The impact of Ireland’s new higher education system performance framework on institutional planning towards the related policy objectives

被引:0
作者
Seamus O Shea
Joe O Hara
机构
[1] Institute of Technology Tralee,School of Health and Social Sciences
[2] Dublin City University,School of Policy and Practice, DCU Institute of Education
来源
Higher Education | 2020年 / 80卷
关键词
Higher education; Performance agreement; Performance framework; Key performance indicator; Higher education policy;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This research examines the implementation of Ireland’s higher education system performance framework (HESPF), through its first 3-year cycle 2014–2017, in a sample of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). In particular, it examines the extent to which the HESPF aids or inhibits HEI planning towards the related national policy objectives. Integral to the HESPF are performance agreements (PAs) that specify how HEI strategies contribute to national priorities. An exploratory case study design frame is used to address the research question, with cases drawn from small, medium-sized and large institutions. A concurrent triangulation design strategy is deployed with qualitative data drawn from 24 key informants and PAs, and quantitative data elicited from 92 questionnaires. Oliver’s strategic response framework was adapted for deployment in the study. The design of the PAs associated with the HESPF is generally consistent with the core building blocks of PAs internationally. The HESPF is generally considered a good concept that has resulted in constructive relationship building between the Higher Education Authority (HEA) and HEIs.' Strategic planning capacity building, self-reflection and institutional learning are regarded as strengths of the process. However, it appears that the levers being used by the HEA to bring about performance improvements are having very little behavioural influence. Reputation and a desire to respond to regional and national needs along with global expectations appear to be driving performance. The process is not operating at a sufficiently strategic level and lack of enabling/incentive funding is regarded as a major weakness.
引用
收藏
页码:335 / 351
页数:16
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] Agasisti T(2011)Performances and spending efficiency in higher education: a European comparison through non-parametric approaches Education Economics 19 199-224
  • [2] Aghion P(2010)The governance and performance of universities: evidence from Europe and the US Economic Policy 25 7-59
  • [3] Dewatripont M(2010)Benchmarking in European higher education: a step beyond current quality models Tertiary Education & Management 16 243-255
  • [4] Hoxby C(2012)Performance funding in Pennsylvania Change 44 34-39
  • [5] Mas-Colell A(2011)Missions on the move: university systems in England, New York State and California Higher Education Management and Policy 23 1-23
  • [6] Sapir A(2007)Universities, the state and the market: changing patterns of university governance in Sweden and beyond Higher Education Management & Policy 19 87-104
  • [7] Burquel N(2002)Performance measurement Redux American Journal of Evaluation 23 435-452
  • [8] van Vught F(2010)Fifteen years of quality in higher education Quality in Higher Education 16 3-36
  • [9] Cavanaugh JC(2011)A tale of two strategies: higher education and economic recovery in Ireland and Australia Higher Education Management and Policy 23 79-102
  • [10] Garland P(2014)Comparing national policies on institutional profiling in Germany and the Netherlands Comparative Education 50 156-176