Search results

This article addresses the relationship of universities to their changing regulatory environments internationally.

This article updates analysis published in 2004 exploring the contrasting modes of, and key trends in, regulation of higher education across eight OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) states. The article offers a wider analysis of the changing patterns of regulation rooted in mutuality, oversight, competition and design, and the implications for the management of higher education institutions.

Since 2004, higher education has seen more growth in oversight-based and competition-based regulation, but also some decentralization of regulation as an increasing cast of actors, many international and transnational in character, have asserted themselves in key aspects of the regulatory environment. This article explores the implications of these changes in the regulatory mix over higher education for the ways that universities manage their regulatory environment, arguing first, that there is significant evidence of meta-regulatory approaches to regulating universities, and second, that such a meta-regulatory approach is consistent with an emphasis on university autonomy, raising a challenge for universities in how to use the autonomy (variable by country) they do have to manage their environment.

This article offers an original analysis of how universities might most appropriately respond, deploying their autonomy, however variable, to address their external regulatory environment. The author suggests we might increasingly see the external regulatory environment as meta-regulatory in character and universities making more use of reflexive governance processes.

The first of a series of three articles which map the dimensions and evolution of academic regulation in the UK. Argues that regulation is an important and substantial concept and set of activities which is far more comprehensive in scope and substance than the concept of quality assurance which it subsumes; that it involves the act of regulating (controlling and adjusting behaviour and practice against explicit or implicit rules) and the state of being regulated (practising within a framework of rules and accepted professional norms). Describes three basic types of regulatory regime ‐ self‐regulation, external regulation and mixed regimes ‐ and concludes that the size, complexity, diversity, history, public investment and interests in the UK higher education sector make it necessary to operate a mixed regime which incorporates elements of both external regulation and institutional self‐regulation. When viewed at the system level, the continuous interaction of external regulators with HE institutions, which have considerable autonomy over their internal regulatory mechanisms, is consistent with the concept of collaborative regulation (where co‐operation is both voluntary and mandatory).

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the current problems and the main perspectives of the development of state regulation of the Russian system of higher education in the context of the provision of Russia’s national security.

The research of formation of the system of national security in Russia and the problems of the development of education is based on the methods of Russian and foreign Institutionalists (D. North, S.G. Kirdina, R.M. Nureev, Y.V. Latov, etc.). The research is also based on the theory of inequality in the system of education (D.L. Konstantinovsky), the idea of cultural aspects of social inequality (Pierre Bourdieu) and the theory that connects the problem of the development of the educational system with the system of national security and social inequalities (A.V. Vereshchagina, S.I. Samygina, etc.).

The modern state and perspectives of state regulation of higher education in the modern Russian conditions are analyzed in this paper. A complex analysis of risks of the modern state of Russia’s educational system is performed, and educational inequality as a risk to national security is studied in this paper. Perspectives of state regulation of higher education in view of the national model of socio-economic activities and principles of national security are viewed in this paper. The main directions of improving the educational system in the context of the provision of national security of the state are given in this paper.

The results of the research could be used for correcting the main directions of Russia’s socio-economic policy in the long term. The central trend of this policy is the reformation of the development of the sphere of education as a factor of the formation of the system of Russia’s national security.

The results of the research could be used for correcting the main directions of Russia’s socio-economic policy in the long term. The central trend of this policy is the reformation of the development of the sphere of education as a factor of formation of the system of Russia’s national security.

The ideas of the research could stimulate the reconsideration and harmonization of perspectives of the development of social policy of the state, which includes the interaction of the development of higher education and system of national security.

Originality of this paper consists in setting the problem of the implementation of social senses of the development of state policy in the sphere of higher education into the discourse of theoretical and practical consideration of the problems of national security.

I historically compare changes in institutional frameworks creating academic positions linked to temporary employment by analyzing university employment statistics in Chile, Colombia, Germany, and the USA. I find that temporary academic positions were institutionalized through the creation of previously inexistent academic categories called a contrata in Chile, de cátedra in Colombia, “junior professor” without tenure in Germany and “postdoc” in the USA; used in higher education and employment laws since 1989, 1992, 2002, and 1974, respectively. Under institutional frameworks demanding the maximization of students and research, universities have increasingly contracted academics through temporary contracts under rationales that differ between regions. In Colombia and Chile, public university leaders and owners of private universities contract such teaching positions to expand student numbers through lowering costs. In Germany and the USA, employment insecurity is mostly driven by temporary scientific positions under a main rationale of scientific expansion. The share of temporary positions has increased exponentially in Colombia and Germany in recent decades, whereas in the USA there has only been an increase since 2012. Moreover, in Chile, the share of permanent positions has decreased since 2012. The common trend is one of isomorphism of vertical academic structures sharing a pyramidal form, with a wide base of academics working under conditions of contractual insecurity. Such trends follow a rationale for maximization of student numbers as well as administration, and scientific production that is in tension with prioritizing wellbeing and improvement of academics’ working conditions. Yet, in these environments, the institution of tenure in the USA and recent Chilean regulations on accreditation represent mechanisms counteracting precarious employment.

This paper aims to provide an overview of education system reform in China since 1978, and its practical implications.

Data were collected from literature review and interview. An overview of education system reform and its practical implications was found through data analysis.

There has been two types of education system reforms in China since 1978. The first type is school education system reform, and the second is education management system reform.

A point arising is how to reform the education system at the national level.

This is the first time the researcher has studied education system reform and its characteristics in China since 1978, and it can help people to understand education system reform in China systematically.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the student mobility programs of the three initiatives – in Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization-Regional Institution of Higher Education and Development, University Mobility in Asia and Pacific (UMAP), and Campus Asia – and provide a comparative analysis of the respective programs in terms of the role of government, institutional involvement, quality assurance, and challenges. In addition, the paper will assess their impacts on higher education regionalization by regulatory models toward the end of the paper.

The study adopts qualitative document analysis as a major research method to explore the developmental models of three student mobility programs. Document analysis is an approach used to gather and review the content of existing written documentation related to the study in order to extract pieces of information in a rigorous and systematic manner.

ASEAN International Mobility for Students (AIMS), Collective Action for Mobility Program of University Student in Asia (CAMPUS Asia), and UMAP student mobility schemes have a shared purpose in higher education regionalization, but with different regulatory frameworks and Functional, Organizational, and Political approach models. AIMS and CAMPUS Asia as a strong network and government-led initiatives adopt a combination of functional, organizational, and political approaches; UMAP provides university-driven regional mobility programs with a hybridized force. However, all three of them face the same challenges at regional and national levels, such as different national regulation, coordination among participants, and implementation of credit transfer schemes.

The scale of three student mobility programs is still low, which results in limited impact on higher education regionalization in Asia. However, a stronger decision-making model and increased financial support to universities and students are desirable for the creation of a sustainable and effective network.

This is an original research and makes a great contribution to Asian nations.

It is not rare to read positive comments about North American higher education from higher education stakeholders in Europe, particularly policy-makers and institutional managers. The aspects of the system which are most often praised are the degree of institutional competition and the benefits this brings in terms of institutional flexibility, responsiveness, and adaptability. Moreover, those voices also enhance the resourcefulness of North American higher education institutions in finding alternative sources of funding to cope with the steady decline in public funding. In recent decades European higher education has felt the impact of the aforementioned trends and the effects have been not altogether dissimilar from the ones identified in North American higher education. Moreover, the growing integration of European higher education systems has also contributed to enhance some convergence with some of the trends identified in the American case. In this paper, we reflect on the impact of the increasing marketization of funding and governance mechanisms on the European higher education landscape and compare it with the impact of those trends discussed in the papers by Irwin Feller and George W. Breslauer.

Policy instruments are specific policies – policy content, which is associated not just with policy texts, but also with how they are negotiated and practised (Dolowitz & Marsh, 2000; Fimyar, 2008). In the context of Bologna, policy instruments are Bologna action lines (such as the credit system, the study cycles, etc.).

This Chapter explains the development of the Bologna instruments in Ukraine until 2014 through the interaction of the policy continuity and change. In particular, I review how the development of the Bologna instruments in Ukraine was triggered and guided by the Bologna action lines, as well as by the old national higher education policies. I look at the cases of four Bologna instruments. They are the system of credits, the study cycles, the diploma supplement and quality assurance. All of these instruments have been developed through the reconfiguration of the pre-Bologna policies, which were chosen by the Ministry to represent these instruments. Namely, the national module system became the basis for the Bologna system of credits. The pre-Bologna education-qualification and scientific cycles made a foundation for the Bologna study cycles. The old national diploma supplement was a reason for the delay in dealing with the Bologna diploma supplement, given that a diploma supplement existed. The national diploma supplement was taken as the Bologna instrument even though their structure and content differed. Apart from this, the pre-Bologna higher education quality assurance policies started representing the Bologna quality assurance instruments at the outset of the reform in Ukraine.

The examination of these four cases of policy instruments shows that their development began with a mere change of labels for the old policies and proceeded with building up innovations to gradually alter the old national higher education policies.

This paper aims to analyze how the legitimacy of the policy of external quality assurance (EQA) in Colombian higher education has evolved over the past 30 years through an examination of its two main instruments: the compulsory control of minimum quality standards for academic programs and institutions (registro calificado) and accreditations of excellence for programs and institutions.

Based on the methodology of process-tracing, this paper offers a review of the main sequences of the policy of EQA in Colombian higher education: the origins (1990–1998), the expansion (1998–2011) and the contestation (2011–2021). In each sequence, the sources of the substantive and procedural legitimacy of the policy are analyzed. This analysis is based on qualitative data comprising semi-structured interviews with key informants, online information from the 2011 and 2018 student protests and official documentation.

The policy of EQA in Colombian higher education had relatively high levels of substantive and procedural legitimacy during the first two sequences. However, the situation has become more ambivalent since 2011. On the one hand, internal contradictions and student movements’ growing criticism of neoliberal policies have undermined some of the foundations of this policy. On the other hand, higher education institutions and the Colombian Government still have a positive perception of EQA and have recently revisited the policy to address some of its shortcomings.

From a conceptual standpoint, this paper advances our understanding of how quality assurance in higher education gains, sustains or loses legitimacy by discussing and testing typologies of legitimacy in the analysis of a national system of EQA. From an empirical perspective, this paper provides a diachronic analysis of EQA in Colombian higher education, a case that has primarily been studied through a technical-rational perspective.

This chapter focuses on the use of target-setting in Scottish higher education to boost participation by under-represented groups. The central question I address is whether the technology of New Public Management, such as performance indicators and targets, is likely to be useful in addressing the problem of social inequality in higher education. Traditionally, the Scottish Government has tended to adopt a light touch to university regulation and governance, using institutional carrots rather than sticks (Raffe, 2013, 2016). More recently, since the introduction of widening access outcomes agreements and the publication of the final report of the Commission on Fair Access (Scottish Government, 2015), universities have argued that the government’s interventions risk eroding university autonomy without achieving policy goals.