Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Higher Education Estate Data Accountability: The Contrasting Experience of UK and Poland

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Higher education estates are large and valuable assets that affect diverse stakeholders. Despite recent growth, data on university estates has received little concerted attention from national and international statistics bodies. This paper examines and contrasts the evolution of universities and their estates in the UK and Poland, in the light of the degree of central government control versus institutional autonomy. Given increased international competition for students, staff and research funding, the paper argues that universities and their stakeholders would benefit from more transparency, the development of an agreed set of estate definitions, standards and regular statistical reports. Data based on agreed standards would provide a basis for comparative analysis and help to run better university estates and facilities, thereby enhancing HEI efficiency, effectiveness and environmental sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, L., Briggs, A. R. J. and Burton, N. (2001) Managing finance, resources and stakeholders in education, London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • AUDE. (2015) Higher Education Estates Statistics Report. AUDE Report, 19 November, https://www.aude.ac.uk/resources/news/view?g=7f6f8a92-3d5d-4afc-aca3-e860b68ee928, accessed 10 December 2017.

  • AUDE. (2016) Facilities ‘more important’ than reputation for university applicants, AUDE, 28 September, https://www.aude.ac.uk/resources/news/view?g=20049673-4673-4c83-a78d-65828072c11e, accessed 15 February 2018.

  • AUDE. (2017) AUDE Estates Management Report for 2015/2016 academic year. AUDE Report, 6 October, https://www.aude.ac.uk/resources/news/view?g=0e18bac6-78b5-4837-9be7-bcbdb208b4d4, accessed 15 February 2018.

  • Ball, R. and Wilkinson, R. (1994) ‘The use and abuse of performance indicators in UK higher education’, Higher Education 27 (4): 417–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckers, R., Van der Voordt, T., Dewulf, G. (2015) ‘A conceptual framework to identify spatial implications of new ways of learning in higher education’, Facilities 33 (1/2): 2–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennetot Pruvot, E. and Estermann, T. (2017) University Autonomy in Europe III. The Scorecard 2017. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. (2007) ‘Systemic Integration and Macro Steering’, Higher Education Policy 20 (4): 391–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogue, E.G. and Hall, K.B. (2003) Quality and Accountability in Higher Education. Improving Policy, Enhancing Performance, Westport, Conn: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boli, J. (1987) ‘World Policy Sources of Expanding State Authority and Organization, 1870–1970’, in G. Thomas, J. Meyer, F. Ramirez and J. Boli (eds). Institutional Structure: constituting State, Society and the Individual, Beverly Hills: SAGE, pp. 71–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clare, C. (2012) ‘Do Industrial Approaches to Quality Management and Performance Indicators Work for Higher Education?’, in G. Bell, J. Warwick and P. Galbraith (eds). Higher Education Management and Operational Research Demonstrating New Practices and Metaphors, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, pp. 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, B.R. (1983) The Higher Education System: Academic Organisation in Cross-National Perspective, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clayson, D.E. and Haley, D.A. (2005) ‘Marketing Models in Education: Students as Customers, Products or Partners’, Marketing Education Review 15 (1): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremonini, L., Westerheijden, D.F., Benneworth, P. and Dauncey, H. (2014) ‘In the Shadow of Celebrity? World-Class University Policies and Public Value in Higher Education’, Higher Education Policy 27 (3): 341–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • CVCP/UGC (1987) University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in the UK. London, UK: CVCP/UGC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Heijer, A. (2011) Managing the university campus. Information to support real estate decisions, Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Den Heijer, A., Tzovlas, G. (2014) The European Campus. Heritage and Challenges, Delft: Delft University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estermann, T., Nokkala, T. and Steinel, M. (2011) University autonomy in Europe II. The Scorecard. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUA. (2017) University Autonomy in Europe III. Country Profiles. Brussels, Belgium: European University Association.

  • European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2013) Funding of Education in Europe 2000-2012: The Impact of the Economic Crisis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Eurydice Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUROSTAT (1995) Eurostat Yearbook ‘95: A Statistical Eye on Europe 1983–1993. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • EUROSTAT (2017a) Number of tertiary education students by level and sex, 2015. Eurostat Statistics Explained, 30 June, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Number_of_tertiary_education_students_by_level_and_sex,_2015_(thousands)_YB17.png, accessed 10 December 2017.

  • EUROSTAT (2017b) Mobile students from abroad enrolled by education level, sex and field of education, 2015. Eurostat, 20 November, http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do, accessed 10 December 2017.

  • Farkas, M. G. (2013) ‘Building and sustaining a culture of assessment: best practices for change leadership’, Reference Services Review 41 (1): 13–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fumasoli, T., Gornitzka, A. and Maassen, P. (2014) University Autonomy and Organizational Change Dynamics. Oslo: ARENA Centre for European Studies. ARENA Working Paper no. 8.

  • Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, L., Van Vught, F. and De Weert, E. (1993) ‘International Perspectives on Trends and Issues in Higher Education Policy’, in L. Goedegebuure, F. Kaiser, P. Maassen, L. Meek, F. Van Vught, E. De Weert (eds). Higher Education Policy. An International Comparative Perspective, Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 315–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • GUS (2005) Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2004. Warsaw, Poland: Główny Urząd Statystyczny.

    Google Scholar 

  • GUS (2016) Higher Education Institutions and their Finances in 2015. Warsaw, Poland: Główny Urząd Statystyczny.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock, S., Hughes, G. and Walsh, E. (2012) ‘Universities and the Informal Knowledge Economy’, in P. Temple (ed). Universities in Knowledge Economy. Higher Education Organisation and Global Change London, New York: Routledge, pp. 118–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, L. and Knight, P. (1996) Transforming Higher Education, Buckingham: Open University Press and Society for Research into Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • HEDQF (2013) Estates Matter! Report on Survey of Students’ views of their universities’ estates 2013. London, UK: London School of Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • HESA (2016) Estates management record 2015/16. HESA, 20 October, https://www.hesa.ac.uk/collection/c15042, accessed 10 December 2017.

  • Ibrahim, I., Yusoff, W. Z. W. and Bilal, K. (2012) ‘Space Management: A Study on Space Usage Level in Higher Education Institutions’, Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 47: 1880–1887.

    Google Scholar 

  • IPMSC (2014) International Property Measurement Standards: Office Buildings. IPMSC, November 2014, https://fastedit.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/ipms-office-buildings-november-20141.pdf, accessed 10 December 2017.

  • Jarratt, A. (1985) Report of the Steering Committee for Efficiency Studies in Universities. London, UK: CVCP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallio, K.M., Kallio T.J. and Grossi G. (2017) ‘Performance measurement in universities: ambiguities in the use of quality versus quantity in performance indicators’, Public Money & Management 37 (4): 293–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandiko, C.B. and Mawer, M. (2013) Student Expectations and Perceptions of Higher Education. London, UK: King’s Learning Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuntz, A.M., Petrovic, J.E. and Ginocchio, L. (2012) ‘A Changing Sense of Place: A Case Study of Academic Culture and the Built Environment’, Higher Education Policy 25 (4): 433–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwiek, M. (2016) ‘From Privatization (of the Expansion Era) to De-privatization (of the Contraction Era). A National Counter-Trend in a Global Context’, in S. Slaughter and B. J. Taylor (eds). Stratification, Privatization and Employability of Higher Education in the US and EU, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 311–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, D.R., Hendell, D.D. and Kallsen, L. (2007) ‘Performance Indicators as a Foundation of Institutional Autonomy: Implications for Higher Education Institutions in Europe’, Tertiary Education and Management 13 (3): 203–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2011) ‘Imagining the global’, in R. King, S. Marginson and R. Naidoo (eds). Handbook on Globalization and Higher Education, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, pp. 10–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2016) Higher Education and the Common Good, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marmot, A. (2014) ‘Managing the Campus. Facility Management and Design, the Student Experience and University Effectiveness’, in P. Temple (eds). The Physical University. Contours of space and place in higher education, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 58–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. and Sauvageot, C. (2011) Constructing an indicator system or scorecard for higher education. A practical guide. Paris, France: International Institute for Educational Planning. UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mavondo, F.T., Sarenko, Y. and Gabbott, M. (2004) ‘International and Local Student Satisfaction: Resources and Capabilities Perspectives’, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 14 (1): 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, W.W. (2009) Higher Learning, Greater Good: The Private and Social Benefits of Higher Education, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MNiSW (2015) Rozporządzenie Ministra Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego z dnia 29 czerwca 2015 r. w sprawie Systemu Informacji o Nauce (Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 29 June 2015 on the Science Information System). Official Journal of Laws of 2015, item 944.

  • Muczynski, A. (2015) ‘An integrated approach to real estate (portfolio) management’, Real Estate Management and Valuation 23 (2): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • NAB (1987) Management for a purpose: The report of the good management practice group. London, UK: NAB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G. (2012) The Evaluative State, Institutional Autonomy and Reengineering Higher Education in Western Europe, Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2011) Designing for Education. Compendium of Exemplary Educational Facilities 2011. Paris, France: OECD Centre for Effective Learning Environments.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearce, D. (2003) The social and economic value of construction, London: nCRISP.

  • Pinheiro, R., Benneworth, P. and Jones, G. A. (2012) ‘Understanding Regions and the Institutionalization of Universities’, in R. Pinheiro, P. Benneworth, P. and G. A. Jones (eds). Universities and Regional Development. A Critical Assessment of Tensions and Contradictions, Milton Park: Routledge, pp. 11–32.

  • POL-on. (2015) Nieruchomości (Real estate). https://polon.nauka.gov.pl/opi/aa/infr/nieruchomosci;jsessionid=2A5053A32BAE835C42FF2D8F4BC2F237.NwsProdD?execution=e1s1, accessed 10 December 2015.

  • Rymarzak, M. (2016) ‘Autonomia i rozliczalność uczelni w zakresie nieruchomości—przypadek Polski’ (Estate autonomy and accountability of higher education institutions: The Polish case), Nauka i Szkolnictwo Wyższe 2 (48): 119–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shattock, M. and Berdahl, R. (1984) ‘The British University Grants Committee 1919–83: Changing relationships with government and the universities’, Higher Education 13 (5): 471–499.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shore, C. and Wright, S. (2015) ‘Audit Culture Revisited. Rankings, Ratings, and the Reassembling of Society’, Current Anthropology 56 (3): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strathern, M. (ed.) (2000) Audit Cultures. Anthropological studies in accountability, ethics and the academy, London and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tight, M. (2013) ‘Students: Customers, Clients or Pawns?’, Higher Education Policy 26 (3): 291–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trow, M. (1973) Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education, Berkeley: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trow, M. (2007) ‘Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: Forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII’, in J. J. F. Forest and P. G. Altbach (eds). International Handbook of Higher Education, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 243–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • UCEA (2017) Income and Expenditure in Higher Education. UCEA, 18 July, http://www.ucea.ac.uk/download.cfm/docid/116E55D0-7EE4-4E85-9ABE1A659F76C925, accessed 10 December 2017.

  • UNESCO (1998) World declaration on higher education in the twenty-first century: Vision and action. Paris, France: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2017) Education. UNESCO, http://data.uis.unesco.org/, accessed 10 December 2017.

  • Valks, B., Arkesteijn, M.H., Den Heijer, A.C., Vande Putte, H.J.M. (2018) ‘Smart campus tools—adding value to the university campus by measuring space use real-time’, Journal of Corporate Real Estate 20 (2): 103–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHED (2017) Worldwide Database of Higher Education Institutions. WHED, http://whed.net/About.html, accessed 10 December 2017.

  • World Bank (2017a) Gross enrolment ratio, tertiary, both sexes. World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.TER.ENRR?end=2015&start=1990, accessed 10 December 2017.

  • World Bank (2017b) GDP per capita. World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2015&start=1990, accessed 10 December 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management, Department of Investment and Real Estate, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland

    Małgorzata Rymarzak

  2. Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, UCL (University College London), London, UK

    Alexi Marmot

  3. School of Architecture, Design & Planning, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Alexi Marmot

Authors
  1. Małgorzata Rymarzak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexi Marmot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Małgorzata Rymarzak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rymarzak, M., Marmot, A. Higher Education Estate Data Accountability: The Contrasting Experience of UK and Poland. High Educ Policy 33, 179–194 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0109-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-018-0109-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation