A 'QUALITY' POLICY TRAJECTORY: FROM GLOBAL HOMOGENISATION TO LOCALISED

DIFFERENTIATION

LESLEY VIDOVICH

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

MURDOCH UNIVERSITY

PERTH, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

RE: VIDOL97. 114A

PAPER PRESENTED TO THE AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION

CONFERENCE, BRISBANE,

30 NOVEMBER - 4 DECEMBER, 1997

DRAFT ONLY

THE DATA PRESENTED IN THIS PAPER FORMS PART OF A PHD THESIS.

**PLEASE DO NOT REPRODUCE OR CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR.

INTRODUCTION

In Australian higher education, a ministerial policy statement, Higher

Education: Quality and Diversity in the 1990s, released in October 1991

was a key turning point in the rise to prominence of the notion of

'quality'. As 'quality' had already appeared on the higher education

policy agenda of many countries during the 1980s, it seems that

Australia was simply picking up an established global trend. However,

it was also embarking on a reconstruction of the notion of 'quality'

which was specifically adapted for the Australian higher education

context.

In 1991, the minister responsible for higher education, Peter Baldwin,

referred the issue of quality to the Higher Education Council (HEC)

which produced discussion papers and a final report during 1992. In

1993, the Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (CQAHE)

was established to refine the quality policy text for application at

the institutional level. Institutions were invited to produce a

portfolio to demonstrate quality and then to receive a visit from a

CQAHE team which would verify the claims made in the portfolio and

report back to CQAHE. Subsequently CQAHE ranked universities into bands

according to performance and allocated reward funding of $76 million

annually for the period 1993-95.

For analytic purposes in this study, three levels of the quality policy

process were distinguished: a macro level - the minister and HEC; an

intermediate level - CQAHE; and a micro level - individual

institutions. The larger PhD study, from which this paper originates,

conducts a detailed analysis at all levels but only the findings of

interviews conducted at the micro institutional level are presented

here, with some limited comparisons with CQAHE at the intermediate

level.

Defining quality

Despite its growing prominence in policy documents, the concept of

quality remains elusive (Becher, 1994), generating a variety of

interpretations. Harvey and Green (1993) offer a useful overview of

various definitions of quality as employed by different stakeholders.

They are:

* 'quality as exceptional' - with variants of quality as distinctive,

excellence and passing required standards;

* 'quality as perfection or consistency' - aiming for zero defects in

the process;

* 'quality as fitness for purpose' - related to customer specification

or mission, and which includes quality assurance mechanisms;

* 'quality as value for money' - focussing on accountability and

performance indicators;

* 'quality as transformation' - where the participant is enhanced

through value-addedness and/or empowerment.

In another useful contribution to clarifying the notion of quality,

Sachs refers to Harvey and Green's multiple and competing views of

quality, but she condenses their five fold typology into two: QA

(quality assurance) for accountability and QI (quality improvement)

(Sachs, 1994). According to her definition, QA has an external

(government driven) locus of control and is associated with

centralised/bureaucratised administrative structures, with external

auditors measuring quantitative indicators of success. By contrast, QI

has an internal (employee driven) locus of control and is associated

with devolved/facilitative administrative structures, which use peer

review to assess more qualitative indicators of success. Whereas QA is

about control, QI is about empowering the participants. Notwithstanding

this conceptual distance between the two dimensions of quality, Sachs

argues that they can be brought together as more complementary

processes in the long term interests of both internal and external

stakeholders. Sach's 'QI' directly parallels the 'transformation'

notion of Harvey and Green, but her 'QA' is closer to their 'value for

money' with an emphasis on accountability and performance indicators.

Combining the approaches taken by Harvey and Green, and Sachs, three

different constructions of the notion of quality can be extracted as an

aid to teasing out the different discourses associated with quality

policies: 'quality as excellent standards'; 'quality as accountability'

(QA); and 'quality as improvement' (QI). The argument developed at

length in the larger PhD study is that despite the rhetoric about

'quality as excellent standards' and 'quality as improvement' (QI) in

the Australian policy documents, it is 'quality as accountability' (QA)

which has prevailed.

Theoretical framework

The analysis of data in this study makes extensive, though not

exclusive, use of a theoretical framework offered by Stephen Ball. The

relevance of his work is his concern to "problematize policy through

several of its 'levels' or 'dimensions' or 'moments' of activity and

effect" (Ball & Shilling, 1994, p. 2). Ball emphasises the complex and

the contested (Ball, 1990) nature of education policy as a process

rather than an end product (Ball, 1994; White & Crump, 1993). His

desire to capture the messy realities of the policy process (Ball,

1994) is consistent with the goal of this study.

In Reforming education and changing schools (Bowe, Ball & Gold, 1992),

Ball and his co-authors urged against the separation of policy

formulation and implementation phases, because a linear top-down

viewpoint ignores the struggles over policy and reinforces a

managerialist rationality. Instead, they proposed a continuous policy

cycle which allows for the recontextualization of policy throughout the

process. They distinguished three primary policy contexts: context of

influence (where interest groups struggle over construction of policy

discourses); context of policy text production (where texts represent

policy, although they may contain inconsistencies and contradictions);

and finally, context of practice (where policy is subject to

interpretation and recreation). This conceptual framework is useful for

what Ball calls policy trajectory studies which trace "policy

formulation, struggle and response from within the state itself through

to the various recipients of policy" (Ball, 1994, p. 26).

Ball's book, Education reform: a critical and post-structural approach

(Ball, 1994), further developed themes from his earlier writings, and

included an extension of the conceptual framework for policy trajectory

studies. He added a 'context of outcomes', which considers policy

effects of both the first order (practice/structure) and the second

order (social justice), as well as a 'context of political strategy',

where the unmasking of power may be used by those who are subject to

it. This final context parallels Foucault's emphasis on empowerment. In

fact throughout the book Ball draws heavily on the work of Michel

Foucault, especially the notions of surveillance, disciplinary power

and normalisation, and he also makes repeated use of Lyotard's concept

of performativity. Although he claims that this book continues a

theoretical standpoint which straddles the invisible divide between

modernism and postmodernism, he does seem to favour a more postmodern

inclination. His work has been criticised (Hatcher & Troyna, 1994)

primarily on the basis that he does not pay sufficient attention to

state control models of policy formulation, such as those proposed by

Dale (1989) and Ozga (1990). However, the understandings Ball draws

from postmodern sources, when added to a more state-centred analysis of

the policy elite, offers valuable insights into the quality policy

process in Australian higher education. For the purposes of this

current study, only the original three contexts of the policy process

(influence; text production; and practice) will be employed as the

framework.

THE CONTEXT OF INFLUENCE

This section briefly overviews factors influencing the initiation of

quality policies at the global level; presents an emerging 'global'

model of quality in universities; and then identifies several features

of the Australian context which might contribute to a unique, localised

quality policy process.

The global context - economic, political and ideological shifts

In higher education, quality emerged as a key issue in North American

and Western European countries during the 1980s (Goedegebuure, Kaiser,

Maassen & de Weert, 1994; Van Vught & Westerheijden, 1994). By 1993,

with the first conference of the International Network of Quality

Assurance Agencies in Higher Education, 45 countries participated (both

developing and industrialised), demonstrating the preoccupation with

issues relating to quality in higher education across the globe

(L'Ecuyer & Lenn, 1993).

Not only was quality featured in higher education policies in

individual countries, but there were growing pressures, often from

economic organisations, to adopt a 'global' model of quality in

universities. Lenn (1993) outlined some of the sources of demands for

international linkages in higher education quality assurance

mechanisms: the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

(OECD); regional trade agreements; global assistance organisations

(such as UNESCO - United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural

Organisation - and the World Bank); the export and import trade in

higher education; professional bodies; international higher education

associations.

Economic factors are implicated in the ascendancy of the 'global'

quality movement in universities in much of the literature. The rapid

expansion from elite to mass higher education systems and a concurrent

need for constraint to limit public expenditure in a climate of

economic downturn are referred to frequently (Goedegebuure et al.,

1994; Green, 1993; Harvey & Green, 1993; L'Ecuyer & Lenn, 1993;

Pritchard, 1994; Van Vught & Westerheijden, 1994). This transition from

elite to mass higher education had been a deliberate policy of

governments, based on an underlying human capital assumption that

higher education could provide a skilled workforce which is required

for economic development to enhance a country's position in the

competitive global marketplace. By the start of the 1990s, this

perspective was dominant, even though such human capital assumptions

had been consistently questioned since the 1970s (Harman & Meek, 1988;

Marginson, 1993).

However, the prominence of quality agendas in universities has been an

expression of more than economic concerns associated with providing

mass higher education at limited cost. It is also an expression of a

shift in political ideology which operates to legitimise certain

approaches to policy and to marginalise others. The particular

construction of quality which has dominated higher education policy

discourse reflects the ascendancy of the New Right or economic

rationalist ideology which redefines education as a servant of the

economy (Sachs, 1991). The market ideology prevails, featuring not only

privatisation but also corporatisation of the public sector, including

universities (Burchell, 1994; Elliott & Maclennan, 1994; Porter,

Lingard & Knight, 1994; Sachs, 1991). Neave (1991) has observed that

adoption of a market ideology in universities results in an increased

number of external stakeholders. In particular, governments and

business/industry have gained a more legitimate status in determining

university policy, including the construction of quality policies

(Green, 1993; Van Vught & Westerheijden, 1994).

A 'global' model for quality in universities?

Van Vught and Westerheijden (1994), after surveying recent developments

in North America and Western Europe, outlined the features of a general

model of quality in higher education. Although their model seems to be

abstracted from a combination of current practice as well as a proposed

model of 'best practice' it provides a useful 'benchmark' against which

the Australian policy process can be examined. The five components of

their model are:

* meta-assessment independent of government;

* self-evaluation to enhance 'ownership';

* peer review, including site visits by 'experts' who represent a range

of constituencies;

* reporting the results of peer review, without rankings, and an

opportunity to comment on draft reports - but there are variations

between publishing reports and guaranteeing confidentiality;

* direct, rigid relationship between quality review and funding should

be avoided - danger is a compliance culture;

This model is an example of a mechanism which has been variously

referred to as 'steering at a distance' (Kickert, 1991),

'self-regulation' (Neave & Van Vught, 1991), 'tight-loose coupling'

(Lawton, 1992); 'separating the steering and rowing functions'

(Cuttance, 1994) and 'remote control' (Goedegebuure et al., 1994).

Instead of maintaining control by tight prescriptive regulations, the

centre requires local sites to demonstrate accountability for achieving

certain outcomes (Cuttance, 1994; Knight, 1994). Thus, both policy

formulation and accountability are centralised but the processes by

which local sites choose to achieve the outcomes can vary, in theory at

least. Steerage by the centre is not abolished but changes form. Whilst

the rhetoric associated with 'steering at a distance' is characterised

by increasing autonomy to the local level, a number of observers have

noted that enhanced autonomy for institutional managers (consistent

with corporate management practices) is increasingly impinging on the

individual autonomy of academics, especially in situations where the

interests of management and staff are different (Bartos, 1990; Bessant,

1995; Goedegebuure et al., 1994; Neave, 1991). Thus, Van Vught and

Westerheijden's claim that their model for quality in universities

allows for autonomy of both institutions and individual academics

whilst also satisfying external accountability would be strongly

contested.

In presenting their 'global' model for quality in higher education, Van

Vught and Westerheijden (1994) also emphasised that in addition to the

common elements they identified, different countries will have their

own special characteristics suited to their own particular

circumstances. L'Ecuyer and Lenn (1993) have cautioned that a single

model of quality is not appropriate to all countries. In particular,

they highlight the differences between developing and industrialised

countries, with the former adopting a minimum standards approach and

the latter aiming for highest possible performance. Thus, whilst they

acknowledge the quality movement as a global phenomenon, they reject a

universal model of quality, as they maintain that local contexts will

have a major influence on both the problems and the possible solutions.

Local contexts for quality include both historical and current

circumstances (Brennan, Williams, Harris & McNamara, 1997) as well as

differing values frameworks (Neumann, 1994).

The following section focuses on the 'local' Australian context as a

background framework for understanding similarities and differences

between the Australian quality process and the 'global' model. An

approach which puts a microscope on differences is less deterministic

than a potentially homogenising global model.

The Australian Context

Whilst Australia experiences the changing economic, political and

ideological influences from the global level as much as many other

countries, it has a certain combination of contextual factors which

creates its own unique position, just as other countries can also be

characterised by a particular local context. For the purposes of this

discussion two particular factors will be highlighted as significant in

creating a slightly different context for quality in universities in

Australia than that experienced elsewhere. The first is the Australian

federal structure which sees the Commonwealth occupying a relatively

powerful position compared to the State governments (largely due to

vertical fiscal imbalance), and the second is the longevity of

Australia's Labor Government at the Commonwealth level through the

1980s to the mid-1990s.

Despite the fact that State governments have legal responsibility for

education in Australia, in the higher education sector the Commonwealth

took over full financial responsibility for universities under the

Whitlam Labor Government in 1974. Although the potential for

Commonwealth intervention in universities using financial levers

existed earlier, it was not until Minister Dawkins took responsibility

for the education portfolio in 1987 that the full force of the 'power

of the purse' was brought into play. Minister Dawkins immediately set

about restructuring the education portfolio by creating a mega

Department of Employment, Education and Training (DEET), signalling

that the economy would 'drive' education policy. He also abolished the

large, independent education commissions (staffed mainly by experts)

and replaced them with a smaller, less autonomous National Board of

Employment Education and Training which had greater representation of

the powerful elites from government and business/industry sectors.

Thus, educational decision making was at once streamlined and brought

more directly under ministerial control, reflecting a key feature of

the corporate managerial style of administration (Lingard, 1993).

Given the financial dependence of higher education on the Government,

it was 'logical' for Minister Dawkins to initiate his package of

educational reforms in that sector first. His Green and White Papers of

1987 and 1988 triggered a 'revolution' in higher education (Karmel,

1990). By 1991 (the end of the first triennium of operation of the new

Unified National System combining universities and former colleges),

most of Dawkins' policies had been successfully implemented, although

not without considerable controversy and backlash. Management reforms

were among the few Dawkins policies which were not readily implemented.

In terms of the focus of this study, the White Paper policies

transformed Australian higher education from an elite to a mass system

and instituted moves to increase the accountability of universities to

external stakeholders, especially Government, through annually

negotiated institutional profiles and the proposed use of performance

indicators to determine funding levels. Thus, Australian higher

education policy was moving in the direction of the global trends.

However, by the early 1990s adoption of a performance indicator

approach to funding had stalled, despite the work of the Linke

Performance Indicator Group (Linke, 1991). Negative reactions to many

of the White Paper reforms were gaining momentum, but at the same time

the Commonwealth was facing an annual $5 billion bill for higher

education. It was within this context that the minister announced the

quality policy for Australian universities in 1991, including an

incentive of $76 million annually for 3 years if universities could

demonstrate 'quality'. Thus, again the Commonwealth had wielded the

'power of the purse'. Birch and Smart (1989) have argued that such use

of financial levers to dictate policy to universities is an example of

coercive federalism. However, the Commonwealth was apparently backing

off from the compulsory use of performance indicators to determine

operating grants and instead opted for voluntary participation by

universities in a program which would yeild them marginal extra funds.

The second feature of the local context which might contribute to a

somewhat different course for higher education policy in Australia was

the Hawke Labor Government's (1983-91) retention of a social democratic

orientation to a greater extent than other countries in the 1980s. In

particular, the UK and the US (which arguably have traditionally had

the biggest impact on Australia's education policy directions) had

conservative governments lead by Thatcher and Reagan, respectively.

These governments epitomised the 'full-blown' New Right approaches to

public policy, including education, in the 1980s (Marginson, 1993) when

the Australian government was still trying to maintain some

(minimalist) social policy alongside increasingly conservative economic

policy (Beilharz, 1994).

Australia's Labor Government had coopted the trade union movement into

the policy elite through the Accord (a formal agreement between the

Government and the unions to allow 'worker' representation in the

process of economic restructuring for the price of industrial peace).

The result was a tripartite 'settlement' (Freeland, 1991; Seddon, 1994;

Sedunary, 1996) with unions added to the government and

business/industry policy making elite witnessed elsewhere (Knight &

Wary, 1996; Lingard, Knight & Porter, 1993; Porter, 1993; Sachs, 1991).

This three part coalition in Australia was then able to dominate the

education policy agenda, and arguably the inclusion of 'workers' kept

issues such as equity on the 'stage' at least, even if not under the

'spotlight'.

Despite some retention of social democratic principles by the Hawke

Labor Government in the mid-1980s, after its re-election in 1987, with

a ballooning deficit, cries of a 'banana republic' initiated by

Treasurer Keating, and looming financial crisis, there was a dramatic

acceleration of the Government's micro economic reform agenda. Arguably

it was also facing a crisis of legitimation (Dudley & Vidovich, 1995)

and needed to act quickly to head off any claims that it was about to

repeat the mistakes of the Whitlam Labor Government (1972-75) in

neglecting fiscal and economic realities (Knight & Wary, 1996). By the

1990s under Prime Minister Keating, there was clearly a "triumph of

'economic rationalism' over a Labor Government" (Painter, 1996, p. 287)

to the puzzlement and shock of some, although given the global trends

this should not have been surprising. I would argue, however, that this

'triumph' was not complete. Despite the power of the Commonwealth in

the higher education sector, the Australian Labor Government's approach

to both performance indicators and quality in universities was 'softer'

(less interventionist) than that in the UK. The quality policy for

Australian universities was constructed in a way which was specifically

adapted to the Australian context.

The focus question for this paper then becomes:

Within the overall Australian context, how did the quality policy for

universities 'play out' in all of the localised contexts at the

institutional level between 1991 and 1995?

METHODOLOGY

This paper focuses on the findings of institutional level interviews

designed to examine the way in which the 1991 quality policy

constructed at the macro level influenced practices at the micro level

of individual universities. To obtain an institutional sample, three

universities were selected from Western Australia (WA) and three from

New South Wales (NSW), and an attempt was made to roughly 'match' these

institutions according to their historical contexts. They represented

three different 'types' of institution, as outlined below. The year of

establishment and approximate student population at the time of the QA

program is provided for each institution:

* 'traditional':

Sydney University (SU) - est 1851; 30 000 students.

University of Western Australia (UWA) - est 1911; 12 000 students.

* 'alternative':

Macquarie University (MAC) - est 1964; 11 000 students.

Murdoch University (MU) - est 1973; 8 000 students.

* 'former colleges':

The University of Western Sydney (UWS) - est 1989; 20 000 students.

Edith Cowan University (ECU) - est 1991; 17 000 students.

For ease of communication, these three groups will be referred to by

the bolded term above in the subsequent analysis, however, there is no

intention to assume that each 'type' is a homogeneous group as

differences are clearly evident. The 'traditional' universities are

sometimes distinguished from the other two types on certain issues.

These universities are increasingly known to be part of the 'Group of

8' (G-8) higher status universities pushing for a greater share of the

higher education budget on the basis that they are capable of competing

internationally. The G-8 consists mainly of the original university in

each mainland state or territory. The category 'newer' universities is

relative to the 'traditional' category, and the term 'newer' refers to

both 'alternative' universities and 'former colleges'. 'Alternative'

universities were established in the 1960/70s with an ethos of greater

participatory democracy than evident in the traditional universities.

The 'former colleges' which began life as teachers colleges, and later

became colleges of advanced education, were organised along more

bureaucratic lines.

Contact was made with a senior manager in each university and they were

then asked to identify the major players in the 1993-95 QA program at

their institution. From the lists of names provided, four respondents

at each of the six universities were selected and invited to

participate in the study. Although the precise titles of respondent

positions varied between universities, they were all chosen on the

basis of closest possible involvement in the preparation of quality

portfolios and visits from CQAHE teams. They were mostly senior

academics who were in management positions. Only one invitation to

participate was declined and that person nominated another manager as

his substitute.

It is important to locate the timing of these institutional interviews,

as the success, or otherwise, of each university in the quality

rankings may be a factor in 'colouring' the responses to some of the

questions. Interviews were conducted between the publication of the

results of Rounds Two and Three. The portfolio and visits for Round

Three were complete but the final results had not yet been released.

For each quality round the results were published at the beginning of

the following year, and therefore by the time Round Three results were

available at the beginning of 1996 a number of the personnel could have

moved on to other positions, and also their attention would have been

refocussed on the forthcoming year, including a federal election and

new agendas for higher education. Further, a central player, the Chair

of CQAHE, was retiring and moving to Europe at the end of 1995 and it

was considered important to conduct interviews with CQAHE and

institutional respondents concurrently so that the different

perspectives at a particular 'moment' in the policy process could be

compared.

The six universities in the study were located at different levels in

the quality hierarchies resulting from Round One (with a 'general'

theme and resulting in a six band league table) and Round Two (with a

focus on teaching and learning, and resulting in a three band league

table). From these two rounds preceding the interviews, the rank order

of the universities in this study was as follows:

University Round 1 rank Round 2 rank

UWA 1 1

Sydney 2 1

Macquarie 4 2

Murdoch 5 2

UWS 6 2

ECU 6 3

This paper presents only some of the data obtained at the institutional

level from the larger PhD study. It outlines the responses to the

questions about the context of practice or effects of the quality

policy. Responses about the context of influence and the context of

policy text production (two of the other levels in Ball's policy

trajectory framework) are reported elsewhere.

The numbers of respondents in the different categories which emerged

from the data are cited in order to provide signposts to the degree of

consensual or conflicting viewpoints across the total respondent group.

Predominant response categories for particular types of universities,

and sometimes for individual universities (when there was a wide

variety of responses), are also identified. There is no intention of

claiming statistically relevant samples, given that the total number of

respondents is twenty-four at this level in the policy trajectory.

Instead the intention is to gain greater depth of understanding of the

issues and for this reason, extensive use is made of respondent quotes

as a vehicle to reveal many of the complexities and context-specific

examples. The university to which the respondent belongs is given in

parenthesis after each quote, {followed by the response category in

curly brackets}.

The intent of this paper is to focus on context-specific differences

between institutions as well as inconsistencies and contradictions

within institutions. It is not simply a matter of summarising general

trends, but of teasing out the differential policy processes at six

different local sites, and thus the writer begs the reader's patience!

THE CONTEXT OF PRACTICE (EFFECTS)

Ball's 'context of practice' in this study refers to the effects of the

Australian QA program on institutions and the system. Both CQAHE and

institutional respondents were asked the same questions about their

perceptions of the context of policy practice (or effects) and

therefore for each subheading in this section, response patterns at the

institutional level are followed by comparisons and contrasts with

those from the CQAHE level.

Changing institutional decision making structures and processes

When institutional respondents were asked whether they perceived any

changes to the decision making structures and processes in their

university as a direct effect of the QA program, responses were

relatively evenly divided between 'yes' and 'no', as indicated in the

table below.

Changed decision

making structures Number

Yes 12

No 11

Don't know 1

By contrast, CQAHE respondents were more likely to perceive changes to

decision making structures and processes (6 of the 7 respondents). Just

as there was no clearly predominant response about whether changes to

decision making had occurred in the six institutions studied, there was

also no consistent pattern for different types of university. In fact,

the two 'traditional' universities showed completely opposite response

patterns, with Sydney all 'yes' and UWA all 'no' to changes in decision

making as an effect of the QA program. Perhaps Sydney's poor quality

ranking relative to expectations (Band 2 in Round One) contributed to

the impetus for change, whereas UWA's top ranking (for both Rounds One

and Two) meant that the QA program did not cause that institution to

significantly modify its structures/processes. The 'alternative'

universities, Murdoch and Macquarie, showed similar patterns to each

other, with 'yes' to decision making changes predominating. By

contrast, at the 'former colleges', ECU and UWS, the 'no' response was

predominant.

Quotes have been chosen to represent the predominant response at each

university, as there was considerable context-specific variation on

this issue.

Changes were already happening within this university but I also saw

some changes with the quality process itself. After the first year we

appointed an external group of quality experts to advise us. We

referred our submission to them and looked at their feedback. ... I

think initially people might have been wary about something like that

being referred to an external group, but it's become obvious that such

people can add value, insights. (SU) {Yes}

The whole quality process has resulted in some new powerful committees

- a strong response at Macquarie. The Education and Teaching Quality

Committee (established for Round Two). ... That committee continued and

will continue. It's a standing committee of Academic Senate. A Research

Quality Committee was established for Round Three and it's also a

standing committee of Academic Senate. (MAC) {Yes}

The Board of Research has moved from being a representative body to

being a non-representative body in the sense that we don't have members

for each school. The Board is small. ... The big challenge facing

Murdoch is to make sure that our administrative structures on the one

hand allow for people to have an input but without them being so

involved in administrative processes that they have no time to really

concentrate on the core functions of research and teaching. ... I think

we are grossly overwhelmed with committees and I think we need to have

a much cleaner structure. (MU) {Yes}

I wouldn't have said there was any link. The changes in the management

structure of UWA pre-date quality. I think it comes back to the VC's

ability to foresee the trends. (UWA) {No}

No changes. As VC, I have been a strong believer in the devolution of

the institution, both in terms of fiscal responsibilities and also

involvement in policy structure. You need a balance between the

efficiency and leadership - which a good executive gives - but you need

to have those processes owned and you need strong collegial input into

the working of a modern university. (UWS) {No}

I think that Roy's (the VC) role has been much more significant than

even the QA thing. We've been going against the corporate management

trend ... I do see that trend happening in other universities quite a

lot but universities are different sorts of bodies and you'd hope they

would be a lot more collegial than the traditional business sort of

thing. So I think we're going counter-trend.

(ECU) {No}

The term 'corporate management' was used to describe the nature of the

changes to decision making by around one-third (7) of the institutional

respondents. Typically, they described a smaller and more powerful

senior executive group at the top, with generally more streamlined

decision making designed to facilitate faster responses.

Improving outcomes of core activities

Respondents were asked whether they perceived any improvements in

outcomes from the core activities of teaching-learning, research and

community service as a direct effect of the QA program. The majority of

institutional respondents believed that the quality of outcomes in at

least one of these strands had increased as a direct result of the

program, as indicated in the table below.

Improved outcomes Number

Yes 20

No 2

Don't know 2

Somewhat surprisingly, institutional level respondents were generally

more positive than CQAHE respondents about improved outcomes, as only 4

of the 7 CQAHE members interviewed associated the QA program with

improved outcomes of core activities. However, each of these CQAHE

members singled out teaching as the area for greatest improvement,

consistent with the opinions of around half of the institutional

respondents. There were some small differences between institutional

types, with respondents at the 'traditional' universities more likely

to describe improved outcomes in general, and improved teaching in

particular, than the 'newer' universities. The following respondent

outlined his view of the improvements at Sydney.

With this university, the quality in teaching may have done some good.

Having taught quite a long time in North America, one of the classical

things that was always done there is the students were asked to comment

on the teaching at the end of the course. ... We did not have any such

organised program here before the quality program because the Academic

Board, in its own wisdom, said that was an intrusion upon their

precious privacy. But when the bad result for the first round came out

they did agree that they should have the surveys, so it was a big step

forward. (SU) {Yes - improved teaching}

By contrast, the following respondent reflects the resultant

frustration when quality ranking for teaching did not match her

perceptions of the teaching strength at a 'former college'.

Teaching was always important in the old Nepean (UWS). Our background

is different, we have come from that stronger emphasis on teaching. We,

unlike the sandstone ('traditional') universities had in place course

working parties that rigorously 'bashed you up' if you had crappy

programs and they just wouldn't let you put them on, so we were already

doing quality control, but it hasn't given us anything, has it, because

they still ranked the others higher. (UWS) {No}

Increasing competition between universities

When asked about the effect of the QA program on competition between

universities, the majority of institutional respondents believed that

competition had increased, as indicated in the table below.

Increased competition Number

Yes 20

No 4

Increased competition was also the predominant response for CQAHE (6 of

the 7 respondents) and as with institutional respondents, most saw the

effect of the QA program as augmenting an existing trend rather than

initiating the change. There was little difference between respondent

opinions at the three types of university.

The following quotes are typical of the predominant response that the

QA program increased competition, and that whilst competition can be

productive, an excess can operate against cooperation/collaboration

which would ultimately make more efficient and effective use of scarce

resources across the higher education sector. Each type of university

is represented.

QA has not detracted from it (competition) but did not start it rolling

either. It's good if it doesn't get out of hand. If it's not taken too

seriously, it can be productive, but you do need to share information

or otherwise how do you benchmark? You must have the trust of other

institutions. (SU) {Yes}

It's undoubtedly sharpened the competitive edge. ... Competition is

probably quite healthy but where it gets unhealthy is where

collaboration becomes impaired. ... I think we have no alternative but

to collaborate because as a nation we don't have the resources. (MU)

{Yes}

I think there should be far greater collaboration between universities.

I think competition is OK up to a point but there's only one market and

in competing somebody always loses and another one gains, whereas in

cooperation everybody can gain and we probably can rationalise our

resources a little.

(ECU) {Yes}

Redifferentiating the sector

Respondents were asked whether they believed that the QA program had

encouraged the return of a differentiated sector, resulting in a status

hierarchy of universities (such as the pre-1988 binary divide between

colleges and universities). A large majority of institutional level

respondents believed that greater differentiation between universities

in both status and resource allocation would flow on from the QA

program, as revealed in the following table.

Redifferentiation Number

Yes 21

No 3

CQAHE respondents were by contrast more reluctant to associate the QA

program with the return of a binary divide. Whilst over half (4 out of

7) acknowledged that Round One could have created that impression, only

one CQAHE member believed that Rounds Two and Three would also have

that effect. However, most CQAHE respondents indicated that they were

well aware of, and sensitive to, this criticism from the institutional

level and consequently they had worked hard to try to avoid accusations

of favouring 'traditional' universities. For example, the assessment

components for Round Three included research improvement in addition to

research management and outcomes, giving the 'newer' universities a

greater chance to score highly. Further, the presentation of Round

Three results in a matrix format rather than a single ladder created a

greater mix of institutions.

The following institutional respondent outlined her perception of the

rejigging of the differentiation between universities, summarising a

number of the points made by other institutional respondents, although

within a more positive framework than most. For example, she talks

about universities resorting themselves, whereas other respondents

(especially from 'newer' universities) talk about having certain status

ascribed to them by outside forces.

A lot of organisations needed to be kick started. The ones fighting in

a sea of ivy and sandstone needed somebody to say "you are going to

have to compete in this environment, you've got no choice". The

redbrick - middle of the road - universities like Macquarie, had always

been fighters and survivors to a certain extent. But suddenly they had

a whole lot of new people swimming around in the same pool (the 'former

colleges'). It (the QA program) has underlined the binary divide and

made it even more accentuated. But the 'big seven' has changed. It

might be the 'big seven plus six' or something. I think that has been a

good thing out of the process. The market isn't the same market we were

looking at five years ago. It's a much more competitive/aggressive

market. The market is probably dividing itself up nicely - binary is

probably not the right word - a whole lot of strata. They are shaking

themselves down and grading themselves. ... Finding your position is

very difficult for some universities. (MAC) {Yes}

Threatening autonomy and diversity

Despite the fact that the Minister's policy statement on quality in

1991 incorporated 'diversity' in the title (Higher Education: Quality

and Diversity in the 1990s), and despite also the continued insistence

by ministers and DEET that quality was not incompatible with either

autonomy or diversity (Department of Employment Education and Training,

1993), for many observers there was an increasing gap between the

rhetoric and the reality as the QA program continued. There was a

widespread belief that the end result of all universities trying to

'second guess' CQAHE's criteria and emulate 'best practices', as for

example those identified in CQAHE's Good Practice in Higher Education

(Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education, 1995) in order to

attract the greatest rewards would be convergence towards a single

model, which would in turn impact on the diversity across the sector.

When institutional respondents were asked whether they perceived that

the QA program had threatened either institutional autonomy or

diversity across the sector, there was no predominant response for

autonomy, but a majority believed that diversity was threatened. In the

table below, the relatively large number in the 'don't know' category

for autonomy reflects many respondent comments that the concept of

autonomy was a 'tricky one'.

Threatened Autonomy Diversity

Number Number

Yes 9 13

No 9 8

Don't know 6 3

By contrast, none of the 7 CQAHE respondents saw a threat to autonomy

and only 2 saw a threat to diversity.

In the subsequent quotes about autonomy, each type of institution is

represented.

It (the QA program) has demonstrated that the Government has a carrot.

A mule, if it wants to feed, has to go in the direction of the carrot.

So if that is loss of autonomy then yes it has been threatened. (SU)

{Yes - autonomy threatened}

The quality thing is just symptomatic of what's happening - that

progressively universities are more and more accountable to everybody

... but there is the potential to bring about political interference.

(ECU) {Yes - autonomy threatened}

Certainly autonomy has not been threatened. I think it just

strengthened people's autonomous position. Institutions should become

more aware of their strengths and operate more assertively with them.

(MAC) {No - autonomy not threatened}

In the subsequent quotes about diversity, all three types of

institution are represented.

I believe we have a real problem in the whole funding system in that

the use of very specific performance indicators at the system level

will incline the system to uniformity as people seek to maximise their

behaviour against these measures. In the long term it could drag

everybody along the same pathway, so I think there are threats to

diversity in the Unified National System and the QA program plays a

part in that.

(UWA) {Yes - diversity threatened}

The standard response we always get (from CQAHE) is that we are

assessing you against what you say about yourself. Now it's difficult

to know whether that's true or whether they do in fact have some model

in their mind about how universities really should be run. But I would

be very surprised if the University of Queensland's structure didn't

fit at least in the mind of one person as a significant way in which to

go about modelling universities. (MU)

{Yes - diversity threatened}

Note: The CQAHE Chair was the VC of The University of Queensland.

We found it very hard to get the message through that our diversity

should be recognised. That's what they said that they were trying to

encourage - diversity. Now our experience at the beginning was that

they really didn't like the diversity that we brought and wanted to

judge us against that, so it's a bit hard to say. (UWS) {Yes -

diversity threatened}

Thus, institutional level respondents were more critical about the

effects of the QA program on autonomy and diversity than CQAHE members.

The pattern of responses for both autonomy and diversity was quite

similar for 'traditional' and 'former college' universities, but

respondents at the 'alternative' universities were more likely to

express opposite views from those in other institutions. The majority

of respondents in 'alternative' universities did not believe that

either autonomy or diversity was threatened. It may be that these

institutions had, up to that point in time, been able to maintain much

of the distinctive character they had forged at their inception in the

1960s and 70s, although big changes were evident at Murdoch,

particularly, with a new VC appointed soon after these interviews.

One respondent noted the changing dynamics of autonomy and diversity

over the 1990s, suggesting that the QA program had contributed to a

decline in these dimensions, with its encouragement of benchmarking and

models of best practice. However, he also noted that as

redifferentiation was beginning to occur, the universities which were

not in the G-8 would not be seen in the same playing field. Therefore,

they would be free to find their own niche, resulting in increasing

institutional autonomy and diversity across the sector.

As we move to benchmarking and discipline models, there will be a

tendency for less diversity in the system. It raises an interesting

question - those institutions not financially able to compete have no

incentive to participate and they may as well try to do the things they

feel are appropriate to their local communities. That may well lead to

greater diversity. (MU)

{Yes then No - autonomy and diversity}

Summarising the interview

By way of summarising the interviews and also providing a 'check' on

the researcher's extraction of key issues from earlier questions,

respondents were asked for their opinion on the main strength and the

main weakness of the QA program.

In terms of strengths, the large majority of institutional respondents

identified the self reflection induced by the program as its major

strength, as it established a climate for continuous improvement.

However, the particular nature of the perceived improvements varied

across the six universities. Improved status for teaching was cited

most at 'traditional' universities, and improved documentation for

accountability purposes was cited most at 'alternative' universities.

The frequencies of response categories are presented in the table

below.

Strength Number

Self reflection 18

Improved teaching 2

Improved documents 2

Other 2

The following quotes reflect the predominant theme from all three types

of institution.

It forced institutions to look at themselves very very carefully and

see how they perform - identify weaknesses and try to improve. That has

been a very positive outcome. (UWA) {Self reflection}

We began to really look at what we actually do and began to try to

measure outcomes, and put in processes, so we could actually see if

we're improving. That's been valuable. (MU) {Self reflection}

We were already in a state of conflict when it was going on but people

did actually start to pull together and realised what Nepean was on

about. It fostered a sense of identity within the institution. (UWS)

{Self reflection}

Weaknesses identified at the institutional level were grouped into four

categories, with league table damage as the predominant response, as

shown in the table below.

Weakness Number

League table damage 9

Unclear criteria 7

Superficiality 4

Cost 4

Quotes have been chosen to represent the two major response categories

across the three types of institution.

The damage that it can do in the league tables. I think if it can't

find a way of avoiding that, then it really needs to weigh up the

damage done against the good that it has done. (SU) {League table

damage}

Grouping universities into league tables was bad. Lack of mobility from

year to year means that there wasn't much that universities at the

bottom could do to cross the great divide. This resulted in lack of

morale - being bottom of the heap. They didn't look ahead to see the

likely outcomes of the groupings. ... Next time a central agency asks

to conduct such an exercise, they won't respond.

(ECU) {League table damage}

Failure to establish clearly in the media or on the committee the

difference between investigation of processes or of 'quality'

(outcomes) within the university system. (MU) {Unclear criteria}

At each of the six universities, different combinations of strengths

and weaknesses of the QA program were identified. Whilst no clear

evidence emerged that respondents at certain types of institution

reacted in particular ways, the major themes to emerge from this

summary question overall were consistent with those revealed during

earlier interview questions, providing a measure of the internal

validity of the data.

CQAHE level respondents identified the same predominant strength and

weakness as the institutional respondents: self reflection and damage

from the league tables, respectively. However, weaknesses were usually

cited before the strengths and elaborated in more detail by

institutional respondents, whereas, CQAHE respondents tended to focus

more immediately and in greater depth on the strengths (unsurprisingly,

given their greater personal investment in the whole operation). There

was also a wider range of weaknesses identified at the institutional

level, along with the implication from many respondents that the

weaknesses outweighed the strengths. The opposite viewpoint (that the

strengths surpassed the weaknesses) was true for CQAHE respondents.

CONCLUDING DISCUSSION

The literature on globalisaton describes a dual effect of unification

or homogenisation on the one hand and localised plurality or

differentiation on the other (Hall, Held & McGrew, 1992; Sharp,

1994/95). Analysis of Australian higher education's quality policy for

the period 1991 to 1995 (part of the larger PhD study) reveals a

reasonably high degree of consistency between the Australian version of

quality and that in other OECD countries. First, the preconditions for

the initiation of quality policies in these other countries -

transition from elite to mass higher education at a time when public

expenditure was being constrained - were evident. Second, as with these

other countries, quality has been construed as accountability to

external interest groups, giving governments in particular an

unprecedented stake in higher education policy. Third, there were many

features in common with the general (global) model of quality presented

by Van Vught and Westerheijden (1994), featuring an emphasis on self

assessment and peer review. Fourth, Australian quality policy is an

example par excellence of the policy mechanism described by Kickert

(1991) and Ball (1994) as 'steering at a distance', where policy goals

(or ends) are specified by the centre but the processes (or means) used

to achieve these goals are devolved to local sites.

However, despite an overall parallel with the global patterns,

Australian higher education's quality policy also reveals some unique

features. Namely, the 'whole institutional' approach, performance

banding or ranking and the use of incentive funding did not feature

elsewhere. The Australian quality policy process (1991-95) was

specifically adapted to its own local context and in particular,

provided a much needed alternative strategy to the more direct

Government control using quantitative performance indicators as a basis

for funding which was proposed in the White Paper of 1988. Furthermore,

analysis has revealed that Australia's quality policy continued to be

negotiated, resisted, transformed and differentiated as it evolved

along multiple pathways throughout its life cycle. Using Ball's notion

of a continuous policy cycle which extends from the context of

influence to the context of policy text production to the context of

practice, the messy, complexities and contested realities become

apparent. As the process moved from the government minister, to the

government advisory body (HEC) to the ministerial committee (CQAHE) to

individual institutions, political compromises continued. Ultimately,

there were variations in the policy effects at different sites with

some offering greater transformation and/or resistance than others.

Thus, the localised plurality incorporated into models of globalisation

were evident in this quality policy example all the way down to the

level of institutions and individual academics.

The specific interview findings reported in this paper reveal that

there was no consensus within the institutional respondent group or the

CQAHE respondent group about the nature of the effects of the QA

program, although there was greater agreement on some issues than

others. CQAHE (intermediate level) respondents were in the greatest

agreement that changed decision making structures/processes, as well as

increased competition, were the major effects of the QA program. For

institutional (micro level) respondents, however, there was greatest

agreement that outcomes of core activities (especially teaching) had

improved; that the QA program had further differentiated the higher

education sector (towards a multi-strated hierarchy, if not a binary

divide); and that competition between universities had been heightened

by the QA program. Thus, it was only increased competition which was

cited by a clear majority of both CQAHE and institutional respondents

as a major effect of the QA program. Institutional respondents were

much more likely than CQAHE respondents to believe that the QA program

had threatened the autonomy of institutions and diversity across the

sector. CQAHE respondent opinions were more consistent with the

ministerial position that QA was not incompatible with either autonomy

or diversity.

The different historical context of each institution, grouped for

convenience into three categories (although not to imply homogeneity

within each category), appeared to make a difference to the way in

which the university experienced the effects of the QA program. Such

findings provide evidence of the messy realities of the policy process

and the considerable localised variation in response to what has not

only been a national policy but a global policy direction.

To conclude, I return to the different conceptions of quality outlined

in the introduction and refocus on the tensions between QA for

accountability to external stakeholders and QI for internal

improvements, as distinguished by Sachs (1994). The literature reveals

a growing push for a combination of these approaches to move the

quality agenda forward, and to provide a sound basis for maintaining

the important position of universities in society (Green, 1993; Sachs,

1994; Van Vught & Westerheijden, 1994). Although Australia's QA program

between 1993 and 1995 exhibited some traits of QI according to Sach's

definitions (especially the use of qualitative judgements by peers),

the conclusion here is that it was still heavily weighted towards

accountability rather than improvement. There is a need to tip the

balance further in favour of QI, driven from within universities by

academics whose professionalism and autonomy is respected. In theory,

the policy mechanism of 'steering at a distance' should allow quality

to evolve in different ways which reflect the different contexts at

different institutional sites.

The new Conservative Coalition Government elected in 1996 dismantled

the Labor Government quality processes (1991-95) described in this

paper. However, it is interesting to see that the notion of quality was

retained in the 1996 Budget Statement (Vanstone, 1996) and that the

rhetoric of internally-oriented QI was emphasised even though the HEC,

which was to conduct the process, came up with a long and prescriptive

list of performance indicators against which quality would be assessed.

Is the notion of 'quality' still sufficiently useful to the policy

making elite as an apparently less interventionist means of achieving

accountability than quantitative performance indicators, or is

'quality' approaching its 'use by' date? Inevitably more of the 'messy

realities' of the Coalition quality policy process will emerge as it is

recontextualised at the various levels of practice.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ball, S. J. (1990). Politics and policy making in education. London:

Routledge.

Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: a critical and post-structural

approach. Buckingham and

Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Ball, S. J., & Shilling, C. (1994). At the cross-roads: education

policy studies. British Journal of

Educational Studies, XXXXII(2), 1-5.

Bartos, M. (1990). The academic freedom charter experience. Australian

Universities' Review,

33(1/2), 23-37.

Becher, T. (1994). Quality assurance and disciplinary differences. The

Australian Universities

Review, 37(1), 4-7.

Beilharz, P. (1994). Sociology strikes back: the impact of economic

rationalism in Canberra.

Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 29(3), 369-373.

Bessant, B. (1995). Corporate management and its penetration of the

university administration

and government. Australian Universities' Review, 38(1), 59-62.

Birch, I., & Smart, D. (1989). Economic rationalism and the politics of

education in Australia.

Politics of Education Association Yearbook, 137-151.

Bowe, R., Ball, S. J., & Gold, A. (1992). Reforming education and

changing schools. London:

Routledge.

Brennan, J., Williams, R., Harris, R., & McNamara, D. (1997). An

institutional approach to

quality audit. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 173-186.

Burchell, D. (1994). The curious career of economic rationalism:

government and economy in the

current policy debate. Australian and New Zealand Journal of

Sociology, 30(3), 322-333.

Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. (1995). Good

Practice in Higher

Education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Cuttance, P. (1994). Quality assurance in restructured school systems.

In F. Crowther, B.

Caldwell, J. Chapman, G. Lakomski, & D. Ogilvie (Eds.), The

workplace in education:

Australian perspective, (pp. 92-110). Sydney: Edward Arnold: a

division of Hodder

Headline.

Dale, R. (1989). The state and education policy. Milton Keynes, UK:

Open University Press.

Department of Employment Education and Training. (1993). National

report on Australia's

higher education sector. Canberra: Australian Government

Publishing Service.

Dudley, J., & Vidovich, L. (1995). The politics of education:

Commonwealth schools policy

1973-1995. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Elliott, B., & MacLennan, D. (1994). Education, modernity and

neo-conservative school reform

in Canada, Britain and the US. British Journal of Sociology of

Education, 15(2), 165-185.

Freeland, J. (1991). Quality of what and quality for whom? In J.

Chapman, L. Angus, & G. Burke

(Eds.), Improving the quality of Australian schools, (pp. 60-82).

Hawthorn, Victoria:

Australian Council for Educational Reserach.

Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., & de Weert, E. (1994).

Higher education policy in

international perspective: An overview. In L. Goedegebuure, F.

Kaiser, P. Maassen, L. Meek,

F. Van Vught, & E. de Weert (Eds.), Higher education policy: An

international comparative

perspective, (pp. 1-12). Oxford and New York: Pergamon Press.

Goedegebuure, L., Kaiser, F., Maassen, P., Meek, L., Van Vught, F., &

de Weert, E. (1994).

International perspectives on trends and issues in higher

education policy. In L.

Goedegebuure, F. Kaiser, P. Maassen, L. Meek, F. Van Vught, & E.

de Weert (Eds.), Higher

education policy: An international comparative perspective, (pp.

315-348). Oxford and New

York: Pergamon Press.

Green, D. (1993). Trends and issues. In A. Craft (Ed.), International

developments in assuring

quality in higher education., (pp. 168-177). London: The Falmer

Press.

Hall, S., Held, D., & McGrew, T. (1992). Modernity and its futures.

Cambridge: Polity Press in

association with The Open University.

Harman, G., & Meek, V. L. (Eds.). (1988). Australian higher education

reconstructed?

Armidale: University of New England, Department of Administrative

and Higher Education

Studies.

Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher

Education, 18(1), 9-34.

Hatcher, R., & Troyna, B. (1994). The 'policy cycle': a Ball by Ball

account. Journal of Education

Policy, 9(2), 155-170.

Karmel, P. (1990). Reflections on a revolution: Australian higher

education in 1989. In I. Moses

(Ed.), Higher education in the late twentieth century, (pp.

24-47). St Lucia: University of

Queensland.

Kickert, W. J. M. (1991). Steering at a distance: a new paradigm of

public governance in

Dutch higher education. Paper presented at the European Consortium

for Political Research,

University of Essex.

Knight, J. (1994). Steering at what distance? The political economy of

equity, diversity and

quality in the August 1993 higher education budget statement.

Australian Universities'

Review, 37(2).

Knight, J., & Wary, M. (1996). From corporate to supply-side

federalism? Narrowing the

Australian education policy agenda. 1987-1996. Paper presented at

the The Australian

Association for Research in Education Conference, Singapore.

L'Ecuyer, J., & Lenn, M. P. (1993). Quality assurance in a changing

world. In A. Craft (Ed.),

International developments in assuring quality in higher

education., (pp. 178-182). London:

The Falmer Press.

Lawton, S. (1992). Why restructure?: an international survey of the

roots of reform. Journal of

Education Policy, 7(2), 139-154.

Lenn, M. P. (1993). International linkages and quality assurance: a

shifting paradigm. In A.

Craft (Ed.), International developments in assuring quality in

higher education., (pp. 127-

133). London: The Falmer Press.

Lingard, B. (1993). Corporate federalism: the emerging approach to

policy-making for

Australian schools. In B. Lingard, J. Knight, & P. Porter (Eds.),

Schooling reform in hard

times, (pp. 24-35). London: The Falmer Press.

Lingard, R., Knight, J., & Porter, P. (Eds.). (1993). Schooling reform

in hard times. London:

Falmer Press.

Linke, R. (1991). Performance Indicators in Higher Education. Canberra:

Australian Government

Publishing Service.

Marginson, S. (1993). Education and public policy in Australia.

Melbourne: Cambridge

University Press

Neave, G. (1991). On preparing for the market: higher education in

Western Europe - changes in system management. Higher Education Policy,

4(3), 20-25.

Neave, G., & Van Vught, F. A. (1991). Conclusion. In G. Neave & F. A.

Van Vught (Eds.),

Prometheus bound: the changing relationship between government and

higher education in

Western Europe, (pp. 239-255). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Neumann, R. (1994). Valuing quality teaching through recognition of

context specific skills.

Australian Universities' Review, 37(1), 8-13.

Ozga, J. (1990). Policy research and policy theory: a comment on Fitz

and Halpin. Journal of

Education Policy, 5(4), 359-362.

Painter, M. (1996). Economic policy, market liberalism and the 'end of

Australian politics'.

Austalian Journal of Political Science, 31(3), 287-299.

Porter, P. (1993). Discourse on educational research and policy

development. Discourse, 13(2),

55-66.

Porter, P., Lingard, B., & Knight, J. (1994). Changing administration

and administering change:

an analysis ofthe state of Australian education. In F. Crowther,

B. Caldwell, J. Chapman, G.

Lakomski, & D. Ogilvie (Eds.), The workplace in education:

Australian perspective, (pp.

218-228). Sydney: Edward Arnold: a division of Hodder Headline.

Pritchard, R. M. O. (1994). Government power in British higher

education. Studies in Higher

Education, 19(3), 253-265.

Sachs, J. (1991). In the national interest? strategic coalitions

between education and industry.

Australian Journal of Education, 35(2), 125-130.

Sachs, J. (1994). Strange yet compatible bedfellows: Quality assurance

and quality

improvement. Australian Universities' Review, 37(1), 22-25.

Seddon, T. (1994). Reconstructing social democratic education in

Australia: versions of

vocationalism. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(1), 63-82.

Sedunary, E. (1996). 'Neither new nor alien to progressive thinking':

interpreting the

convergence of radical education and the new vocationalism in

Australia. Journal of

Curriculum Studies, 28(4), 369-396.

Sharp, G. (1994/95). At the centre of globalization. Arena, 4, 1 - 3.

Van Vught, F., & Westerheijden, D. (1994). Towards a general model of

quality assessment in

higher education. Higher Education, 28, 355-371.

Vanstone, A. (1996). Higher Education Budget Statement .

White, C., & Crump, S. (1993). Education and the three 'p's: policy,

politics and practice.

A review of the work of S. J. Ball. British Journal of Sociology

and Education, 14(4), 415-429.