Pressure for more transparency and accountability in higher education comes from multiple stakeholders. This chapter analyses three important instruments of transparency and accountability: accreditation, university rankings and performance contracts. These tools are interpreted from the viewpoint of three competing governance paradigms, that is, traditional (bureaucratic) public administration, new public management and networked governance. All transparency tools in one way or another provide information on the quality and relevance of the education services provided by a university and its contribution to the public good. Some of the transparency tools have recently been redesigned as responses to the wish to empower higher education’s clients and better communicate various dimensions of quality/performance/public value to its stakeholders, in particular the quality of the learning experience. Illustrative examples of new transparency tools are taken from new instruments and current debates in the US and in European countries.
Ben Jongbloed, Hans Vossensteyn, Frans van Vught and Don F. Westerheijden
Kenneth Moore, Hamish Coates and Gwilym Croucher
Higher education has grown to play a major role in many countries, amplifying interest in productivity. Yet surprisingly little scholarly research has been conducted on this phenomenon. The chapter discusses the generalisation of a model validated previously by the United States National Academy of Science. It exemplifies this model by analysing cross-national data collected from ten diverse Asian countries and dozens of institutions. Quantitative data was collected on inputs, and on education and research outputs. In each country reviews were conducted of salient political and institutional contexts. The chapter reviews technical and empirical contributions to research, and articulates contexts and strategies for improving national policy and institutional management. Most broadly, it highlights the value of progressing contextualised scientific studies of productivity in higher education.
This chapter provides an overview of the different purposes that underlie the massive development of indicators in higher education policy. To that end, this chapter concentrates on the use of indicators for higher education policy by central level authorities. It starts by presenting a series of trends within and outside higher education systems, which provides the context in which to explain the current popularity of indicators. Second, it proposes a classification of purposes and uses of indicators for public policy in higher education. Finally, using international comparison, it attempts to link the underlying purposes for indicator development to national administrative traditions and steering approaches used by public authorities for their higher education systems. This discussion provides evidence for the main argument that indicators are developed to support the logic of a national higher education governance framework, which may be geared either to systems’ control, accountability to stakeholders or the enhancement of competition in the sector.
Monica Forret, Diana Smrt, Sherry E. Sullivan, Shawn M. Carraher and Jennifer L. Schultz
In this chapter, we feature several exercises that help students understand the value of HR/HRM: What it is, why it’s important, and the need for thinking of HR strategically. Importantly, several of these exercises have an artistic/visual component, which may aid in reorienting HRM from a policing/reactive function to one that is more strategic and proactive. One uses pictures that convey HR practices, while another asks students to draw a picture that represents the HR culture of their organization. There is also an exercise that makes use of a new approach to slide presentations throughout the semester. Groups are encouraged to create and deliver Pecha Kucha presentations (20 slides, automatically timed at 20 seconds each, for a total of six minutes and 40 seconds) on current events in HR. This activity encourages group members to operate as facilitators in ways that intensify deep thinking and engagement and, at the same time, requires students to be succinct and apposite.
Jens Jungblut, Bjørn Stensaker and Martina Vukasovic
One of the most long-lived debates within quality assurance is whether and how control and enhancement are related. This is an important debate related to how improved performance and accountability can best be achieved. While this issue has tended to cause heated public debates, there are fewer empirical studies analysing the relationship between these concepts. In the current chapter we investigate the student perceptions of control and enhancement, and ask whether these concepts are mutually exclusive. Based on a survey targeting European students, our findings suggest that ‘quality assurance as control’ and ‘quality assurance as enhancement’ may not be very relevant concepts from a student perspective. Our analysis suggests that students perceive quality in multiple and quite complex ways, and that pure control or improvement understandings of quality are difficult to identify. An implication of these findings is that quality assurance should be designed in ways that take into account the complexity of higher education and its stakeholders. The chapter ends by reflecting upon possible future directions of quality assurance, not least with respect to how the current interest in student-centred teaching carries the potential of transforming the ways in which higher education is evaluated.
Elizabeth Bell, Alisa Hicklin Fryar and Nicholas Hillman
State lawmakers looking to increase public university accountability have implemented policies which aim to monitor, reward and sanction schools based on completion rates. These policies have mainly emerged as performance-based funding (PBF) policies, which tie state appropriations to institutional performance and student outcomes. As of 2014, 26 states adopted a form of performance-based funding policy, with four more programs awaiting implementation. Despite the intuitive appeal of performance-based funding policies, higher education scholars have debated the degree to which these policies accomplish the intended goals. The scholarly record includes both studies that find PBF policies to be successful and studies that find no evidence of effectiveness. The existence of findings on both sides has led many to describe the body of work as ‘mixed’, with no real sense of whether these findings are trending in a particular direction. In an effort to improve our ability to speak holistically about this body of work, we conduct a meta-analysis which aims to aggregate and analyse the quantitative findings on the effect of performance funding policies on public four-year and two-year university outcomes.
Edited by Brendan Cantwell, Hamish Coates and Roger King
Ravi S. Ramani, George T. Solomon and Nawaf Alabduljader
We present a qualitative review of the state of the field of entrepreneurship education in North America, in which we examine topics such as the growth of the field, its attempts to differentiate itself from traditional business education, and current learning approaches and methodologies used in the classroom. We supplement this review with an analytical examination in which we present the results of a cross-country survey of over 200 entrepreneurship education programs in the United States (US) and Canada. Our results reveal important similarities and differences regarding entrepreneurship education between the US and Canada in terms of course content, pedagogical approaches and learning materials used, sources of funding, and measures of the impact of entrepreneurship education. We discuss the implications of these results and outline future directions for the field of entrepreneurship education.
By building a bridge between the conceptual discussion of education science and entrepreneurship, this chapter demarcates the role of entrepreneurship education as a form of pedagogy and its connection to a progressive movement. As a form of pedagogy, entrepreneurship education changes the idea of the human being, brings action-orientation, autonomy and interplay between risk and responsibility to the centre of the learning process. It also challenges the previous ontological, epistemological and in some respect axiological bases of earlier learning paradigms and presents new ideas for pedagogy and didactics. Thus, seen from an educational perspective, entrepreneurship can now be perceived as a form of pedagogy that renews the previous learning paradigms and furthers educational institutional practices.
Drawing upon the systems perspective that was developed to understand the impact of training and development activities within organizational contexts, this chapter presents a systemic approach to the analysis of entrepreneurship education effectiveness. Five main theoretical assumptions are outlined to guide future research in entrepreneurship education: studies show that (1) the effects of a programme vary depending on trainees’ personal characteristics; (2) training strategies can have different impact on learning processes and results; (3) the environment and the social context are intervening variables that might foster or hinder training results; (4) according to the attribute-treatment interaction perspective, people interact with the contexts in which they are embedded giving rise to very different behavioural responses; (5) the impact should be conceived in terms of learning results and generalization processes once a training programme is completed. These assumptions help figure out new possible lines of research to enhance the current knowledge and are thought to encourage a scientific debate regarding the theoretical assumptions that are worth considering for assessing entrepreneurship education.