Decisions and evaluation in higher education

As was noted in earlier chapters, this study investigates decisions about evaluation partly in relation to quality assurance systems within HEIs in England and Norway. It is considered therefore important to outline briefly some of the limited examples of linkage between evaluation and decision making within the field of Higher Education. During the early 1990s increasing focus was placed upon the assessment of higher education. This was noted especially within OECD countries and an ensuing report highlighted the role of evaluation as part of the institutional decision making process (OECD, 1994).

Once again the focus becomes one of utilisation of findings but there was no registered focus upon decision making about evaluation.

One interesting comment in the findings comes in relation to the status of evaluation noted in the final section of the collection of OECD reports, where it is suggested that evaluation‘s ―purpose is to inform and clarify decision making, yet it is not itself a decision making process‖ (Cazenave, 1994: 201). In this study it suggested that this position requires greater nuance, especially with regard to how decisions are intertwined throughout the whole evaluation process and not just with regard to making a decision in relation to the data provided from it. In the next section I consider how the area of decision making has generally been applied within research in HEIs.

Application of Decision theory within Higher Education research and practice If the application of Organisational and Decision Theory within the field of evaluation is claimed to have been relatively limited (Holton III & Naquin, 2005), then to some degree the opposite appears to be the case within the context in which this study is based. Higher Education provision has observed a great deal of the development of Organisational Theory, especially related to different models of decision making and the analysis thereof (Musselin, 2002).

Musselin notes how application of decision theory within the field, in addition to the use of the Higher Education field to develop such theory further, led to the development of different decision models that were then further applied within research into HEIs. This suggests active interaction. The ensuing models from

108 There is no particular recognised school as such, but I have noted with interest the contribution made by these scholars towards widening the evaluation debate in this direction.

129

such research varyingly encompassed collegial, bureaucratic, political and ambiguity perspectives of decision making. An example used in this study can be found in the work of Hardy et al (1983) outlined further below.

Musselin (2002: 1) also outlines how the different models that have been developed, particularly during the 60s and 70s, have tended to concur and attempts have been made to combine them, relative to the domain under study and the understanding of how they may interconnect. Musselin further reflects that application of these models has both aided and restricted research. It has aided research by suggesting ―ideal types and thus [giving] clues to apprehend and to reduce the organisational complexities of universities‖ but has restricted by leaving the ―analyst to [decide] on the right type in which to place the university under study instead of opening the black box‖, which may also be problematic if the models do not match the evolution of the context under study (2002: 1). The author suggests that focus ought to be placed on exploration of specific aspects within the organisation of higher education, rather than the development of new models or qualification of decision patterns (2002: 2). As has been outlined earlier, the intention of this study has been to look at further factors that might influence the decision process concerning the development of models for evaluation, while attempting to apply the various decision models and as such illuminate the process further. In doing so, it is hoped to reflect further upon Musselin‘s suggestion. In agreement with Musselin, I adopt Scott‘s view, outlined earlier, that none of these approaches offer a full and final position from which one can interpret such processes, but as Musselin also alludes to, certain models will offer greater explanatory power depending on the domain.

Hardy et al (1983: 411-2) adopted Mintzberg‘s view that HEIs correspond to a

―professional‖ rather than ―machine‖ bureaucracy, reflecting the complexity in rationalising mission and activity as well as the relative looseness of coupling and decentralisation of decision processes and necessity of specialisation at the base level. The authors recognise 3 interlinked levels of decision making control within HEIs: at the individual academic level, by central administration and by the collegiality. These are variously characterised by decisions based on professional judgement, administrative fiat, and collective choice, the latter of which the authors see can be categorised further within collegial, political, garbage can and rational models (1983: 412) the latter of which Hardy later noted to include bureaucratic perspectives (1990b). These processes can be observed in figure 7 below. The authors‘ reflections are interesting in relation to the framework of this study. There is recognition that many decisions are taken at the level of the individual academic based on their professional judgement.

Professional judgement is a category building on the identity of the individual academic. Hardy et al. recognise that individual academic staff (professors) have traditionally had ―a great deal of autonomy over research and teaching because of the difficulties of supervising or formalizing this work‖, thus they see decisions related to ―basic missions‖ controlled at the individual level (Hardy et

130

al., 1983: 412). While this autonomy in recent years has come under threat, there is still some degree of the individual professor controlling their own areas. The authors claim that this is to do with the principles of ―pigeonholing‖, whereby programme responsibility is decentralised and the overall portfolio is loosely coupled (Ibid: 413). The authors recognise that this does make programmes free from a degree of ―external influence‖. At the same time programmes are shaped by a standardisation process rooted in the occupational socialisation of the responsible academic. Interestingly the authors noted the increasing importance of student feedback and the influence this could have on programme focus. This can also be linked to Stufflebeam et al.‘s reflections over professional judgement as outlined in section 5.1. There is an important overlap here with the role of central administration.

The third category is interesting as it relates to decisions made by ―collective choice‖ (1983: 417). Hardy et al see these decisions as evolving ―out of a variety of interactive processes that occur both within and between departments‖, between academics and administrators and across levels. The authors outline what they see as three ―phases of interactive decision making‖- identification, development and selection. Similar to the elements of evaluation described by Dahler-Larsen (2004a), Hardy et al describe processes that do not take place sequentially but are complex, developing cyclically and in ―interrupted‖ fashion.

These processes are outlined in the table below based on Hardy et al.‘s findings.

Table 4: Phases of interactive decision making (Hardy et al., 1983: 417-418)

Phase Description Actors involved

Identification

Where the decision need is recognised, and situation diagnosed. In time some decisions will arise out of routine.

Individual initiative

Development

Alternatives and solutions developed.

Progress related to power relationships between academic and administrative staff.

Ad hoc groups / task forces

Selection

Screening, evaluation, choice and authorisation of development phase.

This will take place at various levels and can be a ―cumbersome‖ process.

Hierarchy of permanent groups and administrators The authors see the collective process as combining ―collegial and political processes, with garbage can influences encouraging a kind of haphazardness on one side due to cognitive and cost limitations… and analytical influences on the other side encouraging a certain logic or formal rationality…‖ (1983: 423).

These are observable in the figure below.

131

Figure 7: Three interlinked levels of decision-making in the University (Hardy et al., 1983: 414)

Following up this research, Hardy later adopted a framework drawing further upon Blau‘s (1973) ―coexistence‖ perspective, where bureaucratic and academic/professional features of discipline and innovation are juxtaposed (Hardy, 1990b: 208). The intermingling of these forces is combined with a decentralised form of power and responsibility. These propositions are found to be interesting in relation to this study as even though professional values are thought to drive the work of academics, there is still a sense of bureaucratic standardisation in the way study programmes are carried out related to the particular professional socialisation (Hardy, 1990b: 209). In addition, sub units

―afforded an autonomous, loosely coupled (Weick, 1976) existence‖ are

―hooked up to the larger organisation via hierarchy‖ and this takes place through institutionalised processes (ibid.). Drawing further on the work of Beyer, Hardy discusses the relationship between bureaucracy and collegiality, where collegiality is considered to be decentralisation at the departmental level, where academic faculty members have a high degree of influence, and bureaucracy as departmental centralisation, where faculty members have less influence compared to heads of department (Hardy, 1990b: 209). These dimensions are also compared to the relative autonomy from central administration influence.

Hardy notes that while there has been a great deal of research into the structural characteristics of HEIs, accepting the proposition of similarity to Mintzberg‘s professional bureaucracy, this research has had ―little to say about how decisions are made within this context‖ (1990b: 210). It is therefore considered important to relate this research to others models of decision making within organisations.

132

This is thought necessary to address the issue of decision making with the empirical study, framing the perception of respondents of how the subunit sees organisational processes developing and their place within that framework.

5.5 Models of decision making and decision processes in