Lesley Vidovich

Removing policy from its pedestal: some theoretical framings and practical possibilities

In educational policy research, the orientation has shifted from a macro focus on central authorities to incorporating a micro focus on the multiple (often contradictory) policy practices within individual institutions. However, this new focus has not gone uncontested, and debate has revolved around the relevance of modernist conceptualizations of power (suggesting constraints by macro authorities) against post‐modernist/post‐structuralist conceptualizations (suggesting agency for micro‐level actors). This paper offers some theoretical framings and practical possibilities for moving beyond dualisms of macro–micro and modernist–post‐modernist/post‐structuralist perspectives by applying a hybridized model which can simultaneously draw on the strengths of different approaches. Practical suggestions for critical interrogation of policy processes are also presented. Finally, the paper critiques policy network theory, another dynamic hybrid approach, which can potentially link the ‘bigger picture’ of global/national policy contexts to the ‘smaller pictures’ of policy practices within schools, in the interests of democratizing education.

Bringing universities to account? Exploring some global and local policy tensions

Increased accountability is at the centre of widespread educational reforms which feature the rhetoric of deregulation in many countries across the globe. Not only have educational systems, institutions and practitioners been required to be more accountable, but arguably the nature of accountability has also changed from professional and democratic to managerial and market forms. In particular, within the hegemonic discourses of the market ideology associated with globalization, market accountability to paying customers (both within a nation-state and internationally) has been foregrounded. However, the hegemony is not complete. Governments have often positioned themselves as ‘market managers’, creating a complex and often contradictory relationship between new forms of market and managerial accountability, layered on top of more traditional notions of professional and democratic accountability. This paper explores the changing nature of accountability in Australian and English higher education, and makes comparisons between them. As we enter the twenty-first century, central higher education authorities in both countries are conducting major reviews and revisionings of mechanisms to enhance the accountability of universities in the new global knowledge-based economy. While the analysis finds convergence of policy objectives and discourses, it also finds divergences in the particular structures and processes employed. Further, it finds a disjunction between macro-level policy intent and institutional-level reactions and practices in both countries. We argue that with globalization ‘talk’, it is important not to gloss over policy differences between individual nation-states, and to problematize potentially globalizing concepts such as accountability within policy debates at both national and global levels.

Governance and trust in higher education

The adoption of more corporate models of governance is a contemporary trend in higher education. In the early 2000s, the Australian Government legislated national governance protocols for universities, using the policy lever of financial sanctions. These more corporate‐style governance protocols followed similar changes in the UK, consistent with a historical pattern of Australia borrowing policy ‘on trust’ from its former colonial ruler. However, the Australian approach represented much tighter government regulation than in the UK. This article employs a conceptual lens of trust to analyse changing policy on governance in Australian higher education. Analysis reveals that national governance protocols contributed to a culture of mistrust across the sector, although the dynamics of trust–mistrust relationships were complex and included apparent trust ‘settlements’ between particular stakeholder groups. This analysis offers another step in nascent investigations into trust and the governance of higher education.

Quality policy in Australian higher education of the 1990s: university perspectives

In the last decade ‘quality’ has assumed the status of one of the meta-discourses across many domains of public policy, including education. This paper focuses on the specific example of quality policy in Australian higher education of the 1990s, and in particular, on the micro level of quality policy practice as experienced by academic practitioners in 6 universities. As such, it forms a follow-up to an article published earlier in the Journal of Education Policy (Vidovich and Porter 1997) which examined macro (national) and intermediate (the Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education) levels of a quality policy cycle consisting of contexts of influence, policy text production and practice, as articulated by Ball and colleagues (Bowe, Ball and Gold 1992, Ball 1994). The findings of in-depth interviews with key university personnel provide evidence of the ‘messy’ realities of the policy process and considerable variation in quality policy practices at local sites, particularly in terms of the dif...

Privatization and competition policies for Australian universities

“Privatization” encapsulates an ideological shift towards market principles such as competition, commercialization, deregulation, efficiency and changing forms of accountability. In higher education, the privatization trend includes the full gamut from the creation of fully private institutions which operate without government financial support, to reforms in largely government-funded institutions operating in more of a quasi-market mode. This article examines privatization policies and speculates on their origins and their ramifications for universities around the world. In particular, it describes the impact of corporate managerialism (the import of management practices from the private sector) in institutions still largley under the control of governments, and focuses on examples of the particular effects of this ideological shift in three Australian universities. It argues that some traditional academic values should be preserved as important attributes of universities that enable them to operate in the public interest and maintain their role as a critical voice in society.

Towards internationalizing the curriculum in a context of globalization: comparing policy processes in two settings

The primary focus of this paper is two case study schools, one in Singapore and one in Australia, which have both been actively pursuing an agenda to build a unique internationally‐oriented curriculum, in a context of globalization, but also within the constraints set by national/State curriculum frameworks, examinations and league tables. Interviews were used to collect data in each school, and then cross‐case analysis was conducted to reveal both similarities and differences in the way the two schools are moving towards internationalizing their curriculum. Emergent meta‐level conceptual themes around policy for ‘internationalization’ of the curriculum are discussed: enablers and constraints; the issue of whether such internationalization fosters a market ideology; changing power relationships; and the relevance of distinctions between internationalization and globalization. The paper concludes by pointing to the contribution of the ‘sociology of knowledge’ and ‘critical policy analysis’ in disrupting the potentially hegemonic economic discourses associated with internationalizing the curriculum.The primary focus of this paper is two case study schools, one in Singapore and one in Australia, which have both been actively pursuing an agenda to build a unique internationally‐oriented curriculum, in a context of globalization, but also within the constraints set by national/State curriculum frameworks, examinations and league tables. Interviews were used to collect data in each school, and then cross‐case analysis was conducted to reveal both similarities and differences in the way the two schools are moving towards internationalizing their curriculum. Emergent meta‐level conceptual themes around policy for ‘internationalization’ of the curriculum are discussed: enablers and constraints; the issue of whether such internationalization fosters a market ideology; changing power relationships; and the relevance of distinctions between internationalization and globalization. The paper concludes by pointing to the contribution of the ‘sociology of knowledge’ and ‘critical policy analysis’ in disrupting th...

Changing accountabilities in higher education as China ‘opens up’ to globalisation

This paper focuses on changing accountability policies/practices in higher education as China rapidly ‘opens up’ to the global knowledge economy. It reports empirical findings from two case study universities, using respondents’ voices, and then raises issues for critical reflection. Increasingly prescriptive and punitive neo‐liberal accountabilities have come to prevail in Chinese higher education, although ‘new’ accountability mechanisms have not simply replaced the ‘old’ but, arguably, they have coalesced into a potentially unstable hybrid of accountability relationships. We argue the need to dislodge the hegemony of neo‐liberal accountabilities, and to continually—and critically—navigate ‘local’ needs within ‘global’ contexts, as policies evolve.

Students ‘at‐risk’ policy: competing social and economic discourses

Within a context of global reform agendas that promote economic ideologies in education the discourses surrounding ‘school failure’ have shifted from ‘individual risk’ to ‘a nation at‐risk’. Enhancing the quality of schooling through improving educational outcomes and standards for all, and thereby reducing ‘school failure,’ is simultaneously constructed as enhancing both social justice and a nation’s economic advantage in the global marketplace. Within this broader context, this research explores the complexity of issues related to policy for students at educational risk through an analysis of the Education Department of Western Australia’s ‘Making the Difference: Students at Educational Risk Policy.’ This research adopted a theoretical framework of a ‘policy cycle’ (that allowed for an exploration of power relations within the policy process. Primarily, consideration is given to the competing social and economic discourses found within the policy text and subsequent tensions reflected and retracted throughout the policy process from macro (system), to meso (district) and finally to micro levels within the schools and classrooms.

Converting RPL into academic capital: lessons from Australian universities

Recognition of prior learning (RPL) requires an assessment of the equivalence and transferability of learning acquired in one context to another. However, this study’s examination of the institutional policies and practices of three Australian universities reveals that RPL can also be understood as a Bourdieuian process of ‘capital conversion’, where an individual’s economic, social and cultural capital are assessed as being equivalent to ‘academic experience’. This approach reveals that, far from being an epistemological assessment of prior learning, universities also consider their organisational identity and status when considering what informal or non-formal learning will be accepted. Ultimately, what counts as prior learning depends as much upon which university is doing the assessment, its motive for doing so and the extent to which it views RPL as a normative threat.

“Countability not answerability?” Accountability in Hong Kong and Singapore universities

Singapore and Hong Kong are vying to be the principal educational hub for the Asia-Pacific region and have begun to compete with Australia, Britain, Canada and the USA in providing cross-border education. Although these four Anglo-American countries still dominate cross-border education, Singapore and Hong Kong hope to make inroads into this export market and compete on the global stage. To create “world-class” universities, Singapore and Hong Kong have introduced quality assurance mechanisms, diversified funding sources, and restructured their university governance systems. This article compares the accountability measures introduced into Hong Kong and Singapore universities, and the responses of academics and administrators to these measures. The results indicate that both countries introduced greater autonomy as they augmented accountability for their universities, and the term “decentralised centralism” describes the kind of government control exerted in these Asian universities in the twenty-first century.