ben jongbloed, hans vossensteyn, paper prepared for the · ben jongbloed, hans vossensteyn, frans...
TRANSCRIPT
Transparency in higher education
The emergence of a new perspective on higher
education governance
Ben Jongbloed, Hans Vossensteyn, Frans van Vught & Don F. Westerheijden
Paper prepared for the Bologna Process Researchers’ Conference
‘Future of Higher Education’ Bucharest, 27–29 November 2017
Faculty of Behavioural,
Management and Social Sciences
University of Twente
P.O. Box 217
7500 AE Enschede
The Netherlands
Draft3_B.Jongbloedetal.docx|2017-11-08
TransparencyinhighereducationTheemergenceofanewperspectiveonhighereducationgovernance
BenJongbloed,HansVossensteyn,FransvanVught&DonF.Westerheijden
CenterforHigherEducationPolicyStudies(CHEPS),UniversityofTwente,
TheNetherlands1
AbstractReliableinformationandtransparencyonthebenefitsthathighereducation
institutionsoffertheirstudents,fundersandcommunitiesiskeyfortheirlegitimacy,
theirfundingandtheircompetitiveness.Worldwide,relationshipsbetween
governmentalauthoritiesandhighereducationinstitutionsarechanging,particularly
becauseoftheincreaseddemandsfortransparencyaboutoutcomesandimpactsof
highereducation.
Inourcontribution,wediscussthreehighereducation‘transparencytools’:
accreditation,rankingsand—briefly—performancecontracts.Wepresentsomerecent
developmentsregardingthesetoolsinthebroadercontextofgovernanceandpolicy
makingandanalysehowtheyaimtoaddressthegrowingneedformoretransparency.
Thetransparencytoolsarepartofarecentlyemerginggovernanceparadigminhigher
education,networkedgovernance;aparadigmthatexplicitlyacknowledgesthediverse
informationneedsofawidevarietyofhighereducationstakeholdergroups.
1 IntroductionAnewperspectiveonthegovernanceofhighereducationsystemsisemerging.
Worldwide,relationshipsbetweengovernmentalauthoritiesandhighereducation
institutionsarechanging,particularlybecauseoftheincreasingimportanceof
informationaboutthelearningoutcomesandtheresearchimpactsproducedinhigher
education.Reliableinformationonthebenefitsthatthevarioushighereducation
institutions(andtheirsubunits)offertotheirstudents,fundersandsocietyingeneralis
keyfortheirlegitimacy,theirfundingandtheircompetitiveness.Transparencyabout
1Correspondingauthor:DonF.Westerheijden,[email protected]
2
thesebenefitsisanimportantingredientinthegovernanceframeworkinhigher
education,becauseitcontributestothequalityofdecision-makingandaccountability.In
turn,accountabilityisexpectedtoleadto(re-)establishmentof‘guardedtrust’inhigher
educationamongsocietalstakeholders(Kohler,2009).However,informationneedsa
succinctyethonestpresentation,otherwiseitleadstoinformationoverload,especially
forstakeholderswhoarenothighereducationexperts.Designinginstrumentsthatfulfil
theserequirementsisnotasinecure.
Thereareseveralreasonsforthegrowingneedforinformation.First,financial
contributionsmadebystudents,taxpayersandotherstohighereducationarerising.
Second,theincreasingnumberandvarietyoftheprovidersofhighereducationandthe
(degreeandnon-degree)programmestheyoffer:publicandprivate(not-for-profitand
for-profit),traditionalhighereducationinstitutionsandnew(e.g.online)providers,
nationalandinternationalofferings.Thegrowingvarietymakesitincreasinglydifficult
for(prospective)studentstodecideaboutwhereandwhattostudy.Likewise,
governmentswishtobeassuredthathighereducationprovidersintheirjurisdiction
continuetodeliverthequalityeducationandresearchservicesthatareneededforits
labourmarket,itsbusinesses,itscommunities,andsoon.Third,today’snetworksociety
isincreasinglycharacterizedbymassindividualization,meaningthatahighereducation
institution’sclients(inparticular,itsstudents)demandservicesthatarecustomizedto
theirneeds,plansandabilities.Clientsthereforeconstantlyseektoassessandevaluate
thespecificsoftheservicesoffered,searchingforthoseproductsandprovidersthatbest
meettheirspecificneeds.
Theresultisincreasingdemandfortransparency.Fromthesideofstudents,public
authoritiesandgeneralpublic,theneedfortoolsthatallowbetterandbroaderuseof
informationregardingtheservicesandperformancesofhighereducationinstitutionsis
growing.Enhancingthetransparencyoftheactivitiesandoutcomesofhighereducation
institutionsisbecomingacentralobjectiveinrethinkinggovernanceinhigher
education.
Sincethreedecades,severaltoolshavebeen(re-)designedtoincreasetransparency
aboutqualityandrelevanceofhighereducationacrossitsmissions:education,research,
knowledgetransferandcommunityengagement.Some(e.g.accreditation)arepolicy
toolsputinplacebypublicauthorities,othersoriginatefromprivateinitiatives(e.g.
rankingsproducedbymediaorganisations).TheEuropeanUnion,too,supportshigher
3
educationreformthroughanalysisand‘evidencetools’or‘transparencytools’
(EuropeanCommission2011;2017).Inthischapter,wediscussthreehighereducation
transparencytools:accreditation,rankingsandperformancecontracts.Wepresent
thesetoolsinthebroadercontextofhighereducationgovernanceandpolicymaking,
andweanalysehowtheyarereshapedtoaddressthegrowingneedformore
transparencyinhighereducation.
2 InformationasymmetryThebasictheoreticalnotionunderlyingtheincreasinginterestintransparencyin
highereducationstemsfroman(economic)understandingofhighereducationasan
experiencegood.Anexperiencegoodisagoodorserviceofwhichthequalitycanonlybe
judgedafterconsumingit.Thiscontraststothetextbookcaseof‘searchgoods’,whose
qualitycanbejudgedbyconsumersinadvance.Experiencegoodsaretypically
purchasedbaseduponreputationandrecommendation,sincephysicalexaminationof
thegoodisoflittleuseinevaluatingitsquality.Itmightevenbearguedthathigher
educationisacredencegood:aproduct,suchasdoctors’consultsandvitamins,whose
utilityconsumersdonotknowevenafterconsumption(Bonroy&Constantatos,2008;
Dulleck&Kerschbamer,2006).Thevalueofcredencegoodsislargelyamatteroftrust.
Moreover,the‘production’ofhighereducationtakesplaceintheinteractionbetween
teacher(ore.g.anonlinelearningplatform)andlearnerorstudent.Whetherstudents
aftergraduationreallyknowhowgoodteachinghasbeeninenhancingtheirknowledge,
skillsandothercompetenciesissubjecttodebate.Anyhow,wemaysafelyassumethat
highereducationclientscannotknowitsqualityinadvance(VanVughtand
Westerheijden,2012).Highereducationbeinganexperienceorcredencegood
underpinstheimportanceoftrust.
Lookingatitfromtheperspectiveoftheprovider,academics(asteachers)may
arguethattheyknowbetterthananyotherstakeholderwhatittakestodeliverhigh-
qualityhighereducation;andsurely,theyhaveacase.Atthesametime,thisview
implicitlyperpetuates–andjustifies–informationasymmetrybetweenclientand
provider.Accordingtoprincipal–agenttheory,informationasymmetrymighttempt
academicsandhighereducationinstitutionsnottomaximisethequalityoftheir
educationservices.Forinstance,universitiesmight–anddo–exploitinformation
4
asymmetriestocross-subsidizeresearchactivityusingresourcesintendedforteaching
(James,1990),e.g.tuitionfees.
Inprincipal–agenttheory,severalmeansareconsideredtoprotectclientsand
societyagainstabuseofinformationasymmetries.Broadly,themeanscanbe
categorisedaseitheraimingtolimittheagents’behaviourtowhatisdesirable,for
instancethroughregulation,throughcontractsthatguaranteethattheexpectedquality
inallitsdimensionswillbeprovided,orthroughalleviatingtheinformationsymmetry
(Winston,1999).Allthreecategoriescanbefoundinhighereducation.Someofthe
policytoolsinpracticecombineaspectsofaffectingthebehaviourandofincreasing
transparency.
Regulationofbehaviour–bygovernmentsorbytheprovidersthemselves–may
involverulesonservicequality,standardsforteaching,qualificationsframeworks,
qualityassurancerequirements,orconditionsimposedonproviders.Alternatively,
incentivesmaybedevisedtorewarddesirablebehaviourandsanctionundesirable
behaviour;performancecontractsagreedbetweenprincipalandagentbelongtothis
category.Besides,regulationmayaimtoalleviatetheinformationasymmetryby
focusingonprovisionofinformation,i.e.ontransparencytools.Intheabsenceof
objectiveinformationaboutqualityofhighereducation,proxiesmustbeused.Signalling
orlabellingisacommonproxy;theexperienceofcurrentorpreviousclientsisanother.
Accreditation,qualityassessment,studentguidesandlistingsofrecognizedproviders
aresomeobviousexamplesintheareaofhighereducationconsumerprotection.
Implementingtoolssuchasmonitoring,screening,signallingandselectionmaybe
initiatedbygovernment,butmayalsotakeplacethroughagenciesactingindependently
ofthegovernmentorcreatedbytheprovidersthemselves.
Theemergenceofneworredesignedapproachestofocushighereducationproviders
onproducingvalueforsocietysignalsanewapproachtothegovernanceofhigher
education.Forbetterunderstandingtheroleandfunctioningofthesetools,wefirstturn
totheemergenceofnetworkedgovernance,thisrecentperspectiveonhighereducation
governance.
3 NetworkedgovernanceManygovernments,becauseoftheincreasingcomplexityofhighereducation
systemsandtheirexpandingarrayoffunctions,areneithercapablenorwillingtoexert
5
centralizedcontroloverhighereducation.Theyacknowledge,moreover,thatlocal
diversitiesexistamonghighereducationinstitutionsandrealisethattheseproviders
musthaveregardfortheneedsoftheirownstakeholdersandlocalclientelesincontexts
rangingfromruralareastometropolises,andwithvaryingconnectionstotheglobalised
knowledgeeconomy.Accordingly,governmentsareseekingnewgovernance
approachesthatallowhighereducationinstitutionstorefineandadaptnationalpolicies
toreflectthosedifferencesoflocality,mission,etc.Moreover,somegovernmentsseekto
empowerstudentsandexternalstakeholderstoexertmoreinfluenceoverhigher
educationinstitutions,whileothergovernmentscontinuetorelyonmoretop-down
regulation.Yetotherauthoritieslookforsmartgovernanceapproachesthatcombine
verticalsteering(traditionalpublicadministration)withelementsofmarket-type
mechanisms(newpublicmanagement).
Recognisingthediversityofneedsandapproaches,theconceptofnetworked
governancewasdeveloped(Stoker,2006),whichcombinesa‘statesupervisory
government’model–promisingincreasedautonomyforhighereducationinstitutions–
withanewfocuson(local)clients.Inthisemerginggovernanceapproach,higher
educationinstitutionsnegotiatewiththeirlocalnetworkconsistingofstakeholders
(includingstudents,localstakeholders,governmentauthorities,andsoon)aboutthe
servicestheywillprovide.Atthesametime,allhighereducationinstitutionsconstitute
anetworkinwhichtheyactpartlyautonomously,partlycollectivelyandpartlyin
responsetothecoordinatingcentralised‘broker’,i.e.thegovernmentalauthority(Jones,
HesterlyandBorgatti,1997;ProvanandKenis,2007).Networkedgovernanceemerged
outoftheNewPublicManagement(NPM)paradigmofthe1980sand1990s.Itwidened
theperspectivefromNPM’sfocusonefficiencyandeffectivenesstoincludepublicvalues
suchassocialequity,societalimpact(relevance,producingvaluefromknowledge)and
addressingthediverseneedsofthelargevarietyofclienteles.Networkedgovernance
alsoreliesonnegotiation,collaborationandpartnerships,muchlessonNPM’suniform
one-size-fits-all,centralisedapproach.Thefocusliesonco-creationofeducationand
researchbyhighereducationinstitutionstogetherwiththeirrelevantstakeholders,
whilekeepinganeyeonindividualneedsandsolutionsofclients(Benington&Moore,
2011;Stoker,2006).
Governmentremainsakeyactorinthisgovernancemodel.The‘supervisory
government’wantstobeassuredthatnationalinterestsareservedandclients’(in
6
particular:students’)interestsareprotected.Thisimpliessomelimitationsonthe
autonomyofhighereducationinstitutions,aswellasreneweddemandsfor
accountability.Governmentalsodemandstransparency,itbeingapreconditionfor
accountability,allowingnegotiationsandthebuild-upofpublictrustinhigher
education.
4 AccreditationWebeginourdiscussionoftransparencytoolswiththeoldesttoolofthiskindin
highereducation.Accreditationiscurrentlyprobablythemostcommonformofexternal
qualityassuranceinhighereducation.Inthe1980sand1990s,accreditationwas–from
ourperspectiveoftransparency–anefforttocreateanddisseminateinformationon
qualityofhighereducation.Thedistinguishingcharacteristicofaccreditationisthat
externalqualityassessmentleadstoasummaryjudgment(pass/fail,orgraded)thathas
consequencesfortheofficialstatusoftheinstitutionorprogramme.Often,accreditation
isaconditionforrecognitionofdegreesandtheirpublicfunding.Accreditationisthe
simplestandthereforeprimafaciemosttransparentformthatqualityassurancecan
take.However,thetransparencyfunctionofqualityassuranceisanadditionalaim–its
primaryaimistoassurethatqualitystandardsaremet.
Whenaccreditationandotherformsofexternalqualityassurancewereintroducedin
governancerelationsinWesternhighereducationsystems(thatis:sincethe1950sin
theUSA2andaround1985inEurope),theirfocuswasonwhathighereducation
institutionswereoffering,measuredbyinputindicatorssuchasnumbersand
qualificationsofteachingstaff,sizeoflibraries,orstaff–studentratios.Study
programmemanagershadtodescribethecurriculumand–inmodernparlance–
intendedlearningoutcomes.Suchinputindicatorscouldrelativelyeasilybecollected
fromexistingadministrativesources.However,therelevanceofinputindicatorsfor
makingthequalityoftheteachingandlearningexperience(i.e.theteachingand
learningprocess)moretransparent,orforexposingthequalityofoutputs(e.g.degree
completions)andoutcomes(e.g.graduateemployment,orcontinuationtoadvanced
2AccreditationgoesbackmuchlongerintheUSA,butdidnotseriouslyaffectthesystem’sgovernance
untilthe1950s.
7
study)wasquestioned.Subsequently,variousadaptationstoaccreditationhavebeen
introduced.
InEuropeaswellasintheUSA,andinlinewithNewPublicManagement,
governmentsincreasinglywantedtoknowaboutoutputsandoutcomes,stressingvalue
formoneyandthewishtoprotectconsumers’(students’)rightstogoodeducation.
Increasingly,therefore,accreditationstandardsbegantoincludemeasuresof
institutionaleducationalperformance,suchasdropoutortime-to-degreeindicators.
Fromthemid-1980sonwardsintheUSAthismovementledtocouplingaccreditation
withstudentassessment(Lubinescu,Ratcliff,&Gaffney,2001),whileinEuropeparallel
developmentsensuedespeciallysincethearticulationoftheEuropeanStandardsand
GuidelinesforQualityAssurance(EuropeanAssociationforQualityAssuranceinHigher
Education,2005;EuropeanAssociationforQualityAssuranceinHigherEducationetal.,
2015).Fromagovernmental,accountabilityperspective,thefocuswasmostlyon
graduationrates(ortheircomplement:drop-outrates),andintheUSAalsoonstudents’
loandefault(sincegraduateswhocannotpaybacktheirfederalloansposeafinancial
risktogovernment).
Asarecentresult,aftermanyyearsofdebateabouttheconservatismandlackof
pertinenceofaccreditationintheUSA,andfollowingincrementalpolicychanges,in
2015theso-calledBennet-RubioBillwasproposed(reintroducedin2017),tofocus
accreditationonoutcomes-basedqualityreviews,withafocusondemonstrating–
presumablyalsotothepublic–measuresofstudentlearning,completionandreturnon
investment.3
InseveralEuropeancountries(e.g.SwedenandtheNetherlands)thefocusof
accreditationhasrecentlyemphasisedachievedlearningoutcomes.Thedegreetowhich
studyprogrammessucceedinmakingstudentslearnwhatthecurriculumintendsto
teach,isassumedtopresentamoretransparent,morepertinent,andmorelocally-
differentiatedpictureofquality.However,prospectivestudentsderivelittleinformation
fromtheaccreditationstatusofastudyprogramme,asitisabinarypieceof
information.Additionally,someacademicsregardthisapproachasaninfringementof
theiracademicfreedomratherthanasaidingqualityenhancement.Theemphasison
3Seewww.chea.org/4DCGI/cms/review.html?Action=CMS_Document&DocID=1045;accessed2017-
09-19.
8
achievedlearningoutcomesredirectsaccreditationmoretowardsthediversified
informationneedsofstudents,i.e.moreonhighereducation’spublicvalueandintends
toenhancetransparency.Stilltheadditionaleffortneededtoassessachievedlearning
outcomesmayproducebetterandmoreusefulinformation,i.e.higherlevelsof
transparency.However,thisisonlythecaseiftheassessmentoflearningoutcomesat
theprogrammeleveliscomparativeinnature,preferablyonaninternationalscale,and
theresultsaremadepublic.Today’sglobalorderinhighereducationisleadingtohuge
informationasymmetrychallenges,whichnecessitateaninternational,comparative
assessmentofstudents’learningoutcomesbasedonvalidandreliablelearningmetrics
(VanDamme,2015).
TherecentmoveinseveralEuropeancountries,includinge.g.Germany,towards
institution-levelaccreditationreducestransparencyforclientsandincreasesagainthe
informationasymmetryinfavourofhighereducationproviders,unlessother
arrangementsensurepublicationofprogramme-levelqualityinformation.
Admittedly,whetherstudentsareinterestedinmeasuresofachievedlearningis
anothermatter.Evenifstudentsbehaveasrationallyaspolicywouldhaveit,theywould
notonlybeinterestedinoutcomesinthedistant(uncertain)future,butalsoin
characteristicsoftheeducationalprocessanditscontext.Inotherwords,therearegood
reasonsforstudents’interestinmattersofeducationdelivery,methodsand
technologiesofteaching,intensityofteaching,teachingstaffquality,numbersand
accessibilityofeducationfacilities,availabilityofeducationalsupportandsoon.
Students(andothers)willmostlikelyalsobeinterestedinthecurrentstudents’
satisfactionwithsuchfactors,allowingthemtobenchmarksatisfactionscoresacross
differentinstitutionsandthustomakeproxyassessmentsofcoursequality.However,in
accreditationsystemssuchinformationisoftenhardtofind.Unlockingthisinformation
isoneofthechallengesinfurtherredesigningaccreditationmechanismstowards
strongertransparencytools.Varioussemi-publicandprivateinformationwebsiteshave
beendevelopedsinceabout20yearstodojustthis,e.g.the‘DieZeit’rankingin
Germany,orStudychoice123intheNetherlands.TheUK’srecentteachingexcellence
framework(TEF)leadstosimilarinformation.TheGermanandDutchapproachesrely
ondetailed,multi-dimensionalinformation,whiletheUKapproachistosimplifyallthe
informationintothreeratings(bronze,silverorgoldprovision).Thereisatrade-off
9
betweenprimafacietransparencyforthemasses(UK)andin-depthinformationforan
interestedaudience(GermanyandtheNetherlands).
Meanwhile,allowingcross-institutionalcomparisonsbasedonstudentsatisfaction
scoresandstudentoutcomesisalsooneoftheobjectivespotentiallyaddressedby
universityrankings.
5 RankingsWhereasqualityassuranceandaccreditationwereintroducedastransparency
instrumentsmainlyontheinitiativeofgovernments(Brennan&Shah,2000),university
rankingshaveappearedmostlythroughprivate(media)initiatives.Rankingsemerged
inreactiontothebinary(pass/failrecognition)informationresultingfrom
accreditation.Theyintendtoaddressaneedformorefine-graineddistinctionsina
contextwheremanyinstitutionsandprogrammespassthebasicaccreditation
threshold.
Rankingsinthiswaymayassiststudentsinmakingchoices.Theycanbehelpfulto
potentialcustomersofhighereducationinstitutionsaswellastopolicymakersand
politicians.Inaddition,theyoffersnap-shotpicturesoftheperformanceofhigher
educationinstitutions.Suchapparentlyprimafacieunderstandableleaguetablesappear
tobeattractivetothegeneralpublic.
Itiswidelyrecognizedthat,althoughcurrentglobalrankingssuchastheTimes
HigherEducation,QSorShanghairankingsarecontroversial,theyareheretostay,and
thatespeciallyglobaluniversityleaguetableshaveconsiderableimpactondecision-
makersworld-wide,includingthoseinhighereducationinstitutions(Hazelkorn,2011).
Rankingsreflecttheincreasedinternationalcompetitionamonguniversitiesand
countriesfortalentandresources;simultaneously,theyreinforcethatcompetition.On
thepositiveside,theyurgedecision-makerstothinkbiggerandsetthebarhigher,
especiallyintheresearchuniversitiesthatheavilyfeatureinthecurrentgloballeague
tables.Yet,majorconcernspersistabouttherankings’methodologicalunderpinnings
andtheirdrivetowardsstratificationratherthandiversification.
TherankingsthatfirstappearedintheUSAandlateronelsewhereintheworldhave
receivedmuchcriticism(Dill,2009;Hazelkorn,2011).Wedistinguishthefollowingsets
ofproblemssurroundingthefamiliarglobalrankings(Federkeil,vanVught,&
Westerheijden,2012).First,traditionaluniversityrankingsdonotdistinguishtheir
10
varioususers’differentinformationneedsbutprovideasingle,fixedrankingforall.
Second,theyignoreintra-institutionaldiversity,presentinghighereducation
institutionsasawhole,whileresearchandeducationare‘produced’infaculties,
hospitalsandlaboratories,etc.,whicheachmayexhibitquitedifferentqualities.Third,
rankingstendtouseavailableinformationonanarrowsetofdimensionsonly,
overemphasizingresearch.Thissuggeststolayusersthatmoreandmorefrequently
citedresearchpublicationsreflectbettereducation.Fourth,thebibliometricdatabases
usedfortheunderlyinginformationonresearchoutputandimpactonpeerresearchers
(mostlyWorldofScienceandScopus)mostlycontainjournalarticles,whilejournal
articlesareatypeofscientificcommunicationthatisrelevantformanynaturalscience
andmedicinedisciplines,butlesssoforareaslikeengineering,humanitiesandsocial
sciences.Moreover,thejournalscoveredinthesedatabasesaremostlyEnglish-language
journals,largelydisregardingotherlanguages.Fifth,thediversetypesofinformation
andindicatorsthatunderlierankingsareweightedbytherankingproducersand
lumpedintoasinglecompositevalueforeachuniversity.Thisisdonewithoutany
explicit–letaloneempiricallycorroborated–theoryontherelativeimportanceand
prioritiesoftheindicators.Changingtherankingmethodology—notuncommoninsome
rankings—producesdifferentscoresforhighereducationinstitutionseventhoughtheir
actualperformancedoesnotchange.Sixth,thecompositeindicatorvalueisconvertedto
apositioninaleaguetable,suggestingthat#1isbetterthan#2,andthat#41isbetter
than#42;thus,‘randomfluctuationsmaybemisinterpretedasrealdifferences’(Müller-
Böling&Federkeil,2007).
Giventhesecriticisms,someanalysts(includingthischapter’sauthors)have
endeavouredtoconstructalternativerankingsandinrecentyears–partlyduetothese
efforts–notonlyinnovativerankingshaveappearedbutalsothemethodologyof
traditionalglobalrankingshasimproved:informationonindividualareas(fields,
disciplines)wasaddedtotheglobalrankingsandthedimensionsofthedataincluded
werebroadened.
InparticularU-Multirank(VanVughtandZiegele,2012)hasaddressedthe
shortcomingsofthetraditionalglobalrankings.Asatransparencytoolthisrankingis
verymuchinlinewithamorenetworkedgovernanceapproach.Firstly,becauseU-
Multiranktakesamulti-dimensionalviewofuniversityperformance;whencomparing
highereducationinstitutions,itinformsabouttheseparateactivitiestheinstitution
11
engagesin:teachingandlearning,research,knowledgetransfer,international
orientationandregionalengagement.Secondly,U-Multirankinvitesitsuserstocompare
institutionswithsimilarprofiles,thusenablingcomparisononequalterms,ratherthan
‘comparingappleswithoranges’.4Fromthereonitallowsuserstochoosefromamenu
ofperformanceindicators,withoutcombiningindicatorsintoaweightedscoreora
numberedleaguetableposition,givingusersthechancetocreaterankingsrelevantto
theirinformationneeds.Thirdly,U-Multirankassignsscoresonindividualindicators
usingfivebroadperformancegroups(“verygood”to“weak”)tocompensatefor
imperfectcomparabilityofinformationinternationally.Finally,U-Multirank
complementsinstitutionalinformationpertinenttothewholeinstitutionwithalargeset
ofsubject(field-based)performanceprofiles,focusingonparticularacademic
disciplinesorgroupsofprogrammes,usingindicatorsspecificallyrelevanttothe
separatesubjects(e.g.laboratoriesinexperimentalsciences,internshipsinprofessional
areas).Whereastransparencyonindividualfieldsisparticularlyimportantto,e.g.,
studentslookingforaninstitutionthatoffersthesubjecttheywanttostudy,otherusers
(suchasuniversitypresidents,researchers,policy-makers,businessesandalumni)may
beinterestedininformationabouttheperformanceofinstitutionsasawhole.
ThebasiccharacteristicsofU-Multirankempowerstakeholderstocompensatefor
theirasymmetricalinformationpositionvis-à-vishighereducationproviders.Inthat
sense,itembodiesprinciplesofthenetworkedgovernancemodel.
6 PerformancecontractsPerformancecontractsareagreementsbetweenindividualhighereducation
institutionsandtheirgovernment(s)orfundingauthoritiesthattie(partof)the
institution’spublicfundingtoitsambitionsintermsofperformance.5Performance
contractsallowhighereducationinstitutionstoreceivefundinginreturnfortheir
commitmenttofulfilseveralobjectives,asmeasuredbyspecifictargetindicatorsagreed
uponbetweentherelevantgovernmentalauthorityandtheinstitution(Salmi,2009).
4Thus,U-Multirankgivesalevelplayingfieldinrankingsto,e.g.,teaching-orientedhighereducation
institutions,ratherthanprescribetheresearchuniversityastheonly‘winning’option.5Forananalysisofotherdimensionsofperformancecontractsthantheircontributionto
transparency,seeourchapteronperformancecontractsinthisvolume.
12
Deliveringontheperformancecontractleadstoafinancialrewardfortheinstitution,
thusencouragingittoimproveitsperformanceandtobeforward-looking.Usuallysuch
contractsinvitehighereducationinstitutionstoelaboratetheirstrategicplans,outlining
theirvisionofthefutureandthespecificactionsdirectedtoreachingtheirstrategic
objectives.Performancecontractsallowinstitutionstoselectandnegotiatetheirgoals
withaneyeupontheirindividualcontext,strengthsandkeystakeholders.Thus,the
primaryaimofperformancecontractsistorewarddesiredbehaviour,increasing
missiondiversityinthehighereducationsystemandincreasingperformanceintermsof
qualityandrelevance.Secondarily,largelythroughtheiruseofindicators,theyalsoseek
toincreasetransparencyforthevariousclientsoftheinstitution.
Performancecontracts–underseveralnamesandinvariousforms–havebeen
implementedinmanycountries,suchasAustralia,Austria,someCanadianprovinces,
Denmark,Finland,Germany,HongKong,Ireland,Japan,theNetherlands,Scotland,and
somestatesoftheUSA(deBoeretal.,2015;JongbloedandVossensteyn,2016b).Sofar,
inpracticemostperformanceagreementshavestressedtheaccountabilityand
performancedimensionsandhavenotyetplayedamajorroleinincreasing
transparency.However,insomecountries,e.g.theNetherlands,Ireland,andFinland,the
contractsdidhaveatransparencyimpactandsuccessfullypointedpublicattentionto
thegoalsthathighereducationinstitutionswereexpectedtomeetinreturnforthe
publicfundstheyreceived.IntheNetherlands,thecontractscausedinstitutionsto
publishinformationabouttheireffortsandsuccessesinareaslikeimprovingthe
students’degreecompletions(ReviewcommissieHogerOnderwijsenOnderzoek,2017).
Transparencyalsoimprovedinotherareas,becausethecontractsincluded
performancesinresearchandknowledgetransfer,aswellashowinstitutionsrelatedto
theirstakeholdersorclients.Whilethesecondgenerationofperformancecontractsin
theNetherlandsisunderdebateatthetimeofwriting(2017),probablytheywillinclude
anincreasedrolefornegotiationsbetweenhighereducationinstitutionsandtheirlocal
orregionalstakeholders,thusempoweringthosestakeholdersfurtherwhilereducing
national,homogenisingtendencies.
Performancecontractsrepresenttheculminationofanegotiationprocessbetween
universityleadersand(governmental)stakeholderstoensuretheconvergenceof
strategicinstitutionalgoalswithnational(includingregional)policyobjectives.Assuch,
performancecontractsareaninteractiveinstrumentofthenetworkedgovernance
13
model.Inaddition,theystimulatehighereducationinstitutionstoreachouttotheirown
specificclientsandstakeholders,thusofferinganeffectivebasisforenhanced
transparency.
7 ConclusionInthischapter,wepresentedthreerecently(re-)designedtransparencytoolsfor
highereducation–developedtoempowerclientsandkeystakeholders,tostrengthen
theprovisionofhighereducationandtobettercommunicatethevariousdimensionsof
quality,performance,andpublicvaluetoexternalstakeholders.Thesetoolsfitinamore
interactive,networkedtypeofgovernanceforhighereducation.Thisparadigmexplicitly
acknowledgesthediverseinformationneedsofawidervarietyofclientgroupsthanjust
thecentralgovernment.Thenetworkedgovernanceviewsuggestsacombinationof
horizontalandverticalsteeringapproaches(Jongbloed,2007),limitingtosomeextent
providers’autonomy,butwithoutrevertingtotop-downhierarchicalsteeringasin
traditionalpublicadministrationandmanagementmodels.Itrecognisesthatthehigher
educationinstitutionsactinamulti-centricnetworkandthattheyhavetheirown
steeringcapacityinacollectivesetting.Yetthegovernmenthasaspecialroletoprotect
andsupportstudentsandotherstakeholdersagainstrent-seekingbehaviourandother
perverseeffects.Theorientationinthenetworkedgovernanceparadigmoncreating
publicvalueacknowledgesandtriestorectifyinformationasymmetriesbetweenhigher
educationprovidersontheonehandandstudents,governmentandotherclientsand
stakeholdersontheotherbyencouragingtransparency.Sharinginformation,amongst
othersusingICTtoolssuchasrankingwebsites,isakeycharacteristicofnetworked
governance.Informationsharingincreasestrust,whichenablesstakeholderstobehave
moreeffectivelyandefficientlyinthenetwork(Schwaninger,Neuhofer&Kittel,2017).
Establishingmoredirect,‘horizontal’relationshipsofinformationsharingbetween
highereducationinstitutionsandtheirregionalstakeholdersratherthanchannelling
accountabilityonly‘vertically’throughgovernmentstrengthensthisapproachandis
intendedtocreatemore‘face-to-face’relationships;thistooshouldsupportre-
establishingpublictrustinhighereducation.
Ourconclusionsregardingthethreetransparencytoolsareasfollows.Accreditation
remainsacrudetransparencyinstrument,providinglittleinformationvaluetoclients
beyondthebasicthoughcrucialprotectionagainstsubstandardprovision.The
14
refinementthatstressespublicvalue-orientedideas,namelyfocusingaccreditationon
achievedlearningoutcomes,whichwouldmakeaccreditationmoredirectlyrelevantto
(prospective)students,cannotovercomethisbasiccrudeness.Moreover,designingsuch
apparentlymorerelevantaccreditationschemesremainsachallenge,givenacademics’
resistanceagainsttheirintrusivenessandtheeffortsneededtodesignandincorporate
sensibleindicatorsoflearningoutcomes.
Regardingrankings,wehavearguedthatsomerecentinitiatives–inparticularU-
Multirank–havebeendesignedtoovercomethedrawbacksoftraditionalglobal
universityrankings.Multi-dimensional,user-drivenrankingshavethepotentialto
functionasrichtransparencytools,asclient-drivenanddiversity-orientedinstruments.
However,suchatransparencytoolisonlyasusefulastheinformationitofferstousers.
Specifically,thegeographicalscopeofinstitutionsinU-Multirankmustbeextendedand
itsunderlyingdataonthehighereducationinstitutions’valueaddedintermsof
educationperformance(e.g.learningoutcomes,societalengagementofhighereducation
institutions)needfurtherelaboration.Thisrequiresclosecollaborationamonghigher
educationresearchers,evaluationorganisationsandrankerswiththeinstitutionaland
external(e.g.nationalstatisticsoffices)providersofdata.
Performancecontractshavethepotentialtocontributetointeractive,networked
coordinationinhighereducationsystemsandtoincreasedtransparencyatsystemand
institutionallevels.Theirtransparencyfunctionremainssecondarytotheir
performanceincentivisingfunction.However,insteadofjustprovidinginformation,they
mayempowerstakeholderstoactuallyinfluencewhathighereducationinstitutionsdo
forthem.Iflocalstakeholdersaregivenaroleinthespecificationofthecontracts
(through‘horizontal’arrangements)moreattentionforrealisingtheirpublicvaluemay
ensue.
Despitethechallengesfacedinfurtherdevelopingthenetworkedgovernance
perspectiveanditsaccompanyingtransparencyinstruments,wehaveindicatedhow
redesignandredeploymentoftransparencytoolsshowgreatpotentialinthis
perspective.Transparencyliesattheheartofthedynamicsinnetworkedgovernanceof
highereducationsystems.Therefore,workingonfurtherimprovingtransparencytools
iscrucialforincreasingthepublicvalueofhighereducation.
15
References
Benington,J.andM.H.Moore(wxyy).PublicValue.TheoryandPractice,LondonandNewYork:Palgrave
Macmillan.
Boer,H.de,B.Jongbloedandothers(wxyz).Performance-basedfundingandperformanceagreementsin
fourteenhighereducationsystems.ReportfortheMinistryofEducation,CultureandScience.TheHague:
MinistryofEducation,CultureandScience.
Bonroy,O.,&Constantatos,C.(wxx{).Ontheuseoflabelsincredencegoodsmarkets.Journalof
RegulatoryEconomics,||(|),w|}-wzw.
Brennan,J.,andShah,T.(wxxx)."QualityAssessmentandInstitutionalChange:Experiencesfromy�
Countries."HigherEducation,�x,||y-|��.
Dill,D.D.(wxx�).ConvergenceandDiversity:TheRoleandIn�luenceofUniversityRankings.InB.M.Kehm
&B.Stensaker(Eds.),UniversityRankings,Diversity,andtheNewLandscapeofHigherEducation(pp.
�}-yy�).Rotterdam;Boston;Taipeh:SensePublishers.
Dulleck,U.,&Kerschbamer,R.(wxx�).OnDoctors,Mechanics,andComputerSpecialists:TheEconomicsof
CredenceGoods.JournalofEconomicLiterature,��(y),z-�w.
EuropeanAssociationforQualityAssuranceinHigherEducation.(wxxz).StandardsandGuidelinesfor
QualityAssuranceintheEuropeanHigherEducationArea.Helsinki:EuropeanAssociationforQuality
AssuranceinHigherEducation.
EuropeanAssociationforQualityAssuranceinHigherEducation,EuropeanStudents’Union,European
UniversityAssociation,EuropeanAssociationofInstitutionsinHigherEducation,Education
International,BUSINESSEUROPE,&EuropeanQualityAssuranceRegisterforHigherEducation
(wxyz).StandardsandGuidelinesforQualityAssuranceintheEuropeanHigherEducationArea(ESG)–
ApprovedbytheMinisterialConferenceinMaywxyz.s.l.
EuropeanCommission.(wxyy).Supportinggrowthandjobs–anagendaforthemodernisationofEurope's
highereducationsystems(COM(wxyy)z�}�inal).Brussels:EuropeanCommission.
EuropeanCommission.(wxy}).OnarenewedEUagendaforhighereducation(COM(wxy})w�}�inal).
Brussels:EuropeanCommission.
Federkeil,G.,vanVught,F.A.,&Westerheijden,D.F.(wxyw).AnEvaluationandCritiqueofCurrent
Rankings.InF.A.vanVught&F.Ziegele(Eds.),MultidimensionalRanking:TheDesignand
DevelopmentofU-Multirank.Dordrechtetc.:Springer.
Hazelkorn,E.(wxyy).RankingsandtheReshapingofHigherEducation:TheBattleforWorld-Class
Excellence.London:PalgraveMacmillan.
James,E.(y��x).Decisionprocessesandprioritiesinhighereducation.InHoenack,S.A.andCollins,E.I.
(Eds.),TheEconomicsofAmericanUniversities.Buffalo,NY:StateUniversityofNewYork
Press.Lubinescu,E.S.,Ratcliff,J.L.,&Gaffney,M.A.(wxxy).TwoContinuumsCollide:Accreditationand
Assessment.Newdirectionsforhighereducation,yy|,z-wy.
Jones,C.,Hesterly,W.S.,&Borgatti,S.P.(y��}).AGeneralTheoryofNetworkGovernance:Exchange
ConditionsandSocialMechanisms.AcademyofManagementReview,ww(�),�yy-��z.
16
Jongbloed,B.(wxx}).OnGovernance,AccountabilityandtheEvaluativeState.InJ.EndersandF.vanVught
(Eds.),TowardsaCartographyofHigherEducationPolicyChange;AFestschriftinhonourofGuyNeave,
Enschede:CHEPS,pp.y||-|{.
Jongbloed,B.W.A.andJ.J.Vossensteyn(wxy�),Universityfundingandstudentfunding:international
comparisons,OxfordReviewofEconomicPolicy,Vol.|w,No.�,pp.z}�–z�z.
Kohler,J.(wxx�).“Quality”inEuropeanhighereducation.PaperpresentedattheUNESCOForumon
HigherEducationintheEuropeRegion:Access,Values,QualityandCompetitiveness,Bucharest.
Lubinescu,E.S.,Ratcliff,J.L.,andGaffney,M.A.(wxxy)."TwoContinuumsCollide:Accreditationand
Assessment."Newdirectionsforhighereducation,yy|,z-wy.
Muller-Boling,D.,&Federkeil,G.(wxx}).TheCHE-RankingofGerman,SwissandAustrianUniversitiesInJ.
Sadlak&L.N.Cai(Eds.),TheWorld-ClassUniversityanRanking:AimingBeyondStatus(pp.y{�-wx|).
Bucharest:CEPES.
Provan,K.G.,&Kenis,P.(wxx}).ModesofNetworkGovernance:Structure,Management,and
Effectiveness.JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,y{,ww�-wzw.
ReviewcommissieHogerOnderwijsenOnderzoek(wxy}).Prestatieafspraken:HetVervolgprocesnaWXYZ.
AdviesenZelfevaluatie,DenHaag:Reviewcommissie.
Salmi,J.(wxx�).Thechallengeofestablishingworld-classuniversities.WorldBankPublications.
Schwaninger,M.,Neuhofer,S.,&Kittel,B.(wxy}).ContributionsofExperimentalResearchtoNetwork
Governance.InBetinaHollstein,WenzelMatiaske,&Kai-UweSchnapp(Eds.),NetworkedGovernance:
NewResearchPerspectives(pp.y{�-wx�).Dordrechtetc.:Springer.
Stoker,G.(wxx�).Publicvaluemanagement:anewnarrativefornetworkedgovernance?Americanreview
ofpublicadministration,|�(y),�y-z}.
VanDamme,D.(wxyz).Globalhighereducationinneedofmoreandbetterlearningmetrics.WhyOECD’s
AHELOprojectmighthelpto�illthegap.EuropeanJournalofHigherEducationz(�),�wz-|�.
vanVught,F.A.,&Ziegele,F.(Eds.).(2012).MultidimensionalRanking:TheDesignandDevelopmentofU-
Multirank.Dordrechtetc.:Springer.
vanVught,F.A.,Westerheijden,D.F.,&Ziegele,F.(2012).Introduction:TowardsaNewRankingApproach
inHigherEducationandResearch.InF.A.vanVught&F.Ziegele(Eds.),MultidimensionalRanking:
TheDesignandDevelopmentofU-Multirank.Dordrechtetc.:Springer.
Winston,G.C.(y���).Subsidies,hierarchy,andpeers:Theawkwardeconomicsofhighereducation.
JournalofEconomicPerspectivesy|(y),y|-|�.
BiographicalnotesBenJongbloedisaseniorresearchassociateattheCenterforHigherEducation
PolicyStudies(CHEPS)oftheUniversityofTwenteintheNetherlands.Hisresearch
focusesonissuesofgovernanceandresourceallocationinhighereducation.Hehas
17
publishedwidelyontheseissuesand,inearly2016,editedabook(publishedby
Routledge)onaccessandexpansioninhighereducation.Benhasbeeninvolvedin
severalnationalandinternationalresearchprojectsforclientssuchastheEuropean
Commissionandnationalministries.Hisrecentworkisonperformanceagreementsin
highereducation,universityrankings(U-Multirank)andentrepreneurshipinhigher
education(HEInnovate).During2012-2016hesupportedtheHigherEducationand
ResearchReviewCommittee(chairedbyFransvanVught)thatwasoverseeingthe
systemofperformancecontractsforDutchuniversitiesanduniversitiesofapplied
sciences.
HansVossensteynistheDirectoroftheCenterforHigherEducationPolicyStudies
(CHEPS)oftheUniversityofTwenteintheNetherlands.Since2007heisapart-time
ProfessorandStudyProgrammeLeaderattheMBAHigherEducationandScience
ManagementattheOsnabrückUniversityofAppliedSciencesinGermany.
Hans’mainresearchinterestsconcernfunding;studentfinancing;access;
internationalisation;indicators;selectionandstudysuccess;qualityassuranceand
accreditation.Hehasledseveralinternationalcomparativeresearchprojectsand
consortia,includingstudiesfortheEuropeanCommission(DG-EAC)andtheEuropean
Parliamentoninternationalisationandstudysuccess.Hehasundertakenmanystudies
fortheDutchMinistryofEducation(varioustopics)andisahighereducationfinancing
expertfortheWorldBank.
Hanshasservedonmanyinstitutional,nationalandinternationalcommitteesand
workinggroupsonhighereducationandinstitutionalmanagement.Heisamemberof
editorialboardsoftheJournalofHigherEducationPolicyandManagement,the
InternationalJournalofManagementinEducationandtheDutch/Belgianjournalon
highereducation(TijdschriftvoorHogerOnderwijsenManagement,TH@MA).
FransvanVughtisahigh-levelexpertandadvisorattheEuropeanCommission
(EC),chairinghigh-levelexpertgroupsonvariousEUpoliciesoninnovation,higher
educationandresearch.Heservedaneight-yeartermasPresidentandRector
MagnificusattheUniversityofTwenteintheNetherlands.Furthermore,hewas
presidentoftheEuropeanCenterforStrategicManagementofUniversities(Esmu),
presidentoftheNetherlandsHouseforEducationandResearch(Nether),andmember
18
oftheboardoftheEuropeanInstituteofTechnologyFoundation(EITF),allinBrussels.
HeisoneofthetwoleadersofthedevelopmentofU-Multirank.
HisinternationalfunctionsincludethechairmanshipoftheCounciloftheL.H.Martin
InstituteforhighereducationleadershipandmanagementinAustralia,and
membershipsoftheUniversityGrantsCommittee,HongKong(1993-2006),ofthe
boardoftheEuropeanUniversityAssociation(EUA)(2005–2009),oftheGerman
Akkreditierungsrat(2005-2009)andoftheTechnicalAdvisoryGroupoftheOECD
projectAssessingHigherEducationLearningOutcomes(AHELO)(2007-2013).Inthe
Netherlands,hewasamemberoftheInnovationPlatform,oftheSocio-Economic
CouncilandoftheEducationCouncil.Herecentlychairedanationalcommitteeforthe
reviewofthehighereducationinstitutionprofilesintheNetherlands.
Franshasbeenahighereducationresearcherformostofhislifeandpublished30
booksandover250articlesonhighereducationpolicy,highereducationmanagement
andinnovationstrategies.Fransishonoraryprofessorialfellowattheuniversitiesof
MelbourneandTwenteandholdsseveralhonorarydoctorates.
DonF.WesterheijdenisseniorresearchassociateattheCenterforHigher
EducationPolicyStudies(CHEPS)oftheUniversityofTwente,theNetherlands,where
heco-ordinatesresearchonqualitymanagement.Donmostlystudiesqualityassurance
andaccreditationinhighereducationintheNetherlandsandEurope,itsimpacts,aswell
asuniversityrankings.Policyevaluationisanotherareaofhisresearchinterest.Since
1993heco-developedtheCRE/EUAInstitutionalEvaluationProgramme.Heledthe
independentassessmentoftheBolognaProcessin2009/2010.Heisamemberofthe
teamthatdevelopedU-Multirank.In2012–2016hesupportedtheHigherEducationand
ResearchReviewCommittee(chairedbyFransvanVught).Heisamemberofthe
editorialboardsofQualityinHigherEducationandQualitätinderWissenschaft,besides
servingoninternationalboardsofqualityassuranceagenciesinPortugal(A3ES)and
HongKong(QAC-UGC).