Values, Competences and Sustainability in Public Security and IT Higher Education

Abstract

Values find their full completion only in the competent behaviour of university members. The values of a university are directly linked with the competences of university teachers and, together with the principles of sustainability, are the crucial pillars of a ‘sustainability triangle’ of higher education institutions that is introduced and modelled in this paper, which examines these phenomena and the potential ties existing between them. We experimentally define the 10 principles of sustainability in higher education based on the personal academic experience of the authors as well the most frequently cited opinions in the literature. The paper subsequently presents the results of a sociological survey performed in two European countries and compares the results of Czech university students in the public security sector (n = 396) with those of Slovak university students in the IT sector (n = 246). An almost perfect correlation between student opinions from both sectors was confirmed with the use of Pearson’s product moments and an unpaired two-sample Student’s t-test. The results help to affirm all the postulated principles of sustainability and to approve the accuracy of the model presented, i.e., a Triangle of/for Sustainable Higher Education Institutions. The results obtained as well as our arguments simultaneously call on the governing bodies of ministries and universities to focus efforts on the harmonisation of personal and institutional values, opinions, principles, aspirations, and various motivations of all members of the university, i.e., students, teachers, and advisers.

1. Introduction

Higher education institutions (HEIs), i.e., universities, are generators of future progress. Universities represent the basis of and opportunity for free research, the spread of ideas, knowledge [1] (p. 466), wisdom, the joy of discovering new innovations, new concepts and viewpoints, etc. For each university, the academic staff is the most important pillar and creator of these progressive attractions.

The efforts of teachers, researchers, managers, and administrative employees to expend as much work energy as possible by continually engaging and using their wide repertoire of abilities, skills, experience, competences, and talents can keep the university in a state of balanced success and efficiency. Academic staff and managers, along with other stakeholders and especially students, have the competence and capacity to creatively move the HEI to a permanently advanced level. These actors can become a guarantee for sustainability [2,3,4,5].

The values of a university represent its unique platform and mode of operation, and at the same time, they are both a distinct inspirational and limitative factor of the entire effort of modern higher education [6,7,8,9,10]. Values are the first phenomena researched in the paper. These are abstract ideals that organise systems of action as standards for consistent behaviour [11]. They have been at the heart of universities since their formation and remain an essential tool in dealing with challenges, offering universities guidance for their conduct and decision making [12].

Many studies focus on the values of higher education staff (i.e., [13,14,15]). A lot of these research the values of higher education students (i.e., [16,17,18,19]). However, this paper investigates the values inherent in the perspective of the university or institution and links them to other two elements: competences and sustainability.

In this view, the second phenomenon to be examined is the competences of higher education staff. Many scientific works investigate this topic from various points of view (e.g., [20,21,22,23,24], etc.). According to Adamonienė and Petrauskienė [25], the modern HEI needs leaders and teachers who are able to creatively and innovatively identify and tackle the problems arising in an institution, and who possess the competences of leadership, management of changes, strategic thinking, and so on (p. 6). The HEI needs lecturers and leaders with deep-rooted and continually self-reflective values that are logically transformed by and applied to their high-level competences. For example, a teacher must have a high spirit of achievement that can be seen in the learning activities they provide [26].

The third phenomena included in this work is sustainability. The literature has disputed this topic over the last 30 years. For example, Dresner [27] and Princen [28] researched the principles of/for sustainability, and Pintér et al. [29] researched the principles for sustainability assessment and measurement. Veronese and Kensler [5] and Brooks and Heffernan [30] focused on the tasks and practices of green school leaders. Griswold et al. [2] developed the participant motivation model for future sustainability in higher education, and Patlins [3] directly linked sustainability with student motivation, etc.

In our perspective, sustainability is linked with and is simultaneously the result of a unique mixture of values and competences that are mutually dependent and grow together over the time. For this growth, the quality of values and competences is fundamental, and the principles of sustainability that are performed at the higher education institution accentuate those values.

Therefore, the scientific intent of this paper is to create, discuss, and verify the relevance of a proposed triangular model of a sustainable HEI (Figure 1) that combines the abovementioned elements, i.e., (a) values, (b) competences, and (c) sustainability. At the beginning of the third decade of the 21st century, these factors are currently gaining in importance in most higher education systems or institutions.

Although the literature offers a considerable amount of scientific works that deal with the three phenomena separately, a combined study of all three elements in one model is still absent. Based on this gap, the aim of this paper is to examine the aforementioned areas of higher education, first individually and then in their mutual ties and connections. The theoretical aim/contribution of this paper is to fill the existing gap in the literature and to disclose and confirm intersystemic links between the researched phenomena. For this issue, the research question is defined: are there links between the investigated ideas? Our empirical aim/contribution is to present and discuss the results of a sociological survey performed in two European countries, the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic, and to compare the results of HE students in the public security sector with HE students in the IT sector. The following research question is thus defined: are there similarities between the groups of respondents involved? Our scientific aim/contribution is to identify the basic principles proposed for implementation in (a) valuable, (b) competent, and (c) sustainable higher education. The research question follows: is there a statistical dependency between the proposed principles of sustainability that will confirm the consistency of this set of principles?

In order to fulfil the stated goals/contributions, the paper consists of several sections. (1) The Introduction explains the current state of the researched area, justifies the importance of the paper, and points out its potential benefits. (2) The Theoretical Background presents the most important opinions of renowned authors on the topic of sustainability in higher education and experimentally defines the 10 key principles of sustainability that should be embedded in the mechanisms of every university. (3) The Materials and Methods present the used methodology, establish two scientific hypotheses, show partial results of the conducted survey, and subsequently verify the validity of the hypotheses. (4) The Discussion emphasises the most significant findings of the conducted survey and discusses them in relation to other world studies. (5) The Conclusion summarises the results of the paper, defines brief recommendations for the management of ministries and universities, and points out the basic limits of the study and possibilities/lines for further research.

2. Theoretical Background: Sustainability in Higher Education and Its Principles

The concept of sustainability is becoming an integral part of modern governments and universities [31]. It is because a sustainable governance influences the fulfilment of multidimensional sustainable development [32]. Decision makers need to be constantly mindful of the relations among the three pillars of sustainability (environment, economy, and society) and ensure responsible human behaviour and actions [33].

Although there are terminological differences between the terms of sustainability and/versus sustainable development (e.g., [34,35]), together, they refer to the development of social communities equitable for both present and future generations [36]. It is worth mentioning that in the view of sustainable development, the three-pillar concept of sustainability is enriched by the “fourth dimension, i.e., time, as well as their interrelations” [35] (p. 5).

The latest studies relate sustainability to various organisational themes. For example, Frostenson, Helin, and Arbin [37] consider the identity of organisational sustainability and discuss the topic of constructing oneself as sustainable. Stricker [38] comes with a new notion of sustainability as a transformation while the achieving a clear goal connects oneself with many surprises and significant transformations. Rabello et al. [39] enter the environment of science and technology organisations by dealing with a corporate responsible innovation, while Klingenberg and Rothberg [40] explains why knowledge management for sustainability needs a sustainability mindset, etc.

These new connections and renewed versions or applications of sustainability are an important challenge especially for higher education institutions. HEIs are too complicated internally, with a huge number of different networks and connections with a huge number of different entities, both private and public. Therefore, they need to be precisely managed and developed in such a way that they do not absorb themselves in the struggle for new students or new scientific discoveries, but create functional entities that will be able to unwaveringly provide new ideas and original solutions in the future. That is why sustainability is a challenging but necessary topic that must be responsibly implanted in HEIs.

In the view of the paper, sustainability represents the unique cumulative ability of an HEI and its members to systematically build and permanently improve all managerial, developmental, cultivation, generation-responsible, and especially, creative and renewing mechanisms, documents, tools, and potentials (as illustrated in the centre of Figure 1). A sustainable university is like a ‘scientific-societal perpetual mobile’ that is permanently aimed towards achieving progressive excellence in developing, disclosing, and disseminating the new, innovative, creative, and simultaneously true and useful knowledge and inspirations which are full of potential, to break all the barriers and move humans to the responsible future [41]. For this, the HEI has to disclose, understand, and harmonise all ‘living’ powers and their ‘anchors’. In other words, it has to grasp sensitively and without any compromise all the values and moods existing in the university because just the values (both personal and institutional) decide on all present and future endeavours. “The value generated is a collaborative learning and teaching process through the participation of diverse actors in education or teaching the relevant competences in order to achieve the training objective, based on the ‘value network’” [42] (p. 271).

Not only the sustainability of the concrete university is thought of in the paper but of the whole society, especially when the higher education institution cultivates and develops students, employees, and managers of the public security sector and/versus students, employees, and managers of the IT sector.

Because the values find their full and active completion only in the real and competent behaviour of university members, values link themselves directly with the competences. This opens and simultaneously closes a ‘sustainability triangle’ of higher education institutions. In the triangle, the principles of sustainability play critical role.

Indeed, “the sustainability is a ‘global imperative’” [43]. The following text will experimentally introduce the 10 principles of sustainability that are most often cited in the literature or that are deductive–logical and result from the previous scientific studies of the authors of this paper:

• The principle of system improvement is probably the oldest and most respected principle in history. It relates to such terms as environmental ethics [44], sustainable cities [45], and complex/system interdependence [46].
• The principle of efficiency (3E: economical, efficient, and effective action) ranks among cumulative principles. It touches, for example, the topic of crowdsourcing [47], the shared economy [48,49], the circular economy [50], etc.
• The principle of generational responsibility mirrors the current responsibility for/towards next generations. Such topics are permanently discussed here as sustainable development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the needs of future generations [51,52], balance within the human civilisation [53], or sustainable population [54].
• The principle of the lowest environmental burden and need for nature’s regeneration presumes the need for permanent respect and decrease in all of environmental waste, accidents, as well as of all planned activities and businesses. It is required to implement the term ‘environmental governance’ to include the various institutions and structures of authority engaged in the protection of the natural environment [55] and build vegetated envelope components, e.g., roofs and facades [53], kinetic green façades [56], etc.
• The principle of need for biorefineries and zero error in processes accentuates “using fewer non-renewable resources, reducing CO₂ emissions, creating new employment, and spurring innovation using clean and efficient technologies” [57], the sustainable production of renewable materials [58], and zero defects, i.e., striving for increased quality by reducing errors [59], etc.
• The principle of justifiable benefit for justifiable risk considers preferring only those opportunities, profits and benefits that are based on manageable risks and realising all the potential consequences. Therefore, risk assessment [51] is important as well as the evaluation of profitability of the sustainable business [60], focus on the common good [61], building sustainable funding [62,63], etc.
• The principle of social responsibility (to employees, students, society, and the world) means the ‘governance for sustainability’ [55] and/or supportive policies of a government [57] having to be subsequently concreted and applied through sustainable leadership [64] and socially responsible rules.
• The principle of activating creativity and wisdom focuses on supporting and reviving all the intellectual abilities disposed by humans. For example, responsible use of knowledge [46], cooperative platforms [65], sustainable and joyful teaching [66], realising and developing own wisdom and talents, sharing own contacts, experiences, findings and disclosures, etc.
• The principle of permanent progress and continuing cultivation tries to call up the urgency for system processes and mechanisms of/for the betterment and improvement in all actions. It can be related, for example, to technological advancement [67], sustainable digitalisation [61], or even sustaining sustainable development [68].
• The principle of synergetic and/or multiplicative action calls for connecting human efforts to achieve shared decision making [69,70] and synergies [71]. It consequently enables and needs to perform activities via multilayer efforts that multiply common inputs, transformations, and outputs [72], while it can even lead to building sustainable synergies and multiplications or building the system’s synergetic and multiplied sustainability.

Based on the aforementioned ideas and opinions, the authors have formulated the hypotheses of this study in the following way:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

There are statistically relevant relations among all of the three searched phenomena (values, competences, and principles of sustainability).

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

There are no statistically relevant differences between the phenomena researched in the participating HEIs in the fields of public security versus IT.

3. Materials and Methods

When all members of the university, i.e., teachers, scientists, managers, students, etc., dispute on and improve their own academic work and results based on the appropriate and sustainable values, this can “open up new spaces for value conversations and potentially transform the way in which they practice” [73]. With this idea in mind, the purpose of an international survey was to obtain opinions on the values that are the most important for the great/ideal university and penetrate the competences of the great/ideal university’s teachers and challenge implanting new mechanisms and principles into the university structures. Via an online questionnaire, the survey was conducted in two European countries: the Czech Republic and the Slovak Republic. Based on respondents’ opinions, it was possible to create the structure of values that are viewed as critical and inevitable for the university which can continue its perfect function in the future, i.e., which can be respected as an ideal, sustainable, and competent university.

The aim of the survey was to investigate student opinions on (a) values viewed by them as the most important for an ‘ideal’ or ‘great’ university, (b) the most important competences of a higher education lecturer, (c) the principles of sustainability needed for an ideal/great university.

The survey was performed on a sample of n = 396 students of the Police Academy of the Czech Republic in Prague and n = 246 students of the University of Žilina in the Slovak Republic.

The group of Czech respondents consisted of 194 (48.99%) females and 202 (51.01%) males. In total, 248 (62.63%) of the respondents attended the bachelor’s study programme and 148 (37.37%) the master’s study programme. The group of Slovak respondents consisted of 54 (21.95%) females and 192 (78.05%) males, where 230 (93.50%) were bachelor’s students and 16 (6.50%) master’s students.

The students of the Police Academy of the Czech Republic focus their studies on the field of public security, preventing and detecting criminal activity, establishing a safe society, and protecting the lives of residents and critical infrastructure [74]. In this regard, it could be expected that compared to the respondents from the Slovak university, which is primarily focused on education for the IT sector, the values, competences, and principles of sustainability will be assessed diametrically differently. However, hypothesis H2 of the paper stipulates that these differences will be minimal—according to the authors, the value orientation of people matters rather than the sector in which they study or work.

3.1. Values of a Great University

Each society has its own set of values and all individuals should adopt those values [75] (p. 23). With the use of six broad values: family, friends, leisure, work, politics, and religion, defined by Matei and Abrudan [76], Koshy et al. [6] examined trends in assessment of their importance. They found that over the multiyear collection horizon for the World Values Survey, changes in the respondents’ views on values at the national level occurred more quickly in countries undergoing major sustained changes, principally economic ones. In this view, individuals accept particular values as part of their everyday practices and internalise them as virtues [14] (p. 6). Therefore, “educating in values arises as a permanent requirement, caused by the culture of modernity that presents an urgent need for an education geared toward the teaching of moral values” [17] (p. 1684).

The task of respondents consisted of marking the importance on a scale of 1–10 for each of the fifteen provided values of a great university. This list was built based on the results of the previous survey performed by the authors in the Slovak Republic—the task of respondents was to present freely the most important values of a great university. The list currently consists of: compliance with the rules; evaluation and classification; awareness and involvement; communication; quality of educating; modernisation; motivation; lecturers; connection with practice; approach; reputation; cooperation; students; improvement and sustainability; and relationships. After the subsequent processing of collected opinions,

Table 1. The most important values for a great university.

The Five Most Important Values of a Great University
Czech Republic (n = 396)			Slovak Republic (n = 246)
1	05 Quality of educating (expertise, education, wisdom)	22.22%	1	10 Approach (loyalty, empathy, support, decency)	17.07%
2	10 Approach (loyalty, empathy, support, decency)	16.16%	2	05 Quality of educating (expertise, education, wisdom)	14.23%
3	01 Compliance with rules (promises, respect, esteem)	13.38%	3	09 Connection with practice (experience, usefulness)	13.01%
4	09 Connection with practice (experience, usefulness)	11.87%	4	15 Relationships (fair dealing, positive relations, help)	9.76%
5	04 Communication (courtesy, tact, sincerity, listening)	8.84%	5	08 Lecturers (competence, impartiality, professionalism)	9.35%

presents the five most important values in the students’ responses, differentiated by countries.

Both in the Czech Republic and Slovakia, the four most numerous values include quality of educating, connection with practice, and approach. Together, they make up 50.25% in the Czech group and 44.71% in the Slovak group of the most important values from all answers. It is interesting that the two most numerous values are the same in both countries, namely: quality of educating and approach. In the Czech group, this is 38.38% of all answers (the first and second most numerous ones) and in Slovakia, 31.30% of all answers (the second and first most numerous ones), which makes up about a third of all answers in each of both countries.

For the Czech respondents, value 07 Motivation (of employees, students, enthusiasm, devotion, reward, appreciation, and joy) has a rate of 8.59% and 15 Relationships (fair dealing, positive relationships with teachers, and help) has a rate of 5.81%. The other eight options have a lower rate than 3% and together represent 13.14% of responses. In Slovakia, value 04 Communication (courtesy, expression of opinion, tact, sincerity, and listening) is in sixth place with a rate of 7.72%, while values 02 Evaluation and classification (legitimacy, bonus points, second chance, and adequacy of demands) and 07 Motivation achieved a rate of 6.50%. The other seven values have lower rates than 4% and represent 15.45% of all responses.

3.2. Competences of a Great University Teacher

According to Lopes et al. [77], the skills or competences of communication, collaboration, and partnership building, together with the values of integrity, honesty, efficiency, and effectiveness, are the most frequently pointed out attributes in the public sector. Understanding what students mean by the lecturer’s competence can be crucial in order to recognise indicators with which to assess these competences, improve the quality of university teaching, and support lecturers in undertaking their role appropriately [78]. In principle, the effectiveness of learning is the level of teachers’ success in facilitating their students’ growth in the psychomotor, cognitive, and affective domains to achieve optimal results, with measurement indicators in the form of (1) teacher characteristics; (2) learning preparation; (3) classroom management; (4) use of learning media; and (5) communication [26] (p. 366).

The results examining the most important competences of an ideal university teacher are contained in

Table 2. The most important competences of a great university teacher.

The Five Most Important Competences of a Great University Teacher
Czech Republic (n = 396)			Slovak Republic (n = 246)
1	01 Expertise and professionalism	28.54%	1	03 Justice and objectivity	14.23%
2	10 Decency, honesty, courtesy	16.41%	2	01 Expertise and professionalism	13.41%
3	03 Justice and objectivity	15.40%		06 Friendliness and willingness to help
4	06 Friendliness and willingness to help	8.59%	4	08 Empathy and humanity	13.01%
	08 Empathy and humanity		5	04 Skills to motivate and inspire	12.20%

and, again, they show considerable agreement in the evaluations by the respondents in both countries.

In both the Czech Republic and Slovakia, four items among the five most numerous attributes of a great teacher are the same: 01 Expertise and professionalism, 03 Justice and objectivity, 06 Friendliness and willingness to help, and 08 Empathy and humanity. Together, they make up 61.12% of all answers in the Czech group (sector of public security) and 54.06% of all answers from Slovak respondents (IT sector). Competence no. 10 Decency, honesty, courtesy (16.41%) is also among the five most numerous in the Czech Republic. Together, these five competences represent 77.53% of all answers (i.e., more than three quarters). This competence is the sixth most numerous in Slovakia with 9.76%. Together, these five competences (03, 01, 06, 08, and 10) make up 63.41% of the answers, i.e., almost two thirds of the answers. The fifth most numerous competence in Slovakia (04 Skills to motivate and inspire) is the seventh most numerous in the Czech Republic with 6.57%.

In the Czech group, the three most numerous competences (01, 10, and 03) account for up to 60.35% of all responses, and the fourth and fifth most numerous competences each account for 8.59%. Others have less than 7.10%. Slovak respondents balanced the most numerous competences much more: the five most numerous competences make up 66.26% of the answers, ranging from 14.23% to 12.20%. In both countries, competence 09 Charismatic personality occupies the last place (prioritised by four Czech respondents, i.e., 1.01% and five Slovak respondents, i.e., 2.03%).

3.3. Sustainability Principles of a Great University

The list of sustainability principles, included in the applied questionnaire (in Supplementary file S1), was developed based on the literature and the authors’ own experiences (as mentioned in the previous subchapter) and then adopted and simplified for the respondents. The role of the respondents consisted of attaching the importance (on a scale of 1–10) to each of the listed principles, viewed by the optics of an ideal university (10 points means the respondent considers this principle the most important).

Table 3. The five most important sustainability principles of a great university.

The Five Most Important Sustainability Principles of a Great University
Czech Republic (n = 396)			Slovak Republic (n = 246)
1	08 Principle of social responsibility	24.24%	1	08 Principle of social responsibility	21.95%
2	03 Principle of generational responsibility	16.41%	2	01 Principle of activating creativity and wisdom	15.04%
3	01 Principle of activating creativity and wisdom	15.40%	3	03 Principle of generational responsibility	11.79%
4	02 Principle of efficiency (3E)	13.89%	4	02 Principle of efficiency (3E)	11.38%
5	07 Principle of progress and cultivation	11.36%		07 Principle of progress and cultivation

shows the five most important principles in the Czech (public security) and Slovak (IT) surveys.

The order of importance of the sustainability principles for an ideal/great university from the viewpoint of students in both countries is practically identical. The most important principle in both groups is 08 Principle of social responsibility, with almost 25% of all of the important principles among the Czech respondents and almost 22% among the Slovak ones. The difference in rating between this most important principle and the second in order is quite significant (7.83% in the Czech Republic and 6.91% in Slovakia). The second and third places are occupied by 03 Principle of generational responsibility and 01 Principle of activating creativity and wisdom, while the order is reversed (03 followed by 01 in the Czech Republic and 01 followed by 03 in Slovakia, respectively). The fourth and fifth places are in the same order again. Together, these five principles make up 81.30% of all of the most important principles among Czech respondents and 71.54% of among the Slovak ones.

Even the order of the remaining five most important principles, i.e., places six to ten, is identical in both samples: 10 Principle of environmental improvement, 05 Principle of zero error in proceedings and processes, 09 Principle of synergetic and multiplicative action, 04 Principle of the lowest environmental burden, and 06 Principle of justifiable benefit for justifiable risk. In the Czech Republic, these less important values received less than 5.56%; in Slovakia the difference between the fifth and sixth (8.94%) and the seventh (7.72%) most frequent principles of sustainability, respectively, is not so prominent.

3.4. Testing the Hypotheses

As in some other cases, the combined views of competences, values, and sustainability can be found in the area of education for sustainable development. “The competence models can be understood as an ‘inventory’ of desirable competences of teachers that will contribute to their improvement in the field of sustainable development, both in terms of knowledge and in practical action and cooperation, as well as when it comes to their personal characteristics, such as their values and emotions” [79] (p. 71). Although this view seems to provide some logical similarity, it does not apply comprehensively and directly to a sustainable university in the sense of the triangle constructed in the paper. The hypotheses of the paper are constructed differently and their testing will be treated in the following text.

The strength of statistical dependence between individual samples x and y was measured by using Pearson’s correlation coefficient $r=\frac{\overline{x}\overline{y}-\overline{x}\cdot \overline{y}}{{\mathrm{s}}_{\mathrm{x}}\cdot {\mathrm{s}}_{\mathrm{y}}}$ (Pearson’s product–moment correlation), which is a measure of the linear dependence of two variables. The numerator of the formula represents the covariance, which expresses how the values of individual variables change at the same time. The denominator contains the standard deviations of individual samples. A positive value means they change together in one direction, a negative value means they change in the opposite direction, and zero means they change independently. The value of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient r lies in the closed interval $\langle -1;1\rangle$, where $\pm 1$ means perfect dependence ($-1$ negative and $+1$ positive), and 0 means independence of x and y. If a positive coefficient $r>0$ is considered, then for $r \in \left(0; 0.1\right)$, the correlation is trivial. For $r \in \langle 0.1; 0.3)$, the correlation is small, for $r \in \langle 0.3; 0.5)$, the correlation is medium, and for $r \in \langle 0.5; 1.0)$, the correlation is high, whereas for $r \in \langle 0.7; 0.9)$, the correlation is considered very high, and for $r \in \langle 0.9; 1.0)$, the correlation is considered almost perfect. For $r<0$ negative, the situation is analogous.

3.4.1. Testing Hypothesis H1

When testing hypothesis H1, the correlations between the three most numerous values from individual groups (values of a great university—V, competences of a great university teacher—C, and sustainability principles of a great university—P) were gradually tested.

The values are gradual in the Czech group as follows: Quality of educating (V05), approach (V10), and compliance with the rules (V01), (values of a great university); expertise and professionalism (C01), decency, honesty, courtesy (C10), and justice and objectivity (C03), (competences of a great university teacher); principle of social responsibility (P08), principle of generational responsibility (P03), and principle of activating creativity and wisdom (P01), (sustainability principles of a great university). Pearson’s product–moment correlation values are summarised in

Table 4. Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient for values, competences, and principles in the Czech group.

	Values of a Great University			Competences of a Great University Teacher			Sustainability Principles of a Great University
	V05	V10	V01	C01	C10	C03	P08	P03	P01
V05	1.00	0.23	0.35	0.30	0.15	0.18	0.29	0.15	0.09
V10		1.00	0.28	0.10	0.30	0.34	0.32	0.26	0.21
V01			1.00	0.17	0.28	0.44	0.26	0.06	0.08
C01				1.00	0.23	0.21	0.17	0.18	0.20
C10					1.00	0.41	0.44	0.27	0.26
C03						1.00	0.35	0.19	0.20
P08							1.00	0.43	0.31
P03								1.00	0.48
P01									1.00

.

From Table 4 with the values of respondents from the Police Academy, it is clear that in eleven cases, the correlation was moderate (cells shaded in grey), in three cases there was a trivial correlation (cells in bold), and in the other cases a small correlation was present. This means that in the public security sector hypothesis H1 was confirmed in many of cases.

The values in sequence in the Slovak group are as follows: Approach (V10), quality of educating (V05), and Connection with practice (V09), (values of a great university); justice and objectivity (C03), expertise and professionalism (C01), and friendliness and willingness to help (C06), (competences of an ideal university teacher); principle of social responsibility (P08), principle of activating creativity and wisdom (P01), and principle of generational responsibility (P03), (sustainability principles of an ideal university). The results are shown in

Table 5. Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient for values, competences, and principles in the Slovak group.

	Values of a Great University			Competences of a Great University Teacher			Sustainability Principles of a Great University
	V10	V05	V09	C03	C01	C06	P08	P01	P03
V10	1.00	0.45	0.41	0.31	0.31	0.31	0.23	0.23	0.18
V05		1.00	0.45	0.13	0.36	0.22	0.42	0.23	0.23
V09			1.00	0.17	0.25	0.19	0.28	0.17	0.21
C03				1.00	0.46	0.29	0.22	0.19	0.29
C01					1.00	0.24	0.46	0.23	0.34
C06						1.00	0.26	0.23	0.29
P08							1.00	0.33	0.47
P01								1.00	0.50
P03									1.00

.

The results for respondents from the University of Žilina are similar. In one case, theoretically, the correlation is high (value 0.50). In another thirteen cases, the correlation was moderate (cells shaded in grey) or small, respectively. This means that in the IT sector, hypothesis H1 was confirmed in many of the cases, too.

3.4.2. Testing Hypothesis H2

When testing hypothesis H2, the individual samples had to be normalised first, since the numbers of respondents at the universities of interest were not the same. The abundance vectors of the most important values x (Czech university) and y (Slovak university) were first transformed using percentage abundances into vectors of the same dimensions. Individual abundances expressed in tenths of a percent were considered; therefore, they were multiplied by 10 and the samples were expanded to 1000 values. For example, if a certain value was considered the most important by 21.9% of the respondents, the given value was added to the corresponding vector 219 times.

Table 6. Normalised values of the Czech (CZ) and Slovak (SK) respondents’ opinions.

Values of a Great University					Competences of a Great University Teacher					Sustainability Principles of a Great University
	CZ		SK			CZ		SK			CZ		SK
V01	13.4%	134	4.1%	41	C01	28.5%	285	13.4%	134	P01	15.4%	154	15.0%	150
V02	3.0%	30	6.5%	65	C02	5.0%	50	8.1%	81	P02	13.9%	139	11.4%	114
V03	2.5%	25	0.8%	8	C03	15.4%	154	14.3%	143	P03	16.4%	164	11.8%	118
V04	8.8%	88	7.7%	77	C04	6.6%	66	12.2%	122	P04	3.0%	30	4.1%	41
V05	22.2%	222	14.2%	142	C05	2.8%	28	6.9%	69	P05	5.1%	51	7.7%	77
V06	1.8%	18	3.7%	37	C06	8.6%	86	13.4%	134	P06	2.0%	20	3.2%	32
V07	8.6%	86	6.5%	65	C07	7.1%	71	6.9%	69	P07	11.4%	114	11.4%	114
V08	2.3%	23	9.3%	93	C08	8.6%	86	13.0%	130	P08	24.2%	242	22.0%	220
V09	11.9%	119	13.0%	130	C09	1.0%	10	2.0%	20	P09	3.0%	30	4.5%	45
V10	16.1%	161	17.1%	171	C10	16.4%	164	9.8%	98	P10	5.6%	56	8.9%	89
V11	1.8%	18	0.4%	4
V12	0.0%	0	4.1%	41
V13	0.5%	5	2.0%	20
V14	1.3%	13	0.8%	8
V15	5.8%	58	9.8%	98
Sum	100%	1000	100%	1000	Sum	100%	1000	100%	1000	Sum	100%	1000	100%	1000
r	0.96				r	0.97				r	0.98

shows the values obtained from the respondents in percentages and recalculated normalised values for the size of 1000 respondents. Values of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient r are calculated in the bottom row.

Values of a great university are in the following sequence: V01 Compliance with the rules; V02 Evaluation and classification; V03 Awareness and involvement; V04 Communication; V05 Quality of educating; V06 Modernisation; V07 Motivation; V08 Lecturers; V09 Connection with practice; V10 Approach; V11 Reputation; V12 Cooperation; V13 Students; V14 Improvement and sustainability; and V15 Relationships.

The calculated values of competences of a great university teacher are in the order: C01 Expertise and professionalism; C02 Pedagogical skills; C03 Justice and objectivity; C04 Skills to motivate and inspire; C05 Tolerance and patience; C06 Friendliness and willingness to help; C07 Communicativeness and comprehensibility; C08 Empathy and humanity; C09 Charismatic personality; and C10 Decency, honesty, courtesy.

The calculated values of sustainability principles of a great university are as follows: P01 Principle of activating creativity and wisdom; P02 Principle of efficiency (3E); P03 Principle of generational responsibility; P04 Principle of the lowest environmental burden; P05 Principle of zero error in proceedings and processes; P06 Principle of justifiable benefit for justifiable risk; P07 Principle of permanent progress and cultivation; P08 Principle of social responsibility; P09 Principle of synergetic and multiplicative action; and P10 Principle of environmental improvement.

The values of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient were subsequently r = 0.96 for values of a great university; r = 0.97 for competences of a great university teacher; and r = 0.98 for sustainability principles of a great university. This means that there is an almost perfect correlation between the Czech students (students in the public security sector) and Slovak students (in the IT sector). These results support the statement of hypothesis H2.

For more detailed comparison, the unpaired two-sample Student’s t-test for different variances was used on the original samples of the most important values at the significance level α = 0.05. In the values of a great university group, the value p < 0.01 occurred, which means that there is a statistically significant difference between the averages of individual samples and, in terms of this test, hypothesis H2 is not confirmed. However, for the values in the competences of a great university teacher group, the value p = 0.14, and for the values in the sustainability principles of a great university group, the value p = 0.17, respectively, were obtained, which means that in these cases, hypothesis H2 was confirmed. In other words, there are no statistically relevant differences between the samples researched in the participating HEIs in the field of public security versus IT.

4. Discussion

Values consist of various positive attributes that are believed and considered by the individual as fair, right, just, or desirable [80]. In order to contribute to higher humanity and fulfilment of the meaning of man as a human being, the values that are felt and believed by people themselves are at the forefront [81]. The results presented in Table 1 correspond with these opinions. In particular, values no. 05 Quality of education (expertise, wisdom), 10 Approach (loyalty, humanity, support), and 01 Compliance with rules (honesty, respect, esteem) are in perfect accordance. In addition, the work of Tiwari [8] has to be mentioned which accentuates that the attainment of knowledge is of the highest value; it is the light, the guide in learning the ways of life which lead from falsity to truth, from ignorance to wisdom, from mortality to immortality (p. 35). This is well-linked with the most important value defined by this paper’s respondents—quality of education. When supporting the importance of value no. 15 Relationships (fair, mutual help), an idea of Lemmer [82] should be commemorated that as assessors of student work, university educators should be fair, unbiased, and thorough (p. 95).

However, not only values presented and kept inside the higher education institution are important. The study by Aledo-Ruiz and Santos-Jaén [83], performed on a sample of 211 Spanish students, provides very good inspiration for the future research of this paper’s authors, i.e., to include external–internal perspectives into the next survey: “Emotional appeal is influenced by corporate reputation, corporate image, and CSR practices” (p. 578). The values professed at the university have a direct link to both corporate image and reputation. According to Ansoglenang et al. [84], “Corporate image is most often seen as a compilation of optical fundamentals, which are used in promoting the picture of an institution, because every organisation has an identity and in this, it articulates the shared culture, values and aims, and present a sense of uniqueness that, can help to distinguish the organisation in its spirited educational environment” (p. 1). In our survey, CSR was included only in the set of sustainability principles, without deeper ties on emotionally tinged values or competences, while both image and identity were contained only indirectly—through the value no. 11 Reputation (market attractiveness, university reputation, history, success, recognition, references). Thereto, it will be useful to include these aspects in focusing and deepening future research.

All academics need to be critical of their choices of values [14] (p. 8). They must be aware of an overall and complicated quality of their professional behaviour, which might be supported or degraded, respectively, by their competences. Table 2 highlights in particular the expertise and professionalism; decency, honesty, and courtesy; justice and objectivity; friendliness and willingness to help; and last but not least, empathy and humanity. Although results of Di Battista et al. [78] are in an accordance with those ones obtained from Czech and Slovak respondents, the following competences are an exception: well-read, captivating, and meticulous, and were not rated as significant by our respondents. More specifically, the study of Di Battista et al. [78], sampling 122 Italian undergraduate psychology students, was aimed at collecting free associations on “a competent lecturer” (p. 5). Respondents were asked to write down the first five words (or short sentences) that come into their mind. All associations were subsequently transformed into 26 main categories of which the most frequent 10 competences were: available; skilled; empathetic; clear; well-read; captivating; good explanation; meticulous; motivated; and charismatic (p. 6).

With similar aspirations, Llobregat presents that once new students arrive at universities, a new model of a face-to-face masterclass has to be offered where instant, global, and digital knowledge engage their expectations and enhance their new way to look at the world among others [4]. When linking this suggestion to the current content and philosophy of our survey, also the newest topics of digitality, completed and inspired by the highest level of excellent education and science—collaborative robots in education [85], should be implanted in future improvement in the questionnaires.

From the perspective of a beneficial comparison, it is convenient to utilize also the view of the very teachers/lecturers. For example, the study of Hendarman et al. [26], performed on a sample of 107 civil servant teachers, found out that there was a significant positive relationship between the variable of organisational climate and pedagogical competence together with the learning effectiveness. In a wider context, it is possible to think not only about the consecutive development of professional competences and performance but also about the development of interpersonal competences and managerial performance of the university managers [62].

In the words of Bianchi et al. [86], “The competence area ‘Embodying sustainability values’ encourages us to reflect on and challenge our own personal values and world-views in terms of unsustainability, and sustainability values and world-views” (p. 17). Universities in Europe and around the world are crucial to global sustainable development [87] and responsible principles of sustainability [88] have to be kept in all processes of permanent improvement and future betterment. The current geopolitical situation is full of dramatic turns, for which police universities must be thoroughly and in-advance prepared. The police forces of each state must systematically change themselves and face challenges with full readiness [89], embedding the principles of sustainability in their managerial mechanisms, because one of the latest theoretical–practical problems of higher education in the area of public security is the ‘fear of crime’ [90]. In this regard, the observance of the CSR principle (as one of the key principles of sustainability) is extremely important, again both internally at the HEI and especially externally—toward the society. The observance of the principle of social responsibility (as another one of the key principles of sustainability) is also extremely important, again both internally at the HEI and externally toward the society. This fully corresponds with the results in Table 3, where the principle of social responsibility ranked first in importance in both groups of respondents (24.24% in the Czech group and 21.95% in Slovak).

The opinions and warnings mentioned above lead to a critical respect to basic principles of sustainability (P) in an HEI, combined with the appropriate university values (V) and matured competences of the lecturers (C). Table 4 and Table 5 confirm many such ties, for example: V05–C01 (quality of educating–expertise and professionalism); V01–C03 (compliance with the rules–justice and objectivity); C03–P08 (justice and objectivity –principle of social responsibility); C10–P08 (decency, honesty and courtesy–principle of social responsibility); V09–P08 (connection with practice–principle of social responsibility); and many others. Unfortunately, these results cannot be related to any others, because the list of the 10 sustainability principles mentioned was experimentally created in this research. No similar studies have been carried out in the world so far. This further underlines the importance of this paper for the development of theory and practice, not only for HEIs in the public safety or IT sector, but also inspiringly for all other university education.

5. Conclusions

All of the three searched phenomena represent unique terms, disputed partially in the literature by many scientists. However, the content of each of them is very complex, with various differences, and even inconsistency, in opinion. They have to be specifically approached in the perspective of systemic ties, potential correlations, and possible synergies.

The results obtained in the performed sociological survey made it possible to confirm the majority validity of both hypotheses. Hypothesis H1 proved relations between the university values and the lecturer competences, especially in the view of principles of sustainability, viewed in the paper as a ‘special glue and accelerator’ of progressive higher education institutions. This emphasises the needed penetration of university values and principles of sustainability into the process of building the profile of competences disposed by lecturers. Vice versa, gradual improvement in disposed competences calls up and improves the new, ‘more valuable’ values of a great and sustainable university, while principles of sustainability support and dynamize this cultivation.

In addition, positive values, formed and strengthened via positive competences and ‘personal-energy input’ of great lecturers, enable to disclose, identify, and build the positive principles of sustainability in the university and, subsequently, in the society and country. It is obvious, and simultaneously very valuable, that all of these ties are supported precisely from the point of view of social awareness and partnership, common effort, and mutual respect. The importance of common/social security is gaining importance here.

Furthering the most important scientific contributions consists of trying to deny the generally accepted assumption that different professional orientations of experts (higher education students) predetermine different values, different key competences, and different principles of sustainability in a specific implementation. The study confirmed values considered by the students to be the key ones, as well as the competences necessary for a teacher of a great university and the principles crucial for a sustainable university to be very similar. In this view, the study confirmed no striking differences and enriched the current science on higher education.

From the perspective of the last-but-not-least original contributions of the paper, the aim was to identify the basic principles proposed for the implementation in (a) valuable, (b) competent, and (c) sustainable higher education. Thereto, based on the presented empirical results and disputations, it is possible to consider the introduced model (Figure 1) to be appropriately constructed and correct in logic. These are exactly the principles of sustainability, tentatively defined in the paper for a higher education institution and appropriately tested in the conducted survey, that can be recommended as principles with considerable potential to be successful and helpful in the process of building a great and sustainable university. These include: the principle of system improvement, the principle of efficiency (3E), the principle of generational responsibility, the principle of the lowest environmental burden and need for nature’s regeneration, the principle of need for biorefineries and zero error in processes, the principle of justifiable benefit for justifiable risk, the principle of social responsibility (to employees, students, society, and the world), the principle of activating creativity and wisdom, the principle of permanent progress and continuing cultivation, and the principle of synergetic and/or multiplicative action.

Governing bodies of ministries and universities should be encouraged to focus improvement efforts on the respect and mutual harmonisation of personal and institutional values, opinions, principles, expectations, aspirations, and various motivations of all members of the university—students, teachers, and advisers.

Limitations of the Study and Future Lines of Research

From the point of view of scientific responsibility, it is appropriate to point out the main limitations of the study and outline the lines for future research. The first of the limitations consists of the fact that the study was carried out in only two European countries. Although 642 students participated in total, this is only the first stage of such research by the authors; therefore, the ambition will be to continue the research also in the environments of other European universities (for example, in Poland, Lithuania, Finland, etc.) on a significantly larger sample of respondents. In this regard, this study can be an inspiration for other scientific teams whose cooperation is most welcome.

The second limitation deals with the study focus only on two sectors of higher education. The opinions of students of relatively different professional orientations were examined: public security versus IT. Both universities included in the current study were chosen deliberately in order to confirm the assumption of the authors that despite the absolutely different study programmes, the phenomena crucial for the study are very similar in practice. For future research, it will be appropriate to expand the professional range and relate the students of the public security programme to, for example, students of medicine, economics and management, natural sciences, etc.

The third limitation lies in targeting the research and concretisation of the researched areas only on the values, competences, and principles of sustainability of the higher education institution. At present, and still more in the future, new inspirations and stimuli for deeper investigation are emerging and will continue to emerge. An example can be the bold application of collaborative robots (so-called ‘cobots’) in education and science, strengthening emotionally coloured aspects of university values and teacher competences, etc.