DOCSLIB.ORG

The Accountability of Higher Education Institutional Leaders

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Accountability of Higher Education Institutional Leaders The accountability of Higher Education Institutional Leaders Steven Quigley Doctor in Education programme (Ed.D) University College London 1 Abstract This thesis addresses the research question ‘What are the accountability responsibilities and obligations for higher education institutional leaders? In this process, three tensions were identified for those leaders: first, the balancing of accountability responsibilities and obligations in the decision-making process; second, how stakeholders affect the balance between obligations and responsibilities; and third, how decisions based upon the balance between obligations and responsibilities have been affected by different stakeholders which then affect the stakeholders in turn. It was argued from evidence provided by twelve institutional leaders from eight institutions that policy changes affecting institutional funding and financial maintenance can lead institutional leaders, in response to both policy drivers and their accountability, to take institutional action through their agency that can lead to challenges to the academic identity of the staff working in their institutions. A theoretical framework drawing upon theories related to structure and agency was used as a lens to understand responses to questions relating to managerialism, new managerialism, new public management, accountability and academic identity. Halstead’s models of Accountability were used to analyse several reasons for accountability that were identified through this research. Those reasons for accountability were identified as being mostly legal, professional and moral, with both internal and external social dimensions. A typology of higher education institutional leaders was developed so as to better understand the relationship between leaders and their stakeholders. The two key findings were: the accountability of institutional leaders over time contributes to the construction and reconstruction of the academic identity of their academic staff; and how the accountability of institutional leaders is manifested 2 and how that accountability affects the academic identity of their staff is dependent upon the political, institutional and personal contexts of those institutional leaders. 3 Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... 2 Reflective statement ................................................................................................................ 8 Chapter 1 Introduction and layout of thesis .......................................................................... 15 Chapter Overview .............................................................................................................. 17 Chapter 2 Context of Accountability and Identity in the 21st Century: a Review of the Literature ............................................................................................................................... 19 Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 19 Policy context .................................................................................................................... 20 Literature Review ............................................................................................................. 28 Managerialism, New Managerialism and New Public Management ................................. 28 Neo-institutionalism/archetype theory ......................................................................... 31 Accountability ................................................................................................................... 34 Models of Accountability ............................................................................................... 40 Managerialism and Accountability ................................................................................ 42 Identity .............................................................................................................................. 44 Chapter 3 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................... 53 Structuration Theory ....................................................................................................... 53 Giddens and Bourdieu ................................................................................................... 56 A key issue for Giddens and Bourdieu ........................................................................... 58 Further considerations ................................................................................................... 58 Chapter 4 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 60 Ontological Standpoint .................................................................................................. 60 Epistemological Standpoint ........................................................................................... 60 Method .......................................................................................................................... 62 Design of the study including methods of data collection and analysis ........................ 62 Sample and Interviews ................................................................................................... 64 Research aims, research questions and the interview schedule ................................... 70 General Critique ............................................................................................................. 70 Collecting and Analysing the Data ................................................................................. 71 Models of Accountability ................................................................................................. 74 Why use the models? ..................................................................................................... 75 4 Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 76 Chapter Summary .......................................................................................................... 77 Chapter 5 Policy ..................................................................................................................... 78 Policy and governance in the period leading up to the interviews ............................... 78 Changes as a result of policy affecting institutional life ................................................ 80 Evaluation of changes that have affected institutional life – philosophically and in practice .......................................................................................................................... 84 How have those changes played out in practice?.......................................................... 87 Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 90 Chapter 6 Institutional leaders: the value of accountability and practice............................. 93 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 102 Chapter 7 Institutional leaders: accountability relations, identity and work ...................... 104 Accountability and academic profiles .......................................................................... 115 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 126 Chapter 8 Accountability: responsibilities, obligations and implications ............................ 130 Discussion ..................................................................................................................... 137 Identity ......................................................................................................................... 140 Potential Challenges to Academic Identity .................................................................. 142 Drawing it all together ................................................................................................. 144 Chapter 9 Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 155 Implications emerging from the findings (fourth aim of the research) ..................... 156 Relevance, originality and application of the findings ................................................ 157 Chapter 10 Bibliography ...................................................................................................... 159 Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 167 Appendix A – Example Data analysis matrix 1 ................................................................. 168 Appendix A – Example Data analysis matrix 2 ................................................................. 169 Appendix B - Research Consent Letter ............................................................................ 170 Appendix C – Institutional Case Studies........................................................................... 171 Appendix D - Research Questions: ................................................................................... 187 Appendix E – Theory and Research
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2020 Generating Philanthropic Support for Higher Education
    CASE-Ross Support of Education: United Kingdom and Ireland 2020 Generating Philanthropic Support for Higher Education Findings from data collected for 2016–17, 2017–18 and 2018–19 © 2020 Council for Advancement and Support of Education Original publication date: 13 May 2020 All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright may be reproduced or used in any form, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the Council for Advancement and Support of Education. Limit of Liability/Disclaimer: While the publisher has used its best efforts in preparing this document, it makes no representations or warranties in respect to the accuracy or completeness of its contents. No liability or responsibility of any kind (to extent permitted by law), including responsibility for negligence is accepted by the Council for Advancement and Support of Education, its servants, or agents. All information gathered is believed correct at publication date. Neither the publisher nor the author is engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. CASE-ROSS EDITORIAL BOARD The Editorial Board members helped manage the project by contributing their time and expertise at each stage of developing this report. They were involved with survey review, script creation, survey promotion, data collection, data verification,
    [Show full text]
  • A CRITICAL PATH Securing the Future of Higher Education in England
    A CRITICAL PATH Securing the Future of Higher Education in England IPPR Commission on the Future of Higher Education 2013 1 IPPR RESEARCH STAFF Nick Pearce is director of IPPR. Rick Muir is associate director for public service reform at IPPR. Jonathan Clifton is a senior research fellow at IPPR. Annika Olsen is a researcher at IPPR. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Commissioners would like to thank Nick Pearce, Rick Muir, Jonathan Clifton and Annika Olsen for their help with researching and writing this report, and London Economics for modelling the higher education funding system. They would also like to thank those organisations and individuals who submitted evidence or agreed to be interviewed as part of this project. In particular, they would like to thank the staff and students who facilitated their learning visits to higher education institutions in Sheffield and Newcastle. They would also like to thank Jon Wilson, along with all those who organised and participated in the joint seminar series with King’s College London, and Marc Stears for his guidance in the early stages of the project. ABOUT IPPR IPPR, the Institute for Public Policy Research, is the UK’s leading progressive thinktank. We are an independent charitable organisation with more than 40 staff members, paid interns and visiting fellows. Our main office is in London, with IPPR North, IPPR’s dedicated thinktank for the North of England, operating out of offices in Newcastle and Manchester. The purpose of our work is to assist all those who want to create a society where every citizen lives a decent and fulfilled life, in reciprocal relationships with the people they care about.
    [Show full text]
  • Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation: The
    KNOWLEDGE EXCHANGE AND COMMERCIALISATION: THE STATE OF THE PROFESSION IN UK HIGHER EDUCATION Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation: The State of the Profession in Higher Education “Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation: The state of the profession in UK Higher Education” This report was commissioned by PraxisUnico Contact: [email protected] Authors: Rob Johnson and Mattia Fosci www.researchconsulting.co.uk Contact: [email protected] Report dated: February 2016 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 2 CONTENTS Foreword 5 Executive summary 7 Background and methodology 9 The KEC profession in UK higher education 11 The work of KEC professionals 19 Profiling KEC professionals 25 Improving the effectiveness of the KEC profession 31 Key trends and challenges 37 Appendix 1 43 Appendix 2 44 Appendix 3 46 3 Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation: The State of the Profession in Higher Education 4 FOREWORD The focus on taking research knowledge into commercial products and services, policy and social interventions is intense. PraxisUnico has represented professionals working at the interface between researchers and external organisations for almost 15 yearsI. During that time we have seen the work of such intermediaries become increasingly recognised and respected. The UK is ranked 4th in the world for university- industry collaboration in R&DII. The government’s ambition is that universities should ‘continue to increase their collaboration with industry to drive At a time of growth research commercialisation’ and increase the ” in the economy income they earn from working with business III and others to £5 billion by 2025 .
    [Show full text]
  • Guildhe Submission to the Independent Review of Funding and Student Finance
    GuildHE submission to the Independent Review of Funding and Student Finance Led by Lord Browne of Madingley Response to First call for evidence GuildHE seeks a sustainable, diverse and dynamic higher education sector ¾ That delivers a well-educated and socially inclusive nation ¾ That enhances the UK’s economic competitiveness ¾ That fosters cultural engagement and knowledge creation ¾ That promotes global understanding and mutual exchange GuildHE Submission to the Through their success at being strong, adaptable and Independent Review of Funding clear sighted, they will be able to continue to add value and Student Finance to the HE ecology as very many have done in the past two centuries. They have historically been active in their concern both for the neglected and the innovative and play a crucial part in responding to the educational challenges in higher education environments. GuildHE members seek to be thoughtfully pragmatic while actively aspiring and planning for the kind of provision we believe UK higher education should achieve – both for the nation itself and as a world class educational provider. We also recognise that within the Review Panel are those highly versed in the detail of Higher Education Introduction from GuildHE Chair and colleagues for whom much will be new territory. Our material is perhaps explaining the obvious for and Chief Executive Officer those in the know but we hope useful for those who know less about issues affecting this part of the HE Dear Lord Browne, sector and its place in the interlocking pattern of the UK academic and professional community. GuildHE, one of the two formal representative bodies for higher education, is pleased to offer you a contribution to your first call for evidence in for the Professor Ruth Farwell, Chair GuildHE Independent Review of Funding and Student Finance that you are leading for Department of Business Miss Alice Hynes, CEO GuildHE Innovation and Skills (DBIS).
    [Show full text]
  • Purpose of Membership
    Association of Managers in Higher Education: Purpose and Principles of Membership THE ASSOCIATION Mission Statement: ‘Promote and encourage outstanding management practice in the Higher Education sector by facilitating cross-disciplinary dialogue and the sharing of expert and professional knowledge’ 1. What is AMHEC? Formed in 1960, AMHEC is a network of managers from the Higher Education sector covering all disciplines that brings together a broad wealth of expertise and experience from across the UK. 2. What are its aims? The Association aims to encourage and support the exchange of information and knowledge about our business and developments in the sector; provide a forum for debate about how we can improve our strategic focus, working practices and services; and offer opportunities to network with sector colleagues. By bringing together a wide range of expertise, we are able to collectively consider the actions HE leaders and managers need to take to respond to the complex and fast-changing world of an expanding sector to ensure we can offer comprehensive, current and competitive provision. 3. What does the Association offer? AMHEC holds an annual conference around Easter which focuses on topics of current interest and includes speakers and delegates from sector organisations such as HEFCE, TDA and UCEA, as well as experts and professionals from outside higher education. We also hold a workshop in October, publish a regular Newsletter and facilitate a series of benchmarking workshops. There is a mail base to enable and encourage networking between members, which is used regularly by members seeking benchmarking information or guidance on particular projects or issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Research and Innovation Briefing
    Research and Innovation Briefing Introduction Celebrating the diversity of Research and innovation are the beating heart of higher education. They the higher education sector ensure the generation of new knowledge on which the UK’s international reputation for excellence rests. Continuous creation and dissemination of this knowledge, as well as the high-level skills that research engenders in Briefing 3: Research and academics, students and public and private sector collaborators, also Innovation underpins current – and future – economic growth. This is a new series of monthly This is the third in a series of briefings highlighting the contribution of a range of institutions that are often not featured in the national spotlight – briefings produced by GuildHE from the highly specialised subject-specific institutions, to smaller looking at different aspects of a institutions with just a few thousand students to larger institutions with a diverse higher education sector. particular focus, whether delivering part-time courses or celebrating their religious roots. February 2015 This briefing focuses on research and innovation in these institutions and the impact this has on society, culture and the economy in the UK and Briefing 2: World-Class beyond. Infrastructure 1. Environment small, specialist and locally facing higher Briefing 1: Student Experience and Engagement The creation of new knowledge that education institutions (HEIs) embedded combines excellence with impact is “the in international research and innovation life-blood of economic growth and societal systems can increase and sustain their 1. Research Councils UK, progress”1. contributions to regional and sectorial http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/RCUK- economic growth. prod/assets/documents/RCUKStra There are centres of excellent research tegicVision.pdf The project demonstrated how these operating within and across all universities 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Higher Education Institutions
    Published on Eurydice (https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice) Autonomous and diverse institutions Universities and other directly funded higher education institutions (HEIs) [1] are autonomous, independent organisations, with their own legal identities and powers, both academic and managerial. Although they are dependent on government funding, they are not owned or managed by the state. They are government-dependent private institutions. Higher education is also provided by government-independent private institutions, termed ‘alternative providers’. The growth in alternative providers began as a result of government policy aspirations to meet the increased and differentiated demand for higher education, as first expressed in the June 2011 White Paper, Higher Education: Students at the Heart of the System [2]. Subsequent policy statements, such as Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice [3] (2016), also aimed at enabling new high quality institutions to enter the sector more easily and gain the right to make recognised higher education awards. Higher education institutions (HEIs) vary in size, history, mission and subject mix. This diversity reflects the long development of the sector since the medieval period. Historically, the higher education sector in the UK was divided between universities, which offered more traditional academic courses, and polytechnics, which originally focused on providing vocational and professional higher education. The number of universities expanded in the 1960s following the Robbins Report [4] of 1963, which introduced the principle that courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • How UK Higher Education Providers Managed the Shift to Digital Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic Contents
    Supporting resource How UK Higher Education Providers Managed the Shift to Digital Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic Contents How UK higher education providers managed the shift to digital delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic ..................................................................................................... 1 About this report ................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction: Responding to the challenge ....................................................................... 2 The second phase ............................................................................................................... 3 Summary of findings .......................................................................................................... 4 Next steps for providers to consider ................................................................................. 5 Section 1: Transition in 2019-20......................................................................................... 6 Strategic and operational planning .................................................................................... 6 The involvement of students' unions and student representatives in COVID-19 planning .. 6 Academic planning in 2019-20 and its outcomes ............................................................... 7 Section 2: Preparing for 2020-21 ........................................................................................ 9 Academic planning for 2020-21
    [Show full text]
  • Prior Learning of Undergraduates in UK Higher Education Institutions
    Prior learning of undergraduates in UK higher education institutions Carmen Vidal Rodeiro Tom Sutch Nadir Zanini Cambridge Assessment Research Report 20th June 2013 Author contact details: ARD Research Division Cambridge Assessment 1 Regent Street Cambridge CB2 1GG [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/ Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate, a department of the University of Cambridge. Cambridge Assessment is a not-for-profit organisation. How to cite this publication: Vidal Rodeiro, C.L., Sutch, T. and Zanini, N. (2013). Prior learning of undergraduates in UK higher education institutions. Cambridge Assessment Research Report. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Assessment. 2 Contents Executive Summary ….…………….................…………….……………………………………………... 4 1. Introduction ……………………….................…………….……………………………………………... 8 2. Data and methods ….....…………………………………………………………………………………. 12 2.1 Data ...…..………………………………….................…………….………………………………... 12 2.2 Methodology …………………….………………….................…………….………………………. 15 3. Results: Progression to HE from different educational pathways …….…………………………… 18 3.1 University accepted applicants and their characteristics ………...............…………….……….. 18 3.2 Popularity of mainstream qualifications ….….………………….................…………….………. 24 3.3 Distribution of mainstream prior qualifications, and combinations of those, over HE institutions and
    [Show full text]
  • Guildhe Response To: APPG for International Students Inquiry
    GuildHE response to: APPG for International Students Inquiry - A sustainable future for international students in the UK? August 2018 About GuildHE 1. GuildHE is an officially recognised representative body for UK Higher Education. Our members include universities, university colleges, ​ further education colleges and specialist institutions from both the traditional and private (“for profit” and “not for profit”) sectors. Member institutions include some major providers in professional subject areas including art, design and media, music and the performing arts; agriculture and food; education; maritime; health and sports. 2. The United Kingdom Arts and Design Institutions Association (ukadia), a sub-association of GuildHE, is a group of specialist arts and ​ ​ design institutions from across the UK’s higher and further education sectors. We aim to promote, nationally and internationally, the key contributions of specialist colleges to the UK’s world-renowned reputation in visual arts, performance and the creative and cultural industries. 3. The Consortium for Research Excellence, Support and Training (CREST), a sub-association of GuildHE, exists for institutions that have ​ ​ achieved high levels, or aspire to achieve high levels, of research excellence concentrated in smaller communities of research practice. It is the only non-geographic collaborative research network based within the UK. Note This document draws on GuildHE’s response to the Migration Advisory Committee Consultation on International Students, originally submitted in ​ ​ January 2018. We believe that much of that response has relevance to this Inquiry. We have however adapted our response to these questions, and where possible, used the most up-to-date data available. GuildHE, Woburn House, 20 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9HB Tel: 020 3393 6132, email: [email protected] ​ Charity Number: 1012218 GuildHE is an officially recognised representative body for UK Higher Education.
    [Show full text]
  • Research & Knowledge Exchange Annual Report 2019
    BOARD OF GOVERNORS 2020/21 M2 Board of Governors Thursday, 19 November 2020 19 November 2020 Agenda item 15 Research and Knowledge Exchange Annual Report 2019-20 Action For Approval History Research and Knowledge Exchange Committee 28/10/20 SMT 3/11/20 Author, job title Professor Michelle Jones, Deputy Vice-Chancellor Date October 2020 Document Type Report Status Public Document Executive This is a summary report for 2019-20 academic year of research and Summary knowledge exchange activity aligned to the Marjon Growth Plan. A statement of research integrity which is a requirement of the concordat to support research integrity is incorporated within the report. Key research and knowledge exchange priorities for 2020-21 are summarised. Key Terms and links: • HEBCI Higher education and business community interaction survey • KEF Knowledge Exchange Framework • PGR Post-graduate research students covering FHEQ Level 8 and research masters' degrees at Level 7 of the FHEQ • RDAP Research degree awarding powers • REF Research Excellence Framework • Researcher Development Concordat • UKRIO UK Research Integrity Office • UUK concordat to support research integrity Annual Report 19-20 for website 1 BOARD OF GOVERNORS 2020/21 M2 Board of Governors Thursday, 19 November 2020 19 November 2020 Agenda item 15 1. Overview Despite the interruption of a pandemic 2019-20 was a year of significant progress for research and knowledge exchange at Marjon. We embedded the new governance arrangements (section 2) and launched an ambitious new research and knowledge exchange strategy aligned to our values (section 3). Our preparations for submission to REF2021 intensified, despite a Covid-19 related pause, and demonstrate areas of established research excellence (section 4).
    [Show full text]
  • The Gender Wage Gap Among University Vice Chancellors in the UK
    DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 14110 The Gender Wage Gap Among University Vice Chancellors in the UK Ray Bachan Alex Bryson FEBRUARY 2021 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 14110 The Gender Wage Gap Among University Vice Chancellors in the UK Ray Bachan University of Brighton Alex Bryson University College London and IZA FEBRUARY 2021 Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world’s largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. ISSN: 2365-9793 IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5–9 Phone: +49-228-3894-0 53113 Bonn, Germany Email: [email protected] www.iza.org IZA DP No. 14110 FEBRUARY 2021 ABSTRACT The Gender Wage Gap Among University Vice Chancellors in the UK* The gender wage gap has closed gradually in the United Kingdom, as in other countries, but convergence is slower among top earners.
    [Show full text]