2347447 joanna musial dissertation

TYPICAL AND TOP-RANKED POLISH PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION: INTERSECTORAL AND INTRASECTORAL DISTINCTIVENESS by Joanna Musial A Dissertation Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy School of Education Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies 2012 Dissertation Committee: Distinguished Professor Daniel C. Levy, Chair Associate Professor Kevin Kinser Prof. Marek Kwiek UMI Number: 3517109 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted.

Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3517109 Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

789 East Eisenhower Parkway P. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 Acknowledgment I dedicate this dissertation to my beloved parents Anna and Zbigniew Musial. Their unconditional love, compassion, and support have always been present in my life since the beginning. Thank you Mom and Dad! I would like to gratefully and sincerely thank Distinguished Professor Daniel Levy for his support and dedication to my academic and professional work, and most importantly, his friendship during my graduate study at University at Albany.

Everything that I have achieved in my academic and professional life is solely based on his guidance. 'DQ¶VXQTXHVWLRQDEOHIDLWKLQP\DELOLWLHVZDVHQcouragement that helped me to improve my skills and never be afraid to pursue my dreams. My dissertation was a true excited journey full of discoveries, explorations of new ideas and opportunities to learn new things. Everything that I have learnt during this journey not only helped me to get to the end but also will stay with me for the rest of my life.

This thesis would not have been possible without the support and professional expertise generously offered by Professor dr hab. Marek Kwiek from Poznan University. I am fortunate to have had a leading Polish, European, and global expert in my camp. I would like to acknowledge and thank Professor Kevin Kinser for his valuable suggestions, helpful advice, and exceptional questions that helped me to shape my research.

The time spent at the Department of Educational Administration and Policy Studies would not have been so fulfilling without the assistance of Professors Gilbert Valverde and Alan Wagner. They have shown me by example and through challenging coursework how to think, analyze and conduct research. Not to mention their kindness and support shown as chairs of the department. ii I would like also to thank all my interviewees for spending their time and sharing their views and to thank the institutions that participated in my survey.

I am very grateful to Jack Mahoney and Bruce Szelest for their assistance and guidance in getting my professional career started in the right directions and providing me with the foundation for becoming an institutional researcher. Thank you for giving me the special opportunity to gain a wider breadth of experience while still being a graduate student. Special thanks go to Barbara Lee Jensen for sharing with me her wonderful passion for horseback riding that has brought a lot of joy and happiness into my life. The WLPHVSHQWLQWKHEDUQZLWK%DUE¶V$QJHOVJDYHPHPDQ\VSHFLDODQGXQIRUJHWWDEOH moments during so challenging time.

Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank my other dear family members: My loving Thomas for being so supportive, understanding, and patient during many days spent on writing my dissertation. Your never ending motivation and sense of humor were irreplaceable. Angie for giving me wonderful opportunities to share joyful moments with you and your amazing children Veronika and Ethan. They are my sunshines who always bring smiles and happiness to my life.

Ewa, my dearest friend, the biggest supporter, and a life raft. Thank you for the unquestionable encouragement, enthusiasm, and positive attitude that lightened up my journey. iii Abstract This dissertation analyzes the degree and shape of differences between private and public sectors (intersectoral) and within the private sector (intrasectoral) in Polish higher education. The intersectoral hypothesis iVWKDW3RODQG¶VWZRVHFWRUVDUHTXLWHGLIIHUHQWDQG that these differences mostly follow those claimed and so far found in leading literature on private higher education globally.

The intrasectoral analysis focuses on the top-ranked private institutions, fRUZKLFK,K\SRWKHVL]HFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRI³VHPL-HOLWH´LQVWLWXWLRQV The research develops eight explicit and specific intersectoral hypotheses and then, for intrasectoral analysis, eight such hypotheses on parallel subject matter-- Enrollment size, Primary function, Field subject matter, Concentration of institutional offerings, Student quality, Faculty quality, Source of funding, and International orientation. Each hypothesis is investigated empirically. To do so, I refine indicators employed on other higher education topics and develop some wholly new indicators, statistical ones, on which pertinent data could be gathered. I survey top-ranked private universities to compare these to private sector averages.

Interviews supplement the statistical analysis, cross-checking that analysis and extending it. The findings strongly substantiate the overall hypothesis that intersectoral differences are major and in anticipated directions. Four of the eight specific hypotheses are strongly supported, three others are moderately supported, and for only one the indicators and data are insufficient to draw a conclusion. The findings on whether the top-ranked institutions are semi-elite are mixed, though generally positive.

Two iv hypotheses are strongly supported, three moderately supported, two supported in only limited ways, and one is basically not supported. This national case study not only fits and illustrates but also greatly fleshes out the global findings on intersectoral differences. The intrasectoral analysis²only the second large national study²proves promising for the semi-elite concept, charting new territory but revealing ambiguities and contradictions. Aside from its substantive findings, this study makes methodological strides, on both the intersectoral and intrasectoral fronts, by introducing systematically developed hypotheses, finding indicators for analyzing them, and using data to fuel the indicators.

Additionally, the study provides detailed relevant material usable in policymaking by government agencies, private universities, and families. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT. IV   CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION .1 Research Question and Hypotheses .2 Significance of the Study .3 Limitations of the Study .4 Introduction to Polish Higher Education and Private-Public Distinctiveness .1 Higher Education before 1949.3 Higher Education after 1989 .9   CHAPTER 2 : REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION. Global PHE- with Focus on Intersectoral Differences and Private Intrasectoral Differences .1 Intersectoral Differences between the Private and Public Sectors .2 Intrasectoral Differences of Private Higher Education .2 Regional PHE - Focus on Eastern Europe .1 Introduction to the Eastern European Region .2 Growth and Characteristics of PHE Sectors in Eastern Europe Commonly Discussed in the Literature .3 Polish Higher Education- Focus on PHE.

21   CHAPTER 3 : RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY .1 Eight Dimensions of Private-Public Comparison .1 General Distinctiveness between Private-Public in the Global PHE Literature .2 Eight Hypotheses on Private-Public Distinctiveness in Polish HE .2 Eight Dimensions of Semi-elite Analysis. 31   /HY\¶V6HPL-elite Definitional Characteristics .2 Identifying the Top-ranked Polish PHEIs. 33   /HY\¶V3RVWXODWHG&RPPRQ&KDUDFWHULVWLFVRI6HPL-elite .4 Eight Semi-elite Hypotheses for the Polish Case .3 Analyzing Top-ranked PHEIs: .1 Pilot Test of Survey .4 Selection of Data Sources .1 Selection of Databases (mainly for Private-Public Comparisons) .2 Selection of PHEIs and Interviewees. 52   CHAPTER 4 : INTERSECTORAL DISTINCTIVENESS .4 Field subject matter .5 Concentration of Institutional Offerings .8 Sources of Funding.

120   CHAPTER 5 : INTRASECTORAL DISTINCTIVENESS.3 Concentration of Institutional Offerings .4 Field Subject Matter .1 Synthesis of Findings .3 Significance: Policy Implications .4 Recommendations for Future Study. 255     ix LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Private Enrollment and PHEIs in Europe 3   Table 2. Enrollment Data by Public and Private Sectors in Academic Year 2009/2010 62   Table 3.

Total Income from Research Activities by Sector 67   Table 4. Operating Activity Incomes in Private and Public Sectors Year 2009 68   Table 5. Costs of Private and Public HEIs in Year 2009 69   Table 6. Enrollment in Private and Public Sectors by Subfields 70   Table 7.

Eight Main Field Studies Enrollment Year 2009 77   Table 8. Social Sciences, Economics and Law Subfields Enrollment Year 2009 79   Table 9. Services Subfields Enrollment Year 2009 80   Table 10. Core Science Subfields Enrollment Year 2009 82   Table 11.

Academic Disciplines and Interdisciplinary Academic Disciplines by Sector 90   Table 12. Distribution of Full-time/Part-time Students by Sector Year 2009 94   Table 13. Number and Percent of the Ministry of Science and HE Scholarships by HE Sectors 97   Table 14. Full-time/Part-time Faculty by HE Sector 104   Table 15.

Total Full-time Faculty Employed in Primary Workplace by Sector 107   Table 16. Sources of Funding in Polish Private and Public HE Sectors in 2009 111   Table 17. Funds for Teaching Activity in Polish Private and Public HE Sectors in 2009 112   Table 18. Funds for Research Activity in Polish Private and Public HE Sectors in 2009 113   Table 19.

International Student Share of Enrollment and Graduates by HE Sectors 118   Table 20. Number and Percent of International Students and International Graduates by HE Sectors 119   Table 21. Total Number of Students and Total FTE of the Surveyed PHEIs in 2009/10 134   Table 22. Total Number of Students and Total FTE of the 20 Top-ranked PHEIs in 2009 136   Table 23.

Average Enrollment within HEIs by Type 137   Table 24. Operating Activity Incomes in Six Top-ranked Surveyed PHEIs in 2009/10 141   x Table 25. Operating Activity Incomes in the Top-ranked Surveyed PHEIs, Private and Public Sectors in 2009/10 142   Table 26. Expenditures of Six Top-ranked Surveyed PHEIs in 2009/10 143   Table 27.

Expenditures of Six Top-ranked Surveyed PHEIs, Private and Public Sectors in 2009/10 143   Table 28. Programs Offered by the Nine Surveyed PHEIs in 2009/10 and the Right to Offer Ph. Right to Confer Ph. Degrees by the 20 Top-ranked PHEIs in 2011 147   Table 30.

Number of Fields by Nine Surveyed PHEIs 159   Table 31. Percentage of Enrollment by Fields in Nine Surveyed PHEIs, Nine Randomly Selected PHEIs, and the Private Sector 161   Table 32. Number of Departments and Academic Disciplines in Nine Surveyed PHEIs 167   Table 33. Eight Main Field Studies by the Private Sector and the Surveyed PHEIs 173   Table 34.

Social Sciences, Economics and Law Subfields by the Private Sector, Surveyed Private HEIs 175   Table 35. Distribution of Full-time/Part-time Students in the Nine Surveyed PHEIs 183   Table 36. Distribution of Full-time/Part-time Students in the 20 Top-ranked PHEIs 184   Table 37. Ministry of Science and HE Scholarships to Students from the Surveyed Institutions 186   Table 38.

Ministry of Science and HE Scholarships to Students from the Surveyed PHEIs, Top-ranked 20 PHEIs, and other PHEIs 186   Table 39. Ministry of Science and HE Scholarships to Students from the Surveyed PHEIs, Other PHEIs, and Public HEIs 187   Table 40. Tuitions and Fees (in zl & $ currencies) in Surveyed PHEIs (Academic Year 2010/11) per Semester 189   Table 41. Distribution of Full-time/Part-time Faculty in Nine Surveyed PHEIs (31.

Full-time/Part-time Faculty by Surveyed PHEIs and by HE Sectors 197   Table 43. Primary Workplace Share in Surveyed PHEIs 198   Table 44. Total Faculty Employed in Primary Workplace by Surveyed PHEIs and by HE Sectors 199   Table 45. Sources of Funds Received for Research Activities by Surveyed PHEIs in Year 2008 204   Table 46.

International Students in Surveyed PHEIs in 2009 208   Table 47. International Students in Surveyed PHEIs and in the Private and Public Sectors (2009) 209   xi Table 48. Number of International Partnerships by Surveyed PHEIs 211   Table 49. International Accreditations and Certifications Held by Surveyed PHEIs 212   Table 50.

Number and Percent of Students Participating in International Exchange Programs by Surveyed PHEIs in Academic Year 2009/2010 213   Table 51.