Responsibility of Educational Institutions for Strategic Change
Main Article Content
Abstract
The Spanish university is well into its nth reform process, this time for the purpose of improving its legibility for members of the European Union under the extended Bologna Process. The reform involves a structural change in plans of study, as well as a cultural change to the Europeanist discourse, which mixes mercantilist values and defence of a fuzzy social orientation as public service in a difficult balance. Goals such as professionalization of degrees, meeting social demands and requirements, and widening the student base to include professionals who wish to continue their education are being pursued in different ways and with different intensities by national systems and centres of higher education. Evaluation, as a decision-making instrument, plays a key role in innovation and improvement and determining the direction of the changes (the goals) and the rhythm of change (process control). Evaluation is inserted in a model of strategic thought or of directed strategic change, which requires discussion by system stakeholders to define the future of higher education institutions. Some results of a recent metaevaluation of the institutional evaluation system employed in Spanish Andalusian universities show the difficulties in strategic change, assuming instead a legitimist model, in which our approximation to the models of other European university systems is pursued with a pronounced isomorphic character.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
American Evaluation Association. (1995). Guiding principles for evaluators. In W. R. Shadish, D. L. Newman, M. A. Scheirer & C. Wye (Eds.), Developing the guiding principles. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 66, 19-26. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1706 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1706
Bergen Communiqué (2005). The European higher education area: Achieving the goals. Communiqué of the Conference of European ministers responsible for higher education. Bergen, May 19-20. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bologna/uploads/documents/050520_Bergen_Communique.pdf
Bologna Declaration. (1999). The European higher education area. Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education convened in Bologna. June, 19th. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bologna/uploads/documents/BOLOGNA_DECLARATIO N1.pdf
Bustelo, M. (2003, October). Metaevaluation as a tool for the improvement and development of the evaluation function in public administrations. Presentado a la V Biennial Conference of the European Evaluation Society, Sevilla.
Chelimsky, E. (1997). The coming transformations in evaluation. In E. Chelimsky & W. R. Shadish (Eds.), Evaluation for the 21st century: A handbook (pp. 1-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348896.n1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348896.n1
Chen, H. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Choi, T. Y., & Eboch, K. (1998). The TQM paradox: Relations among TQM practices, plant performance, and customer satisfaction. Journal of Operations Management, 17(1), 59-75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00031-X DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00031-X
Cooksy, L. J., & Caracelli, V. J. (2005). Quality, context, and use. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 31-42.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214004273252 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214004273252
Coryn, C. L. S. (2007). The 'holy trinity' of methodological rigor: A skeptical view. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 4(7), 26-31.
https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v4i7.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v4i7.7
Coryn, C. L. S., Hattie, J. A., Scriven, M., & Hartmann, D. J. (2007). Models and mechanisms for evaluating government- funded research: An international comparison. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 437-457.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214007308290 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214007308290
Council of Europe/ENIC. (2001). Recognition issues in the Bologna process: Final report. ENIC/NARIC Working Party on Recognition issues in the Bologna process. Estrasburgo, 24 de Enero. DGIV/EDU/ HE (2001) 01 rev.
Council of Europe. (2002). Recognition issues in the Bologna process. Steering Committee for Higher Education and Research (CD.ESR). Estrasburgo, 3 May. DGIV/EDU/HE(2002)9. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Lissabon_Programm.pdf
Council of University Coordination CCU (2003). Plan Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad de las Universidades. Informe Global. [National Plan for the Evaluation of Universities Quality. Global Report.] Madrid: MECD.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (1998). Beyond non-utilisation of evaluations: An institutional perspective. Knowledge, Technology, and Policy, 11(1-2), 64-90.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-998-1011-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-998-1011-z
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2007). ¿Debemos evaluarlo todo? O de la estimación de la evaluabilidad a la cultura de la evaluación. [Must we evaluate everything? Or from evaluability assessment to evaluation culture.]Evaluación de Políticas Públicas, 836, 93-104.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
European Foundation for Quality Management. (2001). EFQM excellence model: Public and voluntary sectors. Brussels: EFQM.
ENIC/NARIC. (2003). Statement by the ENIC and NARIC networks on the European Higher Education Area. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/03-Seminar_reports/030518-20ENIC_NARIC.PDF
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. (2005). Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.enqa.eu/files/ENQA%20Bergen%20Report.pdf
European University Association. (2003). The role of the universities in the Europe of knowledge. Response to the communication form the Commission. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/EUA1_documents/Role_Univ_EUA_Response.1065180266813.pdf
The Evaluation Center. (2008) Evaluation checklists. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Haug, G., & Tauch, C. (2001). Towards the European higher education area: Survey of main reforms from Bologna to Prague. Summary and conclusions. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bologna/uploads/documents/TRENDS_II-April2001.pdf
House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (2000). Deliberative democratic evaluation. In K. E. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation. New Directions for Evaluation, 85, pp. 3-12).
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1157 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1157
Huisman, J., & Wende, M. van der (2004). The EU and Bologna: Are supra- and international initiatives threatening domestic agendas? European Journal of Education, 39(3), 349-357.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2004.00188.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2004.00188.x
Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kirkhart, K. E. (2000). Reconceptualizing evaluation use: An integrated theory of influence. In V. J. Caracelli & H. Preskill (Eds.), The expanding scope of evaluation use. New Directions for Evaluation, 88, pp. 5- 23).
https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1188 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1188
Lisbon Convention. (1997). Convention on the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education in the European region. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.bologna-berlin2003.de/pdf/Lisbon_convention.pdf
Mabry, L. (2002). Postmodern evaluation-or not. American Journal of Evaluation, 23(2), 141-157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(02)00167-4
https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400202300203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400202300203
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning, New York: Free Press.
Mora, J. G. (2004). A decade of quality assurance in Spanish universities. In S. Schwarz & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Accreditation and evaluation in the European higher education area (pp. 421-443). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2797-0_19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2797-0_19
Nyborg, P. (2002). Institutional autonomy: Relations between state authorities and higher education institutions. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.see-educoop.net/education_in/pdf/bologna-institut-autonom-oth-enl-t02.pdf
Owens, R. G. (1998). Organizational behavior in education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Philips, T. R. (2001). A history of the quality review program of the European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU/IQR). In A. Sursock (Ed.), Towards accreditation schemes for higher education in Europe? Final project report. Geneva, Switzerland: CRE Association of European Universities.
Rebolloso, E. (1999). La evaluación de la calidad como estrategia de superviviencia y futuro de la universidad. [Evaluation of quality as a strategy for the survival and future of universities.]Almería, Spain: Universidad de Almería.
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., & Cantón, P. (2003). Guía de evaluación de servicios universitarios. [Guide for the evaluation of university administration services.] Almería, Spain: UCUA.
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., & Cantón, P. (2005). The influence of evaluation on changing management systems in educational institutions. Evaluation, 11(4), 465-481.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389005060263 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1356389005060263
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., & Cantón, P. (2007). Metaevaluación de los procesos de evaluación de la calidad de las universidades: Informe ténico. [Metaevaluation of processes of evaluation of universities quality: Technical report.] University of Almería, Spain.
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., & Cantón, P. (2008). Evaluación de programas de intervención social. [Program evaluation in social intervention.] Madrid, Spain: Síntesis.
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., Cantón, P., & Pozo, C. (2000). El papel de la investigación cualitativa en la evaluación de los servicios universitarios. [The role of qualitative research in the evaluation of university administration services.] Cuadernos IRC, 4, 65-82.
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., Cantón, P., & Pozo, C. (2002). Metaevaluation of a total quality management evaluation system. Psychology in Spain, 6(1), 12-25.
Reichert, S., & Tauch, C. (2003). Trends III: Progress towards the European Higher Education Area. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/Trends2003_summary.1064412673141.pdf
Reichert, S., & Tauch, C. (2005). Trends IV: European universities implementing Bologna. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bologna/uploads/documents/EUA_TrendsIV-April2005.pdf
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scriven, M. (1996). Types of evaluation and types of evaluators. Evaluation Practice, 17(2), 151-161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-1633(96)90020-3
https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409601700207 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/109821409601700207
Scriven, M. (2000). The logic and methodology of checklists. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/papers/logic&methodology_oct05.pdf
Sonnichsen, R. C. (2000). High impact internal evaluation: A practitioner guide to evaluating and consulting inside organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328485 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483328485
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001). The metaevaluation imperative. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 183-209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1098-2140(01)00127-8
https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400102200204 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400102200204
Sursock, A. (2003). Reflections from the higher education institutions' point of view: Accreditation and quality culture. In D. F. Westerheijden and M. Leegwater (Eds.), Working on the European dimension of quality (pp. 42-48). Zoetermeer: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.
Unit for the Quality of Andalusian Universities. (2004). Guía de autoevaluación de titulaciones. [Guide for the evaluation of grades.] Córdoba: UCUA.
van Damme, D. (2003). The worldwide quality register: The state of the debate and questions for further discussion. Retrieved May 6, 2007, from http://www.iaups.org/documents.php?cat_id=1
van Vught, F. A., & Westerheijden, D. F. (1994). Towards a general model of quality assessment in higher education. Higher Education, 28(3), 355-371.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383722 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01383722
Vlk, A. (2006). Higher education and GATS: Regulatory consequences and stakeholders' responses. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies.
Weiss C. H. (1998). Evaluation: methods for studying programs and policies (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Westerheijden, D. F. (1997). Quality assessment in Dutch higher education: Balancing improvement and accountability. European Journal for Education Law and Policy, 1(1), 81- 90.
Westerheijden, D. F. (2003). Movements towards a European dimension in quality assurance and accreditation. In D. F. Westerheijden & M. Leegwater (Eds.), Working on the European dimension of quality (pp. 16-41). Zoetermeer: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.
Westerheijden, D. F., & Leegwater, M. (2003). Working on the European dimension of quality. Zoetermeer: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.
Witte, J. K. (2006). Change of degrees and degrees of change: Comparing adaptations of European higher education systems in the context of the Bologna process. Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies
Wittrock, B. (1993). The modern university: The three transformations. In S. Rothblatt & B. Wittrock (Eds.), The European and American university since 1800 (pp. 303-362). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720925.010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511720925.010