Advertisement

Findings (2): Policy Text Production

  • Jon Yorke
  • Lesley Vidovich
Chapter
  • 556 Downloads
Part of the Policy Implications of Research in Education book series (PIRE, volume 7)

Abstract

Chapter 7 focuses on ‘policy text production’ in relation to quality and standards in higher education, and it is the second of four findings chapters. It details analysis of signature policy documents in the Australian setting, prior to analysing interview texts from participants at global (OECD), national (Australia, UK and US) and local (university) levels. Australian documents revealed themes such as the impact of global pressures; rising demands for accountability; vested stakeholder interests; ideological tensions; and student equity. Analysis of interviews across the different research sites in the three countries produced three main themes in relation to policy text production: vested stakeholder interests; ideological tensions; and problematic consultation processes. A variety of dimensions (subthemes) were also identified and, as with ‘influences’, the prominence of themes and subthemes varied between settings at global, national and local (university) levels. Issues such as ‘the devil is in the detail’ of the policies and strong contestation between different stakeholder groups were widespread.

Keywords

Policy trajectory Policy analysis Policy text production Policy text construction Document analysis Critical discourse analysis (CDA) 

References

  1. Australian Government (2009). Transforming Australia’s higher education system. Canberra: Author.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? Texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse, 13(2), 10–17. doi: 10.1080/0159630930130203.Google Scholar
  3. Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008). Review of Australian higher education: Final report. Canberra: Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Google Scholar
  4. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2009). An indicator framework for higher education performance funding: Discussion paper. Author. http://nla.gov.au/nla.arc-113401. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  5. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2011a). Assessment of generic skills: Discussion paper. Australian Government. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/215220. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  6. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2011b). Developing a framework for teaching and learning standards in Australian higher education and the role of TEQSA. Author. http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/127861/20110714-1750/www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/teqsa/Documents/Teaching_Learning_Discussion_Paper.pdf. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  7. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2011c). Development of performance measurement instruments in higher education: Discussion paper. Australian Government. http://hdl.voced.edu.au/10707/215222. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  8. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Higher Education Standards Panel (2013). Draft standards for course design and learning outcomes. Australian Government. https://docs.education.gov.au/node/37821. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  10. Higher Education Standards Panel (2014). The Higher Education Standards Panel. http://www.hestandards.gov.au/. Accessed 12 May 2016.
  11. U.S. Department of Education (2006). A test of leadership: Charting the future of U.S. higher education. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon Yorke
    • 1
  • Lesley Vidovich
    • 2
  1. 1.Curtin UniversityBentleyAustralia
  2. 2.The University of Western AustraliaCrawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations