Evaluation and control process in higher education institutions: a comparative analysis
| Date | 01 July 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2019-0019 |
| Published date | 01 July 2019 |
| Pages | 269-284 |
| Author | Joaquim Mourato,Maria Teresa Patrício |
| Subject Matter | Education,Educational evaluation/assessment |
Evaluation and control process in
higher education institutions:
a comparative analysis
Joaquim Mourato
Centro de Investigação para Valorização dos Recursos End
ogenos (VALORIZA-IPP)
and Centro de Investigação e Estudos de Sociologia (CIES-IUL),
Instituto Politécnico de Portalegre, Portalegre, Portugal, and
Maria Teresa Patrício
Centro de Investigação e Estudos de Sociologia (CIES-IUL),
ISCTE-Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to study the evaluation and control processes in the governance
systemsof higher educationinstitutions (HEIs).
Design/methodology/approach –This study compares the performance and control processes of
strategic management in four HEIs in two European countries with binary systems –Portugal and The
Netherlands. Using a case study approach, the authorsfind that HEIs with different missions and contexts
have performanceand control systems that are generally indistinguishable.
Findings –The controllingstrategies in the public HEIs have taken on isomorphiccharacteristics based on
processesthat enhance competition, decentralizefunctions and solidify performance management.
Originality/value –In this paper, the authors “unpackage”strategicmanagement to focus on the forms of
controlassociated with performance evaluation.Performance evaluation is central to the managementprocess
and increasinglyassuming an integral part of the institution’s identity and culture.
Keywords Performance management, Higher education, Key performance indicators,
Evaluation and control process
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
Higher education institutions (HEI) have undergone significant transformations in their
governance and organization(Bleiklie, 1998;Ferlie et al.,2008). Administrative structuresof
higher education have strengthened and increased in size and in formal competence
assuming greater responsibilitiesfor strategic planning and in day-to-day routines (Bleiklie,
1998).
In Europe, with the Bologna Declaration and the creation of the European Higher
Education Area, different national systems now share criteria and formal principles of
education. University diploma recognition in European member states has furthered
standardization. This path has brought the need to establish guidelines, evaluation and
The authors thank Ben Jongbloed, at CHEPS, UT, as well as the interviewees at the UT, Saxion UAS,
ISCTE-IUL and the IPP.
Financial support was provided from the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) and
supported by the European Social Fund (POCH).
Control
process in
higher
education
269
Received28 February 2019
Revised28 February 2019
Accepted26 April 2019
QualityAssurance in Education
Vol.27 No. 3, 2019
pp. 269-284
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-02-2019-0019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
control systems and the entitiesto ensure its purpose. The European Association for Quality
Assurance in Higher Education and the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in
the European HigherEducation Area have become established.
At the national level, public HEIs are confronting a complex field of government
regulators, public and private financial sources, a diversified student body and an internal
configuration of professors,assistants and professional staff. The field is structured within a
competitive environment, while HEIs find themselves generally struggling with decreased
funding. Consequently, many public HEIs find themselves with the need “to do more, with
less,”a persistenttheme in public management (Hoggett, 1996).
Increased interest on the governance of HEIs comes with the need to “unpackage”or
open the “black box”of the strategic management activities and undertakings. In this
article, we “unpackage”strategic management to focus on the forms of control associated
with performance evaluation. Performance evaluation is central to the managementprocess
and increasingly assumingan integral part of the institution’s identity and culture.
2. Literature review
2.1 Forms of performance evaluation and control in higher education institutions
There is a substantial and growing literature on the governance and management of HEIs
with significant contributions from work on new public management (NPM) (Pollitt, 1993;
De Boer and Huisman, 1999;Maassen and van Vught, 2002;Ferlie et al., 2008). NPM ideas
and practices are characterizedby principles of managerialism, performance indicators and
efficiency. However, stakeholders, both internal and external,demand other principles such
as transparency and accountability.
Integral to NPM principles has been the introduction of new forms and mechanisms of
evaluation and control. Audits, quality assessments, inspections, reviews, monitoring and
benchmarking have become commonplace occurrences in the logic of performance
evaluation. Performance evaluations have become pervasive, functioning at many different
levels, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative dimensions. They include formal
evaluations at the individual, department,center and organizational level. Comparisons and
competitions occur at the national, European and international level. Performance systems
have become highly recognizable. Some of the most renowned include the international
rankings or “league tables”, total quality management (TQM) and key performance
indicators (KPI). Performance systems have developed greater expertise and precision
digging into journal rankings (quartile rankings, citations) and classificatory schemes (h-
index, g-index and impact factors).
As HEIs face increasing prescriptiveand normative pressures they have turned to more
rational, managerial principles based on strategic planning and forms of personal
accountability, evaluationand efficiency (Bleiklie, 1998). Teaching and research, traditional
missions of universities, are now makingroom for efficiency and performance evaluationas
core values. The processes of monitoring and control are undertaken in HEIs have become
part of the general framework of management and key to ensuring the reproduction of the
system.
Theories of new institutionalism are relevant to examine the rise of strategic
management in higher education. Several studies have signaled organizational conformity
tendencies or isomorphic characteristics of HEIs (Gornitzka, 1999;DiMaggio and Powell,
1983). New institutionalism theories argue that isomorphic tendencies of organizations
prevail as they model themselvesafter similar organizations perceived to be more successful
(DiMaggio and Powell,1983).
QAE
27,3
270
To continue reading
Request your trial