a key issue post 1950s. The student enrolmentincreased and the state realized it cannot fund higher education at a similar pace. It soonbecame obvious that the student population was becoming more diverse in the process ofexpansion. In Europe, in the 1960s, it was decided that the system of higher education shouldbe diversified formally between different types of higher education institutions as well asaccording to different lengths of study programmes. Terms such as “short-cycle highereducation”, “non-university higher education” and “alternatives to universities” wereintroduced to characterize a sector of higher education different from that of traditionalP a g e 1 | 11 Diversity and Differentiation: The development of „Fachhochschulen? or university of applied sciences inAustrian higher education system universities (Teichler, 2015). However, a consensus on an appropriate term could not bereached since there were major distinctions between university education and other highereducation systems across the countries in Europe. In many countries, study programmes atother institutions of higher education were shorter than those at universities, and in asubstantial number of countries these study programmes were aimed at being more appliedand less theoretical in nature and at preparing students more directly for future job tasks thanstudy programmes at universities.Defining diversity and differentiationDiversity, on one hand, suggests the variety of entities within a system. Studies on highereducation mention several forms of diversity; in higher education system diversity is bothexternal and internal. External diversity is between higher education institutes and internaldiversity is within an educational institute. Birnbaum (1983) identifies seven categories thatare largely related to external diversity namely, systemic diversity which refers to differencesin institutional type, size and control found within a higher education system; structuraldiversity referring to institutional differences resulting from historical and legal foundations,or differences in the internal division of authority among institutions; programmatic diversityrelates to the degree level, degree area, comprehensiveness, mission and emphasis ofprogrammes and services provided by institutions; procedural diversity describes differencesin the ways that teaching, research and/or services are provided by institutions; reputationaldiversity communicates the perceived differences in institutions basedon status and prestige; constituential diversity alludes to differences in students served andother constituents in the institutions (faculty, administration); values and climate diversity isassociated with differences in social environment and culture (Van Vught, 2007, pg.3).Differentiation, on the other hand, is a process in which new entities emerge in a system, inthis case, the system of higher education. Differentiation denotes a dynamic process whereas;diversity refers to a static situation.In most analyses of diversity and its evolution (often called diversification), higher educationsystems are described concretely according to types of higher education institutions or typesof study programmes, levels of programmes, variations of reputation and prestige, substantiveprofiles of institutions and study programmes. P a g e 2 | 11 Diversity and Differentiation: The development of „Fachhochschulen? or university of applied sciences inAustrian higher education system Literature reviewAs Van Vught (2007) points out, the first comprehensive study on diversity anddifferentiation was performed by Charles Darwin(1809-1882) in On Origin of Speciespublished in 1859. Darwin argued that diversity was not a result of divine order but a“random process of adaptation to environmental circumstances in combination withsuccessful sexual reproduction” (Van Vught, 2007, pg 3).Taking examples from social science where differentiation is a well-known concept VanVught alludes to the first study of differentiation by Emile Durkheim(1858-1917) in TheDivision of Labor inSociety (1893). Differentiation can therefore be defined as the “adaptiveprocesses of social systems” which retain the structures, processes, etc. that lead to greateradaptation to the environment”(Van Vught, 2007, pg. 3).In higher education system, diversity is viewed as positive and performance-enhancing.Diversity is beneficial at many levels: Firstly, increasing diversity is an important strategy tomeet student needs. A diverse educational system is suitable for students from differenteducational backgrounds.Secondly, diversity provides for social mobility. Byofferingdifferent modes of entry and multiple forms of transfer into higher education, a diversifiedsystem stimulates upward mobility. A diversified system allows for corrections of errors ofchoice; it provides extra opportunities for success; it rectifies poor motivation; and itbroadens educational horizons. Thirdly, diversity is more suitable to meet the needs of thelabour market. The market is constantly changing and demands new skills andspecializations. A homogeneous higher education system is less suited to respond to thediverse needs of the labour market than a diversified system. Fourthly, diversity serves thepolitical needs of interest groups. A diverse system ensures that different groups of people ina society have their own identity and their own political legitimation. In less diversifiedhigher education systems the needs of specific groups may remain unaddressed, which maycause a sense of dissatisfaction. A fifth argument is that diversity permits the crucialcombination of elite and mass higher education(Van Vught, 2007, pg 5). Mass higher education systems tend to be more diversified than elite systems, as masssystems absorb a more heterogeneous clientele and attempt to respond to a wider range ofdemands from the labour market. In his famous analysis of mass and elite systems, MartinTrow (1979) has indicated that the survival of elite higher education depends on the existenceP a g e 3 | 11 Diversity and Differentiation: The development of „Fachhochschulen? or university of applied sciences inAustrian higher education system of a comprehensive system of nonelite institutions. Trow argues that only if a majority of thestudents are offered the knowledge and skills that are relevant to find a position in the labourmarket, will a few elite institutions be able to survive.A sixth reason why diversity is an important objective for higher education systems isthatdiversity increases the level of effectiveness of higher education institutions. Finally,diversity offer opportunities for experimenting with innovation. In diversified highereducation systems, institutions have the possibility to explore innovations from otherinstitutions. Diversity creates an environment and culture of innovation in higher education(Van Vught, 2007).The origin of „Fachhochschulen?This section of the paper analyses the structural reforms implemented in the Austrian Highereducation sector to increase “horizontal differentiation” (Pausits and Huisman, 2016, pg5).Considered as one of the “pillars of binary educationin European countries like Germany,Switzerland and Finland the„Fachhochschulen?, FHS or Universities of Applied Sciencesoriginated in the 1960 and 1970s” (Pausits and Huisman, 2016, pg. 6). In comparison to othercountries, Austria adapted the FHS relatively late in 1993. The government of Austria passedthe University of Applied Sciences Studies Act (FHStG,) in 1993. A reason for this was thatthe government held a state monopoly on higher education and the university sector remainedprestigious. From 1993 to 2003 major changes took place in this sector; there was increasedfocus on the lifelong learning and the role of FHS in research and PhD education.Furthermore, there was an effort to gain recognition of upper-secondary school orBerufsbildende Höhere Schule (BHS) diplomas within the European Economic Communityor EEC (Pausits and Huisman, 2016, pg. 6).As a result, there were three operational goals of the policy reform in Austria; Firstly, thediversification and expansion of the vocational education. Secondly, the development ofprogrammes based on the needs of the market. Thirdly, to improve the “permeability” of theeducational system, and “flexibility” of graduates regarding various occupations (Pausits andHuisman, 2016, pg.7). Furthermore, the development of FHS influenced other areas ofAustrian higher education sector; they enhanced the capacity and relieved the universities ofproviding education as well as training. FHS improved (continuing) education throughP a g e 4 | 11 Diversity and Differentiation: The development of „Fachhochschulen? or university of applied sciences inAustrian higher education system diversification; reduced regional disparity in rural regions; deregulated and decentralised thesystem; and created a more efficient higher education system with higher completion ratesand lower times to degree (Pausits and Huisman, 2016, pg.7).Background of the reformThe origin of the FHS was a result of the criticism of the Austrian university system. TheAustrian universities lacked flexibility with regard to study programmes as well as lack ofautonomy. The universities were mainly state-controlled whereas the FHS were models of anew organisational form of private-public-partnership; and the state regulated funding andbudgeting which limited the efficiency of the universities. Furthermore, the upper-secondaryschool sector sought to gain (European) recognition of BHS qualifications at the time whenAustria was becoming an EU member country. In 1989, the Council Directive 89/48/EEC ofthe European Economic Community (EEC) aimed to extend the system of mutual recognitionto those professions for which the required level of training is below higher education withinthe member states. Directive 89/48/EEC made clear that the Austrian BHS diploma did notequate to a higher education diploma. To become a member of the EEC, Austria had torespond to 89/48/EEC and to increase and diversify higher education in the country. (Pausitsand Huisman, 2016, pg.7)The 1980s was also a period in Europe when there was an investment in education andresearch through the „mobilisation? of talent resources and the hope of equal opportunities forsociety. Therefore, two approaches were adopted towards these objectives; firstly, to upgradethe BHS awarding institutions as organisational units of the federation. Secondly, to establishnew non-university institutions. The BHS already had a good reputation in Austria and it wasa small investment to upgrade them, thus this approach was considered suitable. Establishingnew institutions was a lengthy and bureaucratic process with series of stages like statutoryprovision, regulations, decrees, federal budget agreements, and the involvement of differentstakeholder groups and their interests.Two ministries played important roles, the Ministry of Education (BMUK), responsible forBHS, and the Ministry of Science (BMWF), the governmental entity responsible for highereducation institutions. However, the two ministries took different approaches to the design ofthe structural reform. The expert group at BMUK, responsible for vocational schools,immediately started with development work for new curricula to upgrade the BHS. Ascurriculum development was the core competence of the ministry, the group embarked on theP a g e 5 | 11 Diversity and Differentiation: The development of „Fachhochschulen? or university of applied sciences inAustrian higher education system design process of the new policy process from this starting point. Another reason for thisquick move was to gain competitive advantage over the BMWF by being the first movers.Meanwhile, BMWF worked more at the conceptual level. BMWF put the policy reform into abroader context by reviewing the current state of policy and identifying major challenges thesector faced. As BMWF was responsible for universities, it also worked on a new highereducation act, which would address institutional autonomy and quality assurance. To arrive at a consensus over the two approaches, BMWF proposed that the OECD reviewAustrian higher education. The OECD report broadened the discussion about the new policyas well as, brought an outside perspective to the national discussion. Finally, it was decidedby the OECD that BMWF will take over the policy design process. The conditions weresuitable in Austria to bring about the structural change in higher education system; there wasa political willingness for change, international pressure via the OECD and EEC, andstrategic moves such as the involvement of OECD review.What policy instruments were usedThe policy design process utilised some“policy instruments”, which can be identified as“information tools”(Pausits and Huisman, 2016). Focus and expert groups, advice by OECD,workshops, trainings and reports supported the dissemination of information and the broaderinvolvement of interested bodies. Regulation based on the FHStGand the later certificationand accreditation of study programmes were also used by the authorities. Funding was themost controversial element of the policy discussion. Since, the state funding was notsufficient, additional income was needed to sustain the public-private partnership and FHS.Implementation of the reform The government of Austria played an important role in the implementation of the FSH.Moreover, the two ministries, BMUK and BMWF, were involved in the processes. Theparliament was involved in the new legislation and the formal approval of the new FHStG.Different stakeholders participated in the workshops and formulated their views vis-à-vis theministry and political parties. The OECD took on an advisory role with its report andsuggestions regarding the new policy and its implementation. The most innovative part of thenew FHS sector was its quality assurance and normative funding scheme. An independentcouncil („Fachhochschulrat?, FHR) was founded to ensure the quality of the studyprogrammes. Its role was to review and assess the scientific and pedagogical quality of thestudy programmes and to approve them by legislation. In 1996, the newly established FHSP a g e 6 | 11 Diversity and Differentiation: The development of „Fachhochschulen? or university of applied sciences inAustrian higher education system institutions and programmes created an FHS network: The Association of AustrianUniversities of Applied Sciences („ Fac hho c hschu l k onfere nz’, FHK). Its role is to providesupport to FHS in achieving common educational goals and represent the interests of theinstitutions.Furthermore, the institutions providing the study programmes were key actors in theimplementation process. The FHStG focused mainly on study programmes rather than on theinstitutions providing them. This led to a variety of institutional types, legal statuses andfunding structures. Most of the institutions are private institutions or voluntary organisations.Only one – Theresianische Militärakademie – falls under the Ministry of Defence andtherefore belongs to the federal government. The other providers are predominantly ownedby regional bodies, municipalities and other public bodies such as Chambers of Commerce.Private companies also own shares of a few institutions. The providers are responsible for theprovision of resources, contracts, personnel (administrative and teaching staff) and thebudget. The ownership constructs of the new institutions also meant that funding came fromsources other than the state (federal) budget, such as municipalities. The FHStG setsminimum requirements for the providers including a `Fachhochschulkollegium` to overseethe study programmes (in terms of curriculum development and quality assurance), which issimilar to a university senate in other systems. Described in the FHStG, the„Fachhochschulkollegium? was therefore an intra-institutional actor in the implementation ofstudy programmes and the policy at an institutional level.Interestingly, not all providers applied for or used the name ‘F a c hhoc hschu le’; only 13providers included the word in their names. The term ‘F ac hho c hschu le’ does not in itselfimply any basic change; it only refers to a specific provider which has reached a certain levelas a provider of degree programmes, including the following features: a minimum of twodegree programmes by the applicant institutions must be recognised as FHS Bachelor degreeprogrammes with a subsequent FHS Master degree programme, or as FHS diplomaprogrammes. A plan for the expansion of the institutions in question that a minimum level of1,000 study places will be available within five years; and, evidence of an organisation thatguarantees that teaching and conducting examinations is carried out autonomously. Thegovernment introduced Development and Funding Plans, which had a five-year planningperspective. These policy documents included long-term government funding commitmentsand future prospects for the sector. However, the focus of these plans was on studyprogrammes, more precisely on the products or services of FHS.P a g e 7 | 11 Diversity and Differentiation: The development of „Fachhochschulen? or university of applied sciences inAustrian higher education system The first Development and Funding Plan in 1994 covered the first five years of the reform. Itincluded the type of study programmes, total number of study places to be financed by thegovernment and also provided the targeted student numbers for FHS for five years. With thisinformation, the government explicitly set targets regarding the speed and scale (programmesand places but not number of providers) of the implementation process. The developmentplan also included a set of criteria, which was to be used to select study programmes forfuture state funding. The key criteria were: Demand of the Austrian economy for such a studyprogramme and qualification; regionally balanced offers of higher education andimprovement of admission for new target groups.In order to be awarded the designation “University of Applied Sciences”, institutionsproviding FHS degree programmes need to submit an application. In the beginning, theparliament was responsible for awarding institutions with this designation. Later, it was theFHR, and nowadays the Board of the Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation (AQ)Austria. Requirements relate to recognition of degree programmes, plans for (feasible)expansion, and evidence that guarantees teaching and examination is carried outautonomously. Every five years a new development plan produced further conditions, as wellas the introduction of new programmes and an additional number of new study places. SinceFHS programmes began, the FHStG has been adapted several times. Eleven amendmentshave been made to the law, but only few have had a significant impact on the FHS sector.Achievements and effectsThe first programmes at FHS started in 1994. In 2016, the number of students at 21 FHS inthe sector had increased from 695 to 48,051(BMWFW, 2016) the number of programmesfrom 10 to 399 (Pausits and Huisman, 2016). Although these figures show significant growthin the sector, the FHS sector remains rather small in terms of student numbers, especially incomparison to the university sector in Austria (280,445 students) or to the non-universitysectors in other countries, such as Germany and Switzerland (BMWFW, 2016).The FHS sector, through the introduction of new study programmes, established practice- oriented vocational education at the higher education level and led to a diversified supply ofhigher education. This also contributed to the expansion of higher education, although theFHS sector has remained rather small. The need for further expansion of the sector has beenaddressed recently (e.g. Austrian Science Board, new Funding and Development Plan 2016- 2018).P a g e 8 | 11 "