Book contents
- Convergence and Diversity in the Governance of Higher Education
- Cambridge Studies in Comparative Public Policy
- Convergence and Diversity in the Governance of Higher Education
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Part I Theorizing Governance in Higher Education
- Part II Systems, Processes, and Dynamics of Governance in Higher Education
- 2 The Regulatory State and the Labour Process
- 3 Systemic Governance
- 4 Institutional Governance
- 5 Capture and Drift in Emerging International Governance Arrangements
- 6 Understanding Convergence and Divergence in the Internationalization of Higher Education from a World Society Perspective
- 7 Convergence through Research Performance Measurement?
- 8 Accountability and Governance in European Higher Education
- 9 Towards New Models of Decision Making within University Governance in Anglophone Nations
- 10 Governance in Public and Private Higher Education in Europe: Patterns, Divergences, and Convergences
- Part III Geographies of Governance
- Index
- References
7 - Convergence through Research Performance Measurement?
Comparing Talk and Practices in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom
from Part II - Systems, Processes, and Dynamics of Governance in Higher Education
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 November 2020
Book contents
- Convergence and Diversity in the Governance of Higher Education
- Cambridge Studies in Comparative Public Policy
- Convergence and Diversity in the Governance of Higher Education
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Preface
- Abbreviations
- Part I Theorizing Governance in Higher Education
- Part II Systems, Processes, and Dynamics of Governance in Higher Education
- 2 The Regulatory State and the Labour Process
- 3 Systemic Governance
- 4 Institutional Governance
- 5 Capture and Drift in Emerging International Governance Arrangements
- 6 Understanding Convergence and Divergence in the Internationalization of Higher Education from a World Society Perspective
- 7 Convergence through Research Performance Measurement?
- 8 Accountability and Governance in European Higher Education
- 9 Towards New Models of Decision Making within University Governance in Anglophone Nations
- 10 Governance in Public and Private Higher Education in Europe: Patterns, Divergences, and Convergences
- Part III Geographies of Governance
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter address the rise of research performance measurement as an instrument of governance designed to steer the higher education sector in a specific direction. Performance measurement is always a political decision and it is about both accountability and control. Performance measurement is directed at many different entities, it serves multiple purposes, and it represents a variety of goals and values. In order to focus on the level of convergence between nations in the use of performance measurement of research in higher education institutions, this chapter examines the range of stated purposes behind the decision to measure performance. The chapter address research performance measurement in Australia, Canada, and the UK, and focuses on assessing convergence in ‘talk’ about performance measurement by senior administrators. It seeks to uncover how performance measurement is labelled and represented in these countries, and to examine the level of similarity across these nations. Hence, performance measurement is an example of a governance instrument which is utilized to shed light on how the higher education sector is being steered in various locations.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Convergence and Diversity in the Governance of Higher EducationComparative Perspectives, pp. 184 - 207Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Behn, R. D. (2008) Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.Google Scholar
Bertelli, A. M., and John, P. (2010) Performance measurement as a political discipline mechanism. University of Southern California Law School, Law and Economics Working Paper Series No 112. Berkeley Electronic Press. http://law.bepress.com/usclwps-lewps/art112Google Scholar
Bjørnholt, B., and Larsen, F. (2014) The politics of performance measurement: ‘Evaluation as mediator for politics’. Evaluation, 20(4), 400–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, D., Bullinger, A., and Wälti, S. (2002) The influence of federalism on fiscal policy making. European Journal of Political Research, 41(1), 115–145.Google Scholar
Brignall, S., and Modell, S. (2000) An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in the ‘new public sector’. Management Accounting Review, 11, 281–306.Google Scholar
Capano, G. (2015) Federal strategies for changing the governance of higher education: Australia, Canada and Germany compared. In Capano, G, Howlett, M, and Ramesh, M (Eds), Varieties of governance: Dynamics, strategies, capacities, pp. 103–130. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Carter, N. (1989) Performance indicators: ‘Backseat driving’ or ‘hands off’ control? Policy and Politics, 17(2), 131–138.Google Scholar
Collier, P. M. (2008) Performativity, management and governance. In Hartley, J, Donaldson, C, Skelcher, C, and Wallace, M (Eds), Managing to improve public services, pp. 46–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Considine, M., and Lewis, J. M. (1999) Governance at ground level: The front-line bureaucrat in the age of markets and networks. Public Administration Review, 59(6), 467–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deem, R., Hillyard, S., and Reed, M. (2007) Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Emy, H., and Hughes, O. (1988) Australian politics: Realities in conflict. Melbourne: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hicks, D. (2009) Evolving regimes of multi-university research evaluation. Higher Education, 57(4), 393–404.Google Scholar
Hicks, D. (2012) Performance-based university research funding systems. Research Policy, 41(2), 251–261.Google Scholar
Hood, C. (1991) A public management for all seasons. Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, R. M., and Summers, D. V. (1987) ‘Doing well while doing good’: Dilemmas of performance measurement in non-profit organizations and the need for a multiple-constituency approach. In Powell, W. W. (Ed.) The non-profit sector: A research handbook, pp. 98–110. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
King, R. (2010) Policy internationalization, national variety and governance: Global models and network power in higher education states. Higher Education, 60(6), 583–594.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. M. (2015a) The politics and consequences of performance measurement. Policy and Society, 34(1), 1–12.Google Scholar
Lewis, J. M. (2015b) Research policy as ‘carrots and sticks’: Governance strategies in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. In Capano, G, Howlett, M, and Ramesh, M (Eds), Varieties of governance: Dynamics, strategies, capacities, pp. 131–150. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, T. M. (1990) Political institutions: The neglected side of the story. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 6 (Special Issue), 213–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OCUFA (Ontario Federation of University Faculty Associations) (2006) Performance indicator use in Canada, the US and abroad. Ottawa: OCUFA.Google Scholar
Painter, M. (2000) When adversaries collaborate: Conditional co-operation in Australia’s arm’s length federal polity. In Wachendorfer-Schmidt, U (Ed.), Federalism and political performance, pp. 130–145. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C. (2001) Convergence: The useful myth? Public Administration, 79(4), 933–947.Google Scholar
Pollitt, C., and Bouckaert, G. (2011) Public management reform: A comparative analysis (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Radin, B. A. (2006) Challenging the performance movement: Accountability, complexity and democratic values. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schick, A. (2001) Getting performance measures to measure up. In Forsythe, D. W. (Ed.), Quicker, better, cheaper: Managing performance in American Government, pp. 39–60. Albany: Rockefeller Institute Press.Google Scholar
Scott, P. (2009) Foreword. In Brew, A and Lucas, L (Eds), Academic research and researchers, pp. xiii–xviii. London: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, P. (1995) On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2–3), 277–310.Google Scholar
Talbot, C. (2005) Performance management. In Ferlie, E, Lynn, L, and Pollitt, C (Eds), The Oxford handbook of public management, pp. 491–517. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomblin, S. (2000) Federal constraints and regional integration in Canada. In Wachendorfer-Schmidt, U (Ed.), Federalism and political performance, pp. 146–174. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Whitley, R. (2010) Reconfiguring the public sciences: The impact of governance changes on authority and innovation in public science systems. In Whitley, R, Gläser, J, and Engwall, L (Eds), Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation, pp. 3–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Whitley, R., and Gläser, J. (Eds) (2007) The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Whitley, R., Gläser, J., and Engwall, L. (Eds) (2010) Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar