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.