Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Governance Architectures in Higher Education Arising from Extra Information on Learning Outcomes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Higher Education Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This article discusses the governance architectures that facilitate and/or arise from extra information in learning outcomes. It is based on an analysis of literature and makes the connections between governance, policy, accountability, learning outcomes and information derived from learning outcomes data. The article discusses learning outcomes as an instrument of policy, a tool of governance and a source of information. The aim is to gain greater insights into higher education governance architecture associated with increased information from learning outcomes implementation. To achieve the article’s aim, I draw on a theoretical perspective of governance — agency theory (Jensen and Meckling in J Financ Econ 3(4):305–360, 1976). The article concludes that the learning outcomes are a source of information for assessing institutional performance and are at the intersection of governance, policy and pedagogy in higher education. However, learning outcomes must be carefully specified and appropriately assessed for the information to be useful and policy goals to be realized. The article ends with a call for additional comparative studies to capture learning outcomes implementation differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aamodt, P.O., Frølich, N. and Stensaker, B. (2018) ‘Learning outcomes—A useful tool in quality? Views from academic staff’, Studies in Higher Education 43(4): 614–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almqvist, R., Grossi, G., Jan van Helden, G. and Reichard, C. (2013) ‘Public sector governance and accountability’, Critical Perspective on Accounting 24(7–8): 479–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauman, Z. (1992) Intimations of Postmodernity, London, New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berdahl, R. (1999) ‘University and governments in the 21st century. The US experience’, in D. Braun and F.-X. Merrien (eds.) Towards a New Model of Governance for Universities? A Comparative View, London: Jessica Kingsley, pp. 59–77.

  • Bevir, M. (2009) Key Concepts in Governance, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. (2012) ‘Collegiality and hierarchy—Coordinating principles in higher education’, in A. Nelson and I. Wei (eds.) The Global University: Past, Present and Future Perspectives, New York: Palgrave MacMillan, pp. 85–104.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I., Frølich, N., Sweetman, R. and Henkel, M. (2017) ‘Academic institutions, ambiguity and learning outcomes as management tools’, European Journal of Education 52(1): 68–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleiklie, I. and Kogan, M. (2007) ‘Organization and governance of universities’, Higher Education Policy 20(4): 477–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjornavold, J. and Coles, M. (2007/2008) ‘Governing education and training; the case of qualifications frameworks’, European Journal of Vocational Training 42/43: 203–235.

  • Bovens, M. (2005) ‘Public accountability’, in F. Ewan, L. Lawrence Jr and C. Pollitt (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Management, Oxford: Oxford Handbooks, pp. 182–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, S., Dobbins, K., Scott, J.J.A., Rawlinson, M. and Norman, R.I. (2014) ‘Learning about learning outcomes: the student perspective’, Teaching in Higher Education 19(6): 721–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M.G. (2007) Beyond the Balanced Scorecard: Improving Business Intelligence with Analytics, New York: CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caspersen, J. and Frølich, N. (2017) ‘Higher education learning outcomes—transforming higher education?’, European Journal of Education 52(1): 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caspersen, J. Frølich, N. and Muller, J. (2017) ‘Higher education learning outcomes—Ambiguity and change in higher education’, European Journal of Education 52(1): 8–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. (1989) ‘Agency theory: an assessment and review’, Academy of Management Review 14(1): 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie, E., Musselin, C. and Andresani, G. (2009) ‘The governance of higher education systems: a public management perspective’, in C. Paradeise, E. Reale, I. Bleiklie and E. Ferlie (eds.) University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greiling, D. and Spraul, K. (2010) ‘Accountability and the challenge of information disclosure’, Public Administration Quarterly 34(3): 338–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grek, S. and Ozga, J. (2010) ‘Governing education through data: Scotland, England and the European education policy space’, British Educational Research Journal 36(6): 937–952.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadjianastasis, M. (2017) ‘Learning outcomes in higher education: assumptions, positions and the views of early-career staff in the UK system’, Studies in Higher Education 42(12): 2250–2266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halasz, G. (2017) ‘The spread of the learning outcomes approaches across countries, sub-systems and levels: a special focus on teacher education’, European Journal of Education 52(1):80–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havnes, A. and Prøitz, T.S. (2016) ‘Why use learning outcomes in higher education? Exploring the grounds for academic resistance and reclaiming the value of unexpected learning’, Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 28(3): 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussey, T. and P. Smith (2008) ‘Learning outcomes: a conceptual analysis’, Teaching in Higher Education 13(1): 107–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M.C. and Meckling, W.H. (1976) ‘Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure’, Journal of Financial Economics 3(4): 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, D., Hyland, A. and Ryan, N. (2007) Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: A Practical Guide, Cork: University College Cork.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kivisto, J. (2008) ‘An assessment of agency theory as a framework for the government–university relationship’, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 30(4): 339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kivisto, J.A. (2007) Agency theory as a framework for the government-university relationship, Tampere: Higher Education Group/Tampere University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, J. (2005) State oversight of higher education: A theoretical review of agency problems with complex principals. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for the Study of Higher Education; 17–19 November, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

  • Lane, J. E. and Kivisto, J. A, (2008) ‘Interests, information, and incentives in higher education: principal-agent theory and its potential applications to the study of higher education governance’, in J. C. Smart (ed.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 141–174.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lassnigg, L. (2012) ‘Lost in translation’: learning outcomes and the governance of education’, Journal of Education and Work 25(3): 299–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawn, M. (2011) ‘Governing through data in English education’, Education Inquiry 2(2): 277–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liefner, I. (2003) ‘Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems’, Higher Education 46(4): 469–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, O.C., Bridgeman, B. and Adler, R.M. (2012) ‘Measuring learning outcomes in higher education: motivation matters’, Educational Researcher 41(9): 352–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyne, M. and Tierney, M. (2003) The politics of common agency: Unitary, multiple and collective principals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of The American Political Science Association; 27 August; Philadelphia, PA, USA.

  • Mandinach, E. B. (2012) ‘A perfect time for data use: using data-driven decision making to inform practice’ Educational Psychologist 47(2): 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. and Mahat, M. (2017) ‘The assessment of learning outcomes in Australia: finding the holy grail’, AERA Open 3(1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melguizo, T. and Wainer, J. (2016) ‘Toward a set of measures of student learning outcomes in higher education: evidence from Brazil’, Higher Education 72(3): 381–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen, S., Vabø, A., Kvilhaugsvik, H. and Kvam, E. (2017) ‘Higher education learning outcomes and their ambiguous relationship to disciplines and professions’, European Journal of Education 52(1): 56–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen, S., Sweetman, R., Stensaker, B. and Bleiklie, I. (2016) ‘Shaping perceptions of a political instrument: the political-administrative formation of learning outcomes in higher education in Norway and England’, Higher Education Policy 26(3): 399–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T.M. (2005) ‘Power and political institutions’, Perspectives on Politics 3(2): 215–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neave, G (1998) ‘The evaluative state revisited’, European Journal of Education 33(3): 265–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pina, V., Torres, L. and Royo, S. (2007) ‘Are ICTs improving transparency and accountability in the EU regional and local governments? An empirical study’, Public Administration 12(9): 449–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prøitz, T.S. (2015) ‘Learning outcomes as a key concept in policy documents throughout policy changes’, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 59(3): 275–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabossi, M. (2017) ‘Agency costs in higher education: evaluating an institution through a comprehensive framework’, Higher Education Policy 30(3):319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saliterer, I and Korac, S. (2013) ‘Performance information use by politicians and public managers for internal control and external accountability purposes’, Critical Perspectives on Accounting 24(7–8): 502–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shattock, M. (2008) ‘The change from private to public governance of British higher education: its consequences for higher education policy making 1980–2006’, Higher education Quarterly 62(3): 181–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, C. and Wright, S. (2015) ‘Governing by numbers: audit culture, rankings, and the new world order’, Social Anthropology 23(1): 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Souto-Otero, M. (2012) ‘Learning outcomes: good, irrelevant, bad or none of the above?’, Journal of Education and Work 25(3): 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spekle, R.F. and Verbeeten, F.H.M. (2014) ‘The use of performance measurements systems in the public sector: effects on performance’, Management Accounting Research 25: 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, J. (2015) ‘Learning outcomes—from policy discourse to practice’, European Journal of Education 50(4): 404–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ure, O.B. (2015) ‘Governance for learning outcomes in European policy-making: qualification frameworks pushed through the open method of coordination’ International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training 2(4): 268–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. (1979) ‘Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems’, Administrative Science Quarterly 21(1): 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A. and Park, V. (2008) ‘Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: applying the principal-agent framework’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice 19(3): 239–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Business, Room 313, George Brown College, 200 King Street East, Toronto, ON, M5T 2T9, Canada

    Ian Austin

Authors
  1. Ian Austin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian Austin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Austin, I. Governance Architectures in Higher Education Arising from Extra Information on Learning Outcomes. High Educ Policy 32, 617–637 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00166-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-019-00166-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation