Confronting the biases in connoisseur review and performance indicators in higher education: A structural modelling approach

Abstract

Scholarly productivity and the research reputation of academic staff frequently dominate as criteria in the review of higher education courses, disciplines and institutions, a bias which represents a profound hazard for plausible evaluation. Three distinct outcome constructs were identified from analyses of performance indicator data gathered on the accounting discipline in Australia. They were the scholarly productivity of the academic staff involved, the quality of teaching and learning as perceived by students and graduates, and the academic efficiency, in terms of subject completion rates, with which the courses were conducted. Each outcome was shown to be related in a different manner to various characteristics of the courses investigated. The results challenge the orthodox view that scholarly productivity will lead naturally to other desired outcomes of higher education, question the usual “surface level” interpretation of performance indicators, and suggest that evaluation in higher education might combine connoisseur and performance indicator approaches within the framework of a realist epistemology, placing emphasis on the structures and mechanisms which generate the diverse and distinct outcomes of different courses.