EXTERNAL EVALUATION REPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LUXEMBOURG, janvier 2009 (extraits) (Journal 4/2009)
"It is clear to the Committee that significant groups of staff are feeling distanced and disconnected from decision-making processes. As indicated above, the University Council (and indeed the Scientific Advisory Committee) seems to be almost totally ineffective. While informal mechanisms have their place, they leave large groups of staff disenfranchised and frustrated, now that the University has grown. The dissatisfactions encountered by the Committee related both to the lack of opportunity for effective involvement in decision-making processes, and the lack of opportunity for providing evidencebased feedback that could inform policy development and general academic practice. These problems appeared to exist within faculties, among the faculties and between the faculties and the Rectorate. For example, the Rectorate's decisions are communicated to the Deans, who use the Faculty Councils to inform their faculty members. These communication lines appear to be mainly one-way; and for instance, Faculty Council reports are not sent to the Rectorate.
The self-assessment report states that the Scientific Advisory Committee has not found its role within
the organisation yet. As mentioned above, the Committee urges the implementation of many more
consultation procedures and the increased involvement of staff members in decision making and
implementation. The Scientific Advisory Committee should play a crucial role, but needs empowerment
in order to do so. The Committee stresses that a robust internal dialogue is important for the decisionmaking
processes. ( )
It appeared to the Committee that the link between the Faculties and Rectorate is crucial and needs immediate attention. The evidence available to the Committee indicated that the Deans were in many ways caught between two different types of structures in the current context. At one level, they represent a collegial, democratic structure given their elected position. On the other hand, the Deans had to relate directly to the managerial structures of the Board and Rectorate. The links between the Deans and the Rectorate, notwithstanding considerable individual strengths, are not working effectively. The Faculty Councils are not able to fulfil their role as consultative bodies in relation to the Rectorate and Board of Governors because of the dominance of the one-way communication of the Rectorate's decisions and the limited opportunities for making faculty-specific policies. Deans cannot present their Faculties' views at the Dean-Rectorate meetings since there is not enough time to prepare for these meetings with a faculty-consultation round of discussion. In interviews with both the Deans and the Rectorate, it became obvious to the Committee that this is a well-recognised problem, and various solutions to it have been attempted. ( )
The Committee was interested to note that, in developing the next four-year plan of the University, a consultation round is being organised where Faculties will be able to provide input. In each Faculty, a committee involving the three Vice-Rectors, the Deans, and 4 or 5 representatives will work on the next four-year plan based on a vision document produced by the Rector. At a later stage, it is intended that the outcomes of the Faculty considerations will be sent to the Board of Governors. The Committee was encouraged by these developments. However, it wishes to stress that further change is needed. As indicated in the previous section on governance, the 'top down' decision-making procedures have produced successful outcomes for the University in its start-up phase. There are circumstances in which a top-down approach is appropriate. But in the next phase of development, the whole academic community needs to be involved, directly or indirectly, in procedural and structural decision-making."