Development of practical tools to realize the epistemic responsibilities of universities: a co-design study

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsTimothy C. CaboniTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.John M. BraxtonTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Molly Black DeusterhausTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Meaghan E. MundyTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Shederick A. McClendonTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Stephanie D. LeeTimothy C. Caboni is Lecturer in Public Policy and Higher Education and director of the academic program in institutional advancement in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy program at Vanderbilt University's Peabody College. John M. Braxton is Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Molly Black Duesterhaus is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Meaghan E. Mundy is a doctoral candidate in Leadership and Policy Studies specializing in Higher Education Leadership and Policy at Vanderbilt. Shederick A. McClendon is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Reviewed by: Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives Kelly Ward and Meghan Levi Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, edited by Elizabeth Allan, Susan Van Deventer Iverson, & Rebecca Ropers-Huilman. Routledge, 2009. 272 pp. $145.00 (cloth). ISBN 978-0-415-99776-8. What is feminist poststructuralism? Why is it important? How can it be useful to advance policy conversations related to higher education? Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, a volume edited by Elizabeth Allan, Susan Van Deventer Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-Huilman, addresses these and other questions related to advancing the creation, implementation, and use of policy conversations. The book is a valuable resource for administrators, policy makers, researchers, and students wanting to think in new and different ways about policy affecting colleges and universities. For readers not familiar with feminist poststructuralism (FPS) and policy analysis, the book is foundational and informative. In Chapters 1 and 2, the editors provide a reminder about some of the core concepts related to policy and they address how feminist poststructuralism can be used to problematize "what has come to be taken-for granted as 'normal' everyday practice" (p. 2). Chapter 2 authored by Elizabeth Allan is particularly helpful for readers to understand FPS and all the other "posts" bantered about in higher education circles. Because the tenets of FPS are so clearly laid out as a tool of analysis, readers can use this knowledge to examine situations common to higher education that are threaded throughout the remaining chapters. The approach to policy analysis put forth by the editors widens the audience and is a guide for those new to the study of FPS and higher education policy. The book is particularly useful to analyze gender in contemporary policy discourses yet it is not limited to people interested in gender. FPS as a tool of analysis is far reaching. Part 1 of the book entitled Productions of Power through Presence with Absence includes three chapters that critically analyze the dominant, neoliberal narrative prominent in higher education. This part of the book presents historical and macroscopic perspectives of policy, discourse, and FPS in higher education. In Chapter 3 Jana Nidiffer offers FPS as a "corrective" agent to view the history of higher education by asking, "Who benefits from the story being told in this particular way and what are the consequences of having knowledge framed in this manner?" (p. 44). Her work brings forth the silent narrative of the female student suffragist movement all but missing from higher education history texts. In Chapter 4 Tatiana Suspitsyna questions the contemporary articulations of the purpose of higher education by using Foucault's (1972) view [End Page 460] of discourse and power as productive not repressive. Through an analysis of documents from the Department of Education, almost entirely authored by Secretary Margaret Spelling, Suspitsyna deconstructs the purpose of higher education. The results strongly suggest that a neoliberal market discourse reinforces the hegemonic masculine status quo in contemporary higher education. The same notion of man as ideal consumer of higher education is also present in the discourse surrounding leadership in higher education. In Chapter 5 Gordon, Iverson, and Allan use The Chronicle of Higher Education to examine the how dominant notions of femininity and masculinity were used to "produce gendered images of leaders" (p. 82). Not surprisingly, female leaders were portrayed as "caretaker" and "vulnerable" leaders among other labels. The authors provide several examples used in their analysis that provide further context for "the double bind" conflict female professionals at all levels experience (p. 90). Part 2, Subjects and Objects of Policy, is focused on students and is likely to be of particular interest to those who work with students. The chapters help readers see how policy works discursively for students on paper, but against students in action. In Chapter 6, Susan Talburt used the idea of "becoming" to show how the university rhetoric of "involvement" actually creates what Foucault (1977) described as, "normalizing judgment" (p. 183). In the case of LGBT students, Talburt explores the tensions between a discourse of victimization and the roles of student as both active subject and passive object of university policy created for and by...

Purpose This paper aims to investigate how global university rankings interact with quality and quality assurance in higher education along the two lines of investigation, that is, from the perspective of their relationship with the concept of quality (assurance) and the development of quality assurance policies in higher education, with particular emphasis on accreditation as the prevalent quality assurance approach. Design/methodology/approach The paper firstly conceptualises quality and quality assurance in higher education and critically examines the methodological construction of the four selected world university rankings and their references to “quality”. On this basis, it answers the two “how” questions: How is the concept of quality (assurance) in higher education perceived by world university rankings and how do they interact with quality assurance and accreditation policies in higher education? Answers are provided through the analysis of different documentary sources, such as academic literature, glossaries, international studies, institutional strategies and other documents, with particular focus on official websites of international ranking systems and individual higher education institutions, media announcements, and so on. Findings The paper argues that given their quantitative orientation, it is quite problematic to perceive world university rankings as a means of assessing or assuring the institutional quality. Like (international) accreditations, they may foster vertical differentiation of higher education systems and institutions. Because of their predominant accountability purpose, they cannot encourage improvements in the quality of higher education institutions. Practical implications Research results are beneficial to different higher education stakeholders (e.g. policymakers, institutional leadership, academics and students), as they offer them a comprehensive view on rankings’ ability to assess, assure or improve the quality in higher education. Originality/value The existing research focuses principally either on interactions of global university rankings with the concept of quality or with processes of quality assurance in higher education. The comprehensive and detailed analysis of their relationship with both concepts thus adds value to the prevailing scholarly debates.

Applied Anthropology provides a new perspective on today’s higher education environment. Volatile and unpredictable forces affect research and instruction across many sectors and levels, and global dynamics are among the strongest drivers of change. Further, within American higher education, daunting complexity and multiple layers of activity weave a rich tapestry of environment, structure, and culture.This book provides three complementary anthropological perspectives as a framework for analyzing the ground-shifting changes underway in higher education — the higher education mindset, political and policy perspectives, and instruction and learning. These domains intersect with many operational dimensions of higher education — research, health care, athletics, economic development, fiscal management, planning, and faculty roles/challenges — another way of framing the complexity of the situation we are addressing. Book chapters also provide a set of implications for higher education policy. The book concludes with a vision of next steps in research and practice to further anthropology’s contribution to higher education policy and practice.The intended audience includes both academic and professionals–e.g., faculty and students in departments of higher education, anthropology, and education policy. Higher education leaders, administrators, governing board members, and many others will find the book helpful in providing insight into today’s challenges. The book will also be of use to professionals outside higher education who work on policy issues, on meeting the needs of employers, and on preparing students for careers in public service.

Higher education governance and policy. Higher education governance and policy. Higher education governance and policy.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse the factors that affect the perception of the implementation of the ICT policy in education in the empirical context of higher education in Namibia from a students’ perspective. The paper explains the current situation regarding ICT policy in higher education in Namibia. There are no studies that could be found to have measured these factors in a developing country in Africa. A quantitative approach was followed in this study. Data were collected using a structured questionnaire and were analysed by means of descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. The perception of the implementation of the ICT policy in higher education in Namibia is affected mostly by lack of ICT literacy and limited access to learning and training content. Some of the challenges from past studies were also reconfirmed in this study, though they were investigated in a different context. This study also identified new challenges that affect the perception of the implementation of ICT policy in higher education, specifically from a developing country context. The findings in this study should be confirmed by further research to help developing economies evaluate their ICT policies in education and their outcomes.

The matter of language policy in South African higher education remains contentious. Intense debate followed the promulgation of the Language Policy in Higher Education (LPHE) in 2002 which directed that all higher education institutions needed to develop language policies that presented firm commitments to developing multilingual environments in which African languages are developed as academic or scientific languages. After a period of seeming quiescence, issues around African languages have again surfaced in public debate, primarily as a result of Minister Nzimande’s call that in future it would be a requirement that every university student in South Africa learns one African language as a condition for graduation. Whether the language policy succeeds or fails is a complex matter, but one of the important factors, we suggest, relates to language attitudes and practices in particular contexts. This article revisits research into language attitudes and practices undertaken at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) with a view to drawing further insights into the matter of language policy in higher education, and in particular, the place of African languages. The results of the study reveal strong support for English as LOLT as well as continued strong support for Zulu as the `preferred’ African language - where an African language is supported. However, the results of the study also suggest that while the ability to understand or use an African language is considered valuable, the idea that a university should legislate in favour of an African language is not supported.

Public policy in higher education is crucial in guiding the direction of learning in educational institutions. Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) enables students to receive recognition for knowledge and skills acquired through non-formal experiences, accelerating learning, and providing fairness to those with relevant prior experiences. This research aims to analyze public policy in the implementation of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) in Indonesian higher education. The study utilizes a qualitative method, prioritizing literature analysis as the source of data. Data is collected from scholarly works and relevant bibliographic references. Analysis is conducted inductively to gain a deep understanding, explore unique aspects, and generate hypotheses related to public policy in the implementation of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) in Indonesian higher education. The findings indicate that public policy in higher education plays a crucial role in directing learning policies, including RPL implementation. However, the implementation of RPL still faces several challenges, including the need for clear frameworks, adequate resources, and ethical aspects in recognizing past learning. The importance of harmonizing RPL practices at the international level also remains a focus in achieving inclusive and relevant higher education goals. Thus, this research provides a better understanding of the complexity of RPL implementation and lays the groundwork for policy and practice improvements in higher education.

This article studies the development of higher education (HE) policies in Argentina and Finland and examines what are the principles behind HE laws and policies, and whether the policies promote or prevent social equality. We apply genealogical document analysis and interpretive policy analysis to look for differences and similarities, and to place them in societal and historical context in order to make plausible interpretations. We contrast properties of social systems and patterns of policy practices that describe the character of HE institutions in Argentina and Finland. By creating country cases, we, analyze the HE policies of the democratic era in Argentina and Finland to find out whether and how the policies aim at reducing social inequalities in HE. We conclude that along with market logic in education policies, inequalities in HE tend to increase even in a Nordic welfare state like Finland. Este artículo analiza la manera en que las políticas públicas de Educación Superior (ES) de Argentina y Finlandia contribuyen o no a reducir las desigualdades sociales en sus respectivos sistemas universitarios. Realizamos un análisis genealógico de documentos y un análisis interpretativo de las políticas para encontrar similitudes y diferencias, desarrollamos interpretaciones plausibles ubicándolas en su contexto social e histórico. Comparamos las características de los sistemas sociales y las tendencias de las políticas implementadas en las instituciones de ES en Argentina y Finlandia, mostrando su cercanía o lejanía respecto de los principios originariamente estatuidos en torno a la ES en cada país. Estudiamos los casos de Argentina y Finlandia, mediante el análisis de las políticas de ES en la era democrática para conocer si las políticas contribuyen a reducir las desigualdades sociales en la ES. Concluimos que las políticas educativas cuanto más se basan en la lógica del mercado, las desigualdades en la ES tienden a incrementarse, incluso, en el país nórdico con estado de bienestar.

This paper moves beyond a conceptualization of globalization as a top‐down imposition of policy directions ‘from above’ to focus on the active two‐way dynamics between global, national and local levels of policy processes. Arguably, the particular ‘case’ examined here of ‘quality’ policy is especially appropriate as quality policy and golbalization rose to prominence in educational discourses at roughly the same time during the 1990s, suggesting that the two may be intimately interconnected. An analysis of new quality policy in Australian higher education for the 2000s is used as a vehicle to explore the dynamic reciprocity of global–national–local interactions in policy processes as revealed through empirical evidence collected during interviews with members of the national Australian Universities' Quality Agency. The concluding discussion highlights a key meta‐level theme of education policy transfer between countries and the potential for global policy convergence.

Reviewed by: Transforming Scholarship: Why Women's and Gender Studies Students Are Changing Themselves and the World by Michele Tracy Berger and Cheryl Radeloff, and: Feminist Activism in Academia: Essays on Personal, Political and Professional Change ed. by Ellen C. Mayock and Domnica Radulescu, and: Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives ed. by Elizabeth J. Allan, Susan Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-Huilman Casandra E. Harper (bio) Transforming Scholarship: Why Women's and Gender Studies Students Are Changing Themselves and the World by Michele Tracy Berger and Cheryl Radeloff. New York: Routledge, 2011, 278 pp., $149.00 hardcover, $29.87 paper. Feminist Activism in Academia: Essays on Personal, Political and Professional Change edited by Ellen C. Mayock and Domnica Radulescu. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2010, 206 pp., $55.00 paper. Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives edited by Elizabeth J. Allan, Susan Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-Huilman. New York: Routledge, 2009, 206 pp., $150.00 hardcover, $51.95 paper. Higher education can be a setting where individuals can develop and see the world and themselves in a new light. When assumptions are challenged and new knowledge is created, opportunities for transformation and more equitable outcomes are possible. Each book contained in this review speaks to these opportunities and calls for its readers to engage differently with individuals, scholarship, coursework, the academy, discourse, or policy. The books pose thoughtful, sometimes difficult questions, while also appropriately avoiding offering readers easy, simplistic answers. I found the content of each book to be compelling on both the personal and professional levels and recommend them, particularly Transforming Scholarship and Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education, for use in relevant courses. Feminist Activism in Academia and Reconstructing Policy in Higher Education are useful for those interested in reflective reading and a call to action for scholars and activists interested in challenging the status quo and learning new strategies for responding to or dismantling those norms. Written with the intended audience of prospective and current undergraduates interested in learning more about the intricacies of being a women's and gender studies (WGS) major, Transforming Scholarship: Why Women's and Gender Studies Students Are Changing Themselves and the World by Michele Tracy Berger and Cheryl Radeloff offers a response to those who ask what one can do with a WGS degree. Drawing from survey and interview data with WGS graduates, the authors offer readers an overview of what students might expect as a WGS student. Transforming Scholarship is organized into three sections—with two chapters contained in each—representing three time-points relevant to a student: the pre-college or early college career year(s) prior to declaring a major, the college years as a declared WGS major, and the post-college career. In the first section, the authors provide an overview of the history of the WGS major, a description of how its structure might vary by institution, an overview of key theories and sample courses that might be offered, and a list of the professional associations and organizations that might be relevant. Much of the information presented [End Page 205] in this section has applicability for non-WGS students as well, such as the difference between a major, minor, and concentration, making it a worthwhile read for students unsure of their choice of major. The second section, concerning those who have committed to WGS, has a chapter dedicated to justifying this choice of major to others, particularly family, friends, and coworkers. As the authors note in the introduction to the book, students pursuing WGS degrees are often questioned about their choice, and are asked to respond to stereotypes and misconceptions about this major. The authors address some of these questions and offer both strategies for responding and arguments to use when doing so. The chapter also includes stories and strategies from WGS graduates, which contribute to a greater understanding of the range and depth of questions that students might face and the variety of possible responses. Concepts like gender, intersectionality, inequality, equity, and empowerment are defined and introduced in the second chapter in this section as lenses that can frame coursework. Students are also encouraged to consider their inner strengths and conditions for success. The...

Higher education and training policy and practice in South Africa: impacts of global privatisation, quasi-marketisation and new managerialism

3 - Higher Education Policy in California

This paper synthesizes the characteristics of university rankings that cause pressure or ‘harassment’ on universities and analyses possible strategies for action that can be carried out in the real context of the three main university rankings (QS, THE, ARWU), suggesting the consequences for the so-called world-class universities and others (which represent 95% of the total). Although there is controversy over the criteria of the university ranking systems, many universities are establishing strategies aimed at adapting to these criteria and indicators and improving their positions. This study concludes that international university rankings should not be a relevant source of information to consider the quality of universities because this can have a negative impact on the development of medium- and long-term policies in higher education and the universities themselves. Universities should concentrate on their mission and must provide valid and reliable information to all stakeholders about the level of achievement of their goals.

One consequence of the hype around globalization and education and debates on global political actors such as the World Bank, IMF and WTO—is that there has not been sufficient attention paid by education theorists to the development of a rigorous set of analytic categories that might enable us to make sense of the profound changes which now characterize education in the new millennium. 1 This is not a problema confined to education. Writing in the New Left Review, Fredric Jameson observes that debates on globalization have tended to be shaped by “…ideological appropriations— discussions not of the process itself, but of its effects, good or bad: judgements, in other words, totalizing in nature; while functional descriptions tend to isolate particular elements without relating them to each other.” In this paper we start from the position that little or nothing can be explained in terms of the causal powers of globalization; rather we shall be suggesting that globalization is the outcome of processes that involve real actors—economic and political—with real interests. Following Martin Shaw, we also take the view that globalization does not undermine the state but includes the transformation of state forms; “…it is both predicated on and produces such transformations.”3 Examining how these processes of transformation work, however, requires systematic investigation into the organization and strategies of particular actors whose horizons or effects might be described as global.