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,d.f.westerheijden@utwente.nl

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).