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.