Characteristics of the functional differentiation of higher education institutions

In previous blog posts analysing higher education, we have outlined the differences between Austrian higher education institutions across the four legally defined sectors. We now want to – as previously announced – take a new perspective and focus on the functional differentiation of higher education institutions.

By functional differentiation we mean the actual division of tasks and thematic specialisation of individual institutions within the broader system. The various sectors naturally play a key role here, since the relevant legal texts define their respective mandates and expectations. It is hardly surprising that academic teaching is a task assigned to institutions in all sectors. Research is explicitly mentioned in the laws governing public universities and university colleges of teacher education, with the latter required to ensure occupational relevance. Universities of applied sciences, in turn, are expected to address research mainly through methodological diversity and integrity within study and teaching activities. Interestingly, all four legislative frameworks stipulate cooperation as part of their remit.

Within each sector, however, we can identify even deeper features of functional differentiation. In the case of universities of applied sciences, for example, some offer a broad range of programmes, while others are more narrowly specialised – often reflecting their regional context, where they align with local industrial priorities or address specific training needs (such as in nursing). The university colleges of teacher education – which themselves respond to a highly specific training need, namely for Austria’s school teaching staff – fall into three types: nine general colleges (one per federal province), four theological ones (one per teacher-training network), and one dedicated to agricultural and environmental education.

Among private universities, we find considerable heterogeneity in thematic orientation. Broadly speaking, three main specialisation areas emerge: first, medical and life sciences; second, social sciences and humanities; and third, art and music. This thematic orientation is most easily understood if private universities are seen as agile vehicles intended to complement and compensate for areas of provision particularly in teaching, as offered by public universities.

That leaves the public universities, which – with 23 institutions – constitute by far the largest sector. Their internal functional differentiation is therefore not only the most pronounced but also the most significant for the entire system. It quickly becomes evident that these universities can be clustered by thematic orientation. Alongside six universities covering the full breadth of academic disciplines, there are four technical universities and three medical universities, representing two types with particular societal relevance. In addition, six universities of the arts reflect the high socio-political importance attributed to the “development and advancement of the arts” (as stated in the law), especially in Austria. Finally, there are four other universities, each with a distinct specialisation.

When grouping the public universities according to these categories and comparing them by two structural indicators – number of students and number of academic staff – it becomes clear that functional differentiation is also reflected in organisational characteristics. The general universities are, on average, significantly larger in both respects (1,813.5 full-time equivalent academic staff and 32,972 students). The technical and medical universities are comparable in terms of academic staff (TUs: 1,722.5 FTE; MUs: 1,778.1 FTE), but the latter have a much smaller student population (TUs: 15,523; MUs: 6,131). The other specialised universities combined (average: 758.3 FTE academic staff and 10,683 students) and the universities of the arts (average: 328.1 FTE and 2,189 students) are smaller still.

Even from this admittedly preliminary look, it is clear that specialisation and distribution of tasks already occur deep within individual sectors. This is hardly surprising, as the functional differentiation of a system such as Austria’s higher education landscape reflects the evolving needs of academic teaching and research. Such developments advance particularly quickly in times of technological change and profound societal transformation. From a state policy perspective, the challenge should be to respond to these needs as proactively and flexibly as possible.

Against this backdrop, the question arises as to whether the strongly segmented sectoral structure – the result of higher education reforms around twenty years ago – remains appropriate today. Only a more detailed empirical analysis could offer an answer, though that would lie beyond FORWIT’s remit. One possible hypothesis is that new needs tend to be met through the founding of new institutions. Yet, considering the current public debate, which often highlights the already large number of higher education institutions in Austria, this appears to be seen as a less than ideal outcome.