Equity, Access and Institutional Competition

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...

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.

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.

The article is devoted to one of the main and topical problems of gender studies, namely, gender inequality of women in education when occupying senior management positions. The following categories are understood by the researchers as management positions in higher education institutions: rector, vice-rectors, president, head or director, who acts within the limits of their powers. Despite the fact that education is one of the most feminized branches of Ukrainian society, the heads of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine according to the Soviet tradition were (with a rare exception to the rule) men. The author analyzes gender differences in the distribution of power in the best higher education institutions of Ukraine according to the consolidated rating. Special attention is paid to the state of gender equality in leadership positions at the Borys Grinchenko Kyiv Metropolitan University. The author believes that one of the main tasks of gender is to find out the factors that prevent women from being active and being elected to leadership positions in institutions of higher education. The author believes that one of the main tasks of gender is to find out the factors that prevent women from being active and being elected to leadership positions in institutions of higher education. The article analyzes the scientific literature, in which the following factors are divided into «availability of offers» and «availability of demand»: «availability of offers» includes the potential readiness of women to occupy management positions in higher education institutions; «availability of demand» includes prejudices of educators regarding the leadership of women in the educational sphere, and in institutions of higher education in particular. The author examines the Gender Equality Index of the World Economic Forum, which contains four dimensions related to the subject of the study: economic opportunities for women in leadership positions; the level of women’s education and its quality; the state of women’s health and the possibility of its recovery; the degree of representation of women in leadership positions in the country. The article proposes ways to solve the situation regarding gender inequality of women in leadership positions in higher education institutions of Ukraine. As a way to improve the state of gender inequality of women in leadership positions in higher education institutions of Ukraine, it is proposed to conduct trainings or shortened courses on gender studies for students, teachers, scientists, senior managers of higher education institutions, which will help women believe in themselves, and the management of higher education institutions recognize the possibility of women’s leadership. In the future, it is planned to continue the development of this topic thanks to the analysis of the state of gender equality of women in the management positions of higher education institutions in the European educational environment and its comparison with the Ukrainian one, as well as the search for positive experience and ways to overcome the existing situation.

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.

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

Comment on “Japan's Higher Education Policies under Global Challenges”

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.

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.

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.

The massive global growth of private sectors transforms higher education. It naturally sparks great interest and debate. But analysis lags far behind, as does cross-national documentation. Promoters glorify roles (e.g., access), while critics demonize roles (e.g., moneymaking). Policy makers tend to hold simple views of what private higher education does or what they want it to do, while participants tend to generalize from their own institution. Public discussion thus often revolves around narrow and misleading declarations. The gap is large between self-serving or ill-informed views and more complex reality. Private higher education is least understood where it has just recently become prominent—and that is in much of the world. A few decades ago, private higher education was absent or marginal in most countries. Today, it captures a major or fast-increasing portion of enrollments in Eastern and Central Europe, the Middle East and northern and sub-Saharan Africa, East and South Asia, and Latin America. Furthermore, new forms of private

Although access to higher education is virtually universally available, many students who start in a higher education program drop out prior to completing a degree or achieving their individual academic and/or social goals. In response to student attrition, colleges have developed intervention programs and services to try to retain students. In spite of all of the programs and services, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Center for Educational Statistics, only 50% of those who enter higher education actually earn a bachelor's degree. Enrollment management and the retention of students remain a top priority of federal and state government, of colleges and universities, college students and their parents. This book offers a formula for student success intended to assist colleges and universities in retaining and graduating students. Although access to higher education is virtually universally available, many students who start in a higher education program drop out prior to completing a degree or achieving their individual academic and/or social goals. In response to student attrition, colleges have developed intervention programs and services to try to retain students. In spite of all of the programs and services to help retain students, according to the U.S. Department of Education, Center for Educational Statistics, only 50% of those who enter higher education actually earn a bachelor's degree. Enrollment management and the retention of students remain a top priority of federal and state government, colleges, universities, and parents of students who are attending college and of students themselves. This book offers a formula for student success intended to assist colleges and universities in retaining and graduating students. Contributors: Some of the leading educators who study college student retention contributed to this book. All are truly dedicated to helping students achieve their individual academic and personal goals. A list of each and their affiliation follows: Alexander W. Astin: Allan M. Cartter Professor of Higher Education at the University of California, Los Angeles, and Director of the Higher Education Research Institute. Elizabeth Barlow: Executive Director of Institutional Research at the University of Houston, Houston, Texas. John Bean: Associate Professor of Higher Education at Indiana University, Bloomington. Joseph B. Berger: Associate Professor of Education and Chair of the Department of Educational Policy, Research, and Administration in the School of Education at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. John Braxton: Professor of Education in the Higher Education Leadership and Policy Program in the Department of Leadership, Policy and Organizations at Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Kurt Burkum: Doctoral student and Ostar Fellow in the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn State University. Alberto F. Cabrera: Specializes in research methodologies, college choice, college students, classroom experiences, minorities in higher education, and economics of education. Gloria Crisp: Doctoral student in educational leadership with a focus on higher education in the department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies, College of Education at the University of Houston. Linda Hagedorn: Associate professor and the associate director of the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis (CHEPA), as well as the program chair for the Community College Leadership program in the Rossier School of Education at the University of Southern California. Steve LaNasa: Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Planning at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, where he is responsible for outcomes assessment, planning, and program evaluation. Amy S. HirschyAssistant professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology and the Department of Leadership, Foundations, and Human Resource Education at the University of Louisville. Stephanie D. Lee Doctoral student in the Department of Leadership, Policy, and Organizations at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. Susan C. Lyon: Works in the Office of Student Affairs in the School of Engineering at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Thomas G. Mortensen: Senior Scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington, D.C., and an independent higher education policy analyst living in Oskaloosa, Iowa. Amaury Nora: Professor of Higher Education and Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development in the College of Education at the University of Houston. Leticia Oseguera: Doctoral candidate in the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Education's Higher Education and Organizational Change program. Alan Seidman: The creator and editor of the Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice. John H. Schuh: Distinguished professor of educational leadership at Iowa State University, Ames, where he is also department chair. Vincent Tinto: Distinguished University Professor at Syracuse University and chair of the higher education program.

Previous articleNext article No AccessReview EssayThe Commercialization of the University Derek Bok, Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education. (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2003), xi+233 pp., $29.95; David L. Kirp, Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottom Line: The Marketing of Higher Education. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003), vii+328 pp., $35.00; Sheldon Krimsky, Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?. (Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003), xiv+247 pp., $27.95; Donald G. Stein, ed., Buying In or Selling Out? The Commercialization of the American University. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 2004), x+188 pp., $25.95.Roger L. GeigerRoger L. GeigerPennsylvania State University Search for more articles by this author Pennsylvania State UniversityPDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by American Journal of Education Volume 110, Number 4August 2004 Sponsored by the Penn State College of Education Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/423354 Views: 167Total views on this site Citations: 6Citations are reported from Crossref © 2004 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Seyed Hedayat Davarpanah, , Reza Hoveida, , Ronald Barnett, , Hamid Javdani, , Abdolrasool Jamshidian, Ritualism as a Form of Academic Malfunctioning: Iranian Higher Education as a Case Study, Journal of Higher Education Policy And Leadership Studies 2, no.33 (Sep 2021): 30–56.https://doi.org/10.52547/johepal.2.3.30Joshua Travis Brown The Language of Leaders: Executive Sensegiving Strategies in Higher Education, American Journal of Education 127, no.22 (Dec 2020): 265–302.https://doi.org/10.1086/712113Margaret P. O’Mara Beyond town and gown: university economic engagement and the legacy of the urban crisis, The Journal of Technology Transfer 37, no.22 (Jul 2010): 234–250.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9185-4Roger L Geiger The Quest For ‘Economic Relevance’ by US Research Universities, Higher Education Policy 19, no.44 (Dec 2006): 411–431.https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.hep.8300131Robert Kirby Goidel, John Maxwell Hamilton Strengthening Higher Education Through Gridiron Success? Public Perceptions of the Impact of National Football Championships on Academic Quality, Social Science Quarterly 87, no.44 (Dec 2006): 851–862.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2006.00439.xSTEPHEN W. PORGES Asserting the role of biobehavioral sciences in translational research: The behavioral neurobiology revolution, Development and Psychopathology 18, no.0303 (Aug 2006).https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579406060457

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...

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine the dominant conceptualisation of quality in Afghanistan’s higher education strategic planning and policies, and consider the implications a broader conceptualisation of quality might have within Afghanistan’s conflict-affected context.Design/methodology/approachDrawing on data from document analysis and semi-structured interviews, the author identifies the dominant policy conceptualisation of quality.FindingsThe dominant conceptualisation of quality in Afghanistan’s higher education policy documents aligns with the sector’s primary policy purpose of promoting economic growth. However, quality assurance processes were developed with significant input from international actors, and replicate global norms for quality assurance. Whilst this is important for validity and legitimacy, at the same time it can be delegitimising for local stakeholders, and can limit opportunities for conceptualisations of quality which genuinely engage with the particularities of Afghanistan’s broader conflict-affected social context.Research limitations/implicationsIntroducing conceptualisations of quality in Afghanistan’s higher education policy which de-centre economic growth, and rather re-position social goals of cohesion and political sustainability as a central understanding of quality higher education, opens possibilities for the sector’s contribution towards national development.Originality/valueThere is limited published research into conceptualisations of quality within low-income and conflict-affected higher education contexts in general, and Afghanistan in particular. This paper intends to extend a critical conversation about the non-economic dividends a quality higher education sector can offer in such contexts.