by Tito Boeri16   Maggio   2014

Is research still possible in Italy?

Interview to the Italian Minister for Education, University and Research Maria Chiara Carrozza during the conference “Research in Italy. What to demolish, how to rebuild” at the Università Bocconi of Milan. By Tito Boeri

Boeri – Madam let me thank you for accepting our invitation to answer a few questions on research in Italy. Let’s start with academic research: we can’t take another Civr, the research evaluation that was shelved and ended up in the oblivion. The government was expected to set up a regulation so as to decide how to distribute the FFO (University ordinary financing fund) proportion of budget allotted according to results of VQR (quality research evaluation) but the regulation has not been proposed yet. To that extent, you’re doing worse than your colleague Minister Gelmini did in putting forward the regulation on December 15th. Furthermore considering FFO cuts are around 4.6% and there’s a 5% safeguard clause, the margin of distribution seems almost zero. How does the government intend to respect the commitment of a minimum allotted budget of 16% in 2014, 18% in 2015, 20% in 2016 and so on up to 30%?
Carrozza – We are committed to using VQR from 2014. Starting from next year we’ll have 840 millions for VQR uniquely and just a little more of a billion available for the increasing budget proportion (this year there are less than 500millions for VQR) and the minimum allotted budget will be of 16%. I agree that 2013 has been a year where universities have struggled to not loose too much because of previous years’ cuts that have summed themselves up.  Starting from next year we’ll be having an additional 150millions and 41 millions allocated to proportional budget. We’re trying to set more resources to FFO in the form of proportional budget allocation.

B. – We recognize your commitment in that sense.
C. – It’s not a commitment, it is a State law.

B. – The evaluation has showed a high inactivity rate among teachers not doing research in universities above minimum standards of quality. What do you think you’ll do to face this problem? Inactivity tends to increase with age in all areas, partly because the older you get the less research you tend to do and partly because there’s a strong cohort effect, with different and more productive new generations. The generational turnover greatly increases the quality of research. What instruments do heads of universities have to accelerate the generational turnover?
C. – We can accept the idea that some teachers don’t spend 100% of their time doing research and that with age they tend to produce less. For sure total inactivity cannot be accepted. I believe it a mistake to concentrate evaluation just on research activity and am convinced that teaching should be taken more into consideration. Teachers must be appreciated not only for the contribution given to the scientific area, but also for the quality of their teaching. Having said that, research is important and inactivity is to be condemned. As to the generational turnover, we need to move towards the indipendence of universities. It is unthinkable to manage this turnover by means of centrally dictated rules and regulations which would constantly be taken to court and appealed against. To that extent we need a tougher legislation against possible appeals. Retirement plans for inactive teachers should be envisaged. And in any case if you’re not working as a teacher or as a researcher you should not be in university. These evaluations help in this sense although it’s important to remind that VQR was not created with such an aim as it does not consider evaluation of individual cases. There has been an important debate on whether results on individual researchers should be made public and I have opposed such idea. VQR’s original aim was different and its implementation lies on an agreement which would be wrong now to breach. I wish the number of productive teachers and researchers increased. This is one of the reasons why research needs financing. Teachers and researchers need to be given more power through research programs that allow them to be more productive.

B. – There’s a strong link between quality of research and quality of teaching. I agree that teaching is very important. Many departments and universities have difficulty in reaching research levels up to international standards. Why not encourage them to concentrate on advanced technical training, thus responding to increased demand for intermediate qualifications on the model of the German Fachhochschule?
C. – I think one of the problems of our secondary school is that teachers are considered mere knowledge transmitters instead of people in constant need of doing research to increase their cultural stock-in-trade. I don’t agree with segregation: on one hand school, which is simple transmission of knowledge, on the other university which is advanced research. There used to be more mobility between these two worlds in the past; we need it back as the lack of mobility is one of today’s school’s evils. One of the priorities of my government is to give technical training the same dignity usually given to universities.My background makes me oppose any dichotomy between technical training and “high” training. One of the main evils of our university system is the lack of strategic plans: a Dean of faculty needs to present a plan where it is stated what he intends to do, which departments he intends to enhance and which ones need evolving, and this is to be done before he or she is elected.

B. – How do you see Italian university in ten years from now? Should we bet on a few centres of excellence or go for a random distribution of resources? And in that case how could we face the problem of territorial disparities? Possibly by defining quotas for macro areas? And how can we make the best out of realities such as the Italian Institute of technology so as to increase the reputation of Italian research on the whole?
C. – There are two aspects to consider. If 90% of FFO is devoted to salaries it is unlikely the FFO will be able to finance excellencies or to enhance areas of study, because all the money will go to salaries. Over the last five or six years we have reduced salaries and functioning down to the bone so as to increase the allotted budget. I would increase the allotted budget but I would do that by taking the money from another endowment, otherwise we won’t get anything, not even growth. That would be like lay siege to a castle, dry up its wells and take it by drought. And that’s something we don’t want to do.  We want to use public policies to enhance strategy, differentiation and growth, and to increase the number of graduates and undergraduates. We don’t expect everyone to have a PhD, but we want everyone to hold an adequate certificate or qualification  so as to be able to access an ever more demanding job market where lifelong learning is required. I hope to be able to have access to extra funding programs with specific objectives that go beyond the payment of salaries and structures. The adopted strategies need to consider the special needs of universities, the context, the performances in research, teaching, the quality of graduates.

B. – You will agree that there are certain realities in italy having not only very low levels of research but employing people even below these already low levels, therefore furthering reducing the average level of research. Evaluation should work as a deterrent for the employment of friends or relatives. No-one envisages massive redundancies but we cannot go on allocating the already few resources to such realities.
C. – I believe one of the positive things of VQR is the possibility of evaluating recruitment policies. Since the people employed are paid with public money expenditure must be transparent. This is one of the next challenges for university: to have balance sheets made public  and to have more transparent recruitment policies.  Today  balance sheets of universities are difficult to read. We are thinking of setting up a prize for the university with the most readable and transparent balance sheet with a jury made up of students of finance studies.

B. – Many believe Prin (research projects of national interest), which is the main Italian program for the financing of basic research, is dead. 38 millions have been assigned to it this year while in previous years the sum allocated amounted to 175 millions. It would seem that the intention is to give priority to the ERC (European Research Council) European financing. Is it what you really intend to do?
C. –   The Prin program is not dead. When I took office the available budget for research was very low, slightly over 50 million euros which I thought to anticipate to a tender for young researchers on the model of ERC – starting grant, that is fundamental research based on the areas of ERC. This enables young researchers to obtain independent financing thus triggering a positive trend to spread all over Italy. Next year we’ll try to have reserved places for direct calls for ERC winners in unspecified areas. There will also be a sum for humanistic research. Instead of dividing up a 50 million allocation, this  year we have decided to give resources to young researchers. In any case the National Research Plan will work towards free research.

B. – We recognize your commitment in that sense. And we appreciate that you want to bring winners of ERC to Italy. But it looks like the Montalcini II program has a drawback common to all reverse brain drain programs: it is unlikely that scholars with high positions in foreign universities, a permanent position and excellent career perspectives may come back to Italy and accept temporary contracts and a not always idilliac working environment. As you know outsiders have a tough life in environments where resources are few and positions must be defended with teeth. The only way to attract brains is to offer “tenured” positions, that is permanent positions. Can we try to do better? We could follow the example of Catalonia, an economically depressed region that through an agency succeeded in bringing 300 highly specialized researchers from all over the world, in all areas, offering permanent positions and through a selection made not by university teachers but by independent esperts. Why not try and do the same?
C. – I agree that a reverse brain drain program not offering permanent positions is of little value. We can try and help by reserving places for this type of calls; the rest is up to universities. There are universities, even in the South, that could employ new staff but don’t. Universities should employ staff when possible and make the proceedings as clear as possible.

B. – What seems to be missing in the Italian university system and research is people with good managerial skills and a deep knowledge of the world of research. This is also true for Ministries’ departments of expenditure that have a difficult relation with people involved in research What do you intend to do to enhance governance at universities? What do you think of universities’ strategic plans? Do you think it useful to have a a sort of Control Centre functioning as an interface between the ministries’departments of expenditure and universities?
C. – There surely is a management and training problem concerning managing staff, general directors, deans of faculty. Governance is a key issue and I’m not sure that it has been solved with the rule that the Dean of faculty can’t be reappointed. In fact not having to deal with whom has elected them makes him or her much stronger than before and less careful to internal balances.
I think the relation with academic institutions is of fundamental importance. The board of directors and the university’s senate are fundamental. There shouldn’t be just one man in charge of everything. It’s often people who don’t have a complete knowledge of universities’ balance sheets and don’t know how things work. As to red tape, the other problem of governance, it’s important to understand its origins. There’s a self generated bureaucracy to control universities from the centre and limit their independence; and there’s a bureaucracy originating from too many laws and excessive control, which I have always opposed to as it makes life difficult for those working in university. For example if the Politecnico of Milan has a much larger bulk of red tape compared to the Politecnico of Wien it is clear that they can’t compete at fair play as time is critical in teaching and research. As to our managerial skills I think European projects have had a positive impact on our universities: the mixing of managers of European funds with national governance has brought to a widespread growth.  We should probably use the European Commission program Horizon 2020 and take advantage of the Italian presidency of the EU as an opportunity of growth also in our Ministry.

B. -  And what do you think of a Control Centre of Ministries?
C. – This is one of the subjects I mostly care about. I believe research as well as school needs to be among the Prime Minister’s priorities. I often tell him so and remind him that I am supposed to implement the government’s decisions. I think that dividing up research in different ministries has damaged Italian research. As to the National Plan for Research I intend to involve the ministry of Health. I hope to be able to set up an inter ministerial panel to function as a sort of experimental Control Centre.



Interview taken from the website www.lavoce.info