View
2
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Master’s thesis Strategic management, M.S.
Policy Implementation in South African Higher Education:
Governance and Quality Assurance post-1994
Anna Kristín Tumadóttir
University of Iceland Faculty of Business Administration Lead supervisor: Runólfur Smári Steinþórsson
Co-supervisor: Börkur Hansen On-site advisor: Johan Muller
May 2009
2
Abstract
Thisstudylooksatanationalpolicyofqualityassuranceinhighereducationin
SouthAfricaandaimstofindouthowinstitutionsrespondtoandaffectthe
highereducationpolicyprocess.Itsetsouttoexplorethe‘gap’betweenpolicy
formulationandimplementation.
SouthAfricanhighereducationisconsideredinthecontextofthetransformation
ithasundergonesincetheearly1990s.Areviewoftheoryfunnelsdownfrom
broadconceptsofnewpublicmanagementandgovernancetowardspolicy
processliterature,discussingimplementationinparticularandmodesof
governance.
ThediscussionsofSouthAfricancontextandthetheoreticalapproachframethe
analysisofprimarydatagatheredthroughqualitativeinterviewswith
individualsincentraladministration,andacademicdevelopmentandresearch
units,aswellasdeansoffaculties,attwohighereducationinstitutionsinSouth
Africa,inAugust2008.Respondentswereselectedonthebasisoftheirroles
withintheinstitutions.
Theresultssuggestthattheconceptofpolicytranslationcouldbeusefulfor
explainingthedynamicsoftheproverbial‘gap’betweenformulationand
implementation.Thehighereducationpolicyprocess,andtrendsingovernance,
maysupportorinhibitpolicyinitiatives.Traditionaltensionsorcontradictions
betweeninternalandexternalmechanisms,developmentandaccountability‐
orientedperspectives,andbottom‐upandtop‐downstructures,canbeusefully
understoodasparallelprocessessupportingimplementationandadoptionof
initiatives.
3
Ágrip
RannsóknþessifjallarumríkisstefnuígæðamálumíháskólakerfinuíSuður‐
Afríkuogsnýraðþvíhvernigháskólarbregðastviðoghafaáhrifástefnuferli
æðrimenntunar.Rannsókninskoðarbiliðmillistefnumótunarogframkvæmdar.
HáskólakerfiðíSuður‐Afríkuerskoðaðíljósibreytingasemhafaáttsérstaðfrá
upphafitíundaáratugarins.Fræðilegumræðahefstáskilgreiningualmennra
lykilhugtakalíktognýskipaníríkisrekstri(e.NewPublicManagement)og
stjórnarhættir(e.governance)enþrengistístefnufræðiþarsemumræðansnýst
einkumumframkvæmdstefnuogmismunandistjórnarhætti.
UmræðanumsamhengiðíSuður‐Afríkuogfræðileganálgunmyndarramma
fyrirgreininguágögnum.Íágúst2008vorueigindlegviðtöltekinvið
einstaklingaístjórnsýsluogstarfsþróunsemogforsetafræðasviðaítveimur
háskólumíSuðurAfríku.Viðmælendurvoruvaldirágrundvellihlutverkaþeirra
innanháskólanna.
Niðurstöðurgefatilkynnaaðhugtakiðstefnuþýðinggætiveriðgagnlegtíað
skýraþaðbilsemermillistefnumótunarogframkvæmdar.Stefnuferliæðri
menntunarogstraumarístjórnsýsluháttumgetastuttviðeðaaftrað
stefnumálum.Skiljamáhefðbundnatogstreitumilliinnriogytrivirkni,þróunar
ogábyrgðarognálgannaofanfráogneðanfrásemsamhliðaferlisemstyðjavið
framkvæmdástefnu.
4
Foreword
Thisthesis,PolicyImplementationinSouthAfricanHigherEducation:Governance
andQualityAssurancepost1994,issubmittedtowardsthecompletionofanM.S.
degreeinStrategicManagementattheFacultyofBusinessAdministrationatthe
UniversityofIceland.
Thethesisis60ECTS,completedduringautumn2008andspring2009.Thelead
supervisorisRunólfurSmáriSteinþórsson,co‐supervisorisBörkurHansen,and
on‐siteadvisorisJohanMuller.
InterviewsforthethesisweregatheredinCapeTownandStellenboschinSouth
AfricainAugust2008.PartofthethesiswasworkedonattheNordicAfrica
InstituteinUppsala,duringaone‐monthstudygrantinNovember2008.
AllysonMacdonaldprovidedspecialguidancethroughoutthedurationofthe
project.
5
Tableofcontents
Abstract............................................................................................................2
Ágrip .................................................................................................................3
Foreword.........................................................................................................4
Tableofcontents ..........................................................................................5
Listoftablesandfigures ......................................................................... 10
1. Introduction......................................................................................... 11
2. SouthAfricancontext........................................................................ 16
2.1. OverviewoftheSouthAfricanhighereducationsector .................... 16
2.1.1. Legislationandpolicydocuments ...................................................................16
2.1.1.1. GreenPaperonHigherEducation ..........................................................17
2.1.1.2. WhitePaperonHigherEducation. .........................................................17
2.1.1.3. HigherEducationAct101of1997..........................................................18
2.1.1.4. NationalPlanforHigherEducation2001............................................19
2.1.2. Institutionsandhighereducationbodies ....................................................19
2.1.2.1. Institutionalgovernancestructures ......................................................19
2.1.2.2. MinisterandDepartmentofEducation ................................................20
2.1.2.3. CommissiononHigherEducation...........................................................20
2.1.2.4. HigherEducationQualityCommittee....................................................20
2.1.3. Institutionsstudied................................................................................................21
2.2. Governance ....................................................................................................... 22
2.2.1. Fromcooperativegovernancetoconditionalautonomy? ....................23
2.3. QualityassuranceintheSouthAfricanhighereducationsector ... 25
2.3.1. HEQCdirectives.......................................................................................................25
2.3.2. Phasedimplementationapproach ..................................................................26
2.3.3. Definingquality...astransformation?...........................................................27
6
2.4. EarlierworkonqualityassuranceinSouthAfrica.............................. 27
2.4.1. Accountabilityandimprovementindifferentsettings ..........................28
2.4.2. Qualityassuranceanddemocracy...................................................................28
2.4.3. Humanresourcesdeficiencies ..........................................................................29
2.4.4. Acultureofquality.................................................................................................29
2.5. Summary............................................................................................................ 30
3. Theoreticalapproach ....................................................................... 31
3.1. Qualityassuranceinhighereducation.................................................... 32
3.1.1. Qualityassuranceandaccountability ............................................................34
3.2. Theoriesofthepolicyprocess.................................................................... 35
3.2.1. Keyconcepts .............................................................................................................35
3.2.2. Overview.....................................................................................................................37
3.2.3. TheStagesHeuristic ..............................................................................................39
3.2.4. TheNetworkApproach........................................................................................40
3.2.5. Punctuated‐equilibriumtheory........................................................................43
3.2.6. TheAdvocacyCoalitionFramework ..............................................................44
3.3. Policyimplementation.................................................................................. 45
3.3.1. Top‐down...................................................................................................................46
3.3.2. Bottom‐up..................................................................................................................49
3.3.3. Networktheory–andotherapproaches .....................................................51
3.3.4. Lessonsfromthestrategicmanagementprocess ....................................53
3.4. Analyticalframework.................................................................................... 54
3.4.1. Thoughtsonqualityassurance.........................................................................54
3.4.2. Policy‘translation’inhighereducation ........................................................55
3.4.3. Frameworkofgovernance..................................................................................57
3.4.4. Dynamicpolicyprocessframework ...............................................................61
3.4.5. Analyticalapproach ...............................................................................................65
4. Method................................................................................................... 67
4.1. Philosophicalunderpinnings...................................................................... 67
7
4.2. Researchdesign............................................................................................... 67
4.2.1. Comparativestudy .................................................................................................67
4.2.2. Selectionofinstitutions .......................................................................................68
4.2.3. Participantselection..............................................................................................68
4.2.4. Interviewframework............................................................................................69
4.2.5. Documentaryanalysis ..........................................................................................70
4.2.6. Designlimitations...................................................................................................70
4.3. Datacollection ................................................................................................. 70
4.3.1. Preparationofinterviews,planning...............................................................71
4.3.2. Interviewtechnique ..............................................................................................71
4.3.3. Interviewsettings...................................................................................................72
4.3.4. Transcription............................................................................................................72
4.3.5. Datacollectionlimitations..................................................................................72
4.4. Dataanalysis..................................................................................................... 73
4.4.1. Coding..........................................................................................................................73
4.4.2. Reductionofdata–summariesofinterviews............................................73
4.4.3. Themes ........................................................................................................................73
4.4.4. Validation ...................................................................................................................73
4.5. Ethicalissues .................................................................................................... 73
4.5.1. Confidentiality..........................................................................................................73
4.5.2. Permission .................................................................................................................74
4.5.3. Roleoftheresearcher...........................................................................................74
5. Results ................................................................................................... 75
5.1. Centraladministration.................................................................................. 76
5.1.1. Policysetting–Political‐administrativesystem.......................................76
5.1.1.1. Policyprocess ..................................................................................................76
5.1.1.2. QualityAssurancePolicy.............................................................................82
5.1.2. Institutionalsetting‐Institutionalrelations ..............................................82
5.1.2.1. PolicyProcess ..................................................................................................82
8
5.1.2.2. Qualityassurance...........................................................................................86
5.1.3. Microsetting‐Streetlevel..................................................................................95
5.1.3.1. Policytranslation ...........................................................................................95
5.1.3.2. Governance .......................................................................................................96
5.1.4. Summaryofresults ............................................................................................. 100
5.2. Academicdevelopmentandresearchunits.........................................101
5.2.1. Nationalsetting .................................................................................................... 101
5.2.2. Institutionalsetting ............................................................................................ 102
5.2.2.1. Policyprocess ............................................................................................... 102
5.2.2.2. Qualityassurance........................................................................................ 103
5.2.3. Microsetting .......................................................................................................... 106
5.2.3.1. Policyprocess ............................................................................................... 106
5.2.3.2. Governance .................................................................................................... 106
5.2.4. Summaryofresults ............................................................................................. 107
5.3. Facultylevel ....................................................................................................108
5.3.1. Nationalsetting .................................................................................................... 108
5.3.1.1. Policyprocess ............................................................................................... 109
5.3.1.2. Qualityassurance........................................................................................ 110
5.3.2. Institutionalsetting ............................................................................................ 111
5.3.2.1. Policyprocess ............................................................................................... 111
5.3.2.2. Governance .................................................................................................... 113
5.3.2.3. Qualityassurance........................................................................................ 115
5.3.3. Microsetting .......................................................................................................... 117
5.3.3.1. Qualityassurance........................................................................................ 117
5.3.4. Summaryofresults ............................................................................................. 122
6. Discussion...........................................................................................124
6.1. Policytranslationinhighereducation ..................................................126
6.1.1. Dynamicpolicyprocess .................................................................................... 127
6.2. Governanceandqualityassurance.........................................................128
9
6.3. Keyissues ........................................................................................................132
7. Conclusion ..........................................................................................133
7.1. Notableoutcomes .........................................................................................133
7.2. Avenuesforfurtherresearch… ................................................................134
References .................................................................................................136
10
Listoftablesandfigures
Table1:Typologyofessentialnetworkcharacteristics ..................................................41
Table2:Potentialandtypeofpolicychange........................................................................42
Table3:Purpose,mechanismsandspheresinqualityassurance ..............................55
Table4:Analyticalframework:Thethreelevelsofgovernance .................................58
Table5:Characterisationofsettings .......................................................................................59
Table6:Actionperspectives........................................................................................................59
Table7:Governance‐synthesisedanalyticalstructure..................................................60
Table8:Interviewrespondents .................................................................................................68
Table9:Overviewoffindingsonpolicyandgovernance ............................................ 124
Figure1:Strategicmanagementprocess(Mintzberg&Waters,1985). ..................53
Figure2:Aconceptualframeworkforanalyticalcasenarrativesofhigher
educationpolicyformulationandimplementationstudies. ................................62
Figure3:Adaptedconceptualframeworkforanalyticalcasenarratives ................64
Figure4:Depictionofdynamicpolicyprocessbasedonfindings ........................... 128
11
1. Introduction
ThisstudyfocusesontheresponsesoftwohighereducationinstitutionsinSouth
Africatoanationalpolicyofqualityassurance.Thestudyexaminesoverall
governancestructures,conceptionsofthepolicyprocess,andresponsestothe
qualityassurancepolicy.
Theproverbial‘gap’betweenpolicyformulationandimplementationhasbeen
thesubjectofmanyascholarlydebate.Itcannotbepracticaltogeneralisethatall
policyandimplementationisinaccordancewithtraditionaltheoriesof
implementation,whichtraditionallyaresplitintotwobroadlyidentifiable
schools,housingthetop‐downandbottom‐upwriters.Indeed,thetheoriesmay
beunabletomakebroadsweepingstatementsaboutpolicy,whichoccurswithin
specificarenasanddiffersbetweenvenues(Hill&Hupe,2002,p.43).
Thetop‐downapproachtounderstandingpolicyimplementationbeganwiththe
seminalworkImplementationofPressmanandWildavsky(1973,1984)who
viewedpolicyassettinggoals,andimplementationresearchaslookingatwhat
makesthosegoalsdifficulttoachieve.Theyarguedthatlinkagesbetween
organisationsarecrucialtosuccessfulimplementation,andthelongerthe
implementationchain,thecloserthecooperationbetweenpartiesmustbe,that
is,themoreactorsthereare,themorepotentialthereisfor“disagreementand
delay”(1984,p.102).Othertop‐downscholarsincludeVanMeterandVanHorn
(1975)whoprovidedamodeltoanalysetheimplementationprocess;Sabatier
andMazmanian(1980)whorecognisedafeedbackprocess,whiledistinguishing
betweenformulationandimplementationofpolicy;andHogwoodandGunn
(1984),wholookedatpracticalaspects,suchasagreementonobjectives,
externalcircumstances,andadequatetimeandresources,asnecessary
componentsforpolicymakerstoconsider.
Thebottom‐upapproachtounderstandingpolicyimplementationisperhaps
bestcharacterisedbythecontributionofLipsky(1980)withhisworkStreet
levelbureaucracywhichlookedatthepeopleontheground.Theirestablished
12
routinesanddevicescanbeseenascopingmechanisms(Hill&Hupe,2002,p.
52‐53).Gradually,throughthechoicesthataremade,theactionsofthesestreet‐
levelbureaucratsbecomeaformofpolicy(Lipsky,1980,p.84‐85).Other
bottom‐upscholarsincludeHjern,andBarrettandFudge,wholookedatpolicy
intermsofnetworksofactorsandmediationbetweenthem(Hill&Hupe,2002,
p.53‐56).
Conflictingtheoriesfromthetop‐downandbottom‐upschools,someofwhich
willbediscussedingreaterdetaillateron,indicateadisconnectbetweenpolicy
formulationandimplementation.Howisitpossibletoconceptualisesucha
disconnect?Isitusefultodoso?Onepossibleanswerliesinthepotentialheldby
theresourcesofthestateandthevaluesofthepublicservant.Whatthisdeficit
presentsuswithisanopportunityforthedevelopmentofapolicyand
implementationstrategy.Theshortcomingsofimplementationtheoryareclear
tothosewhowishtoseethem,andthereforeimprovementswithinthe
implementationarenaaresimplyanopportunitywaitingtobetakenadvantage
of.
Thetop‐downapproachsuggestsacentralizationinpolicymaking,where
bureaucratsattempttocreatebroadpolicythatcoversarangeoflocal
circumstances.Suchageneralizedapproachinvariablywillgenerateapolicy
thatcanonlyapproximatelocalsituations.Bycentrallyattemptingto
homogenizealllocalissuesthebureaucratsaredestinedtofailoratbestachieve
mediocrity.Thebottom‐upapproachsuggestsadecentralizationinpolicy
making,wherestreet‐levelofficialsarecreatingadhocpolicyintheabsenceofa
coherentcentralizedpolicythatdirectlyaddressestheparticularsofthelocal
officials’jurisdiction.Thetwotheoriesarguethemselvesintocornersandbegfor
ahybridtheoreticalapproach,attemptsatwhichincludethenetworkapproach,
andtheAdvocacyCoalitionFramework.Inaneraofinnovation,wemightfind
bothtop‐downandbottom‐upinitiativesworkinginthesameareasofchange.
Adisconnectbetweenpolicyformulationandimplementation,oractivitieson
theground,wouldnotbeaproblem,ifpolicymakerstookalessonfromboth
theseapproaches.Itbecomesaquestionofallowingbothtop‐downandbottom‐
13
upapproachesarolewithinthesamepolicytheory,andinturninpolicy
practice.
Forinstance,anationalpolicyiscreated.Policymakersadmitthatdifferent
approachestothispolicyareneededinorderforittobesuccessfulinallthe
differentinstitutionsinwhichitistobeimplemented.Ifasinglepolicy,centrally
designed,istobesuccessfulonanationalscale,thenarguablyacertainelement
ofdecentralization,i.e.,localization,intermsofauthorityandimplementation
optionsmustbeallowedfor.Therefore,thedisconnectbetweentheformulation
andimplementationisanopportunityforpolicymakerstoacknowledgethe
generalandspecificissueswhilecedingacertainamountofdecisionmakingto
boththemesolevelofgovernance,aswellasmaintainingsomecontrolatthe
macrolevelofcentralgovernment.
Wereturnthentohowonemightusefullyconceptualisethenatureofthegap
betweenpolicyformulationandimplementation,asdisplayedintheliterature.
Howmightoneimprovetheunderstanding,intheoryandinpractice,ofthe
policyprocess?Thisbringsustotheresearchtopicofthisthesis,thatofpolicy
implementationinSouthAfricanhighereducation,asitpertainstogovernance
andqualityassurancepost‐1994.
InthenewSouthAfrica,highereducationhasalargeroletoplayinthecountry’s
transformation.TheCommissiononHigherEducation,throughitsHigher
EducationQualityCommittee,isresponsibleforimplementinganationalpolicy
ofqualityassurance.Emphasisisplacedonqualityasfitnessfor,andfitnessof,
purpose,thuslinkingitheavilytotransformationimperatives.Qualityassurance
policywasformallyestablishedinlegislationin1997,andgotproperly
underwayintheearly2000s.Inthisfirstdecadeformalbodieshavebeen
established,processeshavebeenstarted,andthehighereducationcommunity
hasbeenrequiredtorespondtothequalityassurancepolicy.Itisofinterestand
importancetounderstandhowhighereducationinstitutionshaverespondedto
centralisedpolicy,andhowthenationalandinstitutionalpolicyprocesseswork
atlocal,ormicro,level.Aquestionarises:
14
Asmall‐scalepreliminaryinquiry,carriedoutinNovember2007,suggestedthat
anelusive‘gap’wasfeltintheSouthAfricanhighereducationpolicyprocess,and
thattop‐downandbottom‐upperspectiveswererequiredforapolicytotruly
haveaneffectatmesoandmicrolevel.
Thisstudythereforeseekstoexplorethis‘gap’,asking:
• Howdoescentralisedpolicymakingandlocalisedactivityinteractinways
thathinderorsupportthepolicyprocess?
• Whatistherelationshipbetweenthepolicyprocessandgovernancein
SouthAfricanhighereducation?
ThevalueofthestudyliesinanimprovedunderstandingoftheSouthAfrican
highereducationpolicyprocess,andthedynamicstherewithin.Furthermore,it
contributestothetheoreticalliteraturebyexploringthenatureofthe‘gap’
betweenpolicyformulationandimplementation.
Theprimarydatausedinthisstudyarequalitativeinterviewswithindividualsat
differentlevelsofgovernanceintwohighereducationinstitutionsinSouth
Africa.Analysisofdataisbasedonadynamicdepictionofthepolicyprocess.The
basisforthisdepictionisatheoreticaldiscussiononhowthe‘gap’hasbeen
conceptualisedinthetraditionalliterature.Withaviewtothis‘gap’,analtered
modelofthepolicyprocessispresented.
Theprimaryliteraturefocusesontheoriesrelatingtothepolicyprocessandits
stages,withaparticularfocusonimplementationandchangingformsof
governance.Adivisioncanbeidentifiedintheliteraturebetweenthatwhich
dealswiththecontentofthestudy–herequalityassurancepolicyand
governanceintheSouthAfricancontext–andthatwhichdealswiththe
processesexaminedinthestudy–formulation,implementationasoperational
governance,andthedynamicinteractionsbetweenstagesofthepolicyprocess.
Therefore,thecontextofthepolicywillfirstbeestablished,throughanoverview
oftheSouthAfricanhighereducationsector,includingkeylegislationandpolicy
documents,identificationofprimaryactors,andanunderstandingofhow
15
qualityassuranceisconceptualisedinSouthAfricanhighereducation,interms
oftransformation,andfitnessforandofpurpose.
Theemphasisoncontextwillcarrytoanunderstandingofqualityassurancein
highereducationspecifically.Highereducationinstitutionsaretraditionally
conceptualisedasbeing“bottom‐heavy”andwhere“corefunctions…areseenas
naturallydefyinghierarchicalstructures”(Gornitzka,Kyvik&Stensaker,2007,p.
43).Whilethismightindicateatendencytofavourbottom‐upor
horizontal/networkapproachestoimplementation,theissueisgreatly
complicatedbytheroleofthestateinhighereducationgovernance,inparticular
intheSouthAfricancontextofstatesteering.Therefore,theunderstandingof
top‐down,bottom‐up,networkandotherapproachesiscrucialpriorto
attemptingtoanalyseandunderstandtheroleoftheuniversitiesinthepolicy
processandpolicyimplementation.
Theliteraturereviewexaminessomeapproachestohighereducationquality
assurance,followingonwithliteratureonthepolicyprocess,discussingdifferent
models,theoriesandframeworks.Specificliteratureonpolicyimplementation
coversdistinctionsbetweenthetop‐downandbottom‐upschoolsofthought,as
wellasothercontributionssuchasnetworktheories,andanalyticalframeworks
specificallyfocusedonimplementation.Thechapterconcludesbyassessingthe
availableframeworksforunderstandinginstitutionalresponsestopolicy
implementation,understoodaspartofadynamicpolicyprocess,withinthe
contextofhighereducation.
Aframeworkforuseinthisparticularstudyispresented,emphasisingthat
institutionalresponsestoimplementationarejustone(important)partofthe
policyprocessastheyshapethescopeandnatureoftheimplementation,andas
such,certaincomponentsoftheanalyticalframeworknecessarilybearagreater
weightfortheprimarydataanalysis.Resultsarepresentedinaccordancewith
theframeworkandtheresearchquestionslaidoutabove,andaretiedtothe
SouthAfricancontextwhererelevant.Theessayendswithashortdiscussion
andsomeconcludingcomments.
16
2. SouthAfricancontext
AbriefoverviewofthebroaderpoliticalcontextinwhichtheSouthAfrican
highereducationsectorexistswillbynomeansdojusticetothehistoryofa
countrythathasundergonedramaticshiftsinthelasttwodecades.TheRepublic
ofSouthAfricahasbeenafunctioningdemocraticstatesincethehistoric1994
elections.Thenegotiatedtransitiontodemocracyallowedfortheelectionofa
GovernmentofNationalUnity.Theinitialtaskthisgovernmentfacedwasto
writeafinalconstitutionforthenewdemocraticrepublic,whilefunctioning
underaninterimconstitution.TheAfricanNationalCongress(ANC),ledby
NelsonMandela,wonanoverwhelmingmajorityinthegeneralelections.
Mandelabecamepresidentofthecountry,whilehisdeputieswerefellowANC
memberThaboMbekiandformerpresidentF.W.DeKlerk.
2.1. OverviewoftheSouthAfricanhighereducationsector
TheSouthAfricanhighereducationsectorbeforethefallofapartheidwas
inevitablydeeplycolouredbytheapartheidregime.Thesectorwashighly
fragmented.Institutionswereintendedtoservespecificracesandethnicities
andtoembracespecificideologicalvalues.Thesystemincludedinstitutionsnow
termedas‘historicallywhite’or‘advantaged’andthosetermedas‘historically
black’or‘disadvantaged’.Thispastlegacycontinuestomakeitsinfluencefeltin
thetransforminghighereducationsectorinSouthAfricatoday(Badat,2004,p.
2‐3).TheSouthAfricanhighereducationsectorincludes23publichigher
educationinstitutions(CHE,n.d.c.).
2.1.1. Legislationandpolicydocuments
Thedocumentsdiscussedbelowcanbeseenasthekeyfoundationaldocuments
forthestructureoftheSouthAfricanhighereducationsectorasitistoday.There
havebeenextensivepolicyreformsandinitiativessincethedemocratic
governmentcametopowerin1994,andhighereducation,likeallothersectors
ofthecountry,isundergoingvasttransformationandreform.Therefore,
discussionofthedocumentswillbefocusedontheircontributiontothe
introductionofanationalpolicyofqualityassurance,asexemplifiedthrough
17
statedvalues,systemrequirementsandestablishmentofastatutorybodyon
highereducation.ForfurtherdocumentationregardingpolicyinitiativesinSouth
AfricanhighereducationseeBadat(2004)foranassessmentofinitiativesand
outcomesfrom1990‐2003.
2.1.1.1. GreenPaperonHigherEducation
TheGreenPaperonHigherEducation,publishedDecember1996,precededthe
WhitePaperbyafewmonths.Itlaidoutsomesimilarprinciples,anddescribeda
nationalpolicyofqualityassuranceneedingtobefoundedon“aformative
notionofqualityassurance,focusedonimprovementanddevelopmentrather
thanpunitivesanction”aswellas“amixofinstitutionalself‐evaluationand
externalindependentassessment”(DepartmentofEducation,1996,section
12.5),phrasesechoedintheWhitePaperonHigherEducation.Italsostates
“qualityisakeymechanismforensuringtheaccountabilityandvalueformoney
ofthehighereducationsystem”(DepartmentofEducation,1996,section12.2).
2.1.1.2. WhitePaperonHigherEducation.
EducationWhitePaper3:AProgrammefortheTransformationofHigher
EducationprecededtheHigherEducationActNo.101of1997,publishedearlier
thatyearon24thJuly.TheWhitePapersetsoutavisionforcomprehensive
reformsofthehighereducationsystem,andlaysoutsomekeypointsregarding
aqualityassurancesystemforSouthAfricanhighereducation.
TheWhitePaperstatesthat:
2.69Theprimaryresponsibilityforqualityassurancerestswithhighereducationinstitutions.However,thereisanimportantroleforanumbrellanationalauthorityresponsibleforqualitypromotionandassurancethroughoutthesystem.
2.70Accordingly,theHigherEducationActwillprovidefortheco‐ordinationofqualityassuranceinhighereducationthroughaHigherEducationQualityCommittee(HEQC),whichwillbeestablishedasapermanentcommitteeoftheCHE.TheestablishmentoftheHEQC,itsregistrationwithSAQAanditsmodusoperandiwillbedeterminedbytheCHEwithintheframeworkandproceduralguidelinesdevelopedbySAQA.
2.71ThefunctionsoftheHEQCwillincludeprogrammeaccreditation,institutionalauditingandqualitypromotion.Itshouldoperatewithinanagreedframeworkunderpinnedby:
• theformulationofcriteriaandproceduresinconsultationwithhighereducationinstitutions
18
• aformativenotionofqualityassurance,focusedonimprovementanddevelopmentratherthanpunitivesanction
• amixofinstitutionalself‐evaluationandexternalindependentassessment(DepartmentofEducation,1997b,sections2.69‐2.71).
TheabovesectionsoftheWhitePaperlayoutthefundamentalsforhowa
nationalqualityassurancesysteminSouthAfricanhighereducationshouldbe
implemented.Itisimportanttonotethat:criteriashallbeformulatedandtied
directlytowhattheoperationaldefinitionofqualityshouldbe;qualityassurance
shallbeimprovement‐orientedversuspunitive;andthatthenationalquality
assurancesystemshallincludeinternalandexternalevaluationsforinstitutions.
Interestingly,the“formativenotionofqualityassurance”doesnotmention
accountability,whicharguablyisaslinkedto“externalindependentassessment”
as“improvement”couldhopetobe.Itisclearfromthis,then,thattheWhite
Papersoughttoexplicitlybuildadevelopmentalconnotationwithquality
assurance,bothinternalandexternal.TheWhitePapermentionsaccountability
inalatersection,linkingitexplicitlyto“continuousimprovement”andquality
assurance:
4.60ThebasisforimprovingpublicaccountabilityinhighereducationismakingpublicfundingforinstitutionsconditionalontheirCouncilsprovidingstrategicplansandreportingtheirperformanceagainsttheirgoals.Theplanswillprovideaframeworkforcontinuousimprovementwithininstitutionsandareferencepointforqualityassurance(DepartmentofEducation,1997b,section4.60).
AlthoughtheWhitePaperpresentedavisionfortheintroductionofanational
qualityassurancesystem,thelegislativebasisfortheimplementationofsucha
systemwasintheHigherEducationAct101of1997.
2.1.1.3. HigherEducationAct101of1997
TheHigherEducationAct101of1997,frequentlyamendedsinceitwaspassed
on19thDecember1997,isthelegislativefoundationforhighereducation
policiesinSouthAfrica.ItstatesthattheMinisterofEducationshall“determine
policyonhighereducation”afterconsultingwiththeCouncilonHigher
Education(DepartmentofEducation,1997a,section3).
TheCouncilonHigherEducationwasestablishedasajuristicpersonthroughthe
passageoftheHigherEducationAct,whichalsoprovidedthelegislativebasisfor
theestablishmentoftheCouncilonHigherEducationpermanentsub‐committee,
19
theHigherEducationQualityCommittee(DepartmentofEducation,1997a,
section5.1.c.andsection7.1).TheHigherEducationQualityCommitteewas
formallylaunchedin2001,anditsqualityassurancefunctionsarediscussedin
moredetailbelow.
2.1.1.4. NationalPlanforHigherEducation2001
TheNationalPlanforHigherEducationprovidedanimplementationframework
for the transformative vision presented in the White Paper (Department of
Education,2001).
2.1.2. Institutionsandhighereducationbodies
Asstatedabovethereare23publicuniversitiesinSouthAfrica.Qualitativedata
collectionwascarriedoutattwotraditionallywhiteuniversities,theUniversity
ofCapeTownandStellenboschUniversity,theformerEnglish‐mediumandthe
latterAfrikaans‐medium,whichtoalargeextentaccountsforcultural
differencesbetweenthetwo.
Inadditionto23universities,therearecertaingovernmentbodiespertainingto
educationingeneral,andtohighereducationspecifically.
2.1.2.1. Institutionalgovernancestructures
GovernancestructuresinSouthAfricanuniversitiesareboundinlawbythe
HigherEducationActNo.101of1997,sections26‐38.Thelawstatesthatpublic
highereducationinstitutionshavetheoptionofappointingachancellorastheir
titularhead.Inadditionpublichighereducationinstitutionsmustestablish
structuresandoffices,asfollows:acouncil,asenate,aprincipal,avice‐principal,
astudentrepresentativecouncil,aninstitutionalforum,andothersasbasedon
institutionalstatute(DepartmentofEducation,1997a,sections26‐38).
Thecouncilisconsideredthehighestgoverningbodyandmustconsistofthe
principals,vice‐principal(s),fiveorlessministerialappointees,electedmembers
ofthesenate,electedacademicemployees,electedstudentrepresentatives,
electednon‐academicemployeesandothersasbasedoninstitutionalstatute
(DepartmentofEducation,1997a,sections26‐38).
20
Thesenateisaccountabletothecouncilforacademicandresearchfunctions.
Theprincipalisresponsibleforadministrationandmanagementofthe
institution.Theinstitutionalforumisanadvisorybodytothesenateandis
comprisedofawidevarietyofrepresentatives,includingofcouncil,senate,
academicandnon‐academicemployees,students,etc.(DepartmentofEducation,
1997a,sections26‐38).
2.1.2.2. MinisterandDepartmentofEducation
TheDepartmentofEducationisanadministrativegovernmentdepartment
comprisedofsixbranches,oneofwhichisthehighereducationbranch.The
MinisterofEducation,apoliticalappointee,isresponsibleforhighereducation
policyinconsultationwiththeCHE,asstatedabove.
TheWhitePaperpromotesamodelof“cooperativegovernanceforhigher
educationinSouthAfrica”whichwastobebasedonthe“principleof
autonomousinstitutionsworkingcooperativelywithaproactivegovernment
andinarangeofpartnerships”(DepartmentofEducation,1997b,section3.6).
2.1.2.3. CommissiononHigherEducation
TheCommissiononHigherEducation(CHE)wasfoundedinMay1998,the
legislativebasisforwhichisstatedintheHigherEducationActNo.101of1997,
discussedabove.Itis“anindependentstatutorybodyresponsibleforadvising
theMinisterofEducationonallhighereducationpolicyissues,andforquality
assuranceinhighereducationandtraining”(CouncilonHigherEducation,n.d.b).
TheCommission’squalityassuranceresponsibilitiesaredelegatedtotheHEQC.
2.1.2.4. HigherEducationQualityCommittee.
Asstatedabove,theHigherEducationQualityCommitteeisapermanentsub‐
committeeoftheCHE.InaccordancewiththeHigherEducationActNo.101of
1997(DepartmentofEducation,1997a),theHigherEducationQuality
Committeemust:
• Promotequalityassuranceinhighereducation
• Auditthequalityassurancemechanismsofhighereducationinstitutions
• Accreditprogrammesofhighereducation
(DepartmentofEducation,1997a,section5.1.c.)
21
TheBoardlateraddedafourthdirectiveoftheHEQC:qualityrelatedcapacity
development.InlinewiththistheHEQCoperatesfourdirectorates:Institutional
AuditsDirectorate,ProgrammeReviewsDirectorate,ProgrammeAccreditation
Directorate,andQualityPromotionandCapacityDevelopmentDirectorate
(CouncilonHigherEducation,n.d.a).
ItisclearthatthevisionarytoneoftheWhitePaper,speakingofquality
assuranceintermsof“development”and“continuousimprovement”isintended
tocomplementthelegislativebasisforanationalqualityassurancesystem.
TheHEQCstatesitsmandateas:
InaccordancewiththeHigherEducationAct,1997,andtheETQAresponsibilitiesoftheCHE,theHEQCwill
4.1Promotequalityamongconstituentprovidersinhighereducationinordertofacilitatethedevelopmentofqualityawarenessandqualityresponsivenessinpublicandprivateprovision
4.2Auditthequalityassurancemechanismsofhighereducationinstitutions
4.3AccreditprovidersofhighereducationtoofferprogrammesleadingtoparticularNQF‐registeredqualificationsbycertifyingthattheyhavethesystems,processesandcapacitytodoso.Inrelevantcases,thiswillbedonecooperativelywithprofessionalcouncilsandSETAs.
4.4Co‐ordinateandfacilitatequalityassuranceactivitiesinhighereducationwithinapartnershipmodelwithotherETQAs(CHE,2001,p.7).
TheHEQCwillbeaddressedinmoredetailbelow,inthecontextofabroader
discussiononqualityassuranceinSouthAfricanhighereducation.
2.1.3. Institutionsstudied
Theprimaryresearchforthisstudywascarriedoutattwohighereducation
institutionsintheWesternCape.Interviewsweretakenwithadministratorsand
academicsatdifferentlevelsofgovernance,thatis,centraladministration,
academicdevelopment,facultylevel(deans)anddepartmentlevel
(heads/chairs).
UniversityofCapeTown.Establishedin1918,UniversityofCapeTown(UCT)
isahistoricallywhite,English‐mediumpublicuniversity.UCTdefinesitselfasan
excellentresearchandteachinginstitution,undergoingvasttransformation
(CHE,2006).Totalstudentenrolmentfor2006was21170insixfaculties,each
dividedintoseveraldepartments(UniversityofCapeTown,2008).TheCentre
22
forHigherEducationDevelopmentattheUniversityofCapeTownservesasa
centreforbothacademicdevelopmentandhighereducationresearch.
StellenboschUniversity.Establishedin1916,StellenboschUniversityisa
historicallywhite,Afrikaans‐mediumpublicuniversity.StellenboschUniversity
hasagoodreputation,bothforqualitygraduatesandexcellentresearch
activities(CHE,2007a,p.9).Totalstudentenrolmentfor2007was23439inten
faculties,eachdividedintoseveraldepartments(StellenboschUniversity,2007).
TheCentreforTeachingandLearningatStellenboschUniversityservesasa
centreforacademicdevelopment,andtheCentreforHigherandAdultEducation
servesasacentreforhigherandadulteducationresearch.
2.2. Governance
Anystudyofthepolicyprocessmustgivenoticetothespecificgovernance
contextinwhichpoliciesarebeingformulatedandimplemented.
IntheGreenPaperavisionofcooperativegovernanceisespousedassuch:
1.1…Cooperativegovernanceassumesaproactive,guidingandconstructiveroleforgovernment.Italsoassumestheactiveparticipationbycivilsocietyconstituencies,whichacknowledgetheirdifferentinterests,maintainseparateidentities,andrecognisetheirmutualinterdependenceandresponsibilitiesforattainingacommongoal.Thesearetheprerequisitesforsuccessfulchangeanddevelopment.Inshort,itistheinteractionbetweendifferentconstituencies,traditionallyidentifiedasthestateandcivilsociety,whichprovidesthecornerstoneofthisapproachtogovernance.TheMinistryendorsesthisasanappropriatemodelofgovernanceforhighereducationinSouthAfrica.
1.2Thestructuresandrelationshipsamongstakeholders(includingGovernment)outlinedinthischapterarebasedontheassumptionsthat:
• Nosingleactororagencycanclaimsoleresponsibilityorauthorityfordeterminingthepoliciesandprioritiesofthehighereducationsystem.
• Competingandcomplementaryinterests,interdependenceandcommongoalsmustberecognised.
• Participationandeffectivenessmustbebalanced.
• Power,sharedaccountabilityandresponsibilityrequirecooperativebehaviourfromallparticipants.
• WithinthecontextofnationalgoalstheGovernmentwillplayasteeringandcoordinatingrolewiththeparticipationofhighereducationstakeholders(DepartmentofEducation,1996,sections1.1‐1.2).
IntheWhitePaperavisionofcooperativegovernanceisespousedassuch:
23
3.7Cooperativegovernanceassumesaproactive,guidingandconstructiveroleforgovernment.Italsoassumesacooperativerelationshipbetweenthestateandhighereducationinstitutions.Oneimplicationofthisis,forexample,thatinstitutionalautonomyistobeexercisedintandemwithpublicaccountability.AnotheristhattheMinistry'soversightroledoesnotinvolveresponsibilityforthemicro‐managementofinstitutions.AthirdimplicationisthattheMinistrywillundertakeitsroleinatransparentmanner.
3.8TheMinistrywilldrivethetransformationofthehighereducationsystemthroughpoliciesandstrategiesthatareguidedbythisviewoftheroleofthegovernmentanditsrelationshiptoinstitutionsofhighereducation(DepartmentofEducation,1997,sections3.7‐3.8).
TwoimportantpointscomeupwhenexaminingthesesectionsoftheGreen
PaperandWhitePaper.Thefirstishowexactlywillcooperativegovernance
workinpractice?Andthesecondishowisitpossibletoexerciseinstitutional
autonomyintandemwithpublicaccountabilityinthecontextofastate‐steered
highereducationsector?
ThepastdecadeofSouthAfricanhighereducationtransformationhasshown
thatwhilecooperativegovernancemaysoundgoodasanideal,itmaynotbethe
modelbestapplicabletoensuretheattainmentoftransformationobjectives
whilenotendangeringinstitutionalautonomyandacademicfreedom.
2.2.1. Fromcooperativegovernancetoconditionalautonomy?
Therathervagueproceduraldefinitionofcooperativegovernance,bythe
government,hasbeencriticisedfornotofferingaclearunderstandingofthe
balancebetweenautonomyandaccountability,thusarguablyallowingforfairly
widerangingassertionofstateauthority(Hall&Symes,2005,p.208‐209).A
casestudyofthehighereducationsectorinSouthAfricabyCloete,Maassenand
Muller(2007)discussestheshiftinggovernanceframeworksinhighereducation
inSouthAfrica,showinghowwhilecooperativegovernanceasanideologymight
stillexist,thepracticalgovernanceofthesectorhasmovedtowardsstronger
steering.
Governanceisdefinedbytheauthorsas“theeffortsofagovernmenttoaffect
(regulate,steer,coordinate,control)thebehaviourofcitizensandorganisations
inthesocietyforwhichithasbeengivenresponsibility”(Cloete,Maassen&
Muller,2007,p.208).Itwasassumedthatbydefaulttheintroductionof
cooperativegovernancewouldleadtoanimprovementinhighereducation,asit
24
wasassumedthatthroughcooperativegovernance“participationand
cooperationwouldleadtogreaterequityanddemocracy”(Cloete,Maassen&
Muller,2007,p.213).However,implementingthenew,cooperativelydeveloped,
nationalpolicyframeworkforhighereducationinSouthAfricarequireda
varietyofimplementinginstruments,andwasbasedonthe(faulty)premisethat
thepolicyprocessislinear,movingwithoutdifficultyfromformulationto
implementation.Thecasestudyshowsthatunintendedoutcomesofcertain
policyinitiativesresultedinaformofmarketgovernance.Thisledtopurposeful
shiftsingovernance,placingagreateremphasisoncontrolandaccountability,
versustheearlieremphasisonequalityandredress(Cloete,Maassen&Muller,
2007).Thusanincreaseinstatesteeringisseeninthedevelopmentof
governanceinSouthAfricanhighereducation.Thisincreaseraisesquestionsof
institutionalautonomy.
Issuesofinstitutionalautonomyhavebeeninthediscussionofhighereducation
governanceinSouthAfrica,asitisacknowledgedthatstatesteeringof
institutionsistosomeextentrequiredinordertoensureattainmentof
transformationobjectives.Ithasbeensuggestedthatausefulunderstandingof
autonomyintheSouthAfricancontextmovesbeyondtraditionalconceptsof
substantiveautonomy(includesacademicfreedom)andproceduralautonomy
(e.g.howthingsaredone)andseekstocombinethem,intheterms‘conditional
autonomy’(Hall&Symes,2005,p.208).Inthissenseacademicfreedomis
ensuredthroughsubstantiveautonomy,butstatesteeringintermsofe.g.
fundingandaccreditationlessensproceduralautonomy.Conditionalautonomy
isthereforea“re‐negotiationbetweentheexternalnormsofnationalpriorities
andtheinternalnormsofacademia”(Neave,1988,referencedinHall&Symes,
2005,p.208).
However,theargumentfor‘conditionalautonomy’maynotyetbeachievablein
thepracticalsenseinSouthAfrica,asitcallsfortherightofinstitutionsto
“interprettheirsocialresponsibilities”,yetconcedingthatthedemocraticstate
stillhas“legitimate,overarchingaccountabilityforthedisbursementofpublic
funds”(Hall&Symes,2005,p.209).Initsannualreport2007‐2008theCHE
statesthat“inthiscontexttheHEQC’sunderstandingofqualityasfitnessforand
25
ofpurposewithinaframeworkoftransformationremainsacompellingone
(CHE,2008,p.10)”.Clearlythereispotentialfortensionwithinthenotionof
‘conditionalautonomy’intheSouthAfricanhighereducationsector,asan
understandingofqualityastransformation,tobeattainedbysomeextent
throughstatesteering,includesajudgementof“fitnessofpurpose”whichentails
somedegreeofinterpretationofsocialresponsibilitiesofinstitutions,inthevery
leastaguidanceofwhattheirmissionsoughttobe.
Asimilarconceptofdeliberativedemocracyisintroducedinanattemptto
reconcilestategovernance–andsteering–withwhathasbecomeconditional
autonomyforhighereducationinstitutions.Deliberativedemocracyisarguedto
beasafeguardforensuringongoinginstitutionalautonomyandacademic
freedom,inthecontextofconditionalstatesteering(CHE,2007b).
2.3. QualityassuranceintheSouthAfricanhighereducationsector
TheformalbasisforanationalpolicyofqualityassuranceinSouthAfrican
highereducationistheHigherEducationActof1997andthe1997publicationof
theWhitePaperonEducation,asdiscussedabove.
2.3.1. HEQCdirectives
ThefoundingdocumentoftheHEQCstatesthattheCHEwill”coordinatethe
establishmentofacommonsetofgroundrulesforthepracticeofquality
assuranceincludingtheinter‐relationshipbetweenqualityassurancepromotion,
institutionalauditsandprogrammeassessment”(CHE,2001,p.5).
ThefoundingdocumentoftheHEQCallowsforamoreexplicitlinkbetweenthe
developmentalgoalsandaccountabilityrequirementsofqualityassurance,than
doestheWhitePaper:
3.4TheHEQCwillupholdtheaccountabilityrequirementsofhighereducationprovisionwithinthecontextofastrongdevelopmentalandformativeapproachtoqualityassurance.However,theHEQCwill,wherenecessary,exposeandactagainstpersistentandunchangingpoorqualityprovision(CHE,2001,p.6).
Italsosuggestsawillingnessto“expose”and“actagainst…poorquality
provision”thusdiminishingitsdistancefromthe“punitive”aspectofquality
assurance,rejectedintheWhitePaper.
26
TheHEQClistsasoneofitsgoalsthatitwill“seektodevelopasensible
accountabilityregimeforprovidersthroughpartnershipswithotherquality
assurancebodiesandthecoordinationofthequalityassuranceactivitiesof
multipleagenciesinhighereducation.Theactivepromotionofqualityinthe
earlystagesoftheHEQC’sworkwillformthebasisfordevelopingthe
appropriatebenchmarksforaccountability”(CHE,2001,p.8).Thisisaclear
expressionoftheCommittee’sphasedimplementationapproach,asthereexists
arecognitionthatwhiledevelopmentisimportantintheearlierstagesof
comprehensivereformofthehighereducationsector,atsomepoint
accountabilitymustbebroughttothefore.
2.3.2. Phasedimplementationapproach
Initsfoundingdocument,theHEQCstatesthatitsworkmustbephasedinover
time,demarcatingtwoclearimplementationphases.Thefirstimplementation
phasewillinclude,amongstotherthings,“qualitypromotion”and“the
developmentandpilottestingofqualityassuranceinstrumentsandcriteria”and
“thedevelopmentofqualityrelevantcapacity”(CHE,2001,p.10).Thesecond
phasewillbuildonwhattheHEQCtermsthe“preparatoryactivities”ofthefirst
phase,allowingtheHEQCtobefullyoperational,wheretheHEQC“willvalidate
thequalityofferingsofproviders,usingrigorousaccountabilitycriteriaand
invokingsanctionswhererequired,”followingonfromthisthatthe“second
phaseislikelytobefurtherdifferentiatedbetweenaninitialfocusonauditing
thequalityassurancesystemsofprovidersfollowedbymoresubstantive
programmeevaluations”(CHE,2001,p.10).
Basedontheirowndefinitionofphasedimplementationitcanbearguedthatthe
implementationofanationalqualityassuranceinSouthAfricanhighereducation
isintheveryearlystagesofitssecondphase.TheHEQCwillsoonconcludeits
firstcycleofinstitutionalaudits.Theprimaryresearchthisstudyisbasedon,
carriedoutattwohighereducationinstitutionsthatwereamongstthefirst
auditedatthestartofthecycle,in2005,shouldtherefore,iftheHEQCwas
successfulinitsintentionsofthefirstphase,reflectamoredevelopmental
perceptionofqualityassurance.
27
2.3.3. Definingquality...astransformation?
TheoriginalintentionoftheHEQC,assetoutinitsfoundingdocument,wasto
developaframeworkandcriteriaforqualityassurance,whichweretobebased
on:
6.1Fitnessforpurposeinrelationtospecifiedmissionwithinanationalframeworkthatencompassesdifferentiationanddiversity.
6.2ValueformoneyjudgedinrelationtothefullrangeofhighereducationpurposessetoutintheWhitePaper.Judgmentsabouttheeffectivenessandefficiencyofprovisionwillincludebutnotbeconfinedtolabourmarketresponsivenessandcostrecovery.
6.3Transformationinthesenseofdevelopingthecapabilitiesofindividuallearnersforpersonalenrichment,aswellastherequirementsofsocialdevelopmentandeconomicandemploymentgrowth(CHE,2001,p.9).
In2005theCHEpublishedaresearchreportithadcommissioned,Towardsa
frameworkforqualitypromotionandcapacitydevelopmentinSouthAfrican
HigherEducation,whichwasintendedtoserveasadiscussiondocumentto
allowfordeliberation,inconjunctionwiththepublicationofadraftframework
thefollowingyear.However,thisdraftframeworkdoesnotappeartohave
materialised.Theframework,accordingtothethenexecutivedirectorofthe
HEQC,Dr.MalaSingh,wasintendedtocompletetheprocessofdeveloping
“policyfoundationsofanewqualityassurancesystemforSouthAfricanhigher
education”(CHE,2005,foreword).Earliermentionofthisframeworkisfoundin
theNationalPlanforHigherEducation,wheretheHEQCwastohave“releaseda
frameworktoguideitsworkinthedevelopmentofarobustqualityassurance
system”(DepartmentofEducation,2001,section2.3.3)indicatingthatthe
preparationofafinalframeworkhasbeenalongtimeinthemaking.
2.4. EarlierworkonqualityassuranceinSouthAfrica
AreviewoftheexistingliteratureonhighereducationqualityassuranceinSouth
Africarevealstwobroadtypesofarticles.Ontheonehandtherearetheoretical
orconceptualarticles,whichcataloguethepolicyandpracticaldevelopmentsin
qualityassuranceinhighereducation,discussingchallengesaroundquality
assurance.Thesearticlesarebasedonconcepts,debates,theoryandliterature,
butnotonspecificempiricalevidence.Ontheotherhandtherearearticlesbased
onresearchprojectscarriedoutregardingqualityassuranceinSouthAfrican
universitiesandtechnikons.Acomprehensiveregurgitationoftheliterature
28
wouldnotberelevanthere,thoughtheideaspresentedinafewofthearticles
willbediscussed.
2.4.1. Accountabilityandimprovementindifferentsettings
SmoutandStephenson(2002)discusshowpriortotheestablishmentofthe
HEQCitspredecessor,theQualityPromotionUnit,focusedon“demonstrating
accountabilityandbringingaboutimprovement”(p.199),twoimportant
featuresforqualityassurance.Itsfoundationsrestedonimprovementversus
control,anditemphasisedqualityassurancesystems,lookingathowtoachieve
“fitnessforpurpose”asthe“principaltermofreference”(p.199).
However,encompassingsuchadifferentiatedsectorastheSouthAfricanone
was,itdependedontheinstitutionwhatsortofemphasiswasplacedon
accountabilityandimprovement.Technikonstraditionallyfocusedmoreon
accountabilitywhileuniversitiesfocusedmoreonimprovement(Smout&
Stephenson,2002).TheHEQCnowfacesthechallengeofaddressingsuch
oppositeemphaseswithinthesamenationalframeworkforqualityassurance.
Acasestudyofatechnikonrevealedthattheformercertifyingbodyofthe
technikons(SERTEC)focusedbothon‘fitnessforpurpose’andcomplianceor
accountability.However,itshowedadevelopmentovertime,toanincreasing
emphasisonimprovement,despitelackingthenecessaryself‐reflectiveskills.
Thiscanalsobecharacterisedasanissueoflackofhumanresourcesanda
culturalcharacteristicoftheinstitution,bothimpedingadevelopmental
adoptionofqualityassurance.Theinstitutionfocusedon“whatwasdonerather
thanhowwellactivitieswereperformed”(Genis,2002,p.66).Whiletheprocess
aspectofqualityassuranceisimportant,itmustbecoupledwiththecontent
aspect,inorderforactualqualityimprovementtooccur.
2.4.2. Qualityassuranceanddemocracy
Theintroductionofqualityassuranceintohighereducation,andits
reconciliationwithideasofdemocracy,arisesinanumberofdiscussionarticles.
Oneargumentisthatqualityassurancecanbeconsideredcompatiblewith
democratisationandinstitutionalautonomy,whileallowingthedefinitionof
qualityasfitnessofpurposetostand,provideditisunderstoodinaninclusive
29
manner(Symes,2006).Democraticparticipationmayindeedbewidened
throughqualityassurancesolongaskeyconceptsareunderstoodintermsof
deliberativedemocracy(Gouws&Waghid,2006).Thisinsomerespectstiesto
theearlierdiscussionofhighereducationgovernanceinSouthAfrica.However,
suchdiscussionsareverymuchatthetheoreticalandconceptuallevel,andwhile
theyaimforanunderstandingoftheideal,therealitymustfirstbeunderstoodin
ordertounderstandhowonemightfeasiblyachievetheideal.
2.4.3. Humanresourcesdeficiencies
ThereisanawarenessofthefactthatSouthAfricaexistsinthethirdworld,with
aparticularoppressivehistory.Therefore,whiletheidealistobenchmark
againstinternationalstandards,thereisalackofhumanresourcestocarryout
reformsinthesectorandelevateitsqualityassurance(Smout&Stephenson,
2002;Strydom&Strydom,2004;Strydom&Holtzhausen,2001;Genis,2002).
2.4.4. Acultureofquality
StrydomandStrydompointoutthat“manyexpertscurrentlybelievethatpolicy
onplanning,fundingandqualityassuranceis‘steering’thepublichigher
educationsysteminSouthAfrica.Thereisastrongviewthatqualityassurance
shouldnotbeseenas‘asteeringmechanism’,especiallyatthispointintimeof
uncertaintyandinstabilityinthehighereducationsystem”(2004,p.110).This
bringsupbothissuesofinternalversusexternalqualityassurance,andthe
generalorientationofinstitutionsinregardstoaccountabilityand/versus
improvement.
Tosomeextent,externalqualityassurancemeasures,suchasinstitutional
audits,mustbeseeninthelightofaccountabilitymeasures,whichcaneasilybe
construedasasteeringmechanism.However,theargumentgoesthatfora
cultureofqualitytodevelopwithininstitutionstheremustbeasofter,
improvement‐orientedtouch.StrydomandStrydomarguethatitmightbe
possibletoreachsuchapointifeveryonetakesresponsibilityforquality
assurance,notonlytheHEQC,butthatthesystemmustbepatient.
Comprehensivereformsofthesectoraretakingplace,andthereforepatienceis
30
importancewhilethedustsettles,soastounderstandempiricallywhatquality
assuranceintheSouthAfricancontexttrulymeansandrequires(2004,p.111).
Strydom,ZuluandMurray(2004)supporttheargumentthatculturalchangeis
necessaryforqualityassurancesystemstobecomeengrainedintheinstitution.
Theyproposeaseriesofstrategiesforchanginginstitutionalculture,thus
overcomingresistancetoqualityassurance,butcallforfurtherresearchto
examinethetripartiterelationshipbetweenquality,cultureandchange.
Inthecasestudyofthetechnikon,discussedabove,theauthorreachesthe
conclusionthattheidealwouldbe“self‐regulation”asa“pointofdeparturefor
qualityassuranceinaninstitutionandthesitevisitswouldbeopportunitiesfor
constructivedialoguebetweeninstitutionsandaccreditationbodiesabout
possibleimprovements”(Genis,2002,p.69).Basedontheabove,thereis
evidentadesireforqualityassurancetobeprimarilyaboutimprovementinthe
SouthAfricancontext,althoughthenecessarycontextualrestraintsdemand
accountabilitytoo.
2.5. Summary
ThekeydevelopmentissuesaffectingSouthAfricanhighereducationinthepast
15yearsareacombinationoftransformationeffortsbythenewgovernment,
andresponsestointernationaltrends.Legislationcallsforanidealof
cooperativegovernancewithinacontextofstatesteering,whichhasraised
questionsaboutinstitutionalautonomy,linkedtoarequirementfordeliberative
democracytosafeguardagainstalossofautonomy.Qualityassurancepolicy
combinesexternalandinternalmechanisms,andislinkedtotransformation.
Qualityassuranceisdefinedintermsoffitnessfor,andfitnessof,purpose.These
issuesanddevelopmentsdefinethecontextwithinwhichthisstudyexplores
policyprocessesatanationalandinstitutionallevel.
Followingthisreviewofthecontextofthestudy,thetheoreticalbackgroundwill
bediscussed,includingtheconceptsandframeworkthatwillguidedataanalysis
andpresentationofresults.
31
3. Theoreticalapproach
Thenatureofhighereducationischangingworldwide.Inpartthisisduetothe
proliferationofamarket‐basedideologytakingrootinhighereducation
(Gornitzka,Kyvik&Stensaker,2007,p.35).Withoutadoubt,theintroductionof
marketideologies,whichwouldsupportmoreself‐sufficientanddynamic
institutions,willaffectthenatureofhighereducationpolicy.Thismayleadto
governmentattemptsatsteeringorcontroltobewithinbroaderframeworks,
allowingforinnovationandautonomyattheinstitutionallevel,without
sacrificingaccountabilityatthenationallevel.Whetheritiscalled
managerialism,NewPublicManagement,orsomethingelse,thisnewideology
inherentlychangestheroleofgovernmentinhighereducation,thoughthisisnot
tosaythatgovernmentsuddenlybecomeslessrelevant(Dill&Sporn,1995;
Gornitzka,Kyvik&Stensaker,2007).Ifanything,NewPublicManagement
increasesthecomplexityofthestate‐institutionrelationship.
Understandingthesituationisfurthercomplicatedbytheimportanceofthe
multi‐layerandmulti‐actorapproaches,whicharearguablyasimportantin
policystudiesastheyareinhighereducationstudies(Gornitzka,Kogan&
Amaral,2007,p.6).Researchfindingssuggestthat,forinstance,policypriorities
setoutatanationallevelmaymergewithorrelatetostrategicplansand
prioritiesataninstitutionallevel(Gornitzka,Kogan&Amaral,2007,p.7).Thisis
particularlypertinentas,toalargeextent,“publicpolicy…stillisshapedduring
theimplementationprocess”(Gornitzka,Kyvik&Stensaker,2007,p.36)
thereforemakingstudiesoftheimplementationprocesswithininstitutionsall
themorerelevanttounderstandingthepolicyprocessasawhole.
Gornitzka,KyvikandStensakerlistthreefactorsthatmakehighereducation
policyimplementationresearchmorepertinentthanever:
1. Resourcecommitmenttoandsocialexpectationsofhighereducationincreasetheneedforananalysisoftheeffectivenessofpolicyprocesses.
2. Despitestateinvolvementinpolicymaking,itisprobablethatglobalisation,technificationandmarketisationareinfluencingthepolicyimplementationprocessinnewways.
32
3. Newstakeholdersenteringandinfluencingthehighereducationspheresuggestanewandunknownpolicymakingterritoryisbeingcreated(Gornitzka,Kyvik&Stensaker,2007,p.36)
Toalargeextentthesethreefactorsmightapplytoanynumberofgovernment
programmes/institutions.Attheheartofitlieswhatmaybeseenasmarket
ideologies–whereanemphasisisplacedonresultsratherthanprocesses–
conflictingwithaneedforinstitutions/programmestobeaccountabletothe
public.Howisitpossibletoensureincreasedaccountabilityatthesametimeas
thereisadevelopmenttowardsincreasedautonomy?Thisisaparticularly
pertinentconcernintherealmofqualityassurancepolicy,whichwillbe
discussedfurtherbelow.
CerychandSabatier’s(1986)argumentthathighereducationreformingeneral
ischallengedbydiffusionofauthorityinhighereducationinstitutions,their
bottom‐heavynature,andthebroadvarietyofstakeholdersandactorsinthe
implementingprocessisstillvalidovertwodecadesafterthepublicationoftheir
workonimplementationofhighereducationreformsinEurope.Therefore,a
studyofimplementationbecomesastudyofinteractions,withinandbetween
institutions.Thisstudylooksatresponsestoimplementationwithininstitutions,
which,whengatheredtogether,formwhatmightbeconsideredaninstitutional
response,whichbecomespartofaninteractionwithactorsexternaltothe
institution.Itisthereforeoneimportantpartoftheoverallpolicyprocesswithin
thesector.Beforefurtherdiscussionofconceptsandaguidinganalytical
construct,certainfeaturesofqualityassuranceinhighereducationmustbe
discussed,inordertounderstandthetheoreticalcontextofapolicyofquality
assurance.
3.1. Qualityassuranceinhighereducation
Thenotionofqualitymanagementandassuranceistraditionallyassociatedwith
systemsandprocesses.Ifasystemisinplacetoensurethatcertainthingsget
handledincertainways,oneshouldbeassuredofthequalityoftheendproduct.
Thismaybethecase,whentheoriginaldesignisrelativelystandardised,suchas
inindustry.However,inthecaseofservice,whichaspectsofhighereducation
arguablynowresemble,qualityassuranceisatwo‐foldconcern.First,theremust
bequalitysystemsinplace,toensureeachstudent(thecustomer)istreatedin
33
thesamemanner.Thisconcernsprocess.Second,theactualintrinsicqualityof
theeducationalexperience(theproduct)offeredtothestudentmustalsobe
ensured.Thisconcernscontent.Therefore,understandingthenatureofquality
assurancesystemsinhighereducationnecessarilybegstwoquestions:
Aretherequalityassurancesystemsandprocessesinplace?
Dotheyresultinaqualityhighereducationexperience?
Qualityassuranceinhighereducationcanbeeasilydissectedintoexternal
qualityassuranceandinternalqualityassurance.Externalandinternal
mechanismsmayinteractandoverlapwithoneanother,andinfactmayboth
existwithinthesameprocess.Examplesoftraditionalexternalmechanisms
includeauditandaccreditation,onaninstitutional,operationalunit(e.g.faculty,
department)orprogrammebasis.Examplesoftraditionalinternalmechanisms
relyonexternalvalidationbutaregenerallyinternallyinitiated,suchasuseof
externalexaminersforexitmodules/subjects,anddepartmentalreviews.
However,theexternalvalidationwillbeintheformofpeerreview,ratherthan
reviewbyaqualityagency,thusengenderingamoredevelopmentaland
improvement‐orientedviewoftheprocess.
Definingqualityinhighereducationisnolesscomplexthandefiningtheconcept
ofqualityingeneral.PollittandBouckaert(1995,quotedinStensaker,2007,p.
102)presentthetwomainperspectivesofqualityasopposingoneanother.The
firstperspective,theoutput‐orientedview,isreminiscentofTaylor’sscientific
management,andwhilepresentedasanoutput‐orientedview,itisarguably
focusedonqualityprocessesratherthanthecontentofthequality.Thesecond
perspective,whichPollittandBouckaerttermprocess‐oriented,viewsqualityas
transformative.However,thisprocess‐orientedviewisarguablymorefocused
onleadingtoimprovedqualityoftheactualcontent.Itisinterestingthatthese
twoperspectivesshouldbesoclearlydefinedinoppositiontooneanother,asif
thatwhichfocusesonanoutputcannotbetransformative.However,toachievea
certainoutputprocessesmustbeinplaceleadingtothatoutput,anditisthrough
theseprocessesthatimprovedqualitycontentcanbeachieved.Therefore,the
34
twoperspectivesworkingincombinationprovideaconsiderablymoreuseful
conceptionofhowqualitymightwork.
Intermsofqualityinhighereducationspecifically,thereigningconceptionis
qualityasfitnessforpurpose(Ball,1995),whichallowstheconcepttobe
mouldedtosuiteachspecificcontext.Thisiswellsuitedtobroadpolicy
frameworksforqualityassurance,ratherthanspecificcriteriaandindicators,as
theconceptisarguablysosubjectivethattomeasureitagainstauniversal
standardwouldbeimpossible.
Thisviewissimilarlypresentedintermsofhowqualityassurancemightbeseen
inlightofgovernmentsteeringinhighereducation:
Incontrasttosuchdirectsteering,qualityassuranceisamajorvehicleinacommunicationviewofsteering:thewayqualityisassessed,andtheconsequences(sanctions)ofpositiveandnegativeassessmentsinacertainqualityassurancescheme,carryimportantstrategicmessagestoallconcerned,highereducationinstitutionsandstakeholdersalike(Westerheijden,Stensaker&JoaoRosa,2007,p.5).
3.1.1. Qualityassuranceandaccountability
AshintedatinthediscussionofearlierworksonqualityassuranceinSouth
Africa,thetiesbetweenqualityassuranceandaccountabilityaredebated,
contested,butultimatelyonapracticalleveltheyarenotrefutable.Therewould
benonationalsystemofqualityassuranceiftherewerenotalsoaneedto
ensurethatpublicmoneywasbeingwellspent.Couplepublicaccountability
withthemarketforcespreviouslymentioned,andaqualityassurancesystem
determinedtobedevelopmentalaswell,andoneisleftwiththechallengeof
usefulconceptualisation.AsHarveyandNewtonstate:
Theperpetualdebateaboutaccountabilityandimprovementisasoldasqualityassuranceinhighereducation.ThetensionbetweenaccountabilityandcontinuousqualityimprovementwaspointedoutbyVroeijenstijnandAcherman(1990).Thedichotomyismuchdiscussedinthequalityliterature(Frederiks,Westerheijden,&Weusthof1994;Middlehurst&Woodhouse1995;Vroeijenstijn1995).Qualityassurance,sotheargumentgoes,isbetweenarockandahardpace.Itistornbetweenimprovementandaccountability(2007,p.230).
Despitethis,onlyashortwhilelaterintheverysamearticle,HarveyandNewton
rejecttheverynotionofanaccountability‐improvementcontinuum:
Improvementisnotsomethingthatisregulatedbutsomethingthatoccursthroughcriticalengagement.Accountabilityandimprovementarenottworelateddimensionsofquality,rathertheyaredistinctandthereisnointrinsictensionbetweenthem.Quality
35
assurancehascreatedanillusorytensionbypretendingthatqualityisintrinsicallylinkedtotheprocessofmonitoringquality,anillusionthatisexemplifiedinthe‘fitness‐for‐purpose’approach.Theillusoryrelationshipbetweenaccountability/complianceandimprovementevaporateswhenthefocusisontheessentialnatureofqualityitself(2007,p.232).
Whileitisallwellandgoodtostriveforthefocustobeonthe“essentialnature
ofquality”itisnotaverypracticalgoalforthosewhoaretaskedwith
implementingapolicyofqualityassurance.Stensaker(2007)suggeststhat
bearinginmindthistensioninthedesignofaqualityassurancesystem,a
balancecanbeachieved.Ifweviewahighereducationinstitutionasthecore
entityofaqualityassurancesystem,abalancebetweenimprovementand
accountabilitycanarguablybestruckthroughbalancinginternalandexternal
systems.Therefore,ifanexternalprogrammeaccreditationisbalancedwithan
internallyinitiatedpeer‐reviewofadepartment,thedualpurposeof
accountabilityandimprovementmightbeserved.AsStensaker(2007)points
outthough,thisisadelicatebalanceandaswingineitherdirectionwillhave
consequences(p.110).
Havingreviewedthemainconcernsofdefinitionanddebateinqualityassurance
inhighereducation,oneisfacedwithhowtousefullyanalyseapolicyofquality
assuranceinhighereducation.Forthis,atheoreticalunderstandingofthepolicy
processisnecessary.
3.2. Theoriesofthepolicyprocess
Thefollowingisabroadreviewoftheoriesofthepolicyprocess,inorderto
allowanunderstandingofthemultitudeoftheoriesavailabletoscholars.While
thisreviewisnotexhaustive,itdoesseektohighlightaspectsofthetheoriesthat
mostdirectlypertaintothestudy.
3.2.1. Keyconcepts
Priortoembarkingonanoverviewoftheliteraturesomekeyconceptsmustbe
discussedtocontributetoanunderstandingofthetheoreticalapproach.These
aregovernance,NewPublicManagement,andpolicy.
• Governance.DiscussedtosomeextentintheSouthAfricancontext
chapter,theconceptofgovernanceisborninthepublicadministration
literature.Whileofirrefutableimportance,thedebatesurroundingafirm
36
definitionofgovernancehasyettoresultinaunifiedconclusion.
Governancecouldbeviewedassimplyanewtermthatcoverspublic
administration(politicalgovernance)and/orpolicyimplementation
(operationalgovernance)(Hill&Hupe,2002).AsFredericksonandSmith
(2003)outlinethedebatesurroundinggovernance,certainusefulaspects
emerge,suchas:“governanceiscentredontheneedtoaccountforthe
changingrelationshipbetweengovernmentandsociety”(p.225)with
furtherelaborationsrelatedtothefragmentedstateandtheneedto
understandnewandemergingroleswithinpublicadministration.
However,governancenotonlyappliestotherelationshipbetween
governmentandsociety,inthisstudythehighereducationsector,but
governanceisalsoatermapplicabletotheoperatingstructureswithin
institutions,inthisstudyuniversities.Therefore,governanceisusedon
twolevels:nationalgovernance,andinstitutionalgovernance.This
distinctioniscrucialwhenanalysingdata,astosomeextentthe
coherenceandstructureofinstitutionalgovernanceshapethe
institution’sresponsetonationalgovernanceandpolicy.
• NewPublicManagement.NewPublicManagement,sometimesknows
asmanagerialism,isconsideredtobeaparadigmshiftinpublic
administration.WhilegovernanceandNewPublicManagementarenot
oneandthesame,itisusefultolookatproposedsimilaritiesbetweenthe
two,suchasthedominanceofnetworks,thestate’sdecliningcapacityfor
directcontrol,theblendingofpublicandprivateresources,andtheuseof
multipleinstruments(Peters&Pierre,1998).Alloftheseconcepts
certainlycouldapplytogovernance–yetgovernanceasitwillbe
addressedhereismorenuanced,andistheoreticallypositedindifferent
forms,suchasoperational,cooperative,market,andsoon.Onemight,
therefore,forthepurposesofthisstudy,viewNewPublicManagementas
theoperationalphilosophy,whereasgovernancehasaviewtothe
normativeinpublicadministration.
37
Whilenotcentraltothisstudy,theinfluenceoftheNewPublic
Managementparadigmmustbekeptinmindasrelatingtohigher
education.Thestate’sdecliningcapacityfordirectcontrolcouldarguably
givepublichighereducationinstitutionsfreerreignovertheirin‐house
policies.Thisleadsdirectlytotheblendingofpublicandprivate
resources,astheeducationalenvironmentbecomesmorecompetitive,
andreducedfundingresultsinincreasedemphasisonprivategrantsand
researchfunds.Essentially,theoriesofNewPublicManagementmakeone
awareofthecomplexcontextinwhichthehighereducationpolicy
processoperates.
• Policy.Dependingontheideologicalstandpoint,policy,anditsensuing
‘success’canbedefinedinavarietyofways.Barrett(2004)saysthat
“policymaythusberegardedasbothastatementofintentbythose
seekingtochangeorcontrolbehaviour,andanegotiatedoutputemerging
fromtheimplementationprocess”(p.253).Thisisstronglyreminiscent
ofMintzberg’sworkonstrategies,whichwillbeelaborateduponbelow.
Adefinitionofpolicyisstronglytiedtoadefinitionofpolicysuccess
and/orfailure.Ithasbeenarguedthatthecomplexityofthe
implementationprocessmeansthat“actioncannotnecessarilybedirectly
relatedto,orevaluatedagainstspecificpolicygoals”(Barrett,2004,p.
254)whichraisesthequestionhowdoesoneevaluatesuccessand/or
failure?Thisisaparticularlycrucialquestion,inlightofadynamic
interpretationofthestagesofthepolicyprocess.Thisstudyadoptsthe
viewthatinacontextofcooperativepolicymakingmeasuresofsuccess
orfailuremaybepresentedinabroadframework,buttheir
interpretationmustbebasedonindividualimplementationofthepolicy.
3.2.2. Overview
Thereexistseveralframeworks,modelsandtheoriesofthepolicyprocess.
Dominantintheearlypolicyprocessliteraturewastheideaofthepolicyprocess
assplitintostages,generallyincludingagendasetting,policyformulation,
implementationandevaluation.Whilesomescholarssuggestthestagesheuristic
38
hasoutliveditsusefulness(Sabatier,2007)itisnonethelessofvalueasitallows
researchtofocusonparticularpartsofthepolicyprocess,andasananalytical
toolfordescriptiveresearchitcanbeveryuseful.Arguably,onecannotstudy
onepartinisolation,astheyareinextricablylinked.Anagendathatisset
becomesapolicy,whichmustbeimplemented,theevaluationofwhichcanfocus
oninitialpolicyimperatives,actualoutcomes,orotheraspects,dependingonthe
purposeandphilosophybehindtheassessment.Despitetheargumentthat
elementsofthepolicyprocessareinextricablylinked,studiesofimplementation
processesflourished,afterthepublicationofseminalworksintheearly1970s
and1980s(seee.g.Pressman&Wildvasky,1973;Lipsky,1980).
Despitewhatappearstobeadecreaseinimplementationresearchinthe1990s,
contributionstothefieldarestillnecessaryandimportant,andtherearesigns
thatinterestisgrowingoncemore(Barrett,2004;Schofield&Sausman,2004;
Hill&Hupe,2002).Thereisevenanargumenttobemadethatthe“apparent
demiseofimplementationstudiesrepresentednomorethanacademic
opportunism;usingdifferentlanguageandlabelsforthesameissues”(Barrett,
2004,p.258)asthewaveofNewPublicManagementintroducedbusiness
managementconceptstotheworldofpublicadministration.
Changingtheoreticalshiftshavesoughttosynthesizeoriginaldivisions.The
importanceofcontext,too,hasbeenemphasised(seee.g.Barrett,2004;Hill&
Hupe,2002)withanincreasedawarenessofthespecificityofcertainpolicy
situations,whichincludepoliticalcontexts,andcouldpossiblyeveninclude
trans‐nationalorglobalcontexts.Intermsofhighereducationpolicy,someeven
gosofarastosaythat“highereducationpolicymakingisnotonlycountry
specificbutalsosub‐sectorspecific”(Kogan,2007,p.62).
Inaddition,implementationistobeunderstoodinthecontextoftheother
elementsofthepolicyprocess,sowhileacceptedasanindividualstageor
element,itmustbeseeninabroaderfashion.Succinctlyput,“apolicyisnota
givenentity;studyingimplementationofapolicywithoutlookingathowthose
policiescomeabout,divorcingourunderstandingofimplementationfromour
39
understandingoftheprocessesthatgeneratepoliciesmaybeafruitless
exercise”(Gornitzka,Kogan&Amaral,2007,p.7).
Tosomeextentthishasincreasedtheusefulnessofbroad,analytical
frameworks,astheymayservetoguideawiderrangeofimplementation
research.However,ithasalsoincreasedtheimportanceofcontext,bothgeo‐
politicalandsub‐sector.Thereforethisstudydiscussesbothqualityassurancein
highereducation,andhighereducationinSouthAfrica,toensurean
understandingofcontextinitsfullestsense.
Whilethisstudyisprimarilyfocusedonperceptionsoftheimplementationofa
nationalpolicyofqualityassuranceinSouthAfricanhighereducation,itcannot
bedivorcedfromtheother‘stages’ofthepolicyprocess,whichareinextricably
boundtothegeo‐politicalcontextinwhichthepolicywasoriginallyformulated.
Therefore,areviewofthepolicyprocessliteraturewillfocusheavilyon
implementation,yetwithaholisticapproach,allowingforanunderstandingof
theimportanceoftheentireprocess,andhowpartsofitfittogether.Assuch,the
theoreticalliteraturetobereviewedwillincludethatwhichtalkstothepolicy
processasawhole,aswellasthatwhichfocusesexplicitlyonimplementation.
3.2.3. TheStagesHeuristic
Thenotionthatthepolicyprocessissplitintostageswasdevelopedinthe1970s
(seee.g.Lasswell,1970;Jones,1970;Anderson,1975).Whilethereweresome
differencesastodefinitionandnumberofstages,ingeneraltheyincluded
agendasetting,policyformulation,policyimplementationandpolicyevaluation,
andwouldbeillustratedasalinear,top‐downprocess:
Agendasetting Formulation Implementation Evaluation
Whilecertainlythedivisionintostagesisusefulfordefiningthescopeof
researchbylimitingittoastageortwo,e.g.implementation,criticismofthe
stagesheuristic,ascoinedbySabatier(1991),includespointingtoitslackofa
causaltheory(Sabatier,2007HE),aninaccuracyindefiningstagesinalinear
fashion,misunderstandingthetiesbetweenthem(Nakamura,1987),andthe
oversimplificationoffocusingononemajorpieceoflegislationasopposedto
40
includingsupportingand/orinteractinglegislationinthesamedomain(Hjern&
Hull,1982;Sabatier,2007a).
Therefore,aframeworkthatistosuccessfullyincludeconceptsandideasof
stages,orelements,ofthepolicyprocess,mustrespondtothecriticismby
consideringstages,orelements,ascomponentsofadynamic,non‐linear,
process,affectedbymultiplepiecesoflegislationwithinapolicydomain.Assuch
onecouldarguethatastudyfocusingonanationalpolicyofqualityassurance
willnotsolelybebasedonapolicyintroducedinonedocumentorpieceof
legislation,butwillconsidertheoriginalagendasetting,forinstanceina
foundationaldocumentorwhitepaper,theformulation,asdeliberatedin
legislation,thevariousactorsrelatingtotheformulationandimplementation
stages,andhowtheirdynamicinteractionsmayormaynotresultincontinued
evaluationand/oralterationoftheoriginalpolicyobjectives.TheSouthAfrican
contextchaptersoughttofulfilsuchcontextualrequirementsforafuller
understandingofthepolicy,suchasidealsofgovernance,statesteering,andthe
linkbetweenqualityassuranceandtransformation.Aframeworkthattakesinto
accountsuchahostoffactorswillbediscussedbelow.
3.2.4. TheNetworkApproach
Thenetworkunderstandingofthepolicyprocessliesintheideathatthepolicy
processinvolvesadiversityofmutuallyinterdependentactors,thuspropelling
theanalysisofthepolicyprocessawayfromthenotionthatactorsworkby
themselves,inisolation(Adam&Kriesi,2007).
AdamandKriesi(2007)discussthreedifferingapproachestothenetwork
concept.Thefirstconsiderstheconcepttoentaila“distinct,newgoverning
structure”,thesecondinvolvesgenericapplicabilityto“possiblepatternsof
interactionamongpublicandprivateactorsinpolicy‐specificsubsystems”,and
thethirdisa“formalized,quantitativeapproachofsocialnetworkanalysis”(p.
130).Thethirdapproachwillnotbefurtherdiscussedhere.
Thefirstapproach,whichviewstheideaofthepolicynetworkasadistinct
governingstructure,focusesonhowpolicynetworksasadistinctformof
governancedifferfromtraditionalgovernanceapproaches,suchashierarchical
41
ormarketcoordination.Thetermnetworkmanagementencompassestheideaof
adifferentformofpublicmanagement,bornoutofthedisappearingclear
delineationbetweenthatwhichispublicandthatwhichisprivate(Kickert,Klijn
&Koppenjan,1997).Theemergenceofnetworkmanagementcanbeseeninlight
ofthechangesbroughtaboutbyNewPublicManagement,andtheeffectthat
thosechangeshadongovernanceatanationallevel.Networkgovernance,Adam
andKriesiargue,isnotanentirelynovelconcept,butitsfoundationinthe
public‐privateboundaryblurringhaslongbeenseenin“weakstatesthatdonot
havetherequiredresourcesforpolicymaking”(2007,p.132).Thisapproachof
policynetworksasadistinctformofmacrogovernance,whilecertainly
interesting,isnotwhollyrelevanttoastudyfocusingonthemesoandmicro
levelsofpolicy.Whileaspectsofitmayperhapsbecarriedfromthemacrotothe
mesoandmicrolevels,itisofmoreinteresttodiscusstheideasaroundthe
secondapproachtothenetworkconcept,asgenericapplicabilitymayserve
betterinlowerlevelsofanalysis.
Theproblemwiththesecondapproachtothenetworkconcept,thatofgeneric
applicabilitytopossibleinteractionpatternsbetweenpublicandprivateparties,
isalackofcohesivenessintheliterature,alackofagreementbetweencompeting
typologies.AdamandKriesi(2007)seektorectifythislackofcohesivenessby
presentingatypologythattakesintoaccountwhattheydeemthe“essential
networkcharacteristics”(p.133).TheirtypologyisshowninTable1.
Table1:Typologyofessentialnetworkcharacteristics
Typeofinteraction:
Powerdistribution: Conflict Bargaining Cooperation
Concentration Dominance Asymmetric Hierarchical
Fragmentation Competition Symmetric Horizontal
(AdaptedfromAdamandKriesi,2007,p.134.)
Basedonthistypology,theargumentisthatsixtypesofpolicynetworkscan
thenbeidentified.Firstonemustdeterminewhatthedistributionofpoweris
likeinthepolicynetwork,whetheritisconcentratedinthehandsofoneora
few,orifitisfragmentedandsharedamongstactors.Oncethathasbeen
42
determinedthepredominatingtype,ordegree,ofinteractioncanbelookedat.
Theyallowforthreetypesofinteraction,predominatedbyconflict,bargaining
andcooperation.
AdamandKriesi(2007)thentaketheirtypologyonestepfurther,byelaborating
onitsimplicationsforpolicydynamics,thatis,seeinghowthenatureofthe
policynetworkaffectspolicydynamics,andthepotentialwhichspecifictypesof
networksholdforpolicychange,asshowninTable2.
Table2:Potentialandtypeofpolicychange
Typeofinteraction:Distributionofpower: Conflict Bargaining Cooperation
ConcentrationDominance
Moderatepotentialforrapid(serial)shift
AsymmetricLowtomoderatepotentialfor
incrementalchange
HierarchicalLowpotentialfor
change–maintenanceofstatusquo
FragmentationCompetition
Highpotentialforrapid(serial)shift
SymmetricModeratetohighpotentialfor
incrementalchange
HorizontalLowtomoderate
potentialforchange–maintenanceofstatus
quo(AdaptedfromAdamandKriesi,2007,p.145.)
Thistypologyisaninterestingcontributiontotheoverallpolicyliterature,asit
allowsforelaborationofthenetworkconceptwithinanoverallanalytical
framework.Thisisparticularlyimportantasthisstudydoesnotfocus
specificallyonpolicynetworks,butraisesquestionsofhowpolicyisoriginally
formulatedandtranslatedatthemesolevelpriortoimplementation,the
formulationandtranslationpartsoftheprocessbeingparticularlyinterestingin
termsofpolicynetworks.Thistypologycouldcontributeindiscussionofresults.
Oneofthekeyproblemswithanydiscussionofpolicynetworksinan
implementationstudyisthatthereisalackofempiricalevidencerelatingtypes
ofpolicynetworkstospecificpolicyoutcomes,andinfact,thereissome
evidencetothecontrary,whichexplicitlyfoundalackofaconnectionbetween
networksandoutcomes(e.g.Richardson,2000;Daguerre,2000).Itistherefore
thechallengeoffutureresearchtoattempttofindvalid,empiricallinksbetween
networksandoutcomes(Adam&Kriesi,2007).Asstatedabove,networksare
notthecentrepiecesofthisstudy,butbyusingpolicynetworksasoneanalytical
43
toolinabroaderframework,linksmaybeestablishedthatwouldprovidethe
directionforfuturestudy.Therefore,despitetheproblemoflackofempirical
evidence,networkanalysisisstillrelevantforunderstandingtheinitialstepsin
thepolicyprocess,thatisagendasetting,formulation,andpossiblyanadditional
steppriortoimplementation,inwhichpolicyisinterpreted.Givenabetter
understandingoftheseinitialsteps,linksmaybeestablishedtotheoperational
sideofpolicy.
3.2.5. Punctuatedequilibriumtheory
Theideaspresentedbypunctuated‐equilibriumtheoryareindirectlyrelevantto
thisstudy.Reasonsforreducedrelevanceincludethefactthatthetheorywas
bornoutresearchfocusedontheUnitedStatesandhasbeenconfirmedin
severaladvanceddemocraciesandfocusesprimarilyontheissuedefinitionand
agendasettingelementsofthepolicyprocess(True,Jones&Baumgartner,2007)
whilethisstudyisbasedonresearchcarriedoutinSouthAfrica,ayoung
democracy,andfocusesspecificallyontheimplementationelementofthepolicy
process,thoughwithsomeviewgiventoearlierelements.
Punctuated‐equilibriumtheorymakesadistinctionbetweenwhatcanbecalled
macro‐politics,wherepunctuations,orrapidchangemayoccur,andsubsystem
politics,whereingeneralequilibriumorincrementalismisthenorm(True,Jones
&Baumgartner,2007).Whatisparticularlyinterestingtonotewouldbethe
acknowledgementofrelevanceortiestoothertheoriesofthepolicyprocess.For
instance,Trueetal.describeasituationofmajorpoliticalchangeastheopening
ofa“windowofopportunity”,aclearreferencetoKingdon’smultiplestreams
framework(seeZahariadis,2007).Inaddition,thewholediscussionofpolicy
subsystemsdirectlyrelatestotheideaofpolicynetworksasgenerically
applicabletovarioustypesofrelationships,asdiscussedintermsofthesecond
approachtonetworktheory,above.Thisisonewayinwhichpunctuated‐
equilibriumtheoryneedstobeborneinmindforthisstudy–asitrelatestothe
ideaofpolicynetworks.
Punctuated‐equilibriumtheoryisalsolinkedtoworkonsocialmovements,
throughitsfocusonissuedynamics.Thetheorybasicallymaintainsthatina
44
specificsituationpoliticalconflictmayexpand“beyondtheconfinesofexpert‐
dominatedpolicysubsystems”,thusenteringotherpolicyvenues,allowingthe
issuetobubbleoverinasense,becomingapunctuationinthepolicymaking
process(True,Jones&Baumgartner,2007,p.176).Thisisasecondwayinwhich
punctuated‐equilibriumtheoryisindirectlyrelevanttothisstudy.
3.2.6. TheAdvocacyCoalitionFramework
TheAdvocacyCoalitionFramework(ACF)canbeseenasgroundedinasynthesis
ofthebottom‐upandtop‐downschoolsofimplementationtheory,discussed
below.Itisconsideredatheoryofthepolicyprocess,ratherthanan
implementation‐specifictheory,asitdealswithpolicychange,ratherthan
explicitimplementation,overtimespansofadecadeormore.Itborrows
elementsofthebottom‐upnetworkingtechniqueofHjernandcolleagues,
discussedbelowas‘implementationstructures’,andstartsfromthe
identificationofapolicysubsystem,includingidentificationofthoseactors
indirectlyinvolved.Inturn,itborrowselementsofthetop‐downmodelsofe.g.
VanMeterandVanHorn(1975)andPressmanandWildavsky(1973),discussed
furtherbelow,astheyrelatetoconcernsofbehaviouralconstraintspositedby
socio‐economicconditionsandlegalinstruments(Sabatier,2007a,p.26).
ThevalueofsuchaframeworkastheACFtoastudyinthefieldofhigher
educationmightbetheroleofthepolicysubsystem,definedasthoseactorswho
“formavarietyofpublicandprivateorganisationswhoareactivelyconcerned
withapolicyproblemorissue,suchashighereducation”(Sabatier,2007a,p.
27),ensuringthatthebroadestrangeofactorsistakenintoaccount,andnot
solelythecommandinghierarchicalstructure.However,forthisparticularstudy,
whichfocusesonanationalpolicyofqualityassurance,theACFas“startingfrom
apolicyproblemorsubsystem–ratherthanalaworotherpolicydecision”
(Sabatier,2007a,p.26)becomesconsiderablylessrelevantand/orusefulfor
developingananalyticalframeworkforthestudy.
However,aspectsoftheACFarehelpfulandpertinentwhenconsideringcertain
aspectsofthepolicyprocess.Forinstance,theACFemphasespolicy‐oriented
learning,depictedasinternalfeedbackloops,coupledwith“increased
45
knowledgeofthestateoftheproblemparametersandfactorsaffectingthem”
(Sabatier,2007a,p.30).Essentially,thispolicy‐orientedlearningcanresultin
changestothepolicycoreorobjectives.Aninterestingquestionmightbeto
whatextentpolicy‐orientedlearningtakesplaceintheinteractiveprocess
betweenformulationandimplementation.
3.3. Policyimplementation
HillandHupe(2002)provideanoverviewofthetheoreticalliteratureonpolicy
implementation.Theypositionthetheoreticaldiscussionasoccurringpre‐
1970s,beforethetermimplementationcameintouse(p.18‐40).Theythen
discusstheliteratureonimplementation,intheearly1970s(p.41‐84).Thetwo
primaryschoolsthatemergedinthe1970sand1980s,termedthetop‐downand
bottom‐upapproaches,weretheoriginaltheoreticaldedicationstowhathad
previouslybeenconsideredthemissinglinkofpolicy‐thatis,theleapfrom
formulationtooutcomes.
Theideaofimplementationhadofcourseexistedbefore‐butspecific
approachestoimplementationstudiesbeganinthe1970s.Inpart,thismaybe
duetotherecognitionthroughpolicyevaluation(seeEaston,1965)thatoften
whatwasplanned(policyformulation)didnothappen(policyoutcomes).The
birthof'implementationstudies'isasmuchachangeintheuseoftheconceptas
itisthebirthofatrulynewtheoreticalfield(Hill&Hupe,2002).Interestingly
thisissomethingseenagaininthelate1990s,inthenoteddeclinein
implementationstudies,asanalysisbecameincreasinglybasedonbusiness
language(Barrett,2004).
Thoseconditionsthatmaylimitgeneralapplicabilityoftheoriesof
implementationinclude"variationsbetweenpolicyissues"and"variations
betweeninstitutionalcontexts",suggestingthatgeneralisationsmaybeboundto
specificnationalorpoliticalcontexts(Hill&Hupe,2002,p.43).Inthislight,
attentionshouldbepaidtothespecificcontextofpolicies.Scholarshavenoted
thatthesheerdifficultyinfindingacohesiveimplementationmodelmayliein
thefactthatgeneralisationassuchisvirtuallyimpossibletoachieve(Hill&
Hupe,2002).Thisgivesrisetothenotionthataccountsandstudiesof
46
implementationmustbecontext‐specific,inordertohavesomegeneralised
application,thoughnecessarilyboundedbyaparticularcontext.Forexample,
implementationwithinparticularsectors,suchashighereducation.
Thisdifficultyinfindingacohesivemodel,orthelimitedabilitytogeneralise
aboutimplementationindifficultcontexts,maywellbethereasonforwhy,
despitetheaforementionedrenewedinterestthisdecadeinimplementation
studies,attemptsatcreatingacoherentsynthesizedtheoryofimplementation
duringthe1990sandbeyondhavepeteredout.ThecontributionsofLesterand
Goggin(1998)havebeencriticisedashaving“nonewtheoreticalsynthesesand
noprogrammeofempiricalresearch”(Sabatier,2007a,p.24),andMatland’s
(1995)ambiguity‐conflictmodelfallspreytonobodyhaving“seriouslyapplied
Matland’sframework”(Sabatier,2007a,p.25).ThiscriticismbySabatier,
however,mustbetakenwithagrainofsalt,ashefirmlybelievesthatonlyhis
AdvocacyCoalitionFrameworkiscoherent,hasbeenempiricallytested,is
constantlybeingdeveloped,andiswidelyused.
Thedifferencebetweenthetop‐downandbottom‐upapproachesto
implementationhasbeendescribedintermsofthreedifferentusagecontexts:
1. Themostappropriatewaytodescribetheimplementationprocess.
2. Themostappropriatemethodologyforimplementationresearch.
3. Thenormativepurposeofimplementationresearch(Premfors,1984,quotedinGornitzka,KyvikandStensaker,2007,p.38).
Inessencethesedifferencescentreonhowonedefinesimplementation,howone
definespolicyand/ortheobjectofimplementation,howsuccessorfailureis
determined,andhowbestitistoaccomplishpolicy/objectivesthrough
implementation.Debatesofthesedefinitionsandcharacterisationsare
fundamentaltotheclashingtop‐downandbottom‐upperspectives.
3.3.1. Topdown
Asmentionedearlier,thetop‐downapproachbeganwiththeseminalwork
Implementation.HowGreatExpectationsinWashingtonareDashedinOakland;
Or,WhyIt’sAmazingThatFederalProgramsWorkAtAllThisBeingASagaOfThe
EconomicDevelopmentAdministrationAsToldByTwoSympatheticObservers
47
WhoSeekToBuildMoralsOnAFoundationOfRuinedHopeswrittenbyPressman
andWildavsky(1973,1984),consideredbyseveralscholars(includingParsons,
1995;Ryan,1995)tobethe'foundingfathers'ofimplementationresearch.They
areconsideredtobepartofthetop‐downschoolofimplementationtheorists,
whosestartingpointispolicyformulation,andimplementationresearchthen
looksatthegoalsofthepolicy,andhowtheymightbehardtoachieve.Thecrux
oftheirproposedmodelinvolvestheideaofan"implementationchain",arguing
thatthemoredistantthecooperationbetweeninstitutionsrequiredtowork
togethertoimplementapolicy,themorelikelytherearetobeproblemsin
implementation,thusintroducingthetermimplementationdeficit(Pressman&
Wildavsky,1984).
Inthesecondeditionofthework,afterPressman'sdeath,Wildavskyappearsto
distancehimselfsomewhatfromtheoriginalmodel,addinganewchapter,
'ImplementationasEvolution',writtenwithanItalianscholar,Majone.The
originalmodelhasaverypractical,rationalapproach:"policysetsgoals;
implementationresearchisconcernedwithconsideringwhatthenmakesthe
achievementofthosegoalsdifficult"(Hill&Hupe,2002,p.44)asstatedabove.
However,thisslightshiftinthesecondeditionseemstofavourtheideathat
formulationandimplementationareinteractivepartsofthepolicyprocess,and
notsimplylogicalfirstandsecondsteps.Thisshiftissignificant,asastep
towardsthethinkingthatthepolicyprocessishighlyinterconnected.
VanMeterandVanHorn(1975)wentastepfurtherfromthePressmanand
Wildavskymodel,puttingforwardamodelbasedontheassumptionthat
implementationismostlikelytobesuccessfulwhengoalconsensusofthepolicy
ishighandonlymarginalchangeisrequired(1975,p.461).Ofthesixfactors
thatVanMeterandVanHorndiscuss,itisinterestingtopointoutthatof
characteristicsoftheimplementingagencies.Thisisimportanttobearinmind,
specificallyinhighereducationandtheSouthAfricancontext,wherevarious
humanresourceconstraintsaffecttheabilitytosuccessfullyimplementhigher
educationreforms.
48
Whatisinterestingabouttheirmodelisthatarrowsalwayspointforward,from
thepolicyanditsstandardsandobjectives,andresources,throughtovarious
variables,withtheendresultbeingperformance,whichonecouldcallpolicy
outcomes.Thereisaclearlinearitybetweenthepolicygoals(standardsand
objectives),leadingtothevariousvariablesaffectingimplementation,tooutputs.
VanMeterandVanHornintroducedtheirmodelinthe1970s,priortothe
secondeditionofPressmanandWildavsky'sworkintheearly1980s,andprior
totheapparentshiftinWildavsky'sthinkingfromthemorerational,procedural
steps,toaninteractionbetweenformulationandimplementation.Whatis
missinginamodelsuchastheoneputforthbyVanMeterandVanHornissome
sortoffeedbackloop.Admittedly,VanMeterandVanHornwerecreatinga
modeltoguideimplementationstudies,ratherthanprescribeimplementation
processestoactualpolicypractitioners.Thismodelwouldhavebeen
strengthenedbytheroleofafeedbackloop,howeverformalorinformalitmight
be.Thiswouldbothacknowledgetheinteractive,non‐linearnatureofthepolicy
process,andwouldalsoallowthosepractitionersutilisingthemodelassome
sortofguidelinetolookforwaystolearnfromtheprocess.
TheleapfromthedescriptivemodelofVanMeterandVanHorn(1975)tothe
prescriptivemodelofSabatierandMazmanian(1979,1980)includesthecrucial
elementofthefeedbackprocess(Sabatier,1986,p.22),yetstillincludesaclear
distinctionbetweenpolicyformulationandimplementation.Sabatierand
Mazmanian’smodelborrowed,however,fromVanMeterandVanHorn(1975),
andfromPressmanandWildvasky(1973),initslistofsixfactorsconsideredto
benecessaryforeffectiveimplementation.Theseare:
1. Clearandconsistentobjectives.
2. Adequatecausaltheory.
3. Implementationprocesslegallystructuredtoenhancecompliancebyimplementingofficialsandtargetgroups.
4. Committedandskilfulimplementingofficials.
5. Supportofinterestgroupsandsovereignsovertime.
6. Changesinsocio‐economicconditions,whichdonotsubstantiallyunderminepoliticalsupportorcausaltheory(Sabatier,2007a,p.19‐20).
49
SabatierandMazmanian’smodelhasbeendevelopingeversinceitwasfirst
introducedinthelate1970s.Thesixfactors,orvariables,althoughclearly
strictlytop‐down,areusefulforconsiderationinananalyticalframework,
bearinginmindcertaincriticismsoftheprescriptivemodel.Theseincludethat
clearandconsistentobjectivesarehardtoachieve–particularlyinagrowing
cultureofnegotiationinpolicymaking–andthereforetheassessmentofthe
effectivenessofaprogrammemustbereconceptualisedasencompassingarange
of“acceptablevalues”(Sabatier,2007a,p.21).
HogwoodandGunn(1984)sharesimilaritieswithSabatierandMazmanianin
thattheirtop‐downtheorisingisprescriptiveandprovidesrecommendationsfor
policymakers.Theirlistofrecommendationsisguardedfromachargeof
idealismbyadmissionsofthatwhichisnotpossible,buttheydescribethese
recommendationsasconstituting'perfectimplementation',aconceptborrowed
fromHood's(1976)discussionof'perfectadministration'whereavailabilityof
resourcesandpoliticalwillwouldresultin'perfectimplementation'.Setting
forthaprescriptionfor'perfectimplementation'topolicymakers,while
admittingthatitcannotbeattained,mayseemfruitlessandidealistic,butatleast
itprovidespolicymakersandimplementersalikewithanidealforwhichto
strive.Inadditiontobeingprescriptiveandusefulforpolicymakers,the
approachforwardedbyHogwoodandGunn(1984)isausefulanalyticaltoolfor
thosestudyingimplementationasitprovidesamodelofthesituationbeing
researched(Hill&Hupe,2002).
3.3.2. Bottomup
IfPressmanandWildavskywerethe'foundingfathers'ofthetop‐down
approach,theirbottom‐upcounterpartcanbeconsideredtobeLipsky(1980)
whopublishedStreetlevelBureaucracy.DilemmasoftheIndividualinPublic
Services.Hemakestheargumentthatstreet‐levelbureaucratsnecessarilyenter
theservicetraditionwithsomeshredorsemblanceofidealism,buttime,
resources,pressureandotherconstraintsputtheminthepositionofhavingto
createcopingmechanisms.Whileontheonehandthiscontributioncanbe
viewedasatestamenttohowharditistocontroltheactionsofstreet‐level
bureaucrats,thepeopleonthegroundactuallycarryingoutpolicygoals,itis
50
moreofatestamenttohowLipskyviewspolicyimplementation,intermsof
"street‐levelworkerswithhighserviceidealsexercisingdiscretionunder
intolerablepressures"(Hill&Hupe,2002,p.53).
ThisiswhereLipsky'stitleof'foundingfather'ofthebottom‐upapproachmay
bewelldeserved.Heprovidedanewresearchperspective,shiftingawayfroma
focusontop‐downpolicyinput,andlookingatwhatactuallyhappensatthe
implementationlevel,ratherthanwhatdeficitsoccur.
Criticismsofthetop‐downmodels,forwardedbyadvocatesofthebottom‐up
school,areinvariablyconsideredtobeaddressedbythemodelsforwardedby
thebottom‐upscholarsthemselves.Theseincludeafocusthatcentraldecision
makersneglectotheractors,e.g.privatesector,localofficials,bothintermsof
policyimplementation,andintermsofpolicysubversion/diversion,andthat
top‐downmodelsarehardtouseincasesotherthanthosefocusingonacentral
pieceoflegislation(Sabatier,2007a,p.22).
Implementationstructures,asdiscussedbyHjernandPorter(1981),arehighly
reminiscentofdiscussionofpolicynetworks.Whiletheimplementation
structuresmightbetermedimplementationnetworks,thedifferenceliesin
wherethepolicyformulationtakesplace.ThefocusofHjernandPorterison
field‐levelactorswhoaremakingdecisionsaboutimplementation,whereas
policynetworksaddressthebroaderideasofpolicyformulation.Ideologically
onemightbeabletolinkthetwo,ifoneistofollowtheargumentthatthoseat
thebottomarethetruepolicymakers,astheycreatepolicythroughtheir
(implementing)actions.However,thisisnotanargumentthatwillbepursued
here.
Anotherinterestingfeatureofimplementationstructuresisaconcernwithhow
itmightbepossibletoimproveaccountabilityatthefieldorstreet‐level‐a
concernvoicedbyLipsky(1980)aswell.Concernswith,andquestionsof,
accountabilityinimplementationareofinterestinthisstudy.Dependingonthe
philosophicalorpracticalstancetakenonqualityassurance,anagendaof
accountabilitycouldlieatitsheart.
51
BarrettandFudge(1981)placedaparticularemphasisontheconceptof
compromiseasalikelyprerequisitetoaction.Theyalsospeakofdifferentmodes
ofaction.Theyseethelinkbetweenpolicyandactionasdynamicallyconnected,
suggestingthatpolicymayundergo"interpretationandmodification"andeven
"subversion"(1981,p.251)bythoseactorsinvolvedinitsimplementation.
TheproblematicaspectsofBarrettandFudge'sdepictionofthepolicy‐action
continuumseemtobetherejectionthatpolicyformulationcanbeseparated
fromimplementation,thereforemakingitverydifficulttodemarcatethescope
ofanyresearchonspecificelementsofthepolicyprocess.Thisdoesnotmean
thattheanti‐thesisinvolvessubscribingtothesomewhatoutdatedstages
heuristic,asdiscussedearlier.Itsimplyimpliesthattheirpost‐modernistview
canbeseenasanargumentforpolicyresearchtobeonacase‐by‐casebasis,
ratherthantoaimformoregeneralisedtheoreticalapproaches.
However,theiremphasisontheconstantpoliticalnatureoftheimplementation
processmightsimplybeviewedasdefiningpoliticsasa(far‐reaching)variable
intheimplementationprocess,andthattheiremphasisoncompromiseinthe
implementationprocesssuggestsafeedbackloopwiththoseresponsiblefor
policyformulation,conceptualisingimplementationasnegotiationand
interaction.Inessence,thispotentialfeedbackloop,thepresenceorlackthereof
havingbeenpreviouslydiscussed,couldinserta'missing'elementintothepolicy
processastraditionallydefined:thatofpolicytranslation.Thereforetheprocess
couldbeviewedasagendasetting,formulation,'translation',implementation,
andevaluation,wheretranslationcanbeseenasdynamic,cooperative,andas
assessment‐in‐action,lookingatwhatworksand/orhowtomakethingswork.
3.3.3. Networktheory–andotherapproaches
Theneedforanapproachtopolicyimplementation,alternativetothetop‐down
andbottom‐upschools,isperhapsbestcapturedinthewordsofSabatier
(2007b,p.23)whenhesays“justastop‐downersareindangerof
overemphasisingtheimportanceofthecentrevis‐à‐vistheperiphery,bottom‐
uppersarelikelytooveremphasisetheabilityoftheperipherytofrustratethe
52
centre.”Thissuggeststheneedforamorebalancedperspective,wherethereis
anattemptmadetobalancetheroleofthecentreandthefieldperiphery.
Scharpf(1978)developedideasofpolicynetworksintermsoftheircoordinating
qualities.Theseideaswerelaterpickedupbyotherscholars,suggestingthat
networksmight'solve'orreconcileWilson'sclassicpolitics‐administration
dichotomy(1897),bybringingthestateclosertocivilsociety(Smith,1993),
pickinguponHjern's(1982)ideasthattheelusive"implementationdeficit"
identifiedbyPressmanandWildavsky(1973,1984)mightbedealtwiththrough
developingnetworks,orcommunities,tocollaborateonpolicyissues.
Forinstance,ifapolicyisbeingdevelopedatthestate(macro)level,the
argumentgoesthatthereislesslikelytobeanimplementationdeficit,ormore
likelytobe'policysuccess',ifstakeholdersandactorsfromtheactual
implementingsectorsareincludedinthepolicyformulationprocess.Thisbrings
aboutthedesiredcontinuitybetweentheformulationandimplementationof
policy.
Thismoreconsultativeorcollaborativeapproachtopolicyimplementationdoes
notseepolicy"intermsoftherealisationornon‐realisationofhierarchically
determinedgoals"(Hill&Hupe,2002,p.61),thereforeshiftingtheemphasis
fromsetgoalsthatmustbeimplemented,towhatmightevenbecomeless
prescriptivepolicyformulation,resultinginlessofanimplementation'deficit',or
‘gap’.Criticismofwhatmightatfirststrikeoneasanidealsolutiontothe
problemsofimplementationincludeconcernswiththeinterestsofthosewho
arenotincludedinthesepolicynetworksorcommunities(seeKickert,Klijn&
Koppenjan,1997).Nonetheless,networktheorywithinimplementationstudies,
aswellaswithinbroaderideasofthepolicyprocess(discussedabove),givesa
newwayoflookingathowformulationandimplementationcanbedealtwith
consultatively‐thoughduetoitsverynatureitcomplicatesacleardistinction
betweenthosetwoelementsofthepolicyprocess.
53
3.3.4. Lessonsfromthestrategicmanagementprocess
MintzbergandWaters(1985)discusstheconceptofstrategy,andidentifyparts
ofthestrategicprocessasintended,unrealised,deliberate,emergentand
realised,asshowninFigure1.
Figure1:Strategicmanagementprocess(Mintzberg&Waters,1985).
Intendedstrategyisthatwhichisarticulatedbytheorganisationatthestartof
thestrategicprocess,inmuchthesamemannerastheformulationofapolicy,
priortoimplementation.Deliberatestrategyiswhatoccursonthepathfrom
intentiontoreality,whichunder‘perfect’conditionscanformexactlyas
intended.However,MintzbergandWaterspositthatunrealisedstrategyisthat
partofthestrategythatfallsbythewaysideduringimplementation,whichcould
beanexpressionofdeliberateornon‐deliberatesubversion.Unrealisedstrategy
isthensupplementedbyemergentstrategy,asthatwhichemergesfromthe
organisationitself,inresponsetotheimplementationoftheintendedstrategy.
Thisemergentresponsecanbeseenasthebackandforthprocessoccurringin
theunclearboundariesbetweenpolicyformulationandpolicyimplementation.
Astrategycanbeperfectlyemergentifactionisconsistentovertime,inthe
absenceofaclearlyintendedstrategytodeliberatelyguideactionsthrough
executionorimplementation.Thisisstronglyreminiscentofbottom‐up
conceptionsofpolicymaking.MintzbergandWatersdepicttheeventualrealised
strategyastheendproduct,thoughinthecaseofadynamiccyclethisrealised
strategyisarguablyre‐evaluatedorreformulatedoncemore.Mintzbergand
Waters’conceptualisationofthestrategyprocesslendsitselftoanargumentfor
adynamicinterpretationofthepolicyprocessasdepictedintermsofpolicy
stages.
54
3.4. Analyticalframework
Theemphasisofthisstudyistounderstandhowcentralisedpolicymakingand
localisedactivityinteractinwaysthathinderorsupportthepolicyprocess.A
nationalpolicyofqualityassurancewasselectedtoserveasacommonpolicy
exampleintheinterviews,yetmoregeneralmusingsduringtheinterviews
broughtupexamplesofvariousdifferentpolicies.Tounderstandtheinteraction
betweencentralisedpolicymakingandlocalisedactivity,anunderstandingofthe
policyprocessingeneralisrequired,withaviewtounderstandingthe
institutionalresponsepartlyintermsofpolicy‘translation’orinterpretation.
Analysisofgovernancepracticesisguidedbyidealtypesandcombinations
thereof.First,somethoughtsonqualityassuranceareintroduced.
3.4.1. Thoughtsonqualityassurance
O’Toole(2004)pointstoafundamentalnormativedifferencebetweenthetop‐
downandbottom‐upperspectivesonimplementation,whenheasks:
Isimplementationprimarilyamatterofassemblingactioninsupportoftheintentionsandordersofpoliticalleaders?Orofmobilizingtheenergiesofdisparatestakeholderstomakesensiblechoicesincongealingproblemsolvingaroundacomplex,context‐specific,anddynamicpolicyissue?Doesthepracticalquestionessentiallyfocusonissuesofcomplianceandmonitoring?Orofinnovation,collaboration,andcreativity?Totheextentthattherearedifferentpositionsonthismatter,therelevanceofapparent‘knowledge’regardingimplementationislikelytobeamatterindispute.Furtherresearchwillnotsolvesuchfundamentalnormativedifferences(p.314).
Here,O’Toolelinkswordslikecomplianceandmonitoringtothetop‐down
school,andwordslikeinnovationandcollaborationtothebottom‐upschool.Itis
notagreatleaptoseeinghowthetop‐downbottom‐updebaterelatestothe
accountability‐improvementdebatewithinthequalityassuranceliterature.Can
thetwoco‐exist?Aretheyonacontinuum?Dotheyexistinparallel?Or,as
HarveyandNewtoncontend,aretheydistinctdimensionsofquality,withno
intrinsictensionbetweenthem?(2007,p.232).Theypointoutthatthe
“argumentisthatimprovementcomesfromachangecultureandlocal
ownership,whichcomplianceprocessesdonotencourage”(2007,p.231).
InthecaseoftheSouthAfricanhighereducationsector,whichcomprises23
publicuniversities,itisclearthatqualityassurancemustserveadualpurpose:
theinstitutionsmustbepubliclyaccountableforthefundsthattheyreceive,yet
55
simultaneouslytheymustcontinuouslystrivetoimprovetheirqualityof
teaching,learningandresearch.Tensionariseswhengovernmentsteering
makesaccountabilitydemandsthataffectaninstitution’sautonomyto
determinetheirowninstitutionalmission.Itisnottosaythataninstitution
cannotcontinuetoimproveonitsownterms,butitmustalsoservethepublic
good,whichintheSouthAfricasituationextendsthedefinitionofqualityfrom
“fitnessforpurpose”to“fitnessofpurpose”,aswellas.Whiletheframework
usedfordataanalysiscentresonpolicytheory,thelinksdisplayedinTable3will
beexploredastheyemergeintheanalysis.
Table3:Purpose,mechanismsandspheresinqualityassurance
PurposeofQualityAssurance Accountability ImprovementImplementingmechanisms Complianceandmonitoring
throughauditandaccreditation
Developmentandcollaborationthroughpeer‐reviewandself‐evaluation
Sphere External InternalBasedon… Process Content
3.4.2. Policy‘translation’inhighereducation
ThediscussionofSabatierandMazmanian’sAdvocacyCoalitionFramework
includedtheideaofpolicy‐orientedlearning.Interestingly,SabatierandCerych’s
(1986)work,GreatExpectationsandMixedPerformance.TheImplementationof
HigherEducationReformsinEurope,broadlyconsideredtobetheseminal
contributiontothehighereducationpolicyimplementationliterature,they
mentionthat“programreformulationmayalsobetheproductofamoresubtle
processinvolvingcumulativelyimportantchangeslargelyimperceptibleto
peopleoutsidetheimplementinginstitutions”(p.10).Thisunderstandingof
programmereformulationcanalsobeseeninlightofpolicychange,thatis,as
originalpolicyobjectivesarealteredduringtheimplementationprocess.A
similarconceptionintheworkofBarrettandFudge(1981)isdiscussedabove.
Itappearstobebroadlyacceptedintheliteraturethat:
1) Thereisa‘gap’betweenpolicyformulationandpolicyimplementation.
2) Somedegreeofpolicychange/subversiongoesonattheimplementation
level.
56
3) Therecanbe‘reformulation’attheimplementationlevel,whichdoesnot
necessarilyqualifyasadeliberateattempttoalterpolicyobjectives.
4) Itisdifficult/impossible,yetapparentlyanalyticallynecessary,tomakea
cleardistinctionbetweenpolicyformulationandpolicyimplementation.
Thisbegsthequestion:this‘gap’or‘missinglink’betweenthetwoelementsof
thepolicyprocessshouldsurelybeconsideredsomethingratherthannothing,or
missing.SimplystatedinthewordsofMajoneandWildavsky(1978)
“Implementationisevolution…Whenweacttoimplementapolicy,wechange
it”(p.114).Therefore,itisproposedthatthis‘gap’,orthischange,between
formulationandimplementationbeconsideredaperiodofpolicytranslation,as
brieflyalludedtoearlier.Policytranslationcanbeunderstoodintermsofan
interactive,interpretativeprocess.
ThishasbeenarguedbyStensaker(2007),whousestheconceptoftranslationin
adiscussionofhighereducationqualityassurance,todefinethe“processthat
goeswithmovefromthegovernmental,externaloutlookonqualityassuranceto
theinternal,managementview”(Westerheijden,Stensaker&JoaoRosa,2007,p.
6).Theycontinue:
Translationsuggestsamorecomplicatedprocessthanthemoretraditionaltermof‘implementation’.Implementationsuggestsalinear,mechanicalprocessofmakingcommandshappen,whiletranslationhastheimageofanactiveprocessperformedbyaninterpreter–andmuchmaybelostintranslation…Successfultranslationisnotjustamatterofreplacingawordfromonelanguagewithawordfromanother,butalsomusttakeaccountofdifferentgrammar,syntax,andculturalnuances.
Thelattertermtakesusfromthedesignfocusrelatedtoregulatoryissuestohowpoliciesaretranslatedintopracticewithincreasedattentionpaidtopolicynetworks,policycommunities,andpolicystyles…itisnotthedesign,butthedynamicsofthepolicytranslationprocessthatisemphasised(Westerheijden,Stensaker&JoaoRosa,2007,p.6).
Stensaker’sdiscussionofpolicyimplementationisfocusedonhighereducation.
Heconcedesthebottom‐heavycharacteristicsofhighereducationinstitutions
andtheirresistancetochange,statingthatitis“morethetranslationofquality
thathasbeensociallyauthorisedthantheideaofqualityassuch.Hence,
potentialresistanceappearsnottobedirectedagainstchangeassuch,but
againstchangethatcouldaffectthefundamentalcharacteristicsofhigher
education”(Stensaker,2007,p.113).
57
Thisperiodofpolicytranslationisanoverlappingperiodbetweenformulation
andimplementation,anditisproposedthatitshouldbeconsideredpartofa
dynamicpolicyprocess.
Theconceptoftranslationisfurthersupportedbytheunderstandingthatin
highereducation“policymakingandreformimplementationtendtotakeplace
moreandmoreinanetworkstructurethatreplacestraditionalbilateral
relationshipsbetweenthegovernmentandhighereducationinstitutions.Instead
oflookingatimplementationprocessinthetraditional(causal)way,
implementationprocessesshouldbeperceivedasinteractiveprocesses”
(Gornitzka,Kyvik&Stensaker,2007,p.53).Thisnotionofinteractivitynotonly
contributestotheconceptoftranslationbutalsopointsouttheneedforany
analyticalframeworkforimplementationresearchtoincludean
acknowledgementofandroleforthedynamicaspectoftheprocess.
Policytranslationwillbeexploredinthedatatoseetowhatextentthereisan
indicationthatintheresponseofhighereducationinstitutionstothe
implementationofanationalpolicythereareexamplesontheonehandofpolicy
formulationandpolicyimplementation,andofpolicytranslation.Thelatter
shouldthrowlightontheinstitutionalresponseinthepolicyprocess.Onemust
bearinmindthattranslationwillbedependentonsuchfactorsasthestructure
ofnationalgovernance,interactionbetweengovernmentstructuresand
institutions,andthenatureofthepolicy.Inshort,theroleandusefulnessofthe
translationconceptmightdependonthecontextinwhichitistobeused.
3.4.3. Frameworkofgovernance
Gornitzka,KoganandAmaralpointoutthat“studiesofimplementationarenota
dead‐endenterprisebut…implementationasobjectofinvestigationdoesnot
necessarilyhavetobeundertakenwithinalimitedsetofanalyticalframeworks.
Implementationstudiesincludeavarietyofframeworksthatrefertoconceptual
developmentsmoregenerally”(2007,p.5).Bearingthisinmind,anyframework
deemedusefulforthisstudyshouldbuildonanunderstandingofothertheories,
modelsorframeworksofthepolicyprocessingeneralandimplementationin
particular.Inthissense,evenatheoreticalframeworkthatfocuseson
58
descriptionratherthanprescriptionisuseful,aswithalargerbodyofknowledge
adheringtocertainframeworkseventuallyprescriptivetrendscouldbe
identifiedoutofempiricalstudies.
HillandHupe(2002,p.183‐187)provideananalyticalframeworkwherethey
presentthreelevelsofactionintermsofpolitical‐societalrelationsloci,inorder
toillustrateandcategorisethedifferentactivitiesfallingunderthelabelof
governance,showninTable4.HillandHupepointoutthatcertainfactorsfall
outsidetheframework,inwhattheyterma‘meta‐locus’.Theseincludeeconomic
andsocio‐culturalfactorsandinstitutionalenvironments.
HillandHupe(2002)understandtheconstitutional,thedirectiveandthe
operationaltobethreetypesofactivities(levelsofaction),examplesofwhich
canbefoundinallthreelevelsofpolitical‐societalrelations.Thatiswhyatthe
macrolevelweseeexamplesofconstitutionalactivities(e.g.designof
institutions),directiveactivities(e.g.policyformulation),andoperational
activities(managementofpolicyprocesses).Theybasethiscategorisationonthe
workofKiserandOstrom(1982)whospeakof‘worldsofaction’.
Table4:Analyticalframework:Thethreelevelsofgovernance
Levelofaction Constitutional Directive OperationalPolitical‐administrativesystemMacroPolicysetting
DesigningpoliticalandadministrativeinstitutionsSystemdesign(e.g.inter‐governmentalrelations)
Formulationanddecision(designinglegislationandpolicystatutories)Creatingpolicyframeworks(e.g.institutionalisingoversight)
Managingpolicyprocesses
InstitutionalrelationsMesoInstitutionalsetting
Systemsmaintenance
Designingandmaintainingimplementationtrajectories
Managinginter‐organizationalrelations
Locusinpoliticalsocietalrelations
StreetlevelMicroMicrosetting
Designinglocalinstitutions
Designinglocal‘implementationpolicies’
Managingexternalandinternalcontacts
(AdaptedfromHillandHupe,2002,p.183.)
HillandHupe(2002)alsoconsiderthisframeworktobeamappingofthestages
heuristicofpolicy.Thisisperhapsclearestatthedirectivelevelofactionwhere
59
weseeformulationordesignatthemacrolevel,designandmaintenanceof
implementationtrajectoriesatthemesolevel,whichcouldbeseenasasortof
‘policytranslation’level,downtothemicrolevelwherepoliciesare
implemented.
HillandHupe(2002,p.186)buildontheframeworkinTable5,withasummary
ofcharacterisationsofsettings,inordertobeabletotiespecific
characterisationsofsettingstodefinedmodesofgovernance.
Table5:Characterisationofsettings
Policysettings Characterofpolicyformulation
Distinctpolicyformulation
Frameworkpolicyformulation
Ongoingpolicyformulation
Institutionalsettings Characterofinter‐organizationalrelations
Systemofcommand Marketplace Network
Microsettings Orientation Ruleapplication Service Consultationand
consensusFittinglabelformodeofgovernance
Authority Transaction Persuasion
(AdaptedfromHillandHupe,2002,p.186.)
Eachofthemodesofgovernancefitsaspecific‘actionperspective’which
prescribeswhatsortofimplementationmanagementisapplicable,atthe
operationallevel.TheactionperspectivesareshowninTable6.
Table6:Actionperspectives
Authority Enforcementperspective
Centraltothisismanagementviainputs
Chain
Transaction Performanceperspective
Managementofoutputsandcompliancewithoutputtargetsiscentraltothisperspective.
Rope
Persuasion Co‐productionperspective
Centraltothisisallowingparticipationofseveralactors,andmanagingoutcomes,consideringthemtobesharedresults.
Woventhread
(AdaptedfromHillandHupe,2002,p.188‐189.)
Inessence,HillandHupeareseekingtomapoutelementsofthestagesheuristic,
aswellasconceptualiseimplementationintermsofoperationalgovernance.To
60
thisend,thecharacterisationofsettingsandtosomeextenttheaction
perspectivescanbeunderstoodaspartoftheoperationalsectionofTable4.
Tables4,5and6havebeenmergedtomapouttheprocesses,showninTable7.
Table7:Governancesynthesisedanalyticalstructure
Levelofaction
Constitutional Directive Operational
Mode Authority Transaction Persuasion(orDeliberation)
Perspective Enforcement(viainputs)
PerformanceManagement(viaoutputs)
Co‐production(viaoutcomesassharedresults)
Analogy Chain Rope WovenThread
Politicaladministrativesystem
Designingpoliticalandadministrativeinstitutions
Formulationanddecision(designinglegislationandpolicystatutories)
Managingpolicyprocesses
Makingresponsibilitiesexplicit
Creating'interfaces'
Makingdiscretionexplicit
Policysetting Systemdesign(e.g.inter‐governmentalrelations)
Creatingpolicyframeworks(e.g.institutionalisingoversight)
Characterofpolicyformulation
Distinctpolicyformulation
Frameworkpolicyformulation
Ongoingpolicyformulation
Institutionalrelations
Systemsmaintenance
Designingandmaintainingimplementationtrajectories
Managinginter‐organizationalrelations
Creatingclarityontasksandcompetence
Enhancingcontractcompliance
Realisingpartnerships
Takingcareofsufficientresources
Institutionalsetting
Characterofinterorganizationalrelations
Systemofcommand
Marketplace Network
Streetlevel Designinglocalinstitutions
Designinglocal‘implementationpolicies’
Managingexternalandinternalcontacts
Enhancingmotivationandinternalisation
Enhancingandmaintainingserviceorientation
Enhancingprofessionalization
Realisingcompliancetostandardoperatingprocedures
Rewardingtargetcompliance
Institutionalisingclientparticipation
Leadership Enhancingco‐ordinatedservicedelivery
Trainingonthe
job Account
management
Locusinpoliticalsocietalrelations
Micro‐setting
Orientation Ruleapplication
Service Consultationandconsensus
(AdaptedfromsynthesisoftablespresentedbyHillandHupe,2002.)
61
ThesynthesisinTable7:Governance‐synthesisedanalyticalstructureisuseful
forunderstandingthecharacteristicsofdifferentmodesofoperational
governance.Itmayhoweverbecumbersomeasaplatformforanalysisof
qualitativedata.AsStensakerpointsout:
Decadesofresearchonimplementationinhighereducationandelsewherehaveshownusthatimplementationisnotasimplelinearprocess,butahighlycomplex,andsometimesevenaparadoxicalandcontradictory,process.Usingperspectivesthatcancapturesomeofthiscomplexityshouldthereforebeprioritisedinfuturestudiesinthesector(2007,p.114).
Asimplermodelforexploringthedynamicsoftranslationmayallowforamore
openanalysisoftheprocessesatwork,andshouldallowfortheeffectofcontext.
3.4.4. Dynamicpolicyprocessframework
Inacontextofhybridgovernancebasedontheideologyofcooperative
governance,asdiscussedintheSouthAfricancontextchapter,itisrelevantto
understandtheinterplaythatisover‐simplifiedbythestagesheuristic.As
suggestedabove,theconceptofpolicytranslationisproposedasanadditionto
understandingthepolicyprocess.Translationcontinuesintheinstitutional
responsetoimplementation–notonlyintermsofhowthecentral
administrationhasaroletoplayintheformulationitselforhowitchoosesto
implementpolicyattheinstitutionallevel–buthowlowerlevelsofgovernance
reacttoit.However,thestagesheuristicmustbeupdatedinordertounderstand
multi‐leveldynamics,interactionandfeedback.Theweakness?Themodelwill
stillmerelybedescriptive.However,thismaynotbebad,asadescriptivemodel
isanalyticallyrelevant,andarguablyhasmoreutilitythanattemptsata
prescriptivemodel,givenhowwhollycontext‐specificpolicyprocesseshave
beenshowntobe.
Aframeworkforanalyticalcasenarrativesofhighereducationpolicy
formulationandimplementationstudieswaspresentedbyEnders,Jeliazkova,
McGuinnesandMaassenin2003,withthegoaloffulfillingtwoprimary
functions:
Toensureacommonlanguageofdescriptionandmakingsenseofspecificevents.
Toprovidethebasisforfurtherlearningandlessondrawingfromspecificcasestodifferentcontexts,situationsandissues(Endersetal.,2003,p.7).
62
Theframeworkisbasedonthestagesofthepolicyprocess,arguingthatitis
analyticallypossibletoseparatestages,despiteblurringinpractice.Thistoo
allowsforapointofentryatanystageoftheprocess,bothintermsofresearch
andintermsofprocessinitiation.LikeHillandHupe’sframeworkabove,ittakes
intoaccountthecontext,viewingitasapotentialfieldforcausalexplanationsof
theprocess.Italsoallowsforbothhorizontalandverticalanalysisoftheprocess,
andwithinverticalanalysisitgivesroomforunderstandingaprocessbothin
termsoftop‐downandbottom‐upperspectives.Essentially,theframework
presentedbyEndersetal.(2003)capturesthecriteriasetforthbyGornitzka,
KoganandAmaral(2007)earlier–thatavarietyofframeworksreferringto
conceptualdevelopmentsmoregenerallymightbemorerelevantin
implementationstudies‐butitcouldbeappliedtotheentirepolicyprocess.The
frameworkisshowninFigure2.
Figure2:Aconceptualframeworkforanalyticalcasenarrativesofhighereducationpolicyformulationandimplementationstudies.
(FromEndersetal.,2003,p.8.)
63
Theframeworkispresentedwithinthecontextofgovernanceshiftsinhigher
education,specificallyastheyrelatetopolicyimplementation.Endersetal.
(2003)cataloguetheshiftinhighereducationfromtop‐downgovernanceinthe
formofsteering,towardsmoreofaconcernwiththesector’sunique
characteristics.Thetraditionallybottom‐heavynatureofthesectormustbe
takenintoaccountwhenconsideringimplementation.Governanceemphases
havefurthershiftedtowardslookingattheroleofthestate,andhowinWestern
Europetheroleofthestatehaschangedinthelastcoupleofdecades,withthe
waveofnewpublicmanagementandincreasedmarketstructuresinhigher
education(Endersetal.,2007,p.4‐5).Thisparticulargovernanceshift
manifesteditselfdifferentlyintheSouthAfricancontext.Marketstructures
wouldnotbeinlinewiththeattainmentoftransformationalobjectivesinSouth
Africa,andthereforeanyformofmarketgovernancewouldhavetobe
supplementedwithmoredirectstatesteering–somethingthatWesternEurope
arguablyshiftedawayfrominthelastcoupleofdecades.
However,thecontextofgovernanceshiftsdoesincludeafocusonmulti‐level
governance,wherethepolicyprocesshasmultipleactors.This,too,is
exemplifiedintheanalyticalframeworkpresentedbyHillandHupe(seeTables
6,7,and8)wherethereisaconcernwithdifferentlevelsofgovernance.Enders
etal.(2003)alsonotethatmoreattentionisbeinggiventothe“organisational
levelinhighereducationanditsroleasatargetandagentofchange”(p.6),
whichispreciselywhatthisstudyaimstodo‐seetheinstitutionandits
responseandpotentialwithinthepolicyprocess.Inadditiontothis,one
argumentfortheselectionofthestagesheuristicasthebasisfortheframework
isthatitsuitsanalysisofpoliciesthatareinitiatedfromthetop‐downina
deliberatemanner(2003,p.16)andittakesintoaccountthe“actor’s
perspective”whichfocusesonhow“actorsdealwithapolicyproblemat
differentstagesofitstackling”(2003,p.17).Bothaspectssuitthisstudy,asitis
basedonanationallyinitiatedpolicyofqualityassurance,andstudiesactorsat
differentgovernancepositionswithinhighereducationinstitutions.
ItmustbenotedthattheframeworkpresentedbyEndersetal.isstillunder
construction,aspartofalargerprojectthatlookstoanalysehighereducation
64
policyprocessesindifferentpartsoftheworld.Giventhatitisstillatthe
developmentalstage,itdoesnotseeminappropriatetoproposeafurther‘stage’
intotheframeworkitself‐asthisstudyseekstoo,toconsidertheconceptof
policytranslationwhenunderstandingthepolicyprocessandinstitutional
responses.Someresponseactivitiesmightnotfallstrictlyintothestageof
implementation,yetwhenapolicyhasalreadybeenformally,nationally
formulatedandpresented,oneisleftwithsomethingofavoid,tounderstand
howthepolicychangeswhenitisinterpretedortranslatedbyaninstitutional
bufferbeforebecomingpartofthecoreactivityoftheinstitution,thusthe
frameworkwithwhichthisstudyworksisshowninFigure3.
Figure3:Adaptedconceptualframeworkforanalyticalcasenarratives
(BasedonEndersetal.,2003,p.8.)
65
3.4.5. Analyticalapproach
Whilecontextualaspectsofthepolicyprocessaredescribedseparatelyinthe
SouthAfricancontextchapter,theywillbeconsideredduringanalysisofprimary
data,inordertoseewhatsortsoflinksmaybeestablished.
Itmustbenotedthatwiththeadditionofpolicytranslationforunderstanding
thepolicyprocessinhighereducation(inthisstudyforapolicyofquality
assurance),thatthetraditionalconceptionofpolicyoutcomesorpolicyresults,
againstwhichpolicyevaluationtraditionallymeasuressuccessorfailure,must
beconsideredinadifferentlight.Aqualitativeanalysisoftheresponsesto
qualityassurancewithinhighereducationinstitutionsnecessarilywillexplore
thetranslationelementsofthepolicy,perhapsalteringwhatmighthavebeen
viewedasdesirableoutcomes.Placedwithinacontextofcooperative,oreven
hybridgovernance,suchasthatwhichexistsinSouthAfricanhighereducation,
broadframeworksandinterpretableortranslatablepolicydefinitionsdominate
thehighereducationqualityassurancelandscape.
Thisstudydoesnotattempttodeterminethesuccessorfailureofthe
implementationofanationalpolicyofqualityassurance,asitfocusesona
momentintime,withinashiftingunderstandingofsuccessorfailure.Criticisms
ofpreviousimplementationstudieshavesuggestedthatanalysisovertooshorta
period“affectsthevalidityofconclusionsconcerningsuccessorfailure”and
thereforesuchconclusionsareexplicitlyavoidedinthisstudy(Gornitzka,Kogan
&Amaral,2007,p.4).Nonetheless,onecanconsidertowhatextent
implementationisconsideredtohavebeensecured,andatwhatlevelof
governancefullunderstandingandparticipationintheimplementation
programmeisdesirable.Thisisparticularlyrelevantasacademicsarenotorious
forbeingresolutelyinflexiblewhenfacingchange(Gornitzka,Kogan&Amaral,
2007,p.11).Onlywhenunderstandingtheroleoftheinstitutionalresponsein
thepolicyprocess,andtowhatextentimplementationhastakenplace,and
withinwhatsortofanunderstandingofthepolicy,canonebegintoassessthe
fateofapolicy.
66
InlightoftheaboveIproposetodothefollowingformyanalysisofprimary
data:
- Allowforemergentthemesandtrends,throughopencoding,aswillbe
discussedintheMethodchapter.
- Discussemergentthemesandtrendsintermsoftheconceptual
governanceframework,synthesisedabove,originallypresentedbyHill
andHupe(2002).
- Seektorelaterelevantconceptsofgovernanceandimplementationto
qualityassurance,particularlyasitlinkswithtraditionalnotionsoftop‐
downandbottom‐upimplementation.
- Placethisdiscussionwithinanunderstandingofthedynamicnatureof
thepolicyprocess,aspresentedintheframeworkbyEndersetal.(2003).
- Notleast,attempttousefullyconceptualisepolicytranslationaspartof
thepolicyprocess.
67
4. Method
Theresearchasksthequestion:Howdoescentralisedpolicymakingand
localisedactivityinteractinwaysthathinderorsupportthepolicyprocess?
Furthermore:Whatistherelationshipbetweenthepolicyprocessand
governanceinSouthAfricanhighereducation?Thestudyfocusesonthe
responsesoftwohighereducationinstitutionstoanationalpolicyofquality
assurance.
4.1. Philosophicalunderpinnings
Thephilosophicalbasisforthisstudyisoneofpragmatism.Pragmatism
concernsitselfwith“whatworks”andfocusesonfindingsolutionstoproblems
(Creswell,2004,p.11).Theresearcherisconcernedwithhowinstitutional
responsestopolicyimplementationaffectordeterminethesuccessoroutcomes
ofimplementation.Inthisstudy,theproblemliesinthepotentialfortheclassic
‘gap’or‘deficit’betweenpolicyformulationandimplementation,andthe
researchaimstounderstandforcesatworkaidingorhinderingimplementation.
Anunderstandingofthedynamicsoftheparticularpolicyprocessmay
contributetoanunderstandingofhowbesttoensureeffectiveimplementation
ofapolicy,andhowitmightbedesirabletoinfluenceaninstitution’sresponseto
apolicy.
4.2. Researchdesign
4.2.1. Comparativestudy
Thisstudyisdesignedasacomparativecasestudy,whichtraditionallyfocuses
onaparticularissuewithinmorethanonecase(Flick,2006,p.142).The
comparativeaspectisnecessaryinordertobegintoanswertheresearch
question,withaviewtooutcomesbeingrelevantatotherinstitutions.Thedata
willbeanalysedintermsofthemeswheresimilaritiesanddifferencesbetween
participantsareidentified,structuredintermsofgovernanceposition.Datafor
thestudyarederivedfromtwosources:documentaryanalysistogainan
68
overviewofthepoliticalandinstitutionalcontextandextensiveinterviewswith
keyindividualsatdifferentlayersofinstitutionalgovernance.
4.2.2. Selectionofinstitutions
AsdiscussedintheSouthAfricancontextchapter,thetwoinstitutions
correspondtoeachotherroughlyintermsofstudentbodyandfacultyspread,
thoughdiffering,e.g.intermsofhistory,languageandculture.
4.2.3. Participantselection
Theintervieweesatthetwodifferentinstitutionscorrespondtoeachotherin
termsofpositionininstitutionalgovernance.Selectionofinterviewparticipants
wasbasedontwofeatures:institutionalgovernanceposition,and
availability/willingnesstobeinterviewed.Tothisendrepresentativesofthe
differentgovernancepositions,asshowninTable8,werecontacted.Those
respondingpositivelywereinterviewed.Thetotalnumberofpositiveresponses
was33andthetotalnumberofnegativeresponseswas13.Aftercompletionof
allinterviewstwointervieweesweredroppedfromthedatasetduetolackof
exposureand/orexperiencewiththesubjectbeingstudied.However,the
participantscontactedwerenotspecificallyselectedonthebasisofage,gender,
race,experienceorothercriteria,withthegoalbeingasrandomasampleof
participantswithineachgovernancelayeraspossible.Amorepurposeful
samplingwouldhavebeenappropriateifbackgroundweretoplayarolein
analysis.However,forthisstudythefocuswasontheposition,andpotential
commonalitiesamongstthoseinthesameposition.
Table8:Interviewrespondents
Governanceposition InstitutionA InstitutionBCentraladministration 3 2
Academicdevelopmentandresearch 1 2
Dean(Facultylevel) 3 4Chair/Head(Department
level) 8 8
Total 15 16Aftertranscriptionandpreliminaryanalysis,adecisionwasmadetonotinclude
responsesbydepartmentheads/chairsintheresultsofthisthesis,butratherto
allowsuchresponsestoformanindependentprojectdowntheroad.
69
4.2.4. Interviewframework
Interviewswerestructuredaroundaframeworkofthemesandquestions,which
varieddependingonthegovernancepositionoftheindividualbeing
interviewed.Themannerinwhichtheinterviewswerecarriedoutmeantthat
theinterviewframeworkwashalf‐openorsemi‐structured.Interview
questions/themeswereasfollows:
Backgroundinformation:
Howlongworkingatinstitution?
Howlongincurrentposition?Sizeoffaculty/department?(officestaff–students)
Generalimplementationquestions:
Roleininstitutionalimplementation• Howactiveinimplementinginstitutionalstrategy/vision?• Roleingovernancepolicyprocess(planning,formulating,implementing,
evaluating)o Institutionalpolicy‐makingo Faculty‐levelpolicy‐making
• Wheredoesthereal/perceivedpowertoimplementlie?o Attheinstitutionallevelo Atthefacultylevel
• Challengeswithimplementation?o Successes–whatworkso Failures/problems–whatdoesn’t
Qualityspecificquestions:
HEQCinstitutionalaudits• Whatlevelofinvolvementinauditprocess?• Howawareofqualityassurancesystemsw/ininstitution?• Howactiveinmonitoringquality/progress?• Levelofsupportfromcentraladministration?• Anyknowledgeofmid‐cyclereport?
Implementingqualityassurancesystemsinhighereducation
• Viewofqualityassurancesystems(continuous)o versus
• Viewofqualityaudits(one‐time)• Experienceoftensionbetweenacademiclife/highereducationand
qualityassurance?
70
4.2.5. Documentaryanalysis
TheSouthAfricancontextchapterrevieweddocumentarydatapertainingtothe
study,suchaslegislationandpolicydocuments,aswellasreviewingquality
assuranceasitcurrentlyisdefinedandimplementedwithintheSouthAfrican
context.Thisreviewofsecondarydatawasintendedtoprovidecontextrather
thanin‐depthanalysis.
4.2.6. Designlimitations
Theidealpragmaticapproachtoaddresstheresearchproblemwouldhave
arguablybeenamixedmethodssequentialexploratorydesign.Themixed
methodssequentialexploratorydesignisatwo‐phaseddesign.Duringthefirst
phasequalitativeinterviewscouldbegatheredfromkeyfiguresinthetwo
academicinstitutions.Preliminaryanalysisofthequalitativedatawouldthenbe
carriedout,withtheintendedresultofanemergenttheory.Duringthesecond
phasethemesidentifiedduringpreliminaryanalysisoftheinterviewswouldbe
figuredintoaquantitativequestionnairedistributedtoapproximately10higher
educationinstitutions.Therationaleforthisresearchmethodwouldbeto
identifyimportantthemesemergingfromthequalitativedata,whichcouldthen
betestedandstudiedthroughgatheringofquantitativedata.
However,thequalitativeemphasisinthestudyascarriedoutallowsthe
researchertolookforanemergenttheory,basedontheargumentforwardedin
thetheoreticalchapterthatnotallWestern‐basedliteratureisnecessarily
directlyapplicabletotheSouthernAfricancontext.Basedontheoutcomesofin‐
depthanalysisofover20interviewstheemergenceofaframework,ortrend,
shouldbeidentified,whichcanbeassessedquantitativelyinanindependent
study.Duetothestudybeingcarriedoutwithintheconstraintsoftimeand
resourcesefficiencywasastrongdeterminateoftheresearchdesignand
researchmethod.
4.3. Datacollection
Datawascollectedthroughqualitativeinterviews.Interviewingwasthesuitable
datacollectionproceduregiventhenatureofthetopic.Itallowedforthe
researchertocontroltotheinterviewagendatoalargedegree,ensuring
71
responsestoanddiscussionsofspecificthemes,yethavingthefreedomto
follow‐uponpointsofinterestraised.
4.3.1. Preparationofinterviews,planning
ApreliminaryinvestigationwascarriedoutinNovember2007.Thefocuswas
therelationshipbetweenpolicyandpracticewithinhighereducation
transformationinSouthAfrica.Thepreliminarystudywasbasedoninterviews
withtwoactorswithinthehighereducationarenainSouthAfrica,bothbasedat
theUniversityofCapeTown,onefromtheCentreforHigherEducation
Development,theotheraprofessorfromtheFacultyofHumanities.
Theoutcomesofthepreliminarystudyhighlightedproblemswithinpolicy
implementationinSouthAfricanhighereducation,aswellasraisingpoints
relatingtoqualitycriteriaandassessment.Inlightofthisatopicforfurther
researchwasidentifiedandrefined.
Theresearcherwasfamiliarwiththebroadoverviewofqualityassurancein
SouthAfricanhighereducationpriortocarryingoutinterviewsatthetwohigher
educationinstitutions.Theresearcherhadalsoreviewedexecutivesummariesof
reportsonexternalauditsofthequalityassurancesystemsateachofthetwo
institutions.Thereportsreferredinparttoself‐assessmentportfoliosprepared
bytheinstitutions.Thisallowedtheresearchersomelevelofunderstandingof
internalprocessespriortocarryingouttheinterviews.
4.3.2. Interviewtechnique
Whenemailingprospectiveparticipantsinordertosetupinterviewsabrief
descriptionoftheprojectwasincludedintheemail,inadditiontowhichanoffer
tosendtheprospectiveparticipantacopyoftheresearchproposalwasincluded.
Someparticipantsrequestedacopyoftheresearchproposal.Onceapositive
responsewasreceivedandtheinterviewwasscheduled,participantswere
offeredtoreceiveacopyoftheinterviewframeworkaheadoftime.Some
participantsrequestedthis.Itdidnotappeartomakeadifferencetothe
interview,whethertheyhadorhadnothadthequestionsaheadoftime.
Duringtheinterviewstheresearcherwouldonoccasionrepeatbacktothe
participantasummaryofwhattheyhadsaidinordertoensureunderstandingof
72
thepoint.Whiletheinterviewerdidnotsumupattheend,shedidconsistently
askiftherewasanythingelsetheparticipantwantedtosharethathadnotbeen
askedabout.Inmostcircumstancesparticipantswouldbegintosaythatthey
thoughteverythinghadbeencovered,butwouldusuallyaddabriefpoint,
emphasisingsomethingtheyhadpreviouslysaid,oranewpointtiedtosome
partofthediscussion.Theinterviewermadeapointofnotinterrupting
participants,andgivingamoment’spausepriortomovingonafteraparticipant
hadcompletedtheiranswer.Thiswasinordertoensurethattheparticipant’s
trainofthoughtwasderailedaslittleaspossible.
4.3.3. Interviewsettings
Interviewswerecarriedoutface‐to‐faceintheofficesoftheparticipants,
althoughtheoptionofphoneoremailinterviewswaspresentedwhenfirst
seekinganaudiencewithprospectiveparticipants.Interviewsrangedbetween
30‐90minutes,dependingontherespondent’slevelofexperienceand
engagement.Thevastmajorityoftheinterviewswerearound60minutesin
length.Allinterviewswererecordedonadictaphone,afterreceivingconsent
fromtheparticipants.
4.3.4. Transcription
Transcriptionofinterviewswaspartlycarriedoutbytheresearcher,andpartly
byatranscriptionserviceprovider.However,alltranscriptswerecheckedfor
accuracypriortoformalanalysis.
4.3.5. Datacollectionlimitations
Thelimitationsofcarryingoutinterviewswiththeseparticularparticipantswas
thatsomehadtheadvantageofspeakingtheirfirstlanguage,whiletheinterview
wasnecessarilyconductedinthesecondlanguageofotherparticipants.
Therefore,challengeswitharticulationandunderstandingmighthavehadsome
effectonthedatagathered.Anattemptwasmadetocombatthepotentialfor
anomaliesamongstparticipantsbyensuringabroadrangeofparticipants,
particularlyattheDeanandHead/Chairlevel,thusintendingtomakeanomalies
moreapparent.
73
4.4. Dataanalysis
4.4.1. Coding
Opencodingwasemployedforthefirststageofdataanalysis.Codingwasfirst
tiedtoparagraphsand/orsectionsofthedatathatrespondedtospecific
questions.Afterinitialcodingthecodesweregroupedintologicalcategoriesin
ordertohighlightrelevancetotheresearchtopic(seeFlick,2006,p.297‐300).
4.4.2. Reductionofdata–summariesofinterviews
Eachinterviewwasseparatelycoded,categorised,andkeythemesidentified,
priortoestablishingthemesacrossinterviews.
4.4.3. Themes
Oncebroadcategoriesofcodeswereidentified,andthemeswithininterviews
wereidentified,theemergingcross‐interviewthemeswereusedtodescribeand
contrastperspectivesbetweeninterviews.
4.4.4. Validation
Whilegeneralisabilityandreliabilityarelessimportantissuesinqualitative
research,validationbecomesparamounttoensuringthecredibilityand
trustworthinessofdata(Creswell,2004,p.195‐196).
Thestrategiesdeployedtoensurevalidationofdatainthisstudyweretheuseof
thickdescriptionswhengivingexamplesofthemesinthefindings.Atthesame
time,thepresentationofdiscrepanciesinthedatawereemphasised,soastogive
thereaderanunderstandingthatnotallperspectivescoheredwithanother.
4.5. Ethicalissues
4.5.1. Confidentiality
Confidentialityofrecordingsandfulltranscriptswaspromised,aswas
anonymityintermsofdataanalysis.Participants,ifspecificallyidentifiedin
relationtosegmentsoftext,areidentifiedasfromInstitutionAorB,andastheir
respectivegovernanceposition.Therefore,theirinstitutiondoesstillnotidentify
thoseparticipantswhowereperhapslonerepresentativesofagovernance
position.
74
4.5.2. Permission
Priortointerviewscommencing,permissionwasrequestedtorecordinterviews.
Inallinstancespermissionwasgranted,thoughinmostcasestheparticipant
requestednottobedirectlyquoted.However,asanonymitywasalready
consideredagivenintheresearchprocessthiswasneveraproblem.
4.5.3. Roleoftheresearcher
Theresearchercomesfromadualbackgroundofpoliticalscienceandstrategic
management.Intermsofpoliticalscience,theresearchhasplacedaparticular
emphasisonthepoliticalprocessmodelwithinsocialmovementtheory,focusing
ontheSouthAfricancontext.Thecouplingofpoliticalscienceandstrategic
managementleadtoacombinedinterestinpublicadministrationandpolicy
sciences,thatis,aninterestinhowthingsgetdoneinthepublicsector.
Anunderstandingofbroadconceptsofthepolicyprocess,anacademic
backgroundinstrategicmanagementandfamiliaritywithinstitutionalprocesses
allowedtheresearchertoestablishcredibilitywithinterviewees.The
intervieweesseemedquiterelaxed,perhapsbecausetheresearcherwasa
graduatestudentandwasgoingthroughalearningexperience.Thegoalofthe
interviewswasoneoflearning,andastheywerecarriedoutinaneducational
settingthismadeforperhapsagreaterwillingnesstoimpartinformation.
75
5. Results
Theresultssectionsarestructuredinsuchamannerastogiveacomparative
andcontrastinginsightintothedifferentlayersofinstitutionalgovernancethat
wereresearched.AsexplainedintheMethodchapterinterviewsweretakenwith
headsorchairsofdepartments,deans,centraladministrationandacademic
development.Responsesofthedepartmentheads/chairswillnotbeanalysed
andpresentedintheresultschapters.Thecombinationoftheresponsesofthe
otherthreegroupsshouldprovideinsightintotheinstitutionalresponsestoa
nationalpolicyofqualityassurance,aswellasgivingdetailsoninstitutional
governanceandthepolicyprocess.Tothisend,theresultschaptersaredivided
byinstitutionalgovernancelayer,whererespondentsarecategorisedintermsof
institutionAorinstitutionB.Theresultschapterswillstartatthetop,andwork
down,likethis:
• Centraladministration
• Academicdevelopmentandresearchasasupportingfunction
• Facultylevel,astheoperationalunitoftheuniversities.
Withineachindividualresultssectionfindingsarepresentedatthreesettings,in
accordancewiththeframeworkofgovernancepresentedearlier.ThePolicy
settinglooksatresultsrelatingtothepolitical‐administrativesystem,the
Institutionalsettinglooksatinstitutionalrelations,andtheMicrosettinglooksat
thestreetlevel,andthatwhichoccurswithininstitutionsformingtheresponse
thatiscommunicatedbetweeninstitutions,likethis:
• Policysetting‐Political‐administrativesystem
• Institutionalsetting‐Institutionalrelations
• Microsetting‐Streetlevel
Themainweightofthequalityassurancediscussionrelatestotheinstitutional
andmicrolevel,andissituatedaccordingly.Asisthecasewiththepolicyprocess
itself,itisdifficulttoclearlydelineatebetweentheinstitutionalandmicro
settings.Operationsatthemicrolevelformresponsesattheinstitutionallevel.
76
Inlightofthis,thedecisiononwheretosituatediscussionofcertainresultsthat
isatwhatlevelispartlyinfluencedbytheparticulargovernancelayerbeing
analysed.Thecentraladministrationandacademicdevelopmentareinevitably
morecentre‐focusedwithintheirinstitutions,andarethereforelikelytobe
consideringtheinstitutionalsetting,andinter‐institutionalrelations.Conversely,
facultiesasoperationalunitsoftheuniversityaremorelikelytoconsiderthe
microsettingintheirresponses,andhowthoseresultsmaytravel“up”tothe
centre.EachResultssectionincludesasummary.
5.1. Centraladministration
Respondentsfromwithinthecentraladministrationweresituatedwithinthe
institutionalplanningunitsofbothuniversities,andwithintheseniorleadership.
Theyareidentifiedasthe‘centraladministration’broadly,referredtoas
AdministratorA1,B1,etc.Emergingthemesraisedspecificfeaturesofthe
functionsofunitsresponsibleforinstitutionalplanninginbothinstitutions,as
wellastherelationshipbetweeninstitutionalplanningunitsandacademic
developmentandresearchunits.
5.1.1. Policysetting–Politicaladministrativesystem
5.1.1.1. Policyprocess
Perspectivesofthepolicyprocess,asexemplifiedbythoseworkingincentral
administration,reflectedanoverallconsultativepolicymakingprocess
nationally,anincreasingstabilityinthesectorafteraperiodofrapidpolicy
reform,despitewhichsomeuncertaintieswererearingtheirhead.
Ongoingpolicyformulation
TwoofthecentraladministrationrespondentsatinstitutionAmadestatements
reflectiveoftheideaofongoingpolicyformulation,occurringinaconsultative
manner.Theexistenceofaconsultativepolicymakingcultureinthenational
contextwasexemplifiedincommentsmadebyAdministratorA3:
Okay,sonewpolicies.Theretendstobequiteaconsultativeculturenationallyinfact.…Soifit'ssomethingintheoffing,itwillmostlyhavetwoorthreeiterationsthroughthedifferentuniversitieswhowillthentakeitthroughtheirconstituenciesandthenformulatearesponse,whichis,wehope,takenintoaccountandthen,youknow,therewillbeanotheriterationsousuallywhensomethinghitsusandthenit'sanactual,likeaformulatedorGazetted,sortofpolicyandwe'vehadtwoorthreesortofthe‐sightsofit.
77
…Soit'sveryseldomthatit'ssomethingcomeoutcompletelyoutoftheblueandblindsides,youthink“Oh,mygosh,whatisthis?‐AdministratorA3
Theconsultativeapproachtopolicymakingisalsoensuredwithinthesystem,in
thesensethattheDepartmentofEducationseeksconsultationfromtheCouncil
onHigherEducationonpolicymatters:
Firstofallthey[DoE]havetoconsultwiththecouncilofhighereducation,it’sastatutoryobligation.Andthatconsultationwouldbeviathe‐viathevicechancellorsbutitwillcomethrough‐essentiallythroughregulations…Soyouseeitcomingthroughmajoractsoflegislationbuttheydon’tcomeallthatoftenforthesimplereasonthatthecentralgovernmentdepartmentisveryweakintermsofstaffandexpertise,thereareveryfewpeopleinthedivision.–AdministratorA1
Policymakingatthenationallevel,inthepolitical‐administrativesystem,isofan
ongoing,consultativenature,inthemannerofthe‘cooperative’governance
whichthegovernmentdefinedforitselfasitschosenapproachtogovernance.In
practicethiswouldsuggestaspectsofapersuasion,ordeliberation,modeof
governance,intermsoftheidealtypes,atthenationallevel.Thismore
consultativeapproachtopolicymakinghasthepotentialtoleadtomorewidely
acceptedformulationofpolicies.Thisnotionofmorespecificformulationwas
supportedbyrespondentsatbothinstitutions.Intermsofgeneralpolicies,
AdministratorB1saidthat“…manyofthesearequiteclearonwhereinthe
institutionit'srespondedto.”IntermsoftheHigherEducationQualifications
Frameworkinparticular,AdministratorA3said“…yourealizethatactuallyit's
prettywelldefinedsothere’snotmuchroomformanoeuvre.”
Theseresponsessuggestthatbythetimethefinalpolicycomesalongthereis
notmuchleewayintermsoftheinstitutionalresponse.Whilethismightraise
theissueoftherebeingatop‐downsteering,thismustbeviewedinthecontext
oftheconsultativepolicymakingdiscussedabove.Itisthereforequitepossible
thatclarityintheimplementationofanationalpolicyframeworkistheresultof
someinteractionearlierinthepolicyprocess‐andthatthetranslationofthe
policymaywelltakeplacebeforethefinalformulationiscomplete,thus
enhancingthedynamismoftheprocess.
Stability
Ashiftfromwhatappearedtobepolicyoverload,duringtheinitialreformyears
ofthehighereducationsysteminSouthAfrica,toanincreasedstabilityinthe
78
sector,maytoobetheresultofdeliberatedpolicies.Therapidreformwithinthe
systemwasdescribedbyAdministratorB1,whosaidthat“…atsomepoint
governmenthadabout32differentinitiativesandsimultaneouslythey
introducedthequalitysystem,aqualificationsystem,anewfundingformulaand
enrolmentplanningandwhatnot.”AdministratorB1describedthese“major
initiatives”as“quiteambitiousandnotveryrealistic”.
Thequestionofpoliticalleadershipwasquiteimportantintermsofincreasing
stabilityinthesystem.AdministratorB1describedthepreviousMinisterof
Educationas“abitofahyperactiveperson”,butthatthecurrentMinisteris
“muchmorestable”andhasfocusedonconsolidating,goingontosaythat“…in
someareasthere'smorestability.Thewholeareaofthequalityassurance
systemandaccreditation,that'sfairlysettlednow,andinstitutionalauditthat
runs,sothereisasystem.”
However,newinitiativesappeartobebringingsomeuncertaintyintothe
processagain,whichmaycauseproblemswithinstitutionalautonomy:
…studentfees,theministeris,andIthinkthatinfacthasalreadyindicated,she’sgoingtomoveintothisfieldtorestricttheincreases,annualincreasesinstudentfees.Yeahthat'sareallyimportantthing,yeah,asfarastheautonomyofinstitutionsarealsoconcerned.Sowedon'tknowwhattoexpectbutitdoesn'tlookgood,that'stheonethingthatisproblematicatpresent.–AdministratorB2
Steering
Closelyrelatedtoconceptionsofinstitutionalautonomyistheextenttowhich
thegovernmentattemptstosteerthehighereducationsystem,andthemanner
inwhichitattemptstodoso.InaccordancewiththeWhitePaperonHigher
Educationthegovernmentintendstosteerthenationalcoordinatedhigher
educationsysteminSouthAfricathroughthreemechanisms:funding,planning
andqualityassurance.Certainaspectsofgovernmentsteeringwereidentifiedin
thedata,includingatrendtowardsadhocapproachesinuseofsteering
mechanisms.
Adhocpolicyremedies
PerceivedirregularitiesintheSouthAfricanhighereducationpolicyprocess
werenoticedasthelinesbetweenthecentralgovernmentsteeringand
79
provincialgovernmentblurred.Anoverallperceptionoftheadhocmannerin
whichgovernmentoperatedwasnotedbybothAdministratorB1andB2:
Soitbecomesmorecomplicatedasgovernmenttriestorespondtospecificneedshereandthereandwherever.…It'snotcoherent....It's,Iwouldn'tsayhaphazardbutit's,it’sadhocinacertainsense.There'saneedandthengovernmentwilljumponitanddoallkindsofspecialthingstorespondtothatneed.–AdministratorB1
Unfortunatelyinmyview,thefundingsystemneedssomemaintenance,itneedssome…revision,becauseitisbecomingaveryadhocsystem.Youknoweverynewproblemyouwanttodealwith,youallocatesomefundsandthensomeonedecideshowthesefundswillbedistributedandyou'removingactuallyfartherandfartherawayfromtheactualformulabecausetheformulaneedtobevery,itneedstobeablindprocessthatyoudon’tlookatspecificproblemsatspecificuniversities,atspecificinstitutions.–AdministratorB2
Thisadhocapproachtoproblemsolvingexperiencedbyrespondentsat
institutionBisdistinctlyincontradictionwithideasoftheauthoritymodeof
governance–whichshouldreflectamodelofstatesteeringthroughspecific
instruments.Indeed,adhocapproachesarenotcompatiblewithanyofthe
identifiedmodesofgovernance,astheyareananomalyinwhatshould
otherwisebearationalprocess.Indeed,itisquiteincontrastwithobservations
onincreasedstatesteering:
Yeah,we’veseenanincreaseinstate‐…we’veseenanincreaseinstatesteeringsystematicallysince1997,because1997wasalsothepassingoftheSouthAfricanHigherEducationAct.Andifyoulookatthesubsequentyearsthatacthasbeenamendedvirtuallyeveryyear…Andtheamendments[totheHEact]havebeenoverwhelminglytotightenthestatesteeringmechanismandthosehaveincludedtherightoftheMinistryofEducationtointerveneinindividualinstitutions.…Soit’sasteeringapproachthat’sgot‐that’sbecomemoreandmoreevidentoverthepastdecade.–AdministratorA1
Whenitcomestowhetherinstitutionshaveautonomy,whetherthestatehasacentralizedhighereducationsystem,andwhetherthere’sautonomyforinstitutions,that'squiteadebate.That’schanged.–AdministratorB2
However,lookingcloselyatwhatisbeingsaid,theamendmentsthathave
includedtherightto“interveneinindividualinstitutions”,whileincreasing
steering,alsohavethepotentialtoincreaseactionsthatmaybeperceivedasad
hoctootherinstitutions.Whilestrongsteeringofthesystemmightseemtobein
contrastwithadhocremedies,anincreasedsteeringcapacity,ormandate,ofthe
governmentmayjustresultinalesstransparentstructure.
Partofthenationalsteeringofthesystemthroughfundingtakesplaceina
consultativemanner,reflectingtheidealofcooperativegovernanceadoptedby
80
thegovernment,asdescribedbyAdministratorB2,whosaidthegovernment
usesthefundingformulatosteerthesystem,butthatitisdoneinconsultation
withinstitutions.Thistoomaycontributetowhylesstransparencyandmoread
hocfundingsolutionsareseeninanegativelight.
Complexcontext
TheSouthAfricanhighereducationsystem,asestablishedintheSouthAfrican
contextchapter,isbasedonacomplicatedpast.Theincreaseinstatesteering
maybebetterunderstoodwithaviewtothepast:
It'scomplex.It'sdifficulttosayit'slikethisorlikethat.It'scomplexinthesensethatthereareallkindsoffactors.Sometimes,itis,andsometimesnot.‐AdministratorB1
WithinthehistoricalcontextoftheSouthAfricanhighereducationsystem
certaininstitutionswereunderverycentralizedcontrol,whileothersenjoyed
moretraditionalaspectsofacademicfreedom.Thepreviouslydisadvantaged
institutionsmayinfacthavegainedautonomyinthecurrentsystem,although
thelegislation,withincreasedcapacity,allowsforsignificantlystrongersteering:
SoyoucouldalsosaythatthoseUniversitieshaveinactualfactgainedagreatdealofautonomywithinthestate’ssteeringbecausepreviouslytheywerestatecontrolled.‐AdministratorA1
Whichispossibly‐Imeanonewayoflookingatthatistoseethatasrelativelysinister,inasensethatthatcouldcomein.Buttheotherthingthatofcourseyoualsoknowisthatinordertocontextualizewhat’shappenedsince1997you’vegottoseeitinthelongercontextofSouthAfricanhighereducationasawholebecauseatthetimeofthefirstdemocraticelectionin1994,theSouthAfricanhighereducationsystemwassuchacomprehensivemessandsoverypeculiarthattherewasn’tanythinglikeitanywhereelseintheworld.Sothere’snowaywecouldhavecarriedonwithwhatwasinheritedfromthe80s,nowayatall.Andtheinheritancefromthe80swas‐thatwhiletheformerlywhiteuniversities…hadagreatdealofautonomy,theuniversitiesthatweredesignatedforblackstudentshadnoautonomyatall,theywerejustextensionsofthegovernment.‐AdministratorA1
Addingtotheincreasedsteeringpotentialofgovernmentisthehighlypoliticized
natureofthehighereducationsystem:
Idon'tknowwhetherhighereducationisnotpoliticizedinyourcountrybutit’shighlypoliticizedinourcountry.‐AdministratorB2
TheVice‐Chancellors,theyhavethisorganization,HESA[HigherEducationSouthAfrica],wheretheyallgettogether,buteverynowandthentheyblowupandthisgroupwanttowalkoutandthenthisandthatsoit'squiteapoliticizedaffair.Itgotentanglednowinnationalpolitics,partypolitics.It'sactuallyquiteamessythingatthemoment.‐AdministratorB1
81
Duetohistoricalinequalitiesinthesystem.fundingtoobecomesmore
complicated,asaone‐size‐fits‐allapproachmaynotworkinordertobringall
institutionstoamoreequalground:
Sothereisaneedforspecialgovernmentinterventiontomakesurethattheyjusthaveabasicstandardoffacilities.Sothat'swhyIsayitscomplex.Onecannotsaythatthistypeofinstitutionsimplybenefitsandtheotheronenot.‐AdministratorB1
Itisadifficultbalancetostrike,asthegovernmentdistancesitselffromahighly
unevenpastsystem.Increasedsteeringallowsforbettercontroloverredress
efforts.However,comingtotermswiththeneedsofindividualinstitutionsalso
reflectsthegovernment’sidealofcooperativegovernance,withacentrally
coordinatedyetdifferentiatedsystem.Itisalmostpossibletoconceptualisethe
systemintermsofcooperativesteering,whichencompassesthecoordinatedyet
differentiated.
Uncertaintywithfunding
Thebalancebetweensteeringasystemandallowingforsomelevelof
institutionalautonomydoesbegthequestionhowimplementationmaybe
successfullysecured.Onemustpursueacertainlineinorderforresultstobe
obtained.Itisthereforesurprisingthatfunding,employedbygovernmentasa
formofsteering,shouldbringuncertaintytothesystem,ratherthanclarity:
Seeitnowintheinstitutionweexperiencethatasafactorofuncertainty.We’resupposedtohaveanationalagreeduponformulaintermsofwhichgovernmentwillfundtheinstitutionsbutinsteadofusingthatformulaconsistentlyeveryyeargovernmentaddsalittlespecialthingthere,andalittlespecialthingthere.Sothetotalblockisshrinkingandthesespecializedallocationsare–thereisproliferationthereandit'sdifficultinaninstitutionto,howtorespondtoallofthisandhowtoplaythatgameandmakesurewewillgetallofthefunds.–AdministratorB1
AdministratorB2concurred,describingthesituationas“very,verynegative”,in
particularbythoseinstitutionsthatdonotreceiveanyoftheadditionalfunds.
Thesystemwascharacterizedasbeinginplaybetweencentralsteeringand
individualautonomy.
Ithink‐Imeanournationalpolicytracksbacktothe1997whitepaperonhighereducationwhichisstill‐stillremainstheonlygovernmentstatement,andImean,SouthAfricanUniversitiesareininterestingplaybetweencentralsteeringandindividualautonomy.So,ontheonehandthere’sadiscourseat[InstitutionA]whichwouldsaythatwe’reanindependentinstitutionandwemakeourownpolicyratherthannationalpolicy.‐AdministratorA1
82
Inshort,thehighereducationpolicyprocessatthemacrolevelinSouthAfricais
characterisedbyanidealofcooperativegovernance,withinacontextof
increasedstatesteering.Anyuncertaintyorlackoftransparencymaybeseenas
adhocremedialactions,butareperhapsmoreusefullyunderstoodasanattempt
onthegovernment’sparttobalancecooperativegovernancewithsteering,and
autonomywithredressmeasures.
5.1.1.2. QualityAssurancePolicy
Intermsofqualityassurancepolicy,theresponsesofparticipantswereheavily
focusedontheinstitutionalsetting,andhowtheinstitutionrespondsupwards,
aswellasdownwards.Itthereforemakessensetoplacethemaindiscussionon
centraladministrationperspectivesofqualityassurancepolicywithinthe
institutionalsetting.
5.1.2. InstitutionalsettingInstitutionalrelations
5.1.2.1. PolicyProcess
ThemembersofthecentraladministrationofinstitutionBsuggestedthatinter‐
organizationalrelationsarefairlyactiveandoperatewell.Thisissuggestiveof
thepersuasionmodeofgovernance,characterizedbynetworking,andthe
realizationofpartnerships.Thiswas,amongstothers,illustratedthrough
coordinatedresponsestonationalinitiatives:
Youseethatistypically,isagoodexampleofwheretheinstitutions,peopleinsimilarpositionslikeuswouldtalktooneanotherandshareinformationandwepreparedocumentationandwe‐quiteoftenwerespondtodocumentsandquiteoftenwegeneratedocuments,policydocuments.‐AdministratorB1
Ithinkacrucialwordisalsonetworking.…Ithinkquitealotofushavequitealotofnetworks,Istillhavesomethatarebecominglessandless.…SoIthinkit'simportanttoactuallysortofhavethosenetworksgoingalsowiththeotherinstitutionsbecausetheyheardsomethingandtheyjustphoneyouandsay"Areyouawareofthis?Thisisgoingtohappenandareyoureadyforthat?”Thatsortofstuff.Likeforinstancethewholeproblemwiththestudentfees,thatthedepartmentandthetreasuryisdevelopingasystemtosortofputalidontheincreaseinstudentfeesfromyeartoyear.‐AdministratorB2
…whenitcomestothepolicystuff,thereareIwouldsay,groupoffiveorsixofuswhoareverycloselyincontact,andalsowithgovernmentpeopleandCHEandHEQCpeople.‐AdministratorB1
83
Responsessuggestthattheinstitutionisgivenanopportunitytoparticipatein
thenationalpolicyprocess.Priortothefinalizedformulationofanationalpolicy,
institutionsaregiventhechancetobeapartofthepolicymakingprocess.
WellIthinktherearedifferentaspects,thefirstisthatifanationalpolicyrelatestoourparticularareaofwork.Thenoneofourfirstroleswouldbetofacilitateaprocessofengagementaroundadraftpolicy.SoalloftheHEQCpoliciesforexamplewereinitiallycirculatedasdrafts.Andsowewouldhavethenbeenresponsibleforcoordinatingcommentsonthosepolicies,whichwe’vedoneonnumerousoccasions,andwedothatwithotherpoliciesaswell.‐AdministratorA2
Thepolicyprocessintheinstitutionalsetting,intermsofnationalpolicies,
suggestedaresponseattheinstitutionallevel,wherecentraladministrationtries
tofindwaysinwhichtomakethepoliciestheirown,aftertheirfinalformulation.
AndIthinktherealityisthatwithininstitutions,they'realwayslookingtoseehowtheycantweakit,youknow,tosortofminimizetheworkthatmightbeinvolvedortheimpactinternallybutyoutendtofindthatthey‐Ifindincreasinglymorespecificandmorecarefullyformulatedandit's‐itactuallydoesn'tallowyoutoomuchleewayinwhatyoucanandcan’tdoandthen,youknow,theotherthingisthere’sasortof…it'slikeaspiritoranactingingoodfaith.‐AdministratorA3
Thisparticipativepolicymakingisunderstoodtobecarriedoutingoodfaithat
InstitutionA.Afterinitialparticipationindraftpolicies,theimplementationof
thefinalpolicyrespectstheintentionsofthepolicymakers.
Soforexample,highereducation,theHEQF,thequalificationsframework.Thereisdefinitelyanintentthereandyoufindindividualsanduniversitiestryingtosay'Oh,butwecandoitlikethis,youknow,wecan”butwetrynottodothat,youknow,wetrytoactsortofingoodfaithandwejustputthethingtogetherandwehavecollaboratedintheprocessofputtingittogether.‐AdministratorA3
Thisongoingpolicyformulationduringthemakingofthepolicyissuggestiveofa
persuasionmodeofgovernance.However,giventhatthedirectiveshouldbe
clearoncethemakingiscompleteitbecomesimportantattheinstitutionallevel
toensurecompliancewithintheformulatedpolicyframework.Institutional
ownershipoftheresponseandimplementationprocessbecomesincreasingly
importantforsuccessfulimplementation.
Institutionalownership
Theimportanceofinstitutionalownershipoftheresponseto,and
implementationof,nationalpolicieswasunderlined,thoughclearlythe
responsesvaried:
84
Imeanmostlykeynationalpolicydocumentswouldbetabledatthesenateexecutivecommittee,sothat'sataleadershiplevel.Butone'snotsureabouttheextenttowhichpeoplereallyengagewiththosepoliciesandtakeownershipofthem.Butfromapolicypointofview,it'simportantthattheyknowaboutthemandthattheydotakesomekindofownershipof,butagainthedegreeofownershipmayvarydependingonthepolicy.‐AdministratorA2
Itwassuggested,too,thatthegovernmenthasinturnrespondedtoinstitutional
responsestonationalinitiatives,byalteringthemovertime.Thissuggestionof
ongoingpolicyformulationwithinthepolicysettingshouldmakefora
networkedapproachtoimplementationattheinstitutionallevel,aswas
suggestedearlierinthissectiononthepolicyprocess.
Soit'sbeenquiteinterestingbecausethat’ssomethingwereportontotheMinistryofEducationandit's‐determineshowmuchmoneywegetforfoundationfunding...andI'veactuallyseentherequirementschangequitedramaticallyoverthreeyearsandwhattheyaskedforthisyearwassortofafractionofthedetailthattheywantedinthepreviousyearsimplybecausetheymusthaverealisedthisissticking,it’snotjustgivingany…Ithinkthey’regoingtogobacktothedrawingboardinfactandre‐lookatit.‐AdministratorA3
Implementationandautonomy
Despitepersuasion,ordeliberation,trendsingovernance,themannerinwhich
institutionalautonomyisbalancedwithbeingapubliclyfundedinstitutionis
moreindicativeofatransactionmodeofgovernance.
Andthatsortofcelebratedintermsofthenotionofacademicfreedomandinstitutionalautonomyandinfactuniversityautonomyisactuallyenshrinedinourconstitutionasaprinciple.Butthenontheotherhandofcoursewe’reapublicinstitutionthatcouldn’tsurvivewithoutpublicfunding,whichwereceivethroughsubsidiesforourresearchandalsoforourteaching.Soit’saninterestingtensionastohowanationalpolicyisplayedoutwithintheinstitution.‐AdministratorA1
Atransactionmodeofgovernancewouldsuggestthattheimplementationofthe
policymightbeaccomplishedthroughenhancingcomplianceofinstitutionsto
broadpolicyframeworks.Asthetermsuggests,broadpolicyframeworksallow
forsomeflexibilityintheinstitutionalimplementationofthepolicy,butthe
implementationmustnonethelessbekeptwithinthedemarcatedboundaries.
Respondentssuggestedthatwhensomethingistobeinterpretedand
implementedanattemptisalwaysmadetodosothroughexistingstructures:
WellmostofthesethingswillcomeintotheuniversitythroughtheVice‐Chancellor'sofficeandhisofficemanagerwillsendittowho,hethinksthekeypeopleare.Ifthere’salreadyanexistingstructurewithintheuniversity,somesortofworkinggroup,whereitfitswell,thenitwill‐itwillgothroughthem.Sowetrytousewhateverstructuresandnottocreatetoomanyadhocworkinggroupswherepossiblesoitgenerallyworkslikethat.‐AdministratorA3
85
There’safinancedepartmentsotheywilldealwithcertainissues.Therearequalityassuranceunitwhichwilldealwithcertainissues.Butthecoordinationofallofthisandtogetagriponallofthisandhowithangstogether,it'sobviouslyataninstitutionallevel,itmustbeinterpreted,andtheremustbecoherenceintheinstitutionalresponsetoallofthis.…managementwouldlookatusandsay"There’sthisnewthingfromgovernment,canyouhelpustointerpretit?"‐AdministratorB1
Policytranslation
Thedevelopmentoftheimplementationstrategyattheinstitutionallevel
appearstobeintheformofpolicyinterpretation‐orpolicytranslation,as
discussedintheTheoreticalapproachchapter‐whichbecomespossiblethrough
theimplementationofbroadpolicyframeworks,ratherthandistinctpolicies:
Andthenonceapolicyisformallyadopted,yesthenwelookatthatpolicyandlookattryingtodevelopanimplementationstrategy,whichwouldinvolveextractingimplicationsforusasaninstitutionandthenlookingathowwewouldaddressthose.‐AdministratorA2
Thecentraladministrationfunctionsastheinterpretationmechanismofthe
institution,andtheinterpretationofthepolicycouldjustaswellbeunderstood
astheinstitutionaltranslationofit:
LastweekIspentthemorninginparliamentwhereinanewbillwasbeingdiscussed,sotobepartortoknow,tobeok,toknowwhat'sgoingonthere,andontheonehandwehavethisfunction,youhavetheministryandthedepartmentsittinguptheredoingallkindsofthingsandyouneedaninterpretationmechanismbetweenthatandtheinstitution,soalotofthatisdone.‐AdministratorB1
Thisisfurtherdiscussedinthemicrosetting,asitpertainstohowunitswithin
theinstitutionfunction.Thisalsoraisesquestionsofshielding,orthecentral
administrationactingasabufferbetweenexternaldemandsandinternal
activities.
Consultativeprocess
Policyinterpretationwasdescribedasaconsultativeprocess,cascadingthrough
theentireinstitution.Thisappearstobenecessarybecausewhilethecentral
administrationisthetranslationmechanismfornationalpoliciescomingintothe
institution,itisnotabletoimplementpoliciesbyitself,butrequiresthe
consultationandbuy‐inoftheoperationallevelsofgovernance.
Andthereportingrequirements,youknow,aredone,sothat’swhytheinstitutionalplanningdepartmenthasaverygoodinstitutionalinformationunitwhichdealswithallofthosesortsofthings,butthenthe‐wherethereareimplications‐thoseimplicationswouldthenbeinterpretedandunderstoodbytheinstitutionalplanningdepartmentandtheythenbetakentothefacultyboardsandifnecessarytothesenatetoo,for
86
discussions.Sotheinstitutionalplanningdepartmenthasafacilitatingrole,it’snot‐itdoesn’treallyhavetherighttoexecutethosenewpolicyimplications.‐AdministratorA1
Afterpolicytranslationtakesplace,mediationtotheinstitutionorfilteringofthe
policytotherelevantinstitutionallayerstakesplace.Therefore,thecentral
administrationisseenasplayingtherolenotonlyofpolicytranslation,thatis,
translatinghowthepolicymakessensetotheinstitution,butthenalsoto
mediatethistranslationtotherestoftheinstitution:
Wefilter,basicallyseeourselvesasagentswhomediatepolicywithintheInstitution.…Andwewould,dependingonthepolicy,wewouldhandleitverydifferently.Butmostlywetryandidentifypeoplewhoaretheappropriatepeopleinthefacultieswhowouldreallyneedtoknowwhatthatpolicyisandwhatthemajorimplicationsareforthemand...‐AdministratorA2
Andpeoplelikemeseeourselvesasprovidingthisinterpretiveinterfacesothatwedospeaktotheexternalforces,weinterpretit,butwealsounderstandtheinstitutionalcontextsandcommunicatetheinstitutionalcontextstothem,soweplaythismediatingrole.‐AdministratorB1
Thepolicyprocess,fromthenationaltotheinstitutionallevel,doesappeartobe
dynamic,ratherthanadheringtothetypicallytop‐downconceptionofpolicy.As
isthecasewiththeparticipativepolicymaking(discussedabove),sotoo,oncea
policyhasbeenpassed,shouldtherebereasontoreacttoitratherthan
implementit,thenthatbottom‐upresponsetothepolicyfallstothecentral
administrationaswell.
Wellwetakeissuesup,itgoesbacktheotherway,ImeanwheresomethingseemstobeunreasonablethentheresponsibilityoftheinstitutionalplanningdepartmentistomakerepresentationstotheDepartmentofEducation.‐AdministratorA1
Thereappearstobe,atthenationalandinstitutionallevels,acooperative
approachtothepolicyprocessandgovernance.Theinstitutionalgovernance
itselfthoughmayvaryintermsofinternalaffairs,andmaynotreflectallthe
modesofgovernancefoundatthehigherlevelsofthesystem.Beforelookingat
themicrosetting,qualityassuranceattheinstitutionalsettingwillbediscussed.
5.1.2.2. Qualityassurance
Theimplementationofanationalpolicyofqualityassurance,asexpressed
throughavarietyofdifferentpublicdocuments,wasinevitablyaffectedbythe
responseofthehighereducationinstitutions.Withintheinstitutionalsetting,
respondentsfromthecentraladministrationofinstitutionsAandBidentifieda
numberoffactorsimportanttothemintermsofqualityassurance.
87
Institutionalownership
OnerespondentatinstitutionAplacedaweightoninstitutionalownershipofthe
HEQCauditprocessandimprovementplan.AdministratorA1saidthatalotof
workwasputintopreparingthecommunicationchainwithintheinstitution,as
they“wantedtoensureinstitutionalownershipofit”.AdministratorA1alsosaid
itwasimportantthattheprocessallowedfordissent,andthatanattemptwas
madeto“beasinclusiveaspossible”,withaparticularemphasisontheinclusion
ofacademicstaff.Theresultoftheseguidingtenetswastheownershipofthe
self‐reviewandthequalityimprovementplan:
Sowe‐ithadalreadybecomeauniversitydocumentbeforeitwasactuallysubmittedtotheHEQC,soweowneditinthatsense,itwasoursbeforeiteverwentintothem…it’sourplanandnottheirplan.Inthesensethatitistheuniversityqualityimprovementplansoits‐anditsdeliberatethatitsourplanandnottheHEQC’sexternalplan.‐AdministratorA1
Therespondentstatedfurtherthat:
…weemphasizedallthewaythroughthattherewasn’tgoingtobeaninstitutionalposition,soweweren’tafraidofdissentingvoices.…Andwedidn’tseektopresentaninstitutionalline,soweallowedtheretobedissentinit.‐AdministratorA1
AdministratorB1expressedasimilarsentiment,concedingthatinstitutional
ownershipdoesnotmeaninstitutionalunification:
Thereisn'tsuchathingasaunifiedinstitutionalvoiceonsuchacontroversialissuesosomepeoplewouldsay‘Yeah,it'snotstrongenoughinthisway,it'snotstrongenoughinthatway’.‐AdministratorB1
AsecondrespondentatInstitutionAsuggestedthatwheninvitedtoparticipate
intheprocessofpreparingtheself‐reviewtherewasagenerallackofvoluntary
participation.Callsforresponsesandinvolvementweremadethrough
newslettersandthroughworkingwithassociations.
…wehadcertain,quite,fairlyopenendedquestionswhereweinvitedcomments,wedidn'tgetalotofinputthroughanyofthosesources.‐AdministratorA2
Inaddition,theauthor’sinterviewswithlowerlevelsofgovernanceatboth
institutionssuggestedalackofawarenessoftherespectiveimprovementplans,
andindeedinsomeinstancesthattheplanswereperceivedasanadministrative
plan.InresponsetothisAdministratorA1suggestedthatwasduetothelower
levelsnothaving“readitproperly”.Therefore,despiteclaimsofinstitutional
ownershipandattemptstoincludeseveralparties,therestillappearstobealack
88
ofclearcommunicationofthequalityimprovementvision.Thismayalsobe
attributedtolackofvoluntaryparticipationbythosewhowerenotdrivingthe
process,butwhowereinvitedtorespondtoit.Whatalsobecameapparentinthe
responsesofcentraladministrationrespondentswastheconsciousdecisionto
shieldacademicsfromalotofthepreparatorylegwork‐perhapswithadverse
effects.
ThepreparatoryworkfortheHEQCauditwasprimarilycarriedoutand
coordinatedbythecentraladministrationinbothinstitutions.Asstatedabove,
thereappearedtobemixedawarenessoftheaudit,andparticipationbyparties
otherthanthosedirectlyresponsiblewasonavoluntarybasis.Thisapproachto
managingtheprocesscouldbedescribedasshielding.Respondentsatboth
institutionssaidthatacademicswereshieldedfromtheprocess:
We‐ourapproachwastotryandnottoinvolveacademicsifnotreallynecessary.‐AdministratorB1
Whenwewerebusyworkingoncompilingourself‐review.FromwhatIremember,wewereactuallytoldtoleavetheacademicsaloneasmuchaspossible.‐AdministratorA3
…theapproachthatwetookwastotryandshieldtheacademicstaffasmuchaspossible,so.Mostofthedonkeywork,assemblingtheevidenceandthedocumentsandsoon.Thentheactualwritingofthe‐whatwecallthesituationalanalysisinrelationtotheInstitutionalcriteria,weredoneeitherby[AcademicDevelopmentUnit]oradmintypestaff.‐AdministratorA2
Thisshieldingwasfollowedbyopeningupthedraftoftheself‐evaluationreport
atthetwoinstitutionstocomments:
Weputtogetherafirstdraftoftheselfevaluationreport,weworkedwithpeopleinthesupportunitsandwefinishedtheprojectasfaraswecouldandthenwesenditoutforcommentsfrommanydifferentpeople.‐AdministratorB1
Soinaway,itwasshieldingthemandthen‐suddenly,theywereallinvitedtolookatitandsotheywereawareofitthenbut,youknow,fromwhatIrecall,itwasreceivedinaverypositivewaywhichmighthavebeendifferentifthey’dhadmoreoftheburdenthenontheotherhandthissortofabsorption,youknow,puttingitintotheirthinkingandplanningmighthavebeendeeper.‐AdministratorA3
Thechallengewiththewayinwhichthisprocesspresentsitselfisthattoensure
motivationandcompliance,anauthoritymodeofgovernanceisideal.However,
thisdoesnotfitwithtraditionalidealsofacademiccollegiality‐wherethe
persuasionmodeofgovernancemaybeseentobetterdescribeacademicdebate
andconsensusbuilding.
89
Indeed,thisdilemmawasfurthersupportedbythethirdrespondentwithinthe
centraladministrationatInstitutionA,suggestingthattheproblemliesinboth
howindividualsperceivethequalityassuranceprocess,aswellashowaware
theyareofit:
Ithinkverymixed.Ithinkmixedawareness,youknow,there'llbepeoplewhosay,'Oh,HEQC,butwe’vebeenreviewed,'youknow,whereasothersarefarmoreawareofitasaprocessandunderstandthat,andthesamewithregardtothesortof‐sortofworkburdenversusbenefitissue.Andyouseethesameintheacademicreview,isthatwedo,which,youknow,obviously,youknow,wearealignedtotheHEQC.There‐certainareaswherepeopleseeitasarealopportunitytolookatwhatthey'redoingcriticallyandtaketheirareaforwardwhereasothersarequitenegativeaboutit,youknow,thisisjustahugeburdenandit'seatingintomyresearchtimeandsoit's,youknow,Ireallycouldn’tsaythatthere’sanyonesetofawareness’or...perceptions.‐AdministratorA3
AdministratorA1furtherunderlinedthatfullexposureisneededforsuccessful
implementation,saying“theexecutionofitisgoingtorestoverwhelminglyinthe
academicdepartments”astheyaretheoperationalunits.AdministratorA1
identifiedthatpartoftheproblemistheautonomyofthefaculties,sayingthatit
is“actuallyquitedifficulttoreachbeyondthedeansintotheheadsof
department,it’soneofthechallengesofhavingahighdegreeoffaculty
autonomy”.Inessence,thiswouldsuggestthatduetotheinstitutionalstructure
alotofthepowertoimplementlieswiththedeansofthefaculties.
Onlyifthedeansexercisethatbecausethat’sthefilteringsituation,sotheleadershipneedstocomefromthedeanstotakeitseriously.‐AdministratorA1
Theconceptoffiltering,andthepowerofthedeans,wasfurtherexploredin
interviewswiththematbothinstitutions,theresultsofwhichwillbediscussed
inaseparatechapterfocusingonthefacultylevel.
Definingquality
Asdiscussedearlier,intheSouthAfricancontextchapter,quality,asdefinedby
highereducationlegislationinSouthAfrica,aswellasotherpublicdocuments,is
acombinationoffitnessforpurposeandfitnessofpurpose.Thesetwoconcepts
encompasstransformationimperativesandaninstitution’sabilitytoachieve
them,amongstotherthings.
ThediscussionwithAdministratorA1includeddiscussingadefinitionofquality,
andhowappropriatethisunderstandingofqualityisforthecountry.
90
…fitnessforpurposeessentiallyleavesyoufreetodefineyouownpurpose.ButinacountrylikeSouthAfricait’snotcleartomeifthat’sactually,inthenationalinterest,Imeanyou’vegotarelativelysmallhighereducationsystem,relativelylowlevelsofparticipation,hugepersistentinequality.…SoIwouldnot‐Iwouldtendtothinkthatthereisworktobedoneinreconcilingfitnessforpurposewithfitnessofpurpose,thatwouldn’tbeapopularviewofcourse.‐AdministratorA1
Laterstatingthat“fitnessforpurposeisgoodfortheinstitutionbutprobablynot
goodforthecountry”(AdministratorA1)
Qualityassurancetendstobedrivenbyamixtureofprocessandcontent.
AdministratorA1summarisedthisperspectiveofquality:
Sofirstofallwedefineourownpurposeandthenwegetevaluatedagainstwhatwesayweare,andthenentirelyit’sprocessdriven,doyouhaveinplacetherightprocessesforexternalexaminationornot‐whetherornottheexternalexaminerssaythecoursesaregoodorbad.Ithinkthewaythetwothingscometogetherthoughisthatsomeoftheprocessesthemselvesdeterminethequalityofthecontent.‐AdministratorA1
AdministratorA1suggestedthat“…ifyou’vegotanappropriatesystemfor
dealingwithexternalexaminersreportsitwillincludeaprocessthatmakessure
thattheexternalexaminerreportsaresatisfactory.”
Thefinebalancebetweenprocessandcontentwithinqualityassurancewasalso
discussedatotherlevelsofgovernance.AsmentionedintheAnalytical
frameworksectiontheprocesscomponentofqualityassurancecanbeeasily
relatedtoexternalmechanismssuchasaudit,whereasthecontentcomponent
canbeseeninlightofinternalmechanismssuchasself‐review.
Externalmechanisms
Withinaninstitutionstructuredondevolutionimplementationofanyinitiative
canbeseentobechallengedbyautonomousunits.Asdiscussedabove,the
leadershiproleofautonomousunitsbecomesincreasinglyimportantifthe
institutionistoadoptaninitiativecomprehensively.Whilethecentral
administrationmaybefairlyreliantonlowerlevels,suchasfaculties,forthe
implementationofinstitutionalinitiatives,itishardertoarguewithexternal
requirementsmadeoftheinstitution.Ifusedwisely,externalqualityassurance
measurescouldbeusedasaleverforchange:
Ithinkit[therelationshipbetweeninternalandexternalqualityassurance]isabsolutelycrucial.Imean,ifyoudon’thave,youknow,externalqualityassuranceforapersoninmyposition[externalqualityassurance]isabsolutelyinvaluablebecauseitallowsmetouseitasaleverforchange…withintheinstitution.AndIjustdon’tbelievequality
91
assuranceistakenseriouslyunlessthereisexternalpublicinterestaudit.Youknow,youjust‐itjustdoesn’twork.‐AdministratorA1
Furtheradding:
…andit’sverydifficultforpeopleinleadershippositionstoimposeanythingsoyouneedtheexternalagencytoholdtheinstitutiontoaccount.…Unlessthereisanexternalauditandunlessitisbasicallydoneinapublicinterestbasis.‐AdministratorA1
Internalmechanisms
WhiletheHEQCauditmarkedthebeginningofexternalqualityassurance
mechanismsforinstitutionsasawhole,internalmechanisms,suchas
departmentalreviews,appeartohavebeenregularfeaturesattheinstitutions
forquitesometime.TherewassuggestionbybothAdministratorA3and
AdministratorB1thatthecentraladministrationprovidessupportto
departmentswhoaregoingthroughareview,particularlyintermsofpreparing
theself‐evaluationportfolio.AdministratorB1stated:
…wheneverthereareprogrammeevaluationsordepartmentalevaluations,theyobviouslyneedalotofinstitutionalinformationwhichisprovidedthenfromthesameenvironment.Alotofenergygoesintotheannualreviewofprogrammes‐AdministratorB1
Thedevolvedstructureoftheinstitutions,asmentionedearlier,canhavea
substantialimpactontheimplementationofqualityassurancesystems.
AdministratorA2deemedinternalqualityassurancesystemstobe“very
devolved”althoughthereare“minimumpolicyrequirements”whichmustbe
adheredto.AdministratorA2alsosaid“it’sobviouslycorrectandappropriate
thatthingsarecontextualised.Thespecificsanddifferentcontextsaretakeninto
accountandDeansneedtohavetheauthoritytoadaptthings.”Thiswould
suggestthatinternaltotheinstitutionatransactionmodeofgovernanceexists,
wheremanagementviaoutputs,whichareinthiscasetheminimumpolicy
requirements,givethedeansafairdegreeofautonomywithinacertainbroad
frame.Thedanger,intermsofbeingabletoimplementinitiatives,wouldliein
governancebecomingtooliberalised.AdministratorA2alsounderlinedthe
importanceofstrongleadership,sayingthat“…ifyoudon'thavethatbuy‐inat
thetopthatsaysthisisathingthatwethroughouttheInstitutionreallyneedto
beusing…Itwillhappenunevenlydependingontheindividual’scommitments.”
92
Devolutionpresentsachallengeintermsofexposuretothequalityassurance
systems.AdministratorA1suggestedthistobeaparticularchallengein“an
institutionlikethis…wherethehierarchyworksdownthroughthesystem.”
Thequestionthenbecomeshowisitpossibleforthecentraladministrationto
affectchange?Itwouldappearthatinabottom‐heavyorganisationalstructure,
suchasuniversitiestendtobe,changecanonlysuccessfullybeimplemented
fromthebottom‐up,unlessthereisstrongtransformativeleadership,ora
changeinorganisationalstructure.AdministratorA1mentionedtworoutesthat
areused.Thefirstisthroughacademicdevelopment,particularlyintermsof
newstaffandtheiradaptingtotheinstitution.Thesecondisthroughfinding
“yourbestpeople”andusing“allthosesortsofmechanismstopersuadepeople
tocomewithyou”.Thiswouldsuggestthat,for‘buy‐in’tobesuccessful,key
figures‐thatisthe“bestpeople”‐needtobeonboard,andstaffneedtobe
trainedappropriatelyfromthestart.Theretoowasaconcessionthat“you’ve
actuallygottohavequitestrongcentralmechanismsofcontrol”ina
“transformingenvironment”likethatofSouthAfrica.AdministratorA1
suggestedthatcommitteescouldworkasimplementers,sayingthey“canbe
quiteeffectivewaysofkeepingissuesaliveandpushingthingsalong.”
AdministratorA1wentontofurthersuggestthatensuringcompliance,a
necessaryfeature,mightrequiresanctions.Weakinternalaccountability
mechanismsmeantthatheadsofoperationalunits,suchasdepartments,would
notbesanctionedfornotfollowingthroughtheplan.AdministratorA1saidthat
“…unlessyou’vegotsomeeffectivesortofinternalsanctionmechanismit’snot
reallygoingtowork”.However,thisdesireforstrongercomplianceisin
contradictionwiththedevolvedinstitutionalstructure.
Perception,purpose,outcome
AdministratorB1describedacollegialandnon‐interferingperceptionofthe
HEQCauditprocess.AdministratorB1saidtheauditwasnotseenas:
…externalinterference.Somethought,ah,it’snonsensebutsomewouldperdefinitionfeellikethat,andthatdependsonhowtheHEQCdoesitandtheywereverycarefultocomeincollegial,consultative,careful.Sometimessomeoftheauditorsdidoverstepalittlebitbutmostlytheywereverycarefulnottointerfereinacrudemannerbutrathertoworkinacollegialmanner.‐AdministratorB1
93
Suchanapproachwouldbecrucialtobuildingapositiveperceptionoftheentire
qualityassuranceinitiative.AdministratorA1alsohadapositiveresponse:
…sothat[audit]Ithinkworkedverywell.SoIthink,youknow,monitoringsuccessandperformancehasworkedwell.‐AdministratorA1
However,AdministratorA1wentontosuggestthatthefollow‐upfromtheaudit
processwasnotnecessarilyassuccessful:
Yeah,atthetimewewereverysuccessful,whetherwe’vebeensufficientlysuccessfulingettingpeopletofollowuponthequalityimprovementplanisadifferentissue.‐AdministratorA1
Thepositiveperceptionmayalsohaverelatedtohowtheprocesswascarried
out.ThemajorityoftheworkloadatInstitutionAappearstohavebeenplacedon
theadministration,whereconsultativeprocesseswerebuiltin,“togettheinput
ofacademics”‐AdministratorA2.TheHEQCauditwasseenbythe
administrationasthestartofthequalityassuranceprocess,andindeed,
AdministratorA1wentsofarastosaythat“theonlyvalueinanauditis‐the
auditvisit‐andtheauditreport‐isthestartoftheprocess,nottheendofthe
process.”
ThepurposeoftheHEQCaudit,asexpressedbyAdministratorB1,wasabout
managementandsystemsprocesses:
Butthenyoumustrememberthattheauditorsarenotconcernedinthefirstplacewiththeacademicprocesses,theyare[concerned]withthemanagementprocesses…It'snotintendedtobeacademicprocess;it'samanagementprocess,systemprocess.‐AdministratorB1
AdministratorA1broughtintothediscussionthedevelopmentalpurposeofthe
audit,yetalsoconcededtheprocess‐focus,versuscontent‐focus,oftheaudit:
Becausethepurposeofanauditinoursystemisdevelopmentalandengagementwiththeinstitution,soifyoudon’tstartoffwithveryeffectivecommunicationmechanisms,theexerciseissimplyanexerciseinbureaucracy.‐AdministratorA1
…theauditisentirelyaboutprocessandtheauditofcourseisentirelyabouthowwedefineourownsense,senseofpurpose.‐AdministratorA1
Essentially,hereweseethepotentiallyconflictingnotionsofimprovementand
accountabilitycomingforth.Improvementwouldrelatetothedevelopmental
notionoftheaudit,whereasaccountabilitywouldbemorealignedwithafocus
94
onmanagementandsystemprocesses.AdministratorA3recognisedbothas
potentialpurposesoftheaudit:
Weareaccountableforthewayweusepublicfundsandforourclientsandstakeholders,whoevertheymaybe,sothat'stheonesideofitbutcertainlyweseethebenefitsand,youknow,howthis,theexercisecanbeusedtoimprovethestudentexperienceandwhatitiswe'redoing.‐AdministratorA3
Strategicalignment
Thereisadesireforinstitutionalautonomyandacertainamountofuneasewith
theprospectofincreasedsteeringthroughqualityassurance,asitmightbeseen
asgivingintogovernmentdemands,thussacrificinginstitutionalindependence:
Theinstitutionfeelsquitestronglyaboutbeingseenasjustjumpinginresponsetoexternalpressures,andyouwouldfindthesamesentimentatWitsand[InstitutionA],theolderuniversities.It'stheoldVictorianclassicalmodeloftheuniversity,whichisautonomouscollegianofacademics.Whoarenothappytobeseenasstoogesofgovernmentorjustdoingwhatwe'vebeentold.We'lldecidewhatwedo.–AdministratorB1
IthinkthattheSouthAfricansystemisprimarilyoneofstatesteeringandthesteeringislargelydonethroughfunding,andthroughtheapprovalofqualificationsandthenincreasinglywillprobablybedonethroughqualityassurancemechanisms.Soit’squiteanuneasyrelationshipat[InstitutionA].‐AdministratorA1
Thisstrongdesireforinstitutionalautonomywasfurtherillustratedthroughthe
preparationfortheHEQCaudit,discussedinsomedetailearlier,andthe
formulationofanimprovementplaninresponsetotheauditreport.The
institutionsarealsorequiredtomonitortheirimprovements,inordertobeable
tosubmitamid‐cyclereporttotheHEQC.AtInstitutionBAdministratorB1
describedthefullintegrationoftheimprovementplan,preparedinresponseto
theHEQCauditreport,intotheuniversity’sexistingstrategicframework,in
ordertoensureinstitutionalownership.
Sowedon'trunitasaseparatething.It'sfully,fullyintegratedandwefeelquitestronglyaboutthat,ifyoudon'tdoitlikethat,wedon'tevenuseseparatenames,wewouldn'tsay"Thisisaprojectin[FacultyX]andthatpartofitisinresponsetotheHEQC."We'dsimplysay"Thisistheprojectsandplansof[FacultyX]andthisistheirreportingonwhattheydointheirfaculty."That'sitandthenfromthetotalityofreporting,wethen,cancutandpasteandputitinanotherframeasresponsetotheauditreport.‐AdministratorB1
AdministratorB1furtherexplainedtheintegrationofHEQCrecommendations
intotheinstitutionalplan:
…WesaidthewholeHEQCthingmustbefullyincorporatedintermsofourownplanningandallofit.SolastyearwhenweworkedonournormalinstitutionalplanswejustmadesurethatweincludedthestufffromtheHEQC.…It'sbuiltintothenormal
95
institutionalprocessandatthemomentwehaveamonitoringprocess.We’veaskedthedifferentlinemanagersandthedeanstoreportonthoseaspectsoftheirplanswhichspeakspecificallytothis.Sowecanseewheretheyare…‐AdministratorB1
Whatthistellsusisthatatthelowerlevels,andoperationallevels,ofgovernance
thereshouldbenoperceptionthattherearetwosetsofplans:institutionaland
response.Thereshouldonlybeanawarenessofonestrategicplanfortheentire
institution.AdministratorA2atInstitutionAsimilarlysaidthatthecurrent
strategicframeworkfortheinstitutionwasbasedonamergerofhigh‐level
strategicobjectivesandplanswiththeinstitution’squalityimprovementplan.
AdministratorA2furtherwentontosaythattheplan:
…allocatesaccountabilities.SomostofitlieswiththeDeansandtheythenhavetoreportonitonceayear.It’sverydevolved,virtuallynoco‐ordinationatacentrallevel,theonlytimeit'spickedupatthecentrallevel…istheannualprogressreportsmeetings.‐AdministratorA2
TheHEQCauditwastakentobeonefactorinfluencingpolicyreviewat
InstitutionB:
…theaudit,isoneofthefactorswhywecontinuouslyreconsiderourpolicies.Wewentthroughamajorprocesslastyearandtowardstheendoftheyear,wechangedthepolicy.‐AdministratorB1
Thisintegrationshouldideallyfurthertheinstitutionalownershipoftheprocess,
movingforwardfromtheaudittotheimplementationofimprovements.
5.1.3. MicrosettingStreetlevel
5.1.3.1. Policytranslation
Asdiscussedwithintheinstitutionalsetting,theroleofthecentral
administrationandparticularlythedepartmentsresponsibleforinstitutional
planningincludespolicytranslation,ormediation,orinterpretation.This
translationrolealsoaffectshowsuchdepartmentsfunctionwithinthe
institution,andnotonlyininter‐organisationalrelations.
WithinInstitutionBthetranslationfunctionwasdescribedintermsof
interpretationanddevelopmentof,andresponseto,policiesandinitiatives:
We'renotinthefirstplaceherenecessarilyspecialistsinallthedifferentfields,itdependsonwhattheinitiativeisandwhereitisbutthefirstentryintotheinstitution,thefirstlevelofinterpretationandthedecisionwheretoputtheresponseis…isfacilitatedfromhere.‐AdministratorB1[emphasisadded]
96
There'sasortofabufferbetweenthedepartmentandtheinstitutionasfaraspolicyisconcerned.…theknowledgeaboutthepolicyandtheimplicationofthepolicyandthedevelopmentofpoliciesactuallyislocatedinthissection.‐AdministratorB2
WithinInstitutionAthetranslationfunctionwastiedtothegenerationof
administrativeand/orbureaucraticwork,aswellastotheconceptof
interpretation.
…alotofpeopleouttherewouldsayIthinkthat[departmentresponsibleforinstitutionalplanning]generatesthebureaucracywhichisprobablyunfairbecausetheyarereallyjustatranslatingmechanismbutyes,Imean,Ithinkwecoulddobetteratprotectingpeopleagainsttheweightofbureaucracy,here…Imeanit’sverydifficulttomanage‐Imean,italsogoesdowntohoweffectiveyourinformationsystemsare,youknow,sowetry.Wedon’tnecessarilygetthatright,soIthinkoneofthebiggestchallengesisthesimpleweightofbureaucracy.‐AdministratorA1[emphasisadded]
…anditisquitealotinthesortofdevelopmentprocess,somethat'sbeingGazettedandsomeofitisstilltobeimplementedsothingslikethehighereducationqualificationsframeworkandtheclassificationofdisciplines,thosesortsofthingscometothisdepartmentandourroleisoftenaninterpretiveone.‐AdministratorA3[emphasisadded]
Thisfurtherstheargumentforincludingpolicytranslationinareviseddepiction
ofthepolicyprocess,acomponentthatshouldbeunderstoodtoincludethe
interpretingandmediationofapolicy,bothpriortoandafterthe
commencementofimplementation.Itisthisdynamicfeatureofthepolicy
process,assuggestedbyEndersetal.(2003)thatallowssomeoverlapbetween
components.
5.1.3.2. Governance
Discussionofuniversitygovernanceraisedseveralinterestingtopics,including
centralization,devolutionandshielding,aswellaspromptingthoughtsonthe
rolesofdepartmentsresponsibleforinstitutionalplanning,departments
responsibleforacademicdevelopmentand/orresearch,andhowthe
relationshipbetweenthetwoisgoverned.
Centralisationanddevolution
RespondentsatInstitutionBdescribedtheadministrationintheuniversityasa
fairlystrong“centralizedsystem”(AdministratorB2),inparticular“whenit
comestoinformation”(AdministratorB1).Intermsofthefinancialdistribution
process,theauthorityofthedeanswasemphasised,“sointhatsense,it’smore
decentralised”(AdministratorB1).Inconclusion,AdministratorB1saidthatit
97
wasn’t“apurelycentralizedmanagementsystem,orpurelydecentralized,thisis
amixedmodel”.
AtInstitutionA,AdministratorA2supportedthis,explainingthat“…youcan't
justhaveacentralsteerbecausepeoplewillresist,you’vegottofindwaysof
buildingownership,buildingcommitment,etc.”suggestinganawarenessofthe
challengesfacedbydevolution.
Respondentsatbothinstitutionsreflectedondevolution,intermsofcollegiality,
theextenttowhichtheinstitutionisdevolved,andhowsuchastructuremay
affecttheflowofcommunication:
…wetrytoworkquitecollegiallywithintheinstitution.‐AdministratorB1
…thefacultiesarenotlikeseparatecollegesorindependentunits,inthatsense,it'saverywellcoordinatedsystembutcollegial.‐AdministratorB1
Ithinkdevolutioninthisplacehasgonefartoofar,that'smypersonalview.‐AdministratorA2
…itdependsonwhotheDeanis.IfthereisaDeanwhoispassionateaboutXthenthatDean,…wouldmakesurethatthosekindsofthingsareaddressedinhisorherfaculty,theyallmakesurethattheminimumstandards,whichareagreedcentrallyareaddressed.Butthatdoesmeanifyouhaveaparticularstrategy…somefacultiescouldjustignoreitcompletelyandnothingwouldhappentothem....Thatisthenatureofthedevolution.‐AdministratorA2
…we’veassumedthatthingsfilterdowntoafargreaterextentthantheyactuallydoso,youknow,onemightassumethat‐givingapresentationtoallofthedeans,theywouldthenfeedinformationtotheHODsandwe'veactuallyfound‐itreallydoesn'thappen.SoIthinkwe’resortofmorechanging‐changingthewaywedothings…Soit’sinterestingandthat'ssortofcommunicationflowsinabiginstitutionofanykindIwouldthink.‐AdministratorA3
Amixedmodelofgovernancewithintheinstitutioncanbeconceptualisedasa
combinationoftheauthorityandpersuasionmodesofgovernance.Whilecertain
thingshavestrongcentralsteering(authority)othersaresohighlydevolvedthat
convincingoperationalunitstoimplementsomethingbecomesagameof
consultationandconsensus,astendstobethecasewithcollegiality
(persuasion/deliberation).Thissortofagovernancemodel,andtheproblems
thatmayensue,isnotuniquetothesetwouniversitiesbutcansafelybesaidto
becommonamongsthighereducationinstitutions.
InInstitutionBtherewassomediscussionofshieldingofacademicdepartments.
Thisdidnotrelatedirectlytoadiscussionofqualityassurance,butratherto
98
generalimplementationandgovernanceactivities.Whenaskedwhetherthey
sometimesshieldfromthedeansoriftheyarealwaysinvolved,Administrator
B1saidsometimescentraladministrationshieldsfromthedeansaswellas
departmentheads:
Sometimes,wheneverwecan,wetrytodothethingsandjustinformthem,notwiththepurposeofkeepinginformationawayfromthedeansbutwiththepurposeofnotburdeningthemwithstuffthat'snotreally…‐AdministratorB1
AdministratorB1furtherelaboratedonthecommunicationchainintermsof
shielding:
Deansarequiteprotectiveoftheirheadsofdepartment,sowetrynottoevercommunicatedirectlytothedepartmentheads,wewouldusually,throughthelinemanagers,communicatetothedeanandthenrequestthedeantotalktothepeopleinthefaculty.…anynewinitiative,theroutewouldbeadvisetotherectortooneofthesepeoplewhowouldthentalktothedeansandaskthemtoinformtheothers.Soshieldisthewordtousesometimes,weshieldthestuffbecausewewanttheacademicstoconcentrateontheacademicssoweshieldquitealotofstuff.‐AdministratorB1
UADRandDIP
Duringthecourseoftheinterviewswithmembersofthecentraladministration
theroleofunitsresponsibleforacademicdevelopmentand/orresearch
(hereafterreferredtoasUADR)wasdiscussed,aswellastheroleof
departmentsresponsibleforinstitutionalplanning(hereafterreferredtoasDIP),
withineachuniversity.Inaddition,therelationshipbetweenthetwowasraised,
toshedsomelightonhoweachmaycontributetoimplementation,andhowthey
collaborate.
WhenaskedwhethertheDIP,intermsofitsrole,focusedonenforcementor
developmentandsupport,theresponseofAdministratorB1wasthat“it’samix”,
saying,“tointerpretandprovidestrategicadvicetomanagement,whethertodo
thisornottodothisorhowtodothisandsoforth,sotheunitismixed
between.”Ingeneral,iftheDIPweretoprovidesupporttoanacademicunitin
preparationforareview,thefacultieswouldacceptsuchsupport,withthe
exceptionofoneortwo.
Intermsofpolicy,accordingtoAdministratorB1,theUADRdoesnotget
involvedunlesstheissueisdirectlyrelatedtosupportorstaffdevelopment.
AdministratorB2explainedthatUADRwouldalsoonlycontributeto
“implementationofthepolicy”ifitwere“institutionalpolicybutnotnational
99
policy”.AdministratorB1concurred,sayingtheDIPwould“interpretitandthen
…they[UADR]willbeinvolvedintheimplementation”.
AdministratorA2emphasisedthecomplianceandaccountabilityaspectsoftheir
role,saying“wehaveaccountabilityformakingsurethatpeopleadhereto
certainnationalrequirementswhenitcomestothesubmissionofapplications
fornewprograms”,incontrastwiththeADRwhoweredescribedas“involvedin
moredevelopmentalsideworkingwithstaff”.AdministratorA2reiteratedthe
point,saying“wehavetoensurethatthecompliancesideisaddressed.”
However,AdministratorA1didpointoutthatthereissometension,asDIP
“doesn’twanttoseeitselfasthepoliceforce.”Infact,theDIP“seekstoprotect
thefacultiesandthedeansfromunnecessarybureaucracy”.AdministratorA3
supportedthis,explainingthattheroleoftheDIP,ashaspreviouslybeen
broughtup,oftenlies“ininterpretation”,andcommunicatingnewinitiativesto
theuniversitycommunity,inpartthrough“alotofpresentationwork”.This
tensioncouldarisefromthefactthattheUADR,asdescribedbyAdministrator
A1,wouldviewitselfasa“developmentagency”andan“enabler”,butnotasa
“regulator”,andtherecanhardlybetwounitsbothinvolvedindevelopment.
Theidealrelationship,asAdministratorA1describedit,wouldbethattheDIP
“shouldhighlightthroughinformation,particularareasoftheproblemwhich
needattention”andthentheroleofUADRwouldbeto“providetheremedy”.
AdministratorA3concurred,saying“we’resortoftwopartsofawhole”,sowhile
UADRviewstheirroleas“beingverydevelopmental”theDIPviewstheirsas
being“moreonthemanagementandimplementationside.”DespitetheUADR
potentiallyviewingthemselvesas“developmental”,AdministratorA2pointed
outthatthephilosophyoftheDIPis“embeddedwithinadevelopmental
approach,althoughweobviouslyaremoreresponsibleforsomeofthe
complianceaspects”,whichUADR“wouldn’tberesponsiblefor.”
Reflectingonhowtherolesofthetwodifferenttypesofdepartmentsare
describedbymembersofthecentraladministrationshowinterestingresultsin
termsofgovernance.Itisevidentthatthecomplianceandaccountabilityaspects
oftheDIPwouldplacesuchdepartmentswithintheauthoritymodeof
100
governance,whiletheUADRwouldmorelikelybelocatedwithinthepersuasion
modeofgovernance.Thisisabalancewehavecomeacrossbefore.Whatisof
furtherinterest,althoughinasensequitelogical,isthattheDIPdisplay
managementfunctionsattheinstitutionalsetting,whereasthedescriptionof
howtheUADRmayfunctioniswithinthemicrosetting.Thisshallbebornein
mindwhentheresponsesofmembersoftheUADRarediscussedinthenext
chapter.
5.1.4. Summaryofresults
Resultsfromthecentraladministrationfocusedheavilyongeneralpolicy
processandgovernanceissueswithintheinstitution,andbetweenthe
institutionalandnationallevels.Qualityassurancewasdiscussedprimarilyat
theinstitutionallevel,whichisinaccordancewithseekingtounderstandthe
institutionalresponsetoit.
Policysetting.Analysisofresultsfromthecentraladministrationwithinthe
policysettinghighlightedtheidealofcooperativegovernance,aswasthe
originalintentionofthenewgovernment,functioningwithinacontextofstate
steering.Intermsofoperationalgovernance,thereappearstobeapersuasion
modeintermsofongoingpolicymaking,unfortunatelydestabilisedtosome
extentbyadhocremedies.
Institutionalsetting.Analysisofresultsfocusingontheinstitutionalsetting
reinforcedtheargumentmadeearlier,intheTheoreticalapproachchapterand
Analyticalframeworksection,thatthepolicyprocessmustbeviewedasdynamic,
andtheinsertionofpolicytranslationisnotwithoutgoodcause.
Theneedforstrongercentralsteeringinordertomoresuccessfullyimplement
initiativeswasincontradictionwiththedevolvedstructureoftheinstitutions.In
termsofqualityassurancethiswasinsomesenseovercomebyaligningthe
initiativewiththeinstitutions’strategicframeworks,thusencouraging
institutionalownershipofanychangeprocessthatwastooccur.Theexternal
mechanismsofqualityassurancedidprovidecentraladministrationwithsome
leverageandauthoritytodrivethroughqualityassurancemeasures,butwithout
buy‐intheywouldbecomeexercisesincomplianceratherthandevelopment.
101
Microsetting.Theconceptofpolicytranslationwasfurtherexaminedatthe
microlevel,asoneofthefunctionsofthedepartmentsresponsiblefor
institutionalplanningwithintheuniversities.Street‐leveldiscussionand
analysisofgovernancewithintheinstitutionlookedatissuesofcentralisation
versusdevolution,atopicalsovisitedattheinstitutionalsetting.Theroleof
centrallylocateddepartments,thoseresponsibleforacademicdevelopmentand
research,andthoseresponsibleforinstitutionalplanning,wasdiscussed.Results
suggestthatdespitethedesireforadevelopmentalapproachfromtheDIP,there
isinevitablymoreofanaccountabilityandcompliancefocusintheirwork,
versusthemoreenabling,developmentalfocusthattheUADRcanallow
themselves.
5.2. Academicdevelopmentandresearchunits
Interviewswithmembersofunitsresponsibleforacademicdevelopmentand
researchaddressedbothbroadinstitutionalpolicyissues,aswellaslookingat
micro‐levelgovernance,andtheunits’relationshipswithdepartmentsof
institutionalplanning.Findingsshowedstrongviewsonthedevelopmental
approachrequiredbyacademicdevelopmentandresearchunits,withthe
accountabilityemphasisfallingmoretothepartofinstitutionalplanning.
RespondentsareidentifiedasDeveloperA1,B1,etc.
5.2.1. Nationalsetting
Resultspertainingpurelytothenationalsettingwerevirtuallynon‐existent,and
thereforearenotdiscussedandcategorisedinthesamemannerastheother
settings.However,adescriptionoftherapidandextensivechangesthathave
beenhappeninginSouthAfricanhighereducationpolicydidprovidesome
insightintowhatmightberesistancetonewinitiatives:
IthinkthatoneofthepointsaboutSouthAfricanhighereducationisthatwewerecushionedfromrealworldpressures,internationalpressures,waybeyondmostcountriesbecauseoftheapartheidsetup.Itisolatedusinallsortsofways.Sothishadtobea,bigdemandforreadjustmenthere.It'shappenedveryquicklyandhasdisturbedpeople.Soit'spartly,whatpeoplehavecalled,achangefatigue,itissomuch.Includingallthesocialchange,particularlyfor,youknow,thisisawhitemiddleclassworldstill.Intermsofthestaff.Soit'sthatgroup,ifyoulike,thathasfeltmostbatteredbychange.‐DeveloperA1
102
Findingsprimarilyaddressedissuesfallingundertheinstitutionalandmicro
settings.
5.2.2. Institutionalsetting
5.2.2.1. Policyprocess
DeveloperA1displayedagreatawarenessofneedingtop‐downinitiativesfrom
thenationallevelforuseasleverageattheinstitutionallevel,saying“there’sgot
tobe…sometop‐down”althoughconcedingthat“top‐downbyitselfisnot
enough”.Institutionalinitiativeshaveanincreasedchanceofgettinggoingifthey
aremirroredinnationalinitiatives.
Theinstitutionalpolicyprocess,asdescribedbyrespondentDeveloperB1,
reflectedthedevolvedstructureoftheinstitutionandhowbesttoimplementan
initiative,describingtheuseofpolicyframeworkswith“broadguidelinesand
requirements”thatgivefacultiesthefreedomto“adapttotheirparticular
situations”,makingprovisionsforthedifferingdepartmentswithinfaculties.
Frameworkpolicyformulationischaracteristicofatransactionmodeof
governance‐somewherebetweenstronghierarchy(authority)andstrong
autonomy(persuasion).
Policytranslation
Theroleofpolicytranslationwasdiscussedearlierinresultsfromrespondents
ofthecentraladministration.PolicytranslationwasalsoalludedtobyADR
respondentsatInstitutionB.
IntermsoftheroleofADRunits,policytranslationwastakenastepfurther,as
bolsteringthedevelopmentof“universitypoliciestofitinwithnational
requirements”(DeveloperB2),thusnotonlyinvolvingaresponsetoanational
policy,butacomplementingpolicydevelopmentattheinstitutionallevel.
PolicytranslationwasalsodescribedasafunctionofDIPbyDeveloperB1,
explainingthat:
…yeah,Ithinkmainlythatfunctionhascomebecauseofthejargonandbecauseofthecomplexityoftherequirements.People,teaching,researching,everydayintheirowndisciplines.Theywouldn'tliketobebotheredwithalltheseintricaciesofpolicydocumentsandsoforth.TheywanttoknowasIsaidtoyou,theywanttoknowhowweshoulddoitandwhenweshoulddoitandwhenshoulditbefinishedandthatkindof
103
thing.Sotheexactalmostguidelines,andIthinkinthatsense,[DIP]hasbeenquitegoodininterpretingitandsimplifyingitandputtingitinthecontextoftheinstitutionandsayingthisiswhatweneed.Thisiswhatwe'llprovideyouwithandthisiswhatweneedfromyouandweneeditbythen.Andthenwe'llreworkit.Sothat’stheinterpretationpart.Butthathasadangerinthesensethatitcanleadtocompliance.Wesayokay,wejustneedtodothisandgetitoveranddonewith.‐DeveloperB1
DeveloperB1wentontosaythatthe“translationpart”is“neededand…
necessary”,butthatimplementation“alsoneedssomemonitoringand
evaluation”,lestitruntheriskofbecominga“paperexercise”.
Theabovesuggestsalesscoherentviewofpolicytranslationthanthat
encounteredwithinthecentraladministration.Thisshouldnotbesurprising,as
ADRrespondentsarelessattheexecutingandimplementinghelm,thus
potentiallylessawareoftheprocessesdevelopedattheinstitutionallevel.
5.2.2.2. Qualityassurance
Thedebateonhowqualitycanandshouldbedefinedhasnotbeenresolved,
particularlynotinhighereducation.DeveloperB1suggestedthatwhenpeople
starteddiscussingqualityintermsof“transformationqualityandfitnessfor
purpose”thatitbroughtabout“newangles”andpeoplestarted“rethinking…
thewholenotionofquality”.However,DeveloperB1explainedtheexistenceofa
secondviewofqualityastransformation,onethatinvolveschanging“whitefaces
withblackfaces”.Whiletransformationistosomeextentbasedonthat,“one
[transformation]shouldnotbedonetothedetrimentoftheother[quality]”.Itis
thisthatsogreatlycomplicatestheimplementationandgovernanceofquality
assuranceinSouthAfricanhighereducation.
Thelinkbetweenfitnessofpurposeandtransformationisclearwhenconsidered
inlightofnationalobjectives.TheHEQClooksatmissionstatementsof
institutionsintheirqualityassuranceaudits,notonlytoestablish“howwell
you’remeetingthem”,butasdescribedbyDeveloperA1,toalsosee“whatthey
arethemselves”.Logically,withinaninstitutionthatviewsitselfinacertain
positivelight,thisapproachtoqualityassurancecouldengendersomeserious
tensionbetweeninstitutionsandnationalbodies.DeveloperA1describedthis
tension:
Nowit'saveryinterestingissueofinstitutionalautonomywhichhasn'tactuallybeentestedeverinarealbattle,althoughit'shoveringaroundundertheserviceallofthetime
104
andthere'srealangerabouttheway,incentralareas,aboutthewaysomeinstitutionsaredoingthings.‐DeveloperA1
DeveloperB1furtherdiscussedthesetensions,describingareactionbythe
institutionsintermsofa“threat”to“academicautonomy…institutional
autonomy…programmeautonomy”.Thismakessenseinhistoricallywhite
institutionsthatpreviouslyhadgreatfreedomtoimplementtheirownagenda.
DeveloperB1maintainedthoughthatitwasn’tnecessarilythe“ideaofquality
assurance”,butratherofpeoplecomingin“fromoutside”.
Despitethesetensionsexistingunderneaththesurface,DeveloperA1believed
thatonthewhole,institutionsare“sensitiveenoughtowhat'sgoingon”,andwill
thereforenotcreateabsurdinstitutionalmissionsforthemselves.
Thethreattothesuccessofqualityassuranceliesnotonlyinhowinstitutionsas
awholerespondtoperceivedthreatstotheirautonomy.Itliesalsoinhow
academics,particularlywithinhistoricallywhiteinstitutions,viewoutside
interferenceintotheirwork.AsDeveloperA1pointedit,ithasbeenequated
witha“managerialism”,withthoseforces“thataretryingtodestabilise
academe”.DeveloperA1suggestedthatinordertogetaroundthisresistanceto
changethereneedstobeanincreaseinaccountability,a“pushfactor”foritto
becomeimportant.
DeveloperA1suggestedthatinordertotrulybringaboutchangeinthe
institution,intermsofqualityimprovementandprocesses,thatthe
“environmentandthemindset”needtobechanged,andqualityassuranceneeds
tobemademore“important”inordertobringaboutsuchchange.DeveloperB2
talkedabouttheimportanceofinternalqualityreviewmechanisms,andthat
externalmechanisms“shouldjust…giveyouthatconfirmation”.Establishing
suchabalancewithininstitutionswouldrequireaculturalshiftinfavourof
qualityassurance.
Perspectivesonqualityassurancehaveshiftedsinceitwasfirstintroduced,
accordingtoDeveloperB1.Duringthetimewhenqualificationswerebeing
shiftedtoanoutcomes‐basedformat,DeveloperB1describeditasan“exercise
ofcompliance”.However,whentheHEQCprocessessuchasauditand
105
accreditationgotunderway,DeveloperB1describesthemas“adifferentkindof
ballgame”,usingtermslike“improvementoriented”and“co‐operative”to
describetheshiftinperspective.DeveloperB1specificallydescribestheprocess
ofreviewofaparticularprogramme,sayingthatinitiallyparticipantswere“not
quitesurewhatwasgoingtohappen”but“astheprocesswenton…everybody
couldseethevalueofthat”,andastimehasgoneonitisnow“muchmore
acceptedaspartofprogramme…andqualitydevelopment”.
Institutionalaudit
Respondentsatbothinstitutionssawvalueintheinstitutionalaudit,butthe
degreetowhichitmightbealeverforchangevaried.DeveloperA1described
tryingto“usetheaudittomaximumadvantage”,inorderto“tryandinfuse
changesinpolicyandattitudesandbehaviour”,giventhedevelopmentaland
improvementroleofacademicdevelopmentandresearchwork.DeveloperB2
believedthatonitsown,theauditdidnotfunctionasalevertochangethelevel
ofqualityataninstitution,describingitasjust“onefactorwithinaset”that
couldaffectinstitutionalchange.DeveloperB2describedtheauditas
“supportingmuchofwhatwedo”,thusengenderingapositiveattitudetowards
it.Theauditwasfurtherdescribedas“critical”byDeveloperA1,intermsof
definingquality.Anunderstandingofqualitythatencompassesfitnessofaswell
asfitnessforpurposewouldsupporttheworkofthe“developers”,asDeveloper
A1putsit.
AsdiscussedintheCentraladministrationsection,facultieswereshieldedfrom
theweightofthebureaucraticworkrequiredbytheauditprocess.DeveloperA1
suggestedthisdisplayedthecentraladministration’sunderstandingofa
negativeattitudetowardsqualityassurance.Theprocesswascarriedoutinsuch
afashionasto“createminimumdemandsonthefaculties”.Informationwas
mediatedtothefacultiesaboutwhatwasgoingonbut“ahugeamountofthe
workwasdonecentrally”.
Intermsofauditpreparation,academicdevelopmentalandresearchunitswere
involved.DeveloperB1saidthatcertaininstitutionalpoliciesweredeveloped
priortotheaudit,astheywererequiredbytheHEQCauditcriteria,such
developmentbeinga“direct…outflow”oftheprocess.Thisworkwascarried
106
outbyADRindividuals.Inaddition,DeveloperB2describedbeing“very
involved”inthepreparationoftheauditreportitself.DeveloperA1described
theiracademicdevelopmentandresearchpeopleasbeing“quiteinvolved”,
“providingprofessionalinputandsupportintotheprocess”butthattheprocess
wasultimatelydrivenbytheDIP.
TheaudititselfatInstitutionBwasdescribedasbeingcarriedoutinacollegial
fashion,thattheauditors“didnotwanttopushtoohard”thusmakingpeople
defensive,andthatthere“wasakindofcordialandrespectfulengagement”
(DeveloperB1),andthatitwasseenas“both”anexerciseinaccountabilityand
improvement(DeveloperB2).
5.2.3. Microsetting
5.2.3.1. Policyprocess
DescribingthepolicyprocessatInstitutionA,respondentDeveloperA1
suggestedthattheinstitutionaltranslationprocessinvolvestop‐downmediation
tofacultiesandpossiblydepartments,wherefeedbackisreceivedfromthe
bottomup.Oncethatprocesshasrunitscourseitispossibletorolloutthe
initiativeorprogramme.Formallysuchaprocessisrunbyacademicplanning,
butinformallythecentraladministrationcouldbeindiscussionwithUADRand
deanstopreparetheresponse.
AlevelofinformalitywasalsodescribedbyDeveloperB2,sayingthatwhena
policyisbeingdevelopedthecollaborationofpeople“thatalreadyhave
knowledgeandhaveshownaninterestinthepolicy”issought.Theimportance
ofpolicydevelopmentinconsultationwithacademicswasemphasised,inorder
toensureownershipandavoidtheriskofnegativereactions.
5.2.3.2. Governance
Governanceinthemicrosetting,ingeneralterms,wasonlybrieflytouchedupon
byrespondentDeveloperB2.Observationsincludedthatduetothedevolved
structureoftheinstitution,facultiesanddeanshaveafairamountofpower.This
devolution,coupledwithautonomy,makesiteasyforstreet‐levelindividualsto
resistchange.Therefore,inordertoaccomplishanything,theUADRhaveto“get
their[faculty]support”.
107
UADRandDIP
DeveloperB1describedtheroleofdepartmentsresponsibleforacademic
developmentandresearchasbeing“clearlysupport”.DeveloperA1saidthat
“puttingitverysimply”theADRunitsseethemselvesas“affectingbothpolicy
andimplementation”,andworkaswelltoassistthefacultieswhenneeded.
ADRrespondentsatbothinstitutionsdiscussedtheneedtoemphasisethe
developmentalapproachintheirwork,nottobeconflictedwithenforcement:
Imeanourviewisthatyoucan'tbe,thekindofthemagistrateandthesocialworkerinthesamething,itdoesn'twork.‐DeveloperA1
…wearemeanttobethedevelopmentpeople.…Wearenotthepolice.‐DeveloperA1
We'rehappytodothatwork,policywork....Butwedon'twanttobeseenasthepolicypolice,orthepolice....Moredevelopmental.‐DeveloperB2
…youcannotbea…policepersonandasupportpersonatthesametime.Youcanbeoneofthetwobutnotboth.‐DeveloperB1
Thenatureoftherolepresentschallengeswithimplementation,becauseas
DeveloperA1putit,“implementationishardbecauseevenifyouwantedto
policestuff,youcan’t”.However,therewassomesuggestionthatonoccasion
ADRbecome“alittlebitpolice‐ish”inordertomovethingsalongandshift
peopleoutoftheir“comfortzones”.
DeveloperA1describedagoodworkingrelationshipbetweenUADRandDIPat
InstitutionA,inpartattributedtotheDIPpeoplebeing“inaneducationmould”,
and“notjust…bureaucrats”.Intermsofpolicyresponses,initiativestendtobe
ledbytheDIP,butUADRwouldsubmitopinionsandreportsfortheinstitutional
comment.
TheDIPatInstitutionBwasdescribedaspreviouslyhavingservedmoreofa
supportfunction,buthasdevelopedintoa“managementtool”,insomesense
still“servingbothpurposes”(DeveloperB1).Inasimilarfashion,atInstitutionA,
DeveloperA1describedtheDIPas“implementers”ofpolicy,the“administrative
executivearmthatactuallydoesthestuff”.
5.2.4. Summaryofresults
Resultsfromdepartmentsresponsibleforacademicdevelopmentandresearch
focusedsolelyontheinstitutionalandmicrosetting,andwereprimarily
108
concernedwiththenatureofqualityassurance,andhindrancesto
implementation.
Institutionalsetting.ResultsfurthersupporteddiscussionintheTheoretical
approachchapterregardingtheroleofpolicytranslationinthepolicyprocess.
Findingsfurtherdevelopedpolicytranslationtoapplytohowinstitutional
policiesaredevelopedinresponsetonationalpolicies,andnotonlyhow
nationalpoliciesrequire‘translation’attheinstitutionallevel.
Discussionofqualityassuranceshowedaconcernwithlinkinga
transformationaldefinitionofqualitytoUADRwork,inordertoleveragechange.
Microsetting.Discussionoftheinstitutionalpolicyprocesssuggestedthe
presenceofalevelofinformality,andaneedforparticipationinordertoensure
ownership.
GovernanceatthemicrosettingcentredarounddiscussionoftherolesofUADR
andDIP.Therewasgeneralconsensusthatinordertobeeffectivedevelopers
therecannotbeapolicingelementtotheworkoftheUADR.However,this
negativelyimpactstheabilityoftheUADRtoeffectivelyimplement,givenlevels
offacultyautonomyanddevolution.
5.3. Facultylevel
Resultsatthefacultylevelarebasedoninterviewswithdeansatthetwo
institutions.Deansareidentifiedbyinstitution,e.g.DeanA1isthefirstdean
fromInstitutionA,andDeanB3isthethirddeanfromInstitutionB.Discussion
tendedmoretowardsthemicrosettingthanwiththeprevioustwogroups.This
islogicalgiventhepositionofdeanswithinthetwoinstitutions,andtheir
greaterfocusonoperationalmatters.
5.3.1. Nationalsetting
Brieflyaddressed,andonlybyrespondentsatInstitutionB,nationalgovernance
wasdescribedintermsoffundingassteering,andasexplicitstatesteering.For
instance,DeanB3suggestedthatsteeringthroughfundingwouldbesubtle,and
reallocationoffundswouldthereby“coerceinstitutions”tochangeifthatwas
thedesireofthegovernment.Therefore,academicautonomy,inthesenseof
109
howacademicsshouldthink,isstillpresent.However,academicprogramme
offeringsarenotautonomousassuch,astheyaresubjecttoaprocessof
approvalthroughtheCHE,HEQCandDepartmentofEducation.AsDeanB2put
it,thereispotentialfornegotiationinmostcases,but“ifgovernmentdoesn’t
changetheirmindaboutsomethingthenyouwillhaveto,intheend”.
5.3.1.1. Policyprocess
Aswasthecasewithgovernance,thenationalpolicyprocesswasonlydiscussed
withrespondentsatInstitutionB.Thediscussioncentredaroundpolicy
translationandresponse.
TheissueoftheneedforpolicytranslationwastoucheduponbyDeanB2inan
indirectmanner,describingthedifficultyinunderstandingpolicydocuments.
DeanB2explainedthatpolicydocumentsare“oftenquitelengthy”and“nobody
evenbotherstoreadthem”,andthechallengeliesintryingtounderstandwhat
thepolicyinquestionmeans“ontheground”.Theimportanceofcontext,too,
wasemphasisedbyDeanB3.
…policyisnevercastinstone.Itisdictatedtobytheconditionswhichprevailandyoucannothaveaubiquitouspolicywherethepolicyisapplicableeverywaytoeverysituationin…exactlythesameway.Soifyouworkat[InstitutionB],thepolicyshouldbeadaptedtotheconditionsof[InstitutionB].Thatwayensuresthatthepolicy’simplementeddefensibly.‐DeanB3
DeanB3wentontogiveanexampleofanationalpolicythatdidnotwork,dueto
thefactthatresources,conditions,etc.werenottakenintoaccountfor
implementation,thusemphasisingtheimportanceofcontextinpolicymaking.
Intermsofpolicyresponse,DeanB3saidthatpolicywasengagedwithina
“criticalway”,andthattherewasaresistancetoimplementing“policyblindly”.
DeanB2saidtherewasanattempttobeproactiveinrespondingtonational
levelinitiatives,inordertoforeseehowthingswilldevelop.However,“wedon’t
reallychangethepolicies”saidDeanB2,buttheyareinvolvedinfashioninga
response.Thisresponsewouldpotentiallyfallintothetranslationstageofthe
policyprocess,astheoriginalpolicyisnotbeingaltered,assuch,butinevitablyit
isalteredthroughoutthepolicyprocess.
110
AdynamicexampleofthenationalpolicyprocesswasillustratedbyDeanB2,
wheretheygaveanexampleofapolicythatwastobeimplementedfromthetop
down,butpriortothathappeningitwassentbackuptobereworked,priorto
implementation.
5.3.1.2. Qualityassurance
Qualityassuranceatthenationallevelwasdiscussedinhistoricalterms,tosome
extent.Forinstance,aspreviousliteraturesuggests,theSouthAfrican
QualificationsAuthority(SAQA)wasseeninanegativelight,andwastiedwith
qualityassurance.DeanA2describedthehopethatSAQAwould“dieanatural
death”,callingit“interferingbureaucracy”.However,the“HEQCisalittlebit
different”,therebyshowingwhatishopefullyashiftawayfromanegative
connotationofqualityassuranceauthorities.DeanA2expressedan
understandingwiththeneedforaccountabilitywhenacceptingpublicfunds,but
nonethelesssayingthatintermsofacademicfreedomthereisa“verystrong
suspicion…aboutanygovernmentauthority…wantingtointervene”,andthisto
someextentincludestheHEQC.
Withaslightlydifferenttone,DeanB4describedwhytheybelievedthequality
assuranceprocesshasbeensogreatlyemphasisedsince1994.Theproblem,as
describedbythedean,layinthelowqualityofdegreesfrom“newerlesswell‐
establisheduniversities”.Theideawasthatinordertoincreaseequalityamongst
institutions,andqualityofinstitutions,everyoneshouldhavetoundergothe
samequalityassuranceprocesses.“Itresultedinarevampofthequality
assurancesystemsforeverybody”.Thisonesizefitsallapproachwasdeemedto
beofquestionablevaluebyDeanB4,whononethelessconcededthatitwas“an
honestattempt”totryto“solvethatproblem”.AccordingtoDeanB4,Institution
Bpreviouslyhadtheirownsetofqualityassuranceprocedures,priortothe
governmentinitiating“uniformqualityassuranceprocedures…acrossthe
country”.
111
5.3.2. Institutionalsetting
5.3.2.1. Policyprocess
DeanB1saidthattosomeextenttheeffectofpolicyonanoperationalor
implementationlevelfunctionedwell,duetomembersoftheinstitution’scentral
administrationbeinginvolvedinthenationalpolicyprocess.
Theexistenceofatranslationlevelinthepolicyprocesswasfurthersupported
bycommentsmadebyDeanB2,sayingthatpolicyis“translatedatthecentral
level”,whichthencommunicatesitwithintheinstitutionintermsofspecific
impacts.Likewise,ifthereareanyproblemswithinstitutionalcommunication,
DeanB2describedan“opendoorpolicy”wheredeanscanseekadviceorfurther
understanding.
Theideaoftheinstitutionalresponsetoanationalpolicyinvolvingpolicy
translationwasmirroredatthefacultylevel.DeanB2suggestedthatwhena
nationalorinstitutionalpolicyreachesthefacultylevelthereissomefreedomin
responsepriortoimplementation,andthatdeanscanaskforfurtherdiscussion
priortoimplementation,sayingthatdeansare“inapositionwherewecan
negotiate”,particularlyinordertogetclarityoncertainpoints.
DeanB3developedthisviewpoint,givinganexampleofaninstitutionalpolicy
framework,whichallowedforfaculty‐specificadaptation.Frameworkpolicy
formulationislesshierarchical,andisamacro‐levelcharacteristicofthe
transactionmodeofgovernance.DeanB3furtherstated:
WellIdon’tconsiderpolicyasaproduct.Inotherwords,itdoesn’tmerelyexistintext.Policyformeisaprocess,whichmeansthatitisshapedthroughyourinsightsandyourcontributions....Weinvariablyshapepolicyaswegoalong.Sopolicyisnotsetupfrontbutpolicyisalwaysinthemaking.Soit’sacontinuousprocess.‐DeanB3
DeanB1advocatedqueryinggovernmentalinitiativespriortoimplementation,
andemphasisedtheneedto“beabletomakeadjustmentsongroundlevel…
wherethingshappen”,describinginasensetranslationandadaptationof
nationalpolicyattheinstitutionallevel.
Inaddition,theinstitutionalpolicyprocessatInstitutionBshowedelementsof
dynamism,asconsultationoccurredinatop‐downfashion,fromthecentral
112
administrationtothedean,whowouldcommunicatetheinitiativetothe
departmentheads.Fromtherearesponsewouldbepreparedanditwouldgo
backup,accordingtoDeanB2.Ifthereisaneed,“youcangobackup”.Atthe
sametime,however,ifdepartmentheadsdonottaketheopportunitytorespond
whenaskedfortheirviewspriortoformalisation,theircomplaintsarenottaken
intoaccountoncethenewpolicyhasbeenformalised.DeanB3concurred,saying
thatwheninitiativesarepresentedbycentraladministration,theyarediscussed
withandengagedwithatafacultylevel,withdepartmentheads.
DeanA3describedasimilarprocessatInstitutionA,where“policydiscussion”is
broughttothefaculty,whereideasonimplementationarediscussed.The
responsethengoesbackuptotheexecutive,wherethepolicyisrefinedand
confirmed.Likewise,communicationofpolicyinitiativestodepartmentheadsis
consideredanimportantpartoftheprocess,bothintermsoffeedback,andonce
itisfinalised,astheyaretrulythe“operationalmanagement”andfunctionasa
“feedbackmechanism”.DeanA1explainedthatanynewinitiative,institutional
ornational,is“alwaysdiscussedextensively”attheexecutivelevel.
Implementation
AtInstitutionA,DeanA3deemedthedepartmentheadstobethe“key
implementers”ofpolicies“atadepartmentallevel”,sayingthatdepartment
headsareresponsibleforensuringthatpoliciesareimplementedandadhered
to,althoughthereare“checksandbalancesinplace”.DeanA1discusseda
dependence“onthelinemanagers”,sayingthatwiththe“implementationofany
policyyouneedtobeabletopersuadethepeoplewhoaregoingtoimplementit
thatit’sagoodidea”,butnonethelessmaintainingthatthedeanshiphas“quitea
lotofinfluence”.
DeanA2describedapolicythatisimplementedbythedepartmentheads,
despitethembeinginoppositiontoit,asitisaninstitution‐widepolicy.Thisisin
starkcontrastwithtraditionalconceptionsofconsensusbuildingwithin
universities.
AtInstitutionB,DeanB2describedaninvolvementbydeansintermsofmaking
surethatpoliciesareadheredto,saying“therearecertainthingsinplace”.Dean
113
B2alsodescribedadifficultywithmotivatingcolleagues‐departmentheads‐in
instanceswherethereareuncertaintieswithpolicyoutcomes.
5.3.2.2. Governance
AtInstitutionB,DeanB1talkedabouttheimportanceofaconsultativeformof
governanceatthefacultylevel,usingtermssuchas“give‐and‐take”,“pushand
pullmodel”,“advisorypower”,“cooperationbyconsulting”and“notenforcing”,
describingtheinstitutionasa“rationalplacewhereyoucantalkrationally”,
saying“thisishowuniversitiesshouldfunction”.Thisisstronglyreminiscentof
thepersuasionmodeofgovernance.Thedeanalsosuggestedthattop‐level
governancewithintheinstitutionisalsobasedonaconsultativeapproach,
sayingthatmostissuescanbe“debatedat…executivelevel”.Theproblemliesin
facultyallegiance,andrepresentingthefacultytothecentraladministration,or
representingthecentraladministrationtothefaculty.“Youhavetostraddleboth
thoseroles.”
Soit's,Ithinkthere’saverymuchgive‐and‐takesituationattheUniversity,thatmakesforagoodwell‐leadUniversity.Notenforcingtheirview,andforus.Imean,thisishowUniversitiesshouldfunction.It’sarationalplacewhereyoucantalkrationallyaboutissuesanddirectionandjobs.‐DeanB1
DeanB3echoedthesethoughts,sayingthatjustbecauseadeaninitiates
somethingitdoesnotmeanitisdone“inadictatorialway”,sayingit“hastobe
doneinadeliberativeway”,usingtermslike“engage”and“consensus”,and
rejectingtheideaofexclusionfromtheprocess.DeanB2supportedthisviewat
theinstitution,describingavenueforinclusivediscussiononissues.Likewise,
peoplearegiventhechancetogivetheirinputintoissues,andwhethertheydo
ornotisthedecisionoftheindividual.
DeliberativegovernancewasfurtherdescribedbyDeanB4,intermsofa
devolvedstructureandconsultativenatureofdecision‐making.Theproblemlies
inhavingdecisions“astransparentaspossible”yetallowingfordebate.The
debatecanslowdownthespeedofdecision‐making,anddissuadeinterested
partiesfromattendingsuchforumsfordiscussion.
114
DeanB3didpointout,however,thatwhileinvolvingstaffonallissues,
“paradoxicallyyouprovideleadershipbutyouarealsolimitedbywhatisalready
happening”asthereisnodirectauthoritativepower.
AtInstitutionA,similarsentimentswereexpressed.DeanA2talkedabout
constantlycommunicatingwithandbeingawareofpeoplewithinthefaculty,
sayingthattheroleofdepartmentheads“developedalongwiththedevolution
model”.Alongwiththisdevolutiondevelopmentaroseissuesoftensionand
facultyallegiance,butasDeanA2putit,“ifthere’safinalconflictbetweenthe
centreandthefaculty,you’vegottabewithyourfaculty.Becauseifyoudonot
enjoytheconfidenceofyourcolleagueswithwhomyouworkonadailybasis,
you’renotgoingtosurvive.”Intandemwiththislineofresponse,DeanA2said
thatifthedeanssaytothecentraladministrationthataninitiativewillnotwork
inthefaculties,thentheauthorityofthedeansmeansthatparticularinitiativeis
“unimplementable”.
Yeah,Ithinkyou’vegottobeincrediblyhardworkingandincrediblycommittedtotalking,discussing...Constantlytalkingtopeople.Constantlybeingawareofpeople.‐DeanA2
DeanA1agreedwithDeanA2,saying“ifIwereforcedwithametaphoricalgun
tomyheaditwouldbethefaculty.”DeanA1furtherdescribedconsultativeand
cooperativeformsofgovernance.Atthefacultylevel,“realdiscussiontakes
place”.Likewise,implementation“isbyitsnatureconsultative”,andrequires
persuasion.Putaptly:“...thewisdomatthevery[CentralAdmin]isthatnothing
willhappenunlessthedeansareonboard,andfrommyperspectivenothingwill
happenunlessthe[departmentheads]areonboard.AndIguessthe
[departmentheads]saynothingwillhappenunlessthestaffareonboard”thus
tyingtheentiregovernancestructuretogetherinaconsultativefashion,
describingcommunicationasgoinginbothdirections.AsDeanA3putit,“we
haveadecentralisedmodel”,describingthatinordertogetsomethingthrough
inthefaculty,theremaysometimesbetheneedtostepbackfromtheprocess,
“rephraseandredefineyourapproach”,inordertogetthingsdone.
115
5.3.2.3. Qualityassurance
Indiscussionofqualityassurance,itischallengingtodistinguishbetweenthose
perspectivesthatapplytotheinstitutionalsetting,andthosethatapplytothe
microsetting.Indeterminingthedivisionbetweentheseperspectives,
commentsregardingprocessesthattakeplacewithintheinstitutionwere
generallyplacedinthemicrosetting.
AtInstitutionA,DeanA1describedtheneedforstandardsandframeworks:
Ofcoursetherearegoingtobenegatives,andthenegativeisthetimeittakes.ButIdon’tthinkthattheseadhoc‐makeuptherulesasyougoalong,assumeeverybodyknowsthem[procedures]‐Idon’tthinktheyworkinaworldofmixedculturesanddifferentbackgroundsandsoon.SoIthinkthosewereverypeculiartoapreviousage.‐DeanA1
DeanB4suggestedthatawarenessofqualityassurancehasincreasedovertime,
andithasa“muchhigherprofilenow”thanitdidabouttenyearsago.Thiswas
attributedto“externalthings”,whichislogicalgiventhelargechangesinthe
highereducationpolicyenvironmentsince1994.
DeanB3believedthatexternalqualityassurancemechanismsarenecessaryin
contemporarySouthAfrica,inordertoensurethatinstitutionschangeand
transform.However,theydeemeditshouldbea“temporarymeasure”because
“qualityassurancemechanismsshouldbeintertwinedwiththeprocessof
transformation”,becoming“partofthesystem”ratherthanbeing“anenemy”.In
turn,DeanB3maintainedthatuniversitiesshouldhavetheirownquality
assurancesystems,“notjusttopleasethestate”,butbecauseofacarefortheir
profession,thusneedingsuchsystemstobeinternallydriven.Thiswould
requireaculturalchangeattheinstitutionallevel.
Therelationshipofqualityassurancetodevelopmentand/oraccountabilitywas
succinctlydescribedbyDeanB1,insayingthatbringinginexternalexpertswith
thepurposeofimprovementwasonefacet,butthattheaccountabilityofwhatis
happeningattheinstitutionistiedtopublicfunds.DeanB4agreedthat
internallyqualityassuranceisaboutimprovementbutexternallyitisabout
accountability.DeanB3concurredwiththisview,saying“firstaccountability
becausethisinstitutionisanationalassetandithastobeaccountabletothe
116
public...butit’sanidealopportunityforaninstitutionalimprovement.”DeanB3
advocatedinternallydrivenprocesses:
Andthentheinstitutionsneedtodeveloptheirownqualityassurancemechanismsnotjusttopleasethestate.Idon’thavetopleasethestatetodogoodteaching.GoodteachingshouldbebecauseIcareformystudents.‐DeanB3
ThelinkbetweentransformationandqualitywasdiscussedbyDeanB3,who
believesthat“excellence…cancoexistwithdiversity”.Thedeanexplainedthat
tothestate,transformationismeasuredindifferentskincolours,butthat
“colourdoesn’tnecessarilymeanchange”,andthatdifferentskincolourscan
“perpetuatethesameideas”.Thedeanbelievesthat“qualityassuranceshouldbe
integratedinthetransformationprocess”,andthatessentiallyqualityassurance
canfunctionas“avehicletowardsachieving”transformation,andnot“asaform
ofinspection”.Interestingly,DeanB2appearedtoonlyvaguelylink
transformationwithquality,saying“onecanlookatitinmanydifferentways”,
whichmaybeattributedtothefactthatinDeanB3’sview,qualityassuranceand
transformationare“currentlyseparate”.
TheHEQCinstitutionalaudits,carriedoutatthetwoinstitutionsin2005,was
discussed.Whilesomegeneralperspectivespertaintotheinstitutionalsetting,
otherresultsarepresentedwithinthemicrosetting.
AtInstitutionB,DeanB2saidtherewasanawarenessoftheself‐evaluation
reportpreparedfortheinstitutionalaudit.Thedeanpointedoutthattherewasa
levelofuncertaintypriortotheaudit,astheinstitutionwasamongstthefirstto
beaudited.DeanB1describedthepreparationprocessfortheauditashaving
beencentrallyadministered,withfacultiesneedingtocontributedetailsand
informationwhenasked.Thedeandescribedtheprocessas“verythorough”,
going“rightdowntothebottomlevel”.AccordingtoDeanB3,the“criticism”the
institutionreceivedintheHEQCreporthasbeentakenintoaccount,andis
bringingaboutsomechangeswithintheinstitution.
AtInstitutionA,DeanA2voicedscepticismaboutthevalueoftheinstitutional
audit,sayingthataninformalreviewcarriedoutatthefacultypriortotheaudit
wasamorevaluablelearningexperience.Inaddition,thesizeoftheinstitution
contrastedwiththehandfulofpeoplethatcamefromtheHEQC,madeitseem
117
likesomethingof“ajoke,actually”.Thedeandidnotdenytheneedforquality
assurance,butwasscepticalofinstitution‐wideaudits.DeanB4concurredto
someextentwiththeviewsofDeanA2,suggestingthattheself‐evaluation
preparationpriortotheactualauditwasgoodfortheinstitution.
IntermsofpreparationatInstitutionA,itwasdescribedbyDeanA1,likewith
InstitutionB,asbeingcentrallyadministered,andtosomeextentacademicson
thegroundwereprotectedfromtheprocessbyastrongperformancecentrally.
Withoutsuchastrongcentraladministrationtheworkloadforotherparties
wouldhaveincreased.
5.3.3. Microsetting
5.3.3.1. Qualityassurance
Resultsonqualityassuranceatthemicrosettingtouchedonanumberofissues,
somecriticalandothersdescriptorsofprocess.Withintheinstitutions,
governanceofqualityassurancewasdiscussedintermsofhowthingsarerun,
andhowcommunicationandrelationshipsfunction.
InInstitutionB,DeanB4saidifsomethingwasnotworkingforthefacultyin
termsofqualityassurance,acollaborativeapproachwastaken,wherethedean
coulddeliberatewiththecentraladministrationtoestablishasolutionthat
wouldsuitthefaculty’spurposes.However,thisisbasedonahierarchical
systemofinstitution‐wideframeworks,whererequestsandcoordinationcomes
fromcentraladministrationtofaculties,andontodepartments.
DeanA2describedqualityassuranceintermsoftherebeing“twosidesofthe
coin”.Improvementhadresultedfromtheinitiationofqualityassurance
processes,butitwasdescribedintermsofbeing“forced”toreviewcertain
aspects.However,thedeanconcededthattheprocessestendtonotbetootime
consumingforthefaculty,astheyarerunbythecentraladministration.DeanA1
believedthesystemsandstructuresatInstitutionAare“veryrobust”,indicating
thoughthatthereisroomfordeliberationoncertainissues.
118
Administrativeoverload
Resultssuggestedanincreasedadministrativeoverloadwiththeintroductionof
qualityassurancesystemsattheinstitutions.DeanA1saidthatalthoughextra
administrativeworkmayirritateacademics,it’sthe“newaccountabilityof
academiaworldwide”andthatonthewholeitwasnecessaryand“acceptedthat
itwaspartofaneweducationsystem”.Despitethis,they“complain”about
increasedadministration.DeanA2saidthatintheirtenureasdeantheyhad
spent“anenormousamountoftime”onpaperwork,suggestingthatitgetstothe
pointwhere“youspendallyourtimeworryingaboutqualityassuranceand
assuringqualityandyoujustdon’tgetonwiththejob”.However,theydisplayed
atoleranceofthesituation,suggestingthattheperceivedgenerationof
increasedadministrativeworkbytheDIPwithintheinstitutioncouldbe
attributedtotheDIPbeingthe“messengerthatveryoftengetsbeaten”.
DeanB4suggestedthattheintroductionofqualityassurancesystemsand
processeswasnotvaluableenoughtomerittheincreasedadministration,saying
“…onthewholetheincreaseinqualityimprovementisnotworththeamountof
timeandeffortthat’sbeenspentonit.”However,DeanB4didconcedethat“they
[academics]understandthenecessityforit”.DeanB2describedquality
assuranceas“addingquitealotofpaperwork”,sowhileitdoesnotinterferein
academicfreedomassuch,it“takesupvaluabletime”thatcouldbespenton
academicactivities,as“itneedsproofofthatyouaredoingeverythingright”.
Eventuallythough,DeanB2agreedwithB4,saying“youaresortofasking
yourselveswhetheryouareaddingvalue”.
Qualityassuranceprocesses
Atbothinstitutions,timewithrespondentswasspentdiscussinginstitutional
qualityassuranceprocesses,bothinternalandexternalmechanisms.DeanA2
saidthatinanidealworld,qualityassuranceandacademiccouldbenefiteach
other,therebynotfuellingthenotionthatqualityassuranceisathreatto
academicautonomy.DeanB3believedthatqualityassuranceshouldbean
integratedprocess,“situatedintheprocessoftransformation”.
InInstitutionA,DeanA1saidtheywereawareofqualityassurancewithinthe
facultyonadailybasis,alsoexplainingregularprocessessuchasmemorandaof
119
understandingbetweenstudentsandsupervisorsthatarereviewedonceayear,
andhowvariousdevelopmentalprocessesaregoingonwithindepartments.
DeanA1maintainedthefacultyplacesa“strongemphasis”onqualityassurance,
andthatautomaticstructuresinplaceare“veryrobust”.However,DeanA1did
pointoutthatsomeoftheseprocessesandmonitoringare“relativelynew”,only
havingcomeaboutin“thelastcoupleofyears”.
DeanA2describedprocessimprovementssincetheadventofqualityassurance,
describinghowreportsbyexternalexaminersarenowmoreeffectivelyand
efficientlyprocessedthroughdepartments,faculties,andeventuallythecentral
administration.However,previously,informalmeasuresensuredacertainlevel
ofquality,suchaswhetherornotgraduatesofthefacultywereabletoreceive
employment,andwereconsideredgoodemployees.DeanA2saidthatinformal
processeswerepreviouslypresent,theyjustwerenotcalledqualityassurance.
Generally,therewouldbeapositiveviewofqualitybutyouseetheargumentwouldbebut‐whichIdon’tnecessarilyagreewith‐butwe’vealwaysbeenworriedaboutquality,youknow,that’swhywe’rehere.Wearestrivingtobebetterandsoonandsoon.Ithinkthe‐Ithinkthere’svalueinformalizingit…IhavelearnedalotandI,youknow,soI’mnotacompletephilistineasfarasqualityassuranceisconcernedbutI‐Ithinkthereisaconsiderabledangerortemptationthatitcangooverboard.‐DeanA2
DeanA3saidthatqualityassuranceneededtobedoneonacontinuousbasis,
viewingitasa“criticalcomponent”ofdailyoperationsandmanagement.Dean
A3alsoemphasisedtheneedtoembedcontinuousimprovementintothe
institutionalculture,sayingthatthree‐yearinternalandfive‐yearexternal
reviewsarealreadypartofthesystem,butthatitshouldbecomepart“oftheir
thinking”.Justastheinputtoqualityassuranceshouldbecontinuous,sotoois
themonitoring.DeanA3suggestedthisispartlyaccomplishedthrough
committees.
InInstitutionB,DeanB1explainedtheimprovement‐orientednatureofsupport
fromthecentraladministrationintermsofqualityassurance,andonceexternal
evaluationsofdepartmentshavebeenreceivedthattheyarereviewedina
consultativemanner.Generalqualityassuranceprocessesareroutinised,and
“onarollingbasis”,includingperformanceappraisal.
120
DeanB2wasoftheviewthattheprocessofdepartmentalevaluationwas
“addingalotofvalue”,andthatonceaprocesshasrunitscourseithas“always
beenapositiveone”attheend.Intermsofmonitoring,DeanB2pointedoutthat
change“takesplaceslowly”butthatthingsaremonitoredastheygoalong,and
thatthecentraladministrationhasanopen‐doorpolicyforsupportonquality
assurancematters.Likewise,inaninformalmanner,conversationsbetween
deansanddepartmentheadsserveasaninformalmonitoringmechanism.
WithinInstitutionB,acentralcommandrunningstandardisedprocesseswas
describedbyDeanB4,forinstance,intermsoftheroutiniseddepartmental
evaluation,runonaschedulekeptbythecentraladministration,andorganised
accordingtooutlinesapplicableacrosstheinstitution.
InInstitutionA,departmentalreviewsarefollowedbyreports,followedby
improvementplans,whicharediscussedinaconsultativefashion,butis
monitoredbythecentraladministration,accordingtodeanA1.However,thereis
somesuggestionthatsuchreviewsengendertoomuchadministrative
paperwork.
ThesameprocesswasdescribedbyDeanB4inInstitutionB,addingthatthereis
afollow‐upacoupleofyearsafterareview,toensurethatrecommendationsare
beingimplemented.Theimportanceoftheinternalself‐evaluationwas
emphasised‐again‐aswellastheimportanceofthefollow‐up.
AccordingtoDeanA2,informalinternalmechanismsincludepeerreview,dueto
rotatingpositionsatthelevelofdepartmenthead/chair,andreallocationof
teachingwhenacademicsgoonsabbatical.
Theprocessofinternalprogrammeevaluationwasdeemed“valuable”byDean
B2,inthesensethattheinternalself‐evaluationprocess,preparingforthe
externalevaluation,wasa“goodexercise”,butthatexternalaffirmationofthe
self‐evaluation“alsoaddsvalue”.Oncetheprocessiscompleteitleadstointernal
improvements.However,DeanB2wentontosuggestthatvisitofexternal
evaluatorstocampustendstobetoobrieftoaddmuchadditionalvaluebeyond
theinternalprocess.
121
DeanB1boastedgoodinternalsystemsatthefaculty,saying“necessary
mechanisms”and“checksandbalances”arebuiltin.Thedeanwentontosay
thatmembersofthefacultyrealisetheimportanceofoutsideassessors,for
validation.
DeanB4viewedexternalmechanismsasbeinggoodforvalidation,inthesense
thattheunitshouldself‐evaluate,andthenhaveexternalassessorscheckand
validatetheself‐evaluation,describingtheself‐evaluationprocessas“very,very
positive”,again,notintermsofthecontributionoftheexternalreviewers,butin
termsoftheinternallearning,sayingthegreatestvalue“oftheexerciseisyou
evaluatingyourself.”
Youwanttoassessyourownsystemsaccordingtocertainprinciples,fixthemyourselfandjusthavetheoutsidepeoplecomeandvalidateyourprocesses.‐DeanB4
Intermsofsupportforimplementingimprovements,DeanB4suggestedthatit
caneitherresideatthedepartmental,facultyorcentraladministrationlevel,
dependingontheextentoftheimprovementrequired.
DeanB3alsoexpressedapositiveviewofexternalprogrammereview,saying
theprofessionaljudgementofprogrammeswasgood.
Externalchecksonqualityassurance,suchasexternalexaminers’reports,were
deemedusefulinordertoseewhetheranyconcernsareraised,saidDeanA2.
Thecontributionsofexternalexaminersarebothintermsofprocessand
content,accordingtoDeanA2,anditisasystemthat“continuestoworkwell”,
and“worksalotbetternowthanitdid”.However,asDeanA1pointedout,the
“accountabilitycanneverbeperfect”whenrelyingonexternalexaminerstodo
theworkrequired.
DeanA3viewedqualityassurance,bothexternalandinternal,asacontinuous
process.Describedintermsofcycles,internalself‐evaluationandexternal
reviewshouldrepeatitselfonaregularbasis,inordertoensurethat
improvementisoccurringbasedonrecommendations.
TheHEQCinstitutionalaudit,amixtureofanexternallyinitiatedmechanism
coupledwiththerequirementforaninternalself‐evaluation,wasseparately
122
fromothergeneralmechanisms.DeanA1suggestedthatfacultyinvolvementin
theprocesswaslow,buttherewasa“fairdegreeofacceptance”oftheneedfor
suchaprocess.DeanA1suggestedthatqualityassuranceaftertheauditbecame
a“livingworkinprocess”becauseofimplementationofimprovementobjectives.
DeanB4sawexternalimpositionasnegative,sayingthatittrulyshouldberun
bytheinstitution.DeanB2saidtheonlyrequirementmadeofthefacultywasto
makesurethingswereinplaceincasetheauditorsweretocomeandask
questions.Theself‐evaluationreportwascommunicatedtofacultiesand
departments.
Internationalinfluencesinqualityassurancewereconsideredtobeof
importance.DeanA3wasbenchmarkingnotonlyagainstSouthAfrican
universities,butalsooverseasuniversities.DeanA1explainedthatatthe
graduatelevelexternalexaminersforthesesanddissertationsarebothdomestic
andinternational.DeanB1describedthesameprocessatInstitutionB,saying
thatreportstendedtobemorefavourablefromoverseasthandomestic
examiners.DeanB2agreedthatinternationalinfluencewasofimportance,
particularlyintermsofoverseasevaluators.DeanB1concurreddescribingthe
processas“beneficial”.
5.3.4. Summaryofresults
Nationalsetting.Resultsatthenationalsettingsuggestedsomescepticismwith
theroleofeducationauthoritiesinqualityassurance,orincreasedsteering
effortsingeneral,forthatmatter.Thepolicyprocessandgovernancewereonly
brieflydiscussed,butsupportedadynamicperceptionofthepolicyprocess,and
theroleoftranslationintheresponseoftheinstitution.
Institutionalsetting.Thepolicyprocessattheinstitutionallevelwasdescribed
intermsoftranslationanddiscussion.Thisappliestobothnationalpolicyas
introducedtotheinstitution,andinitiativeswithintheinstitution.
Respondentsdescribedinstitutionalgovernancewithphrasessuchas
“deliberative”,“transparent”,and“push‐and‐pull”.Thissuggestsanopenand
consensus‐orientedgovernancemodel.Difficultieswithsuchamodellieinthe
abilitytogetagreementoninitiatives,andtoimplementchange.
123
Qualityassuranceattheinstitutionalsettingcoveredavarietyoftopics.In
particular,thelinkbetweenqualityassuranceandtransformationwastouched
upon,displayingthatthetwoarenotyetautomaticallylinkedinthemindsof
respondents.Theexternalauditwasalsotouchedupon,ingeneralterms,with
descriptionsofacentrallyadministeredprocess,andtheshieldingofacademics
fromtheworkloadandtoomuchinvolvement.Somerespondentsvoiced
scepticismatthevalueoftheaudititself,suggestingthatself‐reviewpriortothe
auditwasofgreatervalue.
Microsetting.Qualityassurancewasthemaintopicwithinthemicrosetting.
Discussionincludedthegeneralapproachtoqualityassurancewithinthe
institution,itsprocesses,andnegativeaspectsthatfollow,suchasanincreased
administrativeworkload.
Respondentsgenerallybelievedthatqualityassuranceprocessesweregood,and
hadimprovedinthelastdecade.Theyweredescribedastakingpartonarolling
basis,withfollow‐upbuiltintothesystem.
Onthewholetherewasagreaterappreciationofinternallyinitiatedself‐review
processes,suggestingtheywereoffargreatervaluefortheimprovementof
qualitythanexternallyinitiatedaccreditationsoraudits.Externalmechanisms
wereconsideredtobepositive,however,asvalidatingmechanismsforinternal
self‐evaluation.
124
6. Discussion
Table9displayskeyfindingsfromthethreedifferentgroupsofrespondents,
categorisedbysetting.Thesefindingswillbediscussedinthischapter.
Overarchingthemesareidentifiedbycolour,andboldoritalic.
Table9:Overviewoffindingsonpolicyandgovernance
Centraladministration(Administrators)
Academicdevelopmentandresearch(Developers)
Facultylevel(Deans)
Policysetting
Idealofcooperativegovernance‐Contextofstatesteering‐Persuasion/deliberationmodeofgovernanceOngoingpolicymaking‐Adhocremedies
‐Scepticismwithnationalqualityassuranceauthorities‐WarinessofincreasedstatesteeringDynamicpolicyprocessPolicy‘translation’aspartofinstitutionalresponse
Institutionalsetting
DynamicpolicyprocessPolicytranslationpartofprocessStrongercentralsteerrequiredDevolvedinstitutionalstructure‐QAalignedwithinstitutionalstrategicframeworkforownership‐ExternalQAmechanismsprovideleverage‐Internalbuy‐inrequiredforproperchange
‐PolicytranslationpartofprocessPolicytranslationasformalresponsetoimplementationofpolicy&asresponsethroughinstitutionalpolicydevelopment‐QAlinkedtotransformationTransformationalQAleverageforchange
‐DynamicinstitutionalpolicyprocessPolicytranslationanddiscussionpartofprocessConsensusorientedgovernance(e.g.persuasionmode)‐Consensus=slowchange‐QAnotexplicitlylinkedtotransformation‐Centralmanagementofaudit‐Shieldingofacademics‐Scepticalofvalueofaudit‐Self‐evaluationvaluable
Microsetting
‐PolicytranslationfunctionofdepartmentforinstitutionalplanningCentralisationversusdevolution‐DIPmustbefocusedonaccountability‐UADRcanallowfocustobeondevelopment
Informalitypresentinpolicyprocess‐Participationrequiredforownership‐UADRmustfocusondevelopmentDevelopmentfocushindersimplementationduetodevolution/facultyautonomy
‐DescriptionofQAprocesses‐QAnegativethroughincreasedworkload‐QAgenerallypositive/improving‐Internalsystemsvaluable‐Self‐evaluationvaluable‐Externalgoodforvalidation
125
Thisstudyhasexploredthenatureoftheso‐called‘gap’betweenpolicy
formulationandimplementationinthetraditionalliterature.Withtheaidofa
theoreticaloverviewandframework,thestudyseekstoanswerthequestion:
• Howdoescentralisedpolicymakingandlocalisedactivityinteractinways
thathinderorsupportthepolicyprocess?
Furthermore,inordertodiscusstheabovequestion,itisofinteresttoexplore:
• Whatistherelationshipbetweenthepolicyprocessandgovernancein
SouthAfricanhighereducation?
TheanswerstothesequestionsareexploredthroughcasestudiesattwoSouth
Africanuniversities.Analysedinterviewsweretakenwithcentral
administrators,academicdevelopersandresearch,anddeans.The
implementationofanationalpolicyofqualityassuranceinSouthAfricanhigher
education,andinstitutionalresponsestoit,waschosenasthecommonpolicy
examplefordiscussionintheinterviews,inadditiontowhichmoregeneral
discussionwasencouraged.
Findingssuggestthatausefulconceptualisationofthe‘gap’betweenformulation
andimplementationistounderstandthisasarealstageinthepolicyprocess,
andcanbeconsideredintermsofpolicytranslation,oneoftheprimary
functionsofthecentraladministrationinbothinstitutions,andatermthat
endorsesadynamicviewofthepolicyprocess.
ThepolicyprocessanditsrelationshiptogovernanceinSouthAfricanhigher
educationshowedatensionbetweenexternalandinternalinitiatives.While
governanceembracedacooperativeideal,governmentsteeringwasonthe
increase.Thiswasmirroredwithininstitutions,whereimplementationofpolicy
initiativeswashamperedbythedevolvedstructureofinstitutions.Itis
suggestedthatperhapsastrongercentraladministrationisrequiredtodrive
transformationimperativesintheSouthAfricancontext.
126
6.1. Policytranslationinhighereducation
TheTheoreticalapproachchaptersetouttoestablishtheprimaryconcepts
surroundingqualityassuranceinhighereducation,followedbyanoverviewof
thepolicyprocessandimplementationliterature.Thisdiscussioncontributedto
anunderstandingofhowthe‘gap’betweenformulationandimplementationhad
beendealtwithinearlierliterature.
Theresultinganalyticalframework,basedonadynamicconceptionofthestages
heuristic(Endersetal.,2003),includedtheadditionofpolicytranslationasthe
stagebetweenformulationandimplementation.Theexistenceofthisstageinthe
highereducationpolicyprocesswassupportedbyresultsfromallthreelevelsof
governancethatwereanalysed.
Theoreticaldiscussionofthenatureofhighereducation(Gornitzka,Kyvik&
Stensaker,2007)suggestedashifttowardsmarket‐basedideologies.Thisisin
accordancewithsuggestionsmadebyCloete,MaassenandMuller(2007)on
shiftsinSouthAfricanhighereducation,eventuallyleadingtomoresteeringor
control.
Thereisevidenceofadegreeoffreedomattheinstitutionallevelinhownational
initiativesareimplemented,aspolicytranslationappearedtooccurbothpriorto
andaftercompletionofpolicyformulation.Therefore,translationcouldoccur
duringtheformulationstage,andalsobetweenformulationandimplementation.
Withinthecentraladministrationtranslationisdisplayedbyaninteraction
betweenformulationandtranslationresultinginaconsultativeprocessof
policymaking,andthusamoreclearlydefinedfinalpolicy,withinthenational
setting.Thisdynamicviewwasalsosupportedattheinstitutionalandmicro
settings,wherepolicytranslationwasconsideredtobeoneofthemainfunctions
ofinstitutionalplanningdepartmentswithinthecentraladministration.
Academicdevelopmentandresearchrespondentsfurtherelaborateduponthe
ever‐broadeningconceptofpolicytranslation.There,thedynamismofthepolicy
processattheinstitutionalleveldisplayedelementsofbottom‐upperspectives.
Respondentsdescribedhowinstitutionalpoliciesmaybedevelopedinresponse
127
tonationalpolicies,aswellashownationalpoliciesmayrequiretranslationat
theinstitutionallevelpriortobeingimplemented.Thisinstitutionalresponse,in
thedevelopmentofnewinstitutionalpolicyinreactiontonationalpolicy,
supportstheideathatstudyingapolicy,assuch,isgreatlylimitedbyfocusingon
asinglepieceoflegislation(Sabatier,2007a).Rather,apolicynetworkofactors,
reactionsandimplementationstructures,appearsaroundapolicyissue.
Thisrathermorebottom‐up,andpossiblyhorizontal,viewoftheprocesswas
enhancedbyresultsfromDeans.Again,adynamicpolicyprocesswassupported,
andtheroleoftranslationfortheinstitutionalresponsewasconfirmed.
Developersdescribedtranslationattheinstitutionalsettinginasimilarfashion.
Nationalpolicyrequirestranslation,butitalsostretchesitsmeaningto
encompassrespondinginitiativeswithintheinstitution.Thisspeakstothe
“interactiveprocesses”(Gornitzka,Kyvik&Stensaker,2007,p.53)discussedin
theAnalyticalframeworksection,astheimplementationofanationalpolicy
bringsaboutaninteractiveprocesswithintheinstitutions,necessitatinga
responsebeyondstraightforwardimplementation.
6.1.1. Dynamicpolicyprocess
Findingssuggestedthatadynamicdepictionofthepolicyprocessisaccuratefor
theSouthAfricancontext.Inordertofullyvisualisethedynamicsofthepolicy
process,andtheroleofpolicytranslation,ahorizontaldepictionispotentially
moreappropriate.
IntheSouthAfricanpoliticalcontextoftransformation,wherechanges,
responsesandinteractionsoccurthroughoutandacrossinstitutionsand
nationalbodiesthevisualimagepresentedinFigure4betterreflectsthenature
ofthedynamicpolicyprocessassuggestedbyfindings.
128
Figure4:Depictionofdynamicpolicyprocessbasedonfindings
6.2. Governanceandqualityassurance
Thedynamicdepictionofthepolicyprocesswascoupledwithaframeworkof
governance,aspresentedintheworkofHillandHupe(2002),inordertobeable
tounderstandgovernancetrendsintheresultsintermsofidealtypesand
combinationsthereof.Theresultsrevealedacontradictionbetweentheneedfor
hierarchicalcontrolinordertosuccessfullybringaboutchangeandimplement
initiatives,andthedevolved,bottom‐heavynatureoftheinstitutionswiththeir
abilitytoresistchange.
Resultssuggestthatcooperativegovernanceasanidealstillpervadeswithin
thesetwoinstitutions‐andinterestinglyappearstobestrongwithinthe
institutionalgovernancestructure.Centraladministrationrespondents,in
particular,highlightedtheidealofcooperativegovernanceasexpressedbythe
newgovernment,butplaceditwithinacontextofstatesteering.Themore
operationalaspectsofgovernancesuggestedanetworkedapproachinongoing
policymaking.Thiscooperativeandcontinuousmodewaspartlydestabilisedby
129
adhocremedies,whichwouldbetheprerogativeofthestatewithastronger
steeringemphasis.
Whileincrementalismatinstitutionalandlowerlevelsofgovernanceisevident
inthedescriptionsofrespondentstodevelopment,discussedbelow,the
overwhelmingchangewhichtookplaceinSouthAfricainthemid‐90scontinues
tothepresentday,that‘moment’beingconsiderednomorethanapunctuation.
Centraladministrationrespondentsmentionedthisrapidchangeinthenational
policyenvironment.Thismatchessuggestionsofpunctuated‐equilibriumtheory,
discussedintheTheoreticalapproachchapter.
Theconceptofconditionalautonomy,asdiscussedintheSouthAfricancontext
chapter,isfittingtounderstandtherelationshipbetweenexternalandinternal
qualityassurancemechanisms,astheredoesnotappeartobemuchencroaching
onacademicfreedom(substantiveautonomy).Theproceduralautonomyof
institutions,whilestillappearingtobegreatintermsofframework
implementationofcertaininitiatives,isperhapslessenedduetostate
requirements.
Mutuallyinterdependentactors,asenvisionedbythenetworkapproach,and
exemplifiedinthenetwork,orpersuasion,modeofgovernance,appearedtobea
commontrendinthefindings.Withinthefaculties,consensus‐orientedphrases
suchas“deliberative”and“push‐and‐pull”wereusedtodescribegovernance
structures.Aswillbethechallengewithachievingoutcomesandresultsinan
environmentbasedonpartnerships,thedeanspointedoutthatgetting
agreementinordertoimplementchangewasaslowprocess,butwasbasedon
ownershipandbuy‐in.
ThefragmentationandcooperationcombinationidentifiedbyAdamandKriesi
(2007)wouldsuggestahorizontaltypeofpolicynetworkatworkwithinthetwo
highereducationinstitutionsstudies,withelementsofthehierarchicaltypeat
thecentre.Thisisduetotheverynatureofthedifferententitiesinterviewed.
Thedepartmentsresponsibleforinstitutionalplanninghaveaninevitablefocus
onaccountabilityandcomplianceintheirwork.Departmentsresponsiblefor
academicdevelopmentandresearch,resultssuggested,haveamoreenabling,
130
developmentalfocus.However,intermsofimplementation,thelackofapolicing
elementamongsttheacademicdevelopmentandresearchdepartmentsalso
proveschallengingwhenattemptingtoimplementinitiatives.Insteadalevelof
informalityandparticipationisadopted,inordertoattempttoensure
ownershipofaninitiative,thusencouragingchangeinasoftermanner.
Thiscombinationoffragmentationandcooperationsuggestslowtomoderate
potentialforchange.Interestinglythough,the‘bargaining’typeofinteraction
identifiedbyAdamandKriesi(2007)strikesaresemblancetothetransaction
modeofgovernancedescribedbyHillandHupe(2002),anidealmode
occasionallyidentifiedintheresults.Again,wearestruckwiththeproblemof
typologiesandmodes,wheretherealityreflectsahybridisation.Despitethis,
bargainingwithinaconcentrationofpower,andcooperationwithinbotha
concentrationandfragmentationofpower,suggestlow,atbestmoderate,
potentialforchange.Thiswouldbeinaccordancewithresults,becauseas
changeisachieveditisgradual,andisnotfullyinculcatedintotheinstitutional
cultures,ordoesnotappeartobe.However,‘external’changes,intermsof
nationalpoliciesandinitiatives,havebeenveryfast,buttheresultswould
suggestsomequestionastohowgreatlytheyhavetrulychangedtheinstitutions,
orwhethertheyhavesimplyalteredthewaytheypresentthemselves.
Theconstanttensionbetweenexternalandinternal,accountabilityand
development,andcentralcontrolanddevolution,doesnotnecessarilyhavetobe
conceptualisedasatension.Rather,paralleloperationsofsuchfunctionsmaybe
amoreusefulwaytoseehowgoodgovernancecanbeachieved.Idealmodesof
governancearejustthat‐ideal‐anddonotexistinactualpractice.Hybridising
thenormativemaybemoreusefulforactualpracticethandeterminingwhatthe
bestfitisineachsituation.
Forinstance,externalqualityassurancemechanismsservedasleveragetothe
centraladministration,givingthemauthoritytodrivethroughmeasuresthat
otherwisewouldnothavebeentaken.However,withoutbuy‐initwouldmake
forverygradualchanges,ashierarchicalcontrolwouldresultincompliance,
whereasculturalchangethroughpersuasionmightresultinadevelopmental
131
mode.Likewise,resultsfromthecentraladministrationreflectedhowtheneed
forcentralsteeringwasincontradictionwithdevolutionwithintheinstitutions.
InaccordancewithresearchfindingsmentionedintheTheoreticalapproach
chapter,alignmentofnationalinitiativeswithstrategicemphasesatinstitutions
waspresentintheresults(Gornitzka,Kogan&Amaral,2007).Thecentral
administrationdiscussedaligningrecommendationsbytheHEQCauditreports
withinstitutionalstrategicframework,inordertoensurethattheprocess
belongedtotheinstitution.
Inaccordancewiththecasestudy(Cloete,Maassen&Muller,2007)discussedin
theSouthAfricancontextchapter,thereappearstobestrongeremphasison
accountabilityexperiencedattheinstitutionallevel.Deansexpressedscepticism
atincreasedsteeringeffortsbythegovernmentauthorities.
Therewassomesuggestionthatinstitutionalautonomyallowedforamore
developmentalapproachtoexternalqualityassurancemechanisms,assuggested
intheHEQCfoundingdocument(CHE,2001).Particularlyatthefacultylevel,a
positiveviewofqualityassurancewasbroadlyexpressed,despitetheadmission
thatsuchsystemsincreasedtheacademicworkloadofmanyparties.The
preparationfortheHEQCwasalsoconsideredtobevaluable,toalargeextenta
centrallyrunenterprisewhereinstitutionsappearedtohavegreatfreedomin
howtheypreparedtheirself‐review.Theaudititselfappearedtobeless
valuable,intheestimationofthedeans.Again,anyinternallyinitiatedself‐
reviewprocesswasputinamorepositivelightthananexternalprocess.
Externalmechanismswereconsideredpositiveonlyintermsofvalidationfor
self‐evaluation.
Despitedevelopmentalemphases,apersistentemphasisonaccountabilitywas
present,suchastheneedforexternalvalidation.Withinacademicdevelopment
andresearchdepartments,therewasaconcernwithlinkingadefinitionof
qualitytotransformation,andlinkingthisdefinitiontotheworkofthe
departmentsasaleverforchange.However,norespondentsuggestedthat
accountabilitywasnotanecessaryfeature.
132
AsdiscussedinthesectiononqualityassuranceintheTheoreticalapproach
chapter,resultsinthisstudyindicateanagreementwithsuggestionsmadeby
Stensaker(2007),regardingabalancedqualityassurancesystem,combing
externalandinternalmechanisms.Resultsonthewholesuggestedan
acceptanceoftheneedforQAandauditintermsofpublicaccountability,but
expressedapositiveviewoftheprocessofsuchinternallyinitiatedmechanisms,
suchasdepartmentalreview.
6.3. Keyissues
PolicytranslationinhighereducationinSouthAfricaservesasauseful
conceptualisationofthe‘gap’betweenpolicyformulationandimplementation.A
dynamicviewofthepolicyprocessallowsforaninteractiveunderstandingofthe
stagesofthepolicyprocess.Seeinghowthesestagesinteract,particularlyin
termsofthefunctionsofnationalgovernmentastheycommunicatewithcentral
administrationsofinstitutions,allowsonetoseehowthepolicyprocess
functionsinpractice.
Thepracticalfunctioningofthepolicyprocessiscloselyrelatedtohigher
educationgovernanceinSouthAfrica.Cleartensionsweredisplayedbetween
internalandexternalfactors.Thegovernmentseekstoembodyidealsof
cooperativegovernancewhileatthesametimeincreasingsteeringofthehigher
educationsector.Withininstitutionsthishybridmodeofgovernanceis
mirrored,asthestrongercentraladministrationscontendwithautonomous
operationalunits.
133
7. Conclusion
Thisstudyfocusedontheresponsesoftwohighereducationinstitutionsin
SouthAfricatoanationalpolicyofqualityassurance.Overallgovernance
structures,conceptionsofthepolicyprocess,andresponsestoanationalquality
assurancepolicywereexplored.Thestudysoughttoexploreauseful
conceptualisationoftheproverbial‘gap’betweenpolicyformulationand
implementation,asking:
• Howdoescentralisedpolicymakingandlocalisedactivityinteractinways
thathinderorsupportthepolicyprocess?
• Whatistherelationshipbetweenthepolicyprocessandgovernancein
SouthAfricanhighereducation?
7.1. Notableoutcomes
Twoprimarysetsofconclusionswereidentified:
• WithinthenationalhighereducationpolicyprocessinSouthAfrica,there
isarolefortheconceptualisationofthepolicyformulation‐
implementation‘gap’asoneofpolicytranslationinordertoaidan
understandingofhowadynamicpolicyprocessworks.
• Withintheinstitutionalimplementationof,andresponseto,anational
policyofqualityassuranceinhighereducation,hindrancesto
comprehensiveinstitutionalownershipandadoptionlieinthe
institutionalstructure,andindichotomiesbetweenastrongcentral
administrationandhighlyautonomousanddevolvedoperationalunits.
Ingeneralresultsreflectedtraditionsofhighereducation.Thebottom‐heavy
natureofuniversities,thenegativeviewofincreasedadministrativeworkload,
thetensionwithexternallyimposedinitiatives,werealltobeexpectedwithin
twowell‐establishedhistorically‐whiteuniversities,withahistoryofacademic
achievementandtiestowesternEuropeandtheEnglish‐speakingworld.One
mightevenspeculateonaconflictbetweentransformationandtraditional
134
academicgovernanceinthewesternworld.Institutionalchangeisgradual,and
inlargepartliesindevolvedstructures.Forinstitutionstotrulytransformthere
mightbecausetoreviewsuchdevolved,autonomousstructuresofgovernance.
Theevidenceofadynamicpolicyprocessinthefindingssupportstheanalytical
frameworkpresentedintheTheoreticalapproachchapter.Akeyfacetofsucha
dynamicdepictionlayintheideaofpolicytranslation.Institutionalresponsesin
termsofinteractiveprocessesandfeedbackloopsconfirmedthatpolicy
translationisausefulconceptualisationofthe‘gap’betweenformulationand
implementationintheSouthAfricanhighereducationpolicyprocess.An
understandingofthiswouldallowsuchanelementtobeadvantageousinpolicy
practiceinSouthAfrica.Aresponsibleuseoftheautonomyofinstitutionsin
negotiatingtheimplementationofinitiativesforinstitutionsshouldimprove
institutionalownershipoftheprocess,whileatthesametimesupportingthe
adoptionofnationaltransformationimperatives.
Theideaofpolicytranslationneedstobefurtherstudiedinhighereducation
policyprocessesaroundtheworld,inordertoestablishwhetheritusefully
contributestoacademicdiscussionanddebateonthepolicysciences,andpolicy
implementationinparticular.Asthisstudyshows,policytranslationnotonly
contributestoadynamicdepictionofthepolicyprocess,butalsohasrootsina
particularstyleofnationalgovernance.Therefore,asthisstudyadvocatesinits
intertwiningofgovernanceandpolicyliterature,anyfurtherinquiryshould
continuetolinkthetwoinordertobeabletounderstandone,theother,orboth,
inanygivennationalcontext.
7.2. Avenuesforfurtherresearch…
Whiletheseconclusionsarecertainlyofinterest,theyallowforlimited
generalisation.TheweaknessofthestudyliesinitsveryspecificcontextofSouth
Africanhighereducationpolicy,andtheresponseoftwohistoricallywhite
universitiesinSouthAfrica’sWesternCape.Thisisthelotofimplementation
studies,however,asestablishedearlyon.Atbest,onemightmuseaboutthe
applicabilityofconclusionstootherhistoricallywhiteuniversitiesinSouth
Africa,orsimilarinstitutionsinformerEuropeancoloniesinsouthernAfrica.
135
Suchmusingshowevershouldbeempiricallytested,inordertoestablish
whethersharedorsimilarbackgroundsresultinsimilarpolicyexperiences.
…implementationstudieshavetobetransformed,forexample,intostudiesthatexaminetherelationshipbetweentheauthorityresponsibleforpolicymakingandthepolicyobject,thatis,frompolicyimplementationtopolicyinteraction.Implementationstudiesshouldincludeamuchmorecarefulanalysisoftheprocessesofformulatinggovernmentalpolicies,andask,forexample,howthenatureofthepolicyrelationshipaffectsthewaythepolicyobjectisinvolvedinthepolicymaking,feelsresponsible,andfeelscommittedtotheagreeduponpolicy(Gornitzka,Kyvik&Stensaker,2007,p.54).
Asthisquotesuggests,amorethoroughunderstandingofthepolicyprocess
wouldalsonecessarilyincludethoseinvolvedinpolicymakingatthehighest
level.Initialplansforthisprojectincludedamixedmethodsapproach,withthe
inclusionofaquantitativesurveytoexaminewhethersimilartrendsappearedat
otherhighereducationinstitutionsinSouthAfrica.Whilefurtherresearchwould
dowelltobroadenthebasefromwhichdataarecollected,afirststepwouldbe
tocompleteasecondproject,analysingtheresultsofthe16departmentheads
interviewed,tochallengeorconfirmtheaboveresults,andtobroadenthe
understandingoftheinstitutionalresponses.Certainly,anysuchendeavour
wouldbestrengthenedbytheexperiencegainedbytheauthorinworking
throughthisproject.
136
References
Adam,S.&Kriesi,H.(2007).Thenetworkapproach.InP.Sabatier(Ed.),Theories
ofthepolicyprocess(pp.129‐154).Boulder:WestviewPress.
Anderson,J.E.(1975).Publicpolicymaking.NewYork:Praeger.
Ball,C.(1985).Whatthehellisquality?InD.Urwin(Ed.)Fitnessforpurpose:
Essaysinhighereducation.Guildford,UK:SRHEandNFER‐Nelson.
Badat,S.(2004).TransformingSouthAfricanhighereducation1990‐2003:
Goals,policyinitiatives&criticalchallenges&issues.InN.Cloete,P.Pillay,S.
Badat&T.Moja(Eds.),Nationalpolicy&aregionalresponseinSouthAfrican
highereducation(pp.1‐46).CapeTown:DavidPhilipPublisher.
Barrett,S.M.(2004).Implementationstudies:Timeforarevival?Personal
reflectionson20yearsofimplementationstudies.PublicAdministration
82(2),249‐262.
Barrett,S.M.&Fudge,C.(Eds).(1981).Policyandaction:Essaysonthe
implementationofpublicpolicy.London:Methuen.
Cerych,L.&Sabatier,P.(1986).Greatexpectationsandmixedperformance:The
implementationofhighereducationreformsinEurope.Stoke‐on‐Trent:
TrenthamBooks.
CHE(CouncilonHigherEducation).(2001).HigherEducationQualityCommittee:
Foundingdocument.Pretoria:CouncilonHigherEducation.
CHE(CouncilonHigherEducation).(2005).Towardsaframeworkforquality
promotionandcapacitydevelopmentinSouthAfricanhighereducation.
Pretoria:CouncilonHigherEducation.
CHE(CouncilonHigherEducation).(2006).Executivesummary:Auditreporton
theUniversityofCapeTown.Pretoria:CouncilonHigherEducation.
137
CHE(CouncilonHigherEducation).(2007a).Executivesummary:Auditreporton
StellenboschUniversity.Pretoria:CouncilonHigherEducation.
CHE(CouncilonHigherEducation).(2007b).ReviewofhighereducationinSouth
Africa:Selectedthemes.Pretoria:CouncilonHigherEducation.
CHE(CouncilonHigherEducation).(2008).CHEannualreport20072008.
Pretoria:CouncilonHigherEducation.
CHE(CouncilonHigherEducation).(n.d.a).HigherEducationQualityCommittee
(HEQC).RetrievedNovember5th,2008,fromhttp://che.ac.za/about/heqc/
CHE(CouncilonHigherEducation).(n.d.b).CHE–Overview.Retrieved
November5th,2008,fromhttp://che.ac.za/about/overview/
CHE(CouncilonHigherEducation).(n.d.c).CHEOverviewofhighereducationin
SouthAfrica.RetrievedApril28th,2009,fromhttp://che.ac.za/heinsa/
Cloete,N.,Maassen,P.&Muller,J.(2007).Greatexpectations,mixedgovernance
approachesandunintendedoutcomes:Thepost‐1994reformofSouth
Africanhighereducation.InÅ.Gornitzka,M.Kogan&A.Amaral(Eds.),
Reformandchangeinhighereducation.Analysingpolicyimplementation(pp.
207‐226).Dordrecht:Springer.
Creswell,J.W.(2004).Researchdesign.Qualitative,quantitativeandmixed
methodsapproaches(2nded.).ThousandOaks:Sage.
Daguerre,A.(2000).PolicynetworksinEnglandandFrance:Thecaseofchild
carepolicy1980‐1989.JournalofEuropeanPublicPolicy,7(2),244‐260.
DeJager,H.J.andNieuwenhuis,F.J.(2005).Linkagesbetweentotalquality
managementandtheoutcomes‐basedapproachinaneducation
environment.QualityinHigherEducation11(3),251‐260.
DepartmentofEducation.(1996).Greenpaperonhighereducation
transformation.Pretoria:DepartmentofEducation.RetrievedNovember6th,
2008,fromhttp://www.info.gov.za/greenpapers/1996/highereduc.htm
138
DepartmentofEducation.(1997a).HigherEducationActoftheRepublicofSouth
Africa.No.101of1997.Pretoria:DepartmentofEducation.
DepartmentofEducation.(1997b).Educationwhitepaper3:Aprogrammeforthe
transformationofhighereducation.Pretoria:DepartmentofEducation.
DepartmentofEducation.(2001).Nationalplanforhighereducation.Pretoria:
DepartmentofEducation.
Dill,D.D.&Sporn,B.(Eds).(1995).Emergingpatternsofsocialdemandand
universityreform:Throughaglassdarkly.Oxford:PergamonPress.
Easton,D.(1965).Aframeworkforpolicyanalysis.NewJersey:PrenticeHall.
Enders,J.,Jeliazkova,M.,McGuinnes,A.Jr.&Maassen,P.(2003,September).
Highereducationpolicyformulationandimplementation:Aframeworkfor
caseanalysis.PaperpresentedatConsortiumofHigherEducation
Researchers16thAnnualConference,Porto.
Flick,U.(2006).Anintroductiontoqualitativeresearch(3rded.).ThousandOaks:
Sage.
Frederickson,H.G.&Smith,K.B.(2003).Thepublicadministrationtheoryprimer.
Boulder:Westview.
Genis,E.(2002).Aperspectiveontensionsbetweenexternalqualityassurance
requirementsandinstitutionalqualityassurancedevelopment:Acasestudy.
QualityinHigherEducation8(1),63‐70.
Gouws,A.&Waghid,Y.(2006).Editorial:Highereducationqualityassurancein
SouthAfrica:Accreditationinperspective.SouthAfricanJournalofHigher
Education20(6),751‐761.
Gornitzka,Å.,Kogan,M.&Amaral.A.(2007).Introduction.InÅ.Gornitzka,M.
Kogan&A.Amaral(Eds.),Reformandchangeinhighereducation.Analysing
policyimplementation(pp.1‐14).Dordrecht:Springer.
Gornitzka,Å.,Kyvik,S.&Stensaker,B.(2007).Implementationanalysisinhigher
education.InÅ.Gornitzka,M.Kogan&A.Amaral(Eds.),Reformandchange
139
inhighereducation.Analysingpolicyimplementation(pp.35‐56).Dordrecht:
Springer.
Hall,M.&Symes,A.(2005).SouthAfricanhighereducationinthefirstdecadeof
democracy:Fromcooperativegovernancetoconditionalautonomy.Studies
inHigherEducation,30(2),199‐212.
Harvey,L.&Newton,J.(2007).Transformingqualityevaluation:Movingon.InD.
F.Westerheijden,B.Stensaker&M.JoaoRosa(Eds.),Qualityassurancein
highereducation.Trendsinregulation,translationandtransformation(pp.
225‐245).Dordrecht:Springer.
Hay,D.&Strydom,K.(2000).Qualityassessmentconsiderationsinprogramme
policyformulationandimplementation.QualityinHigherEducation6(3),
209‐218.
Hill,M.&Hupe,P.(2002).Implementingpublicpolicy:Governanceintheoryand
practice.London:SagePublications.
Hjern,B.(1982).Implementationresearch:Thelinkgonemissing.Journalof
PublicPolicy,2(3),301‐308.
Hjern,B.&Hull,C.(1982).Implementationresearchasempirical
constitutionalism.EuropeanJournalofPoliticalResearch,10,105‐115.
Hjern,B.&Porter,D.(1981).Implementationstructures:Anewunitof
administrativeanalysis.OrganizationStudies,2,211‐227.
Hogwood,B.W.&Gunn,L.(1984).Policyanalysisfortherealworld.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
Hood,C.C.(1976).Thelimitsofadministration.London:JohnWiley.
Jones,C.(1970).Anintroductiontothestudyofpublicpolicy.Belmont:
Wadsworth.
Kickert,W.J.M.,Klijn,E‐H.&Koppenjan,J.F.M.(Eds.).(1997).Managing
complexnetworks:Strategiesforthepublicsector.London:SagePublications.
140
Kiser,L.L.&Ostrom,E.(1982).Thethreeworldsofaction:Ametatheoretical
synthesisofinstitutionalapproach.InE.Ostrom(Ed.),Strategiesofpolitical
inquiry(pp.179‐222).BeverlyHills:Sage.
Kogan,M.(2007).Theimplementationgame.InÅ.Gornitzka,M.Kogan&A.
Amaral(Eds.),Reformandchangeinhighereducation.Analysingpolicy
implementation(pp.57‐66).Dordrecht:Springer.
Lasswell,H.D.(1970).Theemergingconceptionofthepolicysciences.Policy
Sciences,1(1),3‐14.
Lester,J.&Goggin,M.(1998).Backtothefuture:Therediscoveryof
implementationstudies.PolicyCurrents,8(3),1‐10.
Lipsky,M.(1980).Streetlevelbureaucracy:Dilemmasoftheindividualinpublic
services.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.
Majone,G.&Wildavsky,A.(1978).Implementationasevolution.InH.Freeman
(Ed.),Policystudiesreviewannual(pp.103‐117).BeverleyHills:Sage.
Matland,R.E.(1995).Synthesizingtheimplementationliterature:The
ambiguity‐conflictmodelofpolicyimplementation.JournalofPublic
AdministrationResearchandTheory,5,145‐174.
Mintzberg,H.&Waters,J.A.(1985).Ofstrategies,deliberateandemergent.
StrategicManagementJournal,6(3),257.RetrievedMarch6,2008,from
ABI/INFORMGlobaldatabase.(DocumentID:431216311).
Nakamura,R.(1987).Thetextbookprocessandimplementationresearch.Policy
StudiesReview,1,142‐154.
O’Toole,L.J.Jr.(2004).Thetheory‐practiceissueinpolicyimplementation
research.PublicAdministration,82(2),309‐329.
Parsons,W.(1995).Publicpolicy:Anintroductiontothetheoryandpracticeof
policyanalysis.Northampton:EdwardElgarPublishing.
Perellon,J.F.(2007).Analysingqualityassuranceinhighereducation:proposals
foraconceptualframeworkandmethodologicalimplications.InD.F.
141
Westerheijden,B.Stensaker&M.JoaoRosa(Eds.),Qualityassurancein
highereducation:Trendsinregulation,translationandtransformation(pp.
155‐178).Dordrecht:Springer.
Peters,B.G.&Pierre,J.(1998).Governancewithoutgovernment?Rethinking
publicadministration.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,
8,223‐244.
Pollitt,C.&Bouckaert,G.(1995)Definingquality.InC.Pollitt&G.Bouckaert
(Eds.),QualityimprovementinEuropeanpublicservices.Concepts,casesand
commentary(pp.1‐19).London:SagePublications.
Pressman,J.L.&Wildavsky,A.(1973).Implementation:howgreatexpectationsin
WashingtonaredashedinOakland;Or,whyit’samazingthatfederal
programsworkatall.ThisbeingasagaoftheEconomicDevelopment
AdministrationastoldbyTwoSympatheticObserverswhoseektobuildmorals
onafoundationofruinedhopes.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Pressman,J.L.&Wildavsky,A.(1984).Implementation:howgreatexpectationsin
WashingtonaredashedinOakland;Or,whyit’samazingthatfederal
programsworkatall.ThisbeingasagaoftheEconomicDevelopment
AdministrationastoldbyTwoSympatheticObserverswhoseektobuildmorals
onafoundationofruinedhopes,(3rded.).Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia
Press.
Richardson,J.(2000).Government,interestgroupsandpolicychange.Political
Studies48,1006‐1025.
Ryan,N.(1995).Unravellingconceptualdevelopmentsinimplementation
analysis.AustralianJournalofPublicAdministration,54(1),65‐80.
Sabatier,P.(1986).Top‐downandbottom‐upapproachestoimplementation
research:Acriticalanalysisandsuggestedsynthesis.JournalofPublicPolicy,
6(1),21‐48.
Sabatier,P.(1991).Towardbettertheoriesofthepolicyprocess.PoliticalScience
andPolitics,24,147‐156.
142
Sabatier,P.(2007a).Frompolicyimplementationtopolicychange:Apersonal
odyssey.InÅ.Gornitzka,M.Kogan&A.Amaral(Eds.),Reformandchangein
highereducation.Analysingpolicyimplementation(pp.17‐34).Dordrecht:
Springer.
Sabatier,P.(2007b).Theneedforbettertheories.InP.Sabatier(Ed.),Theoriesof
thepolicyprocess,(pp.3‐20).Boulder:WestviewPress.
Sabatier,P.&Mazmanian,D.A.(1979).Theconditionsofeffective
implementation:Aguidetoaccomplishingpolicyobjectives.PolicyAnalysis,
5(4),481‐504.
Sabatier,P.&Mazmanian,D.A.(1980).Theimplementationofpublicpolicy:A
frameworkofanalysis.PolicyStudiesJournal,8(specialissue),538‐560.
Scharpf,F.W.(1978).Interorganizationalpolicystudies:Issues,conceptsand
perspectives.InK.I.Hanf&F.W.Scharpf(Eds.),Interorganizationalpolicy
making:Limitstocoordinationandcentralcontrol(pp.345‐370).London:
SagePublications.
Schofield,J.&Sausman,C.(2004).Symposiumonimplementingpublicpolicy:
Learningfromtheoryandpractice.PublicAdministration,82(2),235‐248.
Smith,M.J.(1993).Pressure,powerandpolicy:Stateautonomyandpolicy
networksinBritainandtheUnitedStates.NewYork:HarvesterWheatsheaf.
Smout,M.&Stephenson,S.(2002).QualityassuranceinSouthAfricanhigher
education:Anewbeginning.QualityinHigherEducation8(2),197‐206.
StellenboschUniversity.(2007).Factbooksection1:Studentenrolmentsfor2007.
Stellenbosch:StellenboschUniversity.RetrievedNovember6th,2008,from
http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal/Administrative_Divisions/INB/
Home/Fact%20Book/tab2007
Stensaker,B.(2007).Qualityasfashion:Exploringthetranslationofa
managementideaintohighereducation.InD.F.Westerheijden,B.Stensaker
&M.JoaoRosa(Eds.),Qualityassuranceinhighereducation.Trendsin
regulation,translationandtransformation(pp.99‐118).Dordrecht:Springer.
143
Strydom,A.H.&Holtzhausen,S.(2001).Transformationandinstitutionalquality
managementwithaSouthAfricanuniversity:AcasestudyoftheUniversityof
theOrangeFreeState.Paris:UNESCO.
Strydom,A.H.&Strydom,J.F.(2004).EstablishingqualityassuranceintheSouth
Africancontext.QualityinHigherEducation10(2),101‐113.
Strydom,J.F.,Zulu,N.&Murray,L.(2004).Quality,cultureandchange.Qualityin
HigherEducation,10(3),207‐217.
Symes,A.(2006).DemocratisationandqualityassuranceinSouthAfricanhigher
education.SouthAfricanJournalofHigherEducation20(6),762‐772.
True,J.L.,Jones,B.D.&Baumgartner,F.R.(2007).Punctuated‐equilibrium
theory:Explainingstabilityandchangeinpublicpolicymaking.InP.Sabatier
(Ed.),Theoriesofthepolicyprocess(pp.155‐188).Boulder:WestviewPress.
UniversityofCapeTown.(2008).AboutUCT2008:AbriefintroductiontoUCT.
CapeTown:UniversityofCapeTown.RetrievedNovember6th,2008,from
http://uct.ac.za/downloads/uct.ac.za/about/about_uct.pdf
VanMeter,D.&VanHorn,C.E.(1975).Thepolicyimplementationprocess:
Conceptualframework.AdministrationandSociety,6(4),445‐488.
Westerheijden,D.F.,Stensaker,B.&JoaoRosa,M.(2007).Introduction.InD.F.
Westerheijden,B.Stensaker&M.JoaoRosa(Eds.),Qualityassurancein
highereducation.Trendsinregulation,translationandtransformation(pp.1‐
11).Dordrecht:Springer.
Wilson,W.(1887).Thestudyofadministration.CoursereadingsforPublic
Administration.Reykjavík:Háskólafjölritun.
Zahariadis,N.(2007).Themultiplestreamsframework:Structure,limitations,
prospects.InP.Sabatier(Ed.),Theoriesofthepolicyprocess(pp.65‐92).
Boulder:WestviewPress.
Recommended