1. INTRODUCTION:

Self-governance (or self-norms) is known as ‘Autonomy’ in academia. In India, the existing educational institutions fall under a few categories i.e. university, deemed to be university, private universities, institutes of national importance, and premier institutes. At present, the norms and guidelines to become autonomous institutions are provided by University Grants Commission. After the declaration of the national education policy 2020, it is not only difficult to become an autonomous institution but moving to the higher grade of autonomy and sustaining autonomy would be difficult for many higher education institutions (HEIs). HEIs will require to follow new norms and at the same time maintain the level of quality at predefined standards.

Kurt Lewin's force field analysis is useful to know the cumulative effect of facilitating forces on sustaining autonomy. If the cumulative effect of facilitating factors on to sustenance of autonomy is more intense, it would be easier for institutions to use these facilitating forces to sustain autonomy. The restraining forces are equally important, their cumulative intensity should be minimum to sustain the autonomy for a longer duration. The institutions must analyze the cumulative intensity of facilitating and restraining forces and design appropriate strategies to use the facilitating forces for the sustenance of autonomy and minimize the effect of restraining forces in the context of NEP 2020. The policymakers are expecting a radical change in higher education of the country on many dimensions such as quality, accreditation (Swapan Banerjee et al. 2020), multidisciplinary education, use of technology and information technology, vocationalization, professional ethics, and the like. In this backdrop, it became imperative to undertake this study to critically examine the factors responsible for the sustenance of autonomy. It is worth noting that, the country has 708 autonomous institutes, out of which only 384 are engineering colleges. In the context of NEP 2020 sustenance means continue to enjoy fruits of autonomy by the institution in a legal way. This study will be useful to examine facilitating and impending factors at the individual institute level and to design strategies for the sustenance of autonomy.

2. OBJECTIVE OF PRESENT RESEARCH:

The present study is undertaken to analyse facilitating and impeding factors for long term sustenance of autonomy.

3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

The research study will explore two questions which are related to facilitating and impending factors respectively:

1. Which factors are responsible for facilitating the sustenance of autonomy of the institute?

2. Which factors are responsible for impeding the sustenance of autonomy of the institute?

4. METHODOLOGY OF PRESENT RESEARCH WORK:

This is a qualitative and exploratory study on facilitating and impending factors at the institute level. The various steps followed in this systematic research are stated in figure 1.

Figure 1: Research Methodology

4.1 Population:

All autonomous engineering and polytechnic colleges of India constitute the population of the study.

4.2 Sample:

It is an exploratory study and it is difficult to enumerate the population so researchers used the purposive sampling technique. The researchers are having the email addresses of 5000 teachers of engineering and polytechnic colleges, so the research instrument was mailed to 5000 respondents out of which 752 respondents provided information within the time limit. The respondents were from IIT, NIT, NITTTRs, universities, and autonomous institutions.

5. Presentation of data:

After getting the responses statistical analysis is carried out using the statistical tool Microsoft excel. And for this purpose, the cumulative weighted mean is calculated. Cronbach Alpha is used for measuring the reliability of the instrument.

5.1 Analysis of data:

The reliability of the instrument is calculated using the Cronbach Alpha test. For calculating alpha value ANOVA test for investigation of average, variance, standard deviation, and mean error is used. A two-way ANOVA in excel without replication is used. ANOVA test for facilitating factors is shown in table 1.

5.1.1 Calculating Cronbach’s Alpha Co-efficient

It was observed that the value of Cronbach alpha is 0.95 so the reliability of responses is very high. The facilitating factor statistics is shown in table 3.

Table 1: ANOVA test for facilitating factors

Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	P-value	F critical
Rows	3212.531	552	5.8198031	18.815801	0	1.107286
Columns	29.57758	9	3.2863974	10.625136	1.78E-16	1.881764
Error	1536.622	4968	0.309304
Total	4778.731	5529

ANOVA test for impeding factors is shown in table 1.

Table 2: ANOVA test for impending factors

Source of Variation	SS	df	MS	F	P-value	F crit
Rows	3520.49	545	6.46	19.16	0	1.11
Columns	10.21	8	1.28	3.79	0.000194	1.94
Error	1469.57	4360	0.34
Total	5000.27	4913

Table 3: Item statistics for facilitating factors

Items	Mean	SD
Favourable legislation and regulation at the central and state government level.	2.80	0.94
Adequate funding from public and private sources to support the projects.	2.62	0.98
Defined accountability for quality education.	2.83	0.77
Implementation of International policies related to governance and management of the institution	2.68	0.94
Professional leadership.	2.80	0.78
Competent faculty and staff members.	2.88	0.77
The environment of trust and confidence.	2.84	0.84
Favourable collaboration and networking with stakeholders for growth & development.	2.78	0.84
Owning institutional plans.	2.78	0.83
Institute core strengths to generate funds for various purposes.	2.72	0.92

It was observed that the value of Cronbach alpha is 0.95 so the reliability of responses is very high. The impeding factor mean, and the standard deviation is shown in table 4.

Table 4: Item statistics for facilitating factors

Items	Mean	SD
Bureaucratic set up at central & state government level for approving the research projects.	2.64	0.95
Political and administrative interference in the functioning of the institute.	2.52	1.08
Inadequate decentralization of power at the institute level.	2.54	0.95
Noncooperative & collaborative attitude of faculty, staff, students for change & development.	2.50	1.00
Inadequate faculty and staff members to implement institutional plans.	2.58	0.98
Contract/temporary faculty members and staff for managing innovations.	2.51	1.06
Governing body does not function professionally.	2.49	1.09
Inadequate appointment of members of high-level policy-making bodies to avoid interference.	2.52	1.03
Institute does not have the freedom to collect and operate endowments.	2.52	1.02

5.1.2 Discussion: Interpretation of Cronbach’s alpha:

Cronbach’s alpha requires only a single test administration to provide a unique estimate of the reliability. It is mathematically calculated as follows (Surya Kumar Namdeo et al. and Wan Nor Arifin et al. 2018):

Where k is the number of items, s²_i is the variance of the i^th item, and s²_i is the variance of the total score formed by summing all items. Alpha values calculated statistically by excel software, values are showing in table 5:

Table 5: Reliability statistics

Factors	Facilitating	Impeding
Cronbach's alpha	0.95	0.95
No. of items	10	9

The range of Cronbach’s alpha normally is between 0 and 1. The closer Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to 1.0 the greater the internal consistency of the items in the scale. George and Mallery had provided the rules of thumb i. e. if the value of alpha is >0.9 = Excellent, >0.8 =Good, >0.7 = Acceptable, >0.6 = Questionable, >0.5 =Poor, and <0.5 = Unacceptable. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha value 0.95, which indicates excellent reliability among factors.

6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

A brief discussion of the results for the present study is written below.

6.1 Facilitating factors for the sustenance of autonomy:

Facilitating factors are responsible for the effective and efficient use of autonomy and sustain it for the future. Ten facilitating factors were validated by respondents with an intensity ranging from 66 to 72 percent. These factors must be used by institutions for obtaining and sustaining autonomy. The facilitating factors are stated in figure 2 and briefly discussed.

Competent faculty and staff members:

It is found that competent faculty and staff members have 72% influence on sustaining the autonomy. Faculty and staff members play a major role in achieving the institutional goals and assuring quality at a pre-defined level which is a precondition for obtaining and sustaining autonomy at the institute level. At the institute level, it is ensured through training and other modes to make the faculty members and staff members competent and willing to accept the challenges and implement the innovations. (Vishal Khasgiwala et al. 2018 and V. Subramanian et al. 2017)

An environment of trust and confidence:

It is found that an environment of trust and confidence has 71% influence on sustaining the autonomy of the institute. Surendar K. Rawat et al. (2013) and Nishu Ayedee et al. (2020) discussed the current development in an environment of trust and confidence in technical education in India. IIT’s, NIT’s, autonomous universities, and private institutions adopted a unique and innovative industry-linked engineering education and training system which follows strategic plans, policies, confidence, trust, and programmes for implementation as per the eleventh five-year plan for higher and technical education and AICTE guidelines to meet future technological global challenges were outlined.

Defined accountability for quality education:

It is found that defined accountability for quality education has 71% influence on sustaining the autonomy of the institute. Autonomy and accountability are two sides of the same coin. Too much accountability will lead to a fearful environment in case of failure in experimentation for innovation. Too little accountability may result in the misuse of decision-making authority. Therefore, the defined accountability for quality education and research will result in the accomplishment of institutional goals. In the 1980s, the education system initiated changes in quality of academic, and appealed for ‘accountability’. And nowadays, educational accountability is the important parameter of any learning system in India (Debbie Epstein et al. and Debodip Chowdhury).

Favourable legislation and regulation at the central and state government level:

It is found that favourable legislation and regulations at the central and state government level have 70% influence on sustaining autonomy. Legislation and regulation are employed for controlling the work of an institution by an order issued by a governing body and it is a practice in the academic institution for good reasons. According to Vijay Vir Singh, OECD report, at the central government level, the progress is quite good but at the state government level needs more support.

Professional leadership:

It is found that professional leadership has 70% influence on the sustenance of autonomy of institutes. Self-government cannot be practiced without changing traditional fragmentary models of academic organization. This requires strong professional leadership at all levels of the institution. In the changing scenario of higher education visionary leadership, transformational leadership, and transactional leadership will create a competitive edge for institutions. It will help them to become the center of excellence (Sijbolt Noorda 2013 & B. L. Gupta et al. 2013 and Priyanka Ostwal et al. 2017).

Owning institutional plans:

It is found that owning institutional plans has 70% influence on the sustenance of autonomy of institutes. The educational institutions are preparing strategic, perspective, and annual plans for the near and farther future. These pans are prepared involving stakeholders so that they own the plans and mobilize their resources for effective implementation of plans. Amlendu Dubey et al. (2019) evaluated the significant impact of plans and projects on quality of the technical education in India stated that the design, strategy, and implementation of institutional plans have crucial lessons for developing countries that want to make their technical education sector for rapid economic growth.

Favourable collaboration and networking with stakeholders for growth and development:

It is found that favourable collaboration and networking with stakeholders for growth and development has 69% influence on the sustenance of autonomy of institutes. In a system characterized, by a high degree of distributed autonomy of educational institutions and the participation of multiple actors, and consequently a government highly dependent on the collaboration with stakeholders (Andrea Frankowski et al. 2018).

Institute core strengths to generate funds for various purposes:

It is found that the institute's core strengths to generate funds for various purposes have 68% influence on the sustenance of autonomy of institutes. The generated funds are used for doing experimentation, conducting research studies, training faculty and staff members, creating the latest infrastructure, and supporting students learning projects and researches. A greater provision of funds and an increase of university autonomy are priorities of today’s university policy. The issues in financial autonomy involve fee structure, grants, scholarships, salary, and accountability as funds (Francisco Michavila et al. 2018).

Implementation of International policies related to governance and management of the institution:

It is found that implementation of international policies related to governance and management of the institution has 67% influence on the sustenance of autonomy of institutes. It is necessary to change curricular policies for the achievement of quality education as per the international norms to identify barriers to higher education and the final product. (Rakesh Sandhu, 2015) developed an international dimension between academic staff, management, and students, and concluded that if institutions do not work for funding then they cannot exist.

Adequate funding from public and private sources to support the projects:

It is found that adequate funding from public and private sources to support the projects has 66% influence on the sustenance of autonomy of institutes. In India, the main types of funding for academic institutions are public, private, and project. T.S. Ramakrishnan describes the PPP model (i.e. public-partnership model), because Govt. of India adopt this model, to overcome the insufficiency of funds.

6.2 Impeding factors:

Impending factors prevent the institute from obtaining and sustaining the autonomy at institute level. Nine impeding factors are validated by respondents for the sustenance of autonomy having negative influence from 63 to 66%. in the institute. The higher education institutes should design strategies to minimize the influence of these factors. The strategies may incorporate facilitating factors for the sustenance of autonomy. (Figure-3).

According to literature, observations from a large body of stakeholders of higher education (Ved Prakash 2005), reflective practice as a tool for student-teachers to explore themselves and thereby leading to their professional development (Priya Mathew et al. 2017), aspects of the agency, such as the issue of power and control, democracy in the classroom, and the relationship between structure and process (Leo van Lier 2007), action-based teaching and learning’ approach applied at the center of the learning process and the right balance of various factor on autonomy and accountability in tertiary education institutions (Reehana Raza 2009) can be used for overcoming the abatement and sustenance of autonomy.

6.3 Facilitating and impeding factors for the sustenance of autonomy in terms of teachers and students:

Apart from all the above-mentioned factors at the institute level, factors at the faculty and student level are responsible for the sustenance of autonomy. Table 6 shows factors for teachers and table 7 shows factors for students. (Lani M. Van Dusen et al. 1992, Mohammed Amin Almaiah et al. 2020, Sini V Pillai et al. 2020, B. Janakiraman, 2018 and Shyamasundar Tripathy et al. 2020,). It is necessary to adopt all below mentioned points for the improvement of autonomy skills in the academic section.

Figure 3: Impeding factors for the sustenance of autonomy

Table 6: Facilitating and impeding factors for the sustenance of autonomy at the teacher level

S. No.	Facilitating	Impending
1.	Training and mentorship approach.	Highly traditional teaching-learning methods
2.	Recognition for new teaching-learning method.	Lack of industrial experience
3.	Opportunity for realizing one’s potential through practical experience.	Too much stress for experimentation and innovation
4.	Expansion of methods within originating discipline.	Weak time management
5.	Inception, adaptation, and adoption.	Lack of adaptability
6.	Ignoring the failure of developing some new concept.	Low level of confidence in newer situations
7.	Study skills and abilities of the teachers.	Lack of working in teams
8.	Self-regulating, coordinator cognition and motivation in learning.	Lack of proactiveness
9.	Positive motivational process in learning.	Too much lethargy

Table 7: Facilitating and impeding factors for the sustenance of autonomy at the student level

S. No.	Facilitating	Impending
1.	Positive support from mentors	Low entry behaviour of the students
2.	Motivational climate for learning (Appreciation, motivation, encouragement rewards, and incentives)	Problem of adaptability
3.	Prompt availability of institutional services	Weak in science, mathematics, and technology
4.	Learning attitude	Weak in communication
5.	Availability of information communication technology facility	Lack of familiarity with technology
6.	Availability of mentoring, coaching guidance, and counseling services	Other priorities of the students
7.	Favourable interpersonal relations	Financially weak
8.	The environment of openness and trust	Fear of failure

7. CONCLUSIONS:

Autonomy is a boon for educational institutes for achieving quality and excellence in higher education. Higher education institutions are service enterprises and developing future generations of leaders, technocrats, professionals, consultants, entrepreneurs, social activities, and change agents. These institutions require freedom, flexibility, and strategic direction. Achieving autonomous status is easier than sustaining it for a longer run. There are facilitating factors contributing to sustaining the autonomy. The magnitude of these factors should be increased by implementing well-designed strategies. Similarly, the institute should design strategies to minimize the effect of restraining factors.

8. SUGGESTIONS:

The facilitating and impeding factors for the sustenance of autonomy must be identified at the government level, regulatory body level, and institute level. The institutes must measure their intensity of influence and design strategies to use the facilitating forces and minimize the restraining factors for the sustenance of autonomy. Teachers and students must contribute to strengthen the facilitating forces and minimize the influence of restraining factors.

9. ACKNOLEDGEMENT:

We would like to thank the Board of Governors and Director, National Institute of Technical Teachers’ Training and Research, Bhopal for sponsoring the research study.

10. CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

There is no conflict of interest.

11. REFERENCES:

1. Kiran D. Devade, Sunil B. Ingole, Mahesh G. Bhong, Ramesh V. Kulkarni, (2013). “Structure of Autonomy in Technical Education: Proposition”, 43^rd ISTE National Convention, pp. 1-7, 2013.

2. Amlendu Dubey, Amit Mehndiratta, Mahim Sagar, Smita Kashiramka, (2019). "Reforms in the technical education sector: evidence from World Bank-assisted Technical Education Quality Improvement Programme in India", Higher Education, Vol. 78, Issue 2, pp. 301–304, 2019.

3. Surendar K Rawat, Shruti Karkare, (2013) “Development of Technical Education in India”, 43rd ISTE National Convention, pp. 1-24, 2013.

4. Ved Prakash, (2005). "Report of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) Committee on Autonomy of Higher Education Institutions", MHRD, pp. 1-136, 2005.

5. Priya Mathew, Prasanth Mathew, Prince, J. Peechattu, (2017). “Reflective Practices: A Means to Teacher Development”, Asia Pacific Institute of Advanced Research, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp. 126 – 131, 2017.

6. Reehana Raza, (2009). “Examining Autonomy and Accountability in Public and Private Tertiary Institutions”, Human Development Network, The World Bank, pp. 1-36, 2009.

7. Leo van Lier, (2007). “Action-based Teaching, Autonomy and Identity”, Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp. 46-65, 2007.

8. NEP (2020) National education policy – 2020, Ministry of education, Government of India.

9. NAAC (2012) Manual for autonomous colleges - 2012’, National Assessment and Accreditation Boaerd Bengaluru.

10. NBA (2019). General Manual, National Board of Accreditation, New Delhi.

11. Vijay Vir Singh, (2019). “Regulatory management and reform in India: Background paper for OECD”, CUTS International, 2019.

12. T.S. Ramakrishnan, (2014). “Financing infrastructure projects through public-private partnerships in India”, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, pp. 118–126, 2014.

13. Debbie Epstein, (1993). “Defining accountability in education”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 19, Issue No. 3, pp. 243 – 257, 1993.

14. Rakesh Sandhu, (2015). “Autonomy and Accountability in Higher Education”, International Journal of Research in IT, Management and Engineering, vol. 5, Issue 1, pp. 15-22, 2015.

15. Sijbolt Noorda, (2013). “Academic Autonomy as a Lifelong Learning Process for Universities”, Handbook, Leadership, and Governance in Higher Education, Vol. 4, 2013.

16. B. L. Gupta, Meenakshi Gupta, (2013). “Academic Excellence in Technical Institutions”, Issues and Ideas in Education, Vol. 1, pp. 23-42, 2013.

17. Francisco Michavila, Jorge M. Martinez, (2018). “Excellence of Universities versus Autonomy, Funding and Accountability”, European Review, vol. 26, Issue S1, pp. 48–56, 2018.

18. Andrea Frankowski, Martijn van der Steen, Daphne Bressers, Martin Schulz, Claire Shewbridge, Marc Fuster, Rien Rouw, (2018). “Dilemmas of central governance and distributed autonomy in education”, OECD Education Working Papers No. 189, 2018.

19. Surya Kumar Namdeo, Sushil Dev Rout, (2016). “Calculating and interpreting Cronbach’s alpha using Rosenberg assessment scale on pediatrician’s attitude and perception on self-esteem”, International Journal of Community Medicine and Public Health, Vol. 3, Issue 6, pp. 1371-1374, 2016.

20. Wan Nor Arifin, (2018). “Calculating the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for measurement scales with “not applicable” option”, Unit of Biostatistics and Research Methodology, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, pp. 1-8, 2018.

21. Lani M. Van Dusen, Blaine R. Worthen, (1992). “Factors that Facilitate or Impede Implementation of Integrated Learning Systems”, Educational Technology, Vol. 32, Issue 9, pp. 16-21, 1992.

22. Mohammed Amin Almaiah, Ahmad Al-Khasawneh, Ahmad Althunibat, (2020). “Exploring the critical challenges and factors influencing the E-learning system usage during COVID-19 pandemic”, Educ Inf Technol, Vol. 22, pp. 1–20, 2020.

23. Richard Kodi, K.M. Sharath Kumar, (2020). “Assessment of key determinants in academic quality and their inter-dependencies between private and public HEIs in Ghana”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 11, Issue 4, pp. 457-467, 2020.

24. Nishu Ayedee, Anuj Kumar, (2020). “Indian Education System and growing number of online Conferences: Scenario under COVID-19”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol 11, Issue 4, pp. 395-401, 2020.

25. Shyamasundar Tripathy, Sanjay Kumar Satapathy, (2020). “Efficacy of Mentoring on Post Graduate Management Student Performance: A Study”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 254-258, 2020.

26. Sini V Pillai, Linda Susan Mathew, Abilash Daniel, Abhilash VS., (2020). “Technology enabled online learning in a Digital age”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 266-274, 2020.

27. Swapan Banerjee, Bhaswati Samaddar, (2020). “Importance of International Accreditation for Institutions and the Role of Private Certification Bodies. Asian Journal of Management” Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 279-284, 2020.

28. Debodip Chowdhury. (2019). “Role of E-Learning on Education: A Review of Literature”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 10, Issue 3, pp. 273-278, 2019.

29. B. Janakiraman, (2018). “Life Skill Education for post Graduate Management Students: Relevance and Importance”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 9, Issue 2, pp. 1005-1014, 2018.

30. Vishal Khasgiwala, Swati Oza, (2018). “Influence of Faculty Communication on Students’ Learning”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp. 246-250, 2018.

31. V. Subramanian, A. Ananda Kumar (2018). “Skill Enhancement Influenced by Effective Training”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol. 8, Issue 3, pp. 834-840, 2017.

32. Priyanka Ostwal, (2017). “Major Challenges of Ethical Leadership”, Asian Journal of Management, Vol, 8, Issue 2, pp. 181-186, 2017.

Received on 10.02.2021 Modified on 03.04.2021

Asian Journal of Management. 2021; 12(3):258-264.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2021.00039