recent evaluations in australian higher education: context and incidence

405

Higher Education 11 (1982)405-440 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam - Printed in the Netherlands

RECENT EVALUATIONS IN AUSTRALIAN HIGHER EDUCATION: CONTEXT AND INCIDENCE

D.W. SLOPER ~st i tu te ~rHigherEducation, Univemi~ o f New England, New South WaNs, Austral~

ABSTRACT

Peer evaluation of individuals and of individual activities within universities is commonplace in academic appointments and promotions, the examination of theses, and the assessment of research and publications. Less common, until recently, have been evaluations of institutional objectives and outcomes by formal review procedures. In Australia, the Williams Committee Report and the Tertiary Education Commission have encouraged a wider implementation of formal evaluations.

This study initially reviews the institutional and societal context of higher education within which evaluation is being increasingly formalized. The incidence of evaluation (or review) at three dissimilar Australian universities is analysed in three areas: the frequency of evaluation activity; the constitution of evaluation teams; and the status of any ensuing report. Policy statements from two universities are briefly examined against standards for evaluation developed by Stufflebeam and others.

Evidence of intra-institutional turbulence and a lack of value consensus encompassed many of the ninety-eight reviews considered. This overview study suggests that more energy should be spent on discovering essential problems and consequential needs and less on implementing reports arising from inadequate evaluations.

Introduction

This is a revision of a paper presented at the National Workshop on Evaluation conducted by Professor Daniel Stufflebeam at the University of New England in March 1981. The specific intent of the study is to illustrate general dimensions of the increasing incidence of formalized evaluation in Australian universities since 1975. The phenomenon of evaluation, or reviews as they are more commonly called in Australia, has been defined in the following terms:

Evaluation is the process of delineating, obtaining, and applying descriptive and judgemental information - concerning the merit of some object 's goals, plans,

0018-1560/82/0000-0000/$02.75 �9 1982 Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company

406

processes, and products - in order to serve decision making and accountability (Stufflebeam, 1978, p. 8).

As part of the cultural fabric of university life, peer evaluation of individuals and of individual activities has wide acceptance. Part I of the study initially examines the distinctiveness of the institutional setting which would influence a more formalized pattern of evaluation in higher education. Then the striking similarity in the generalized response to higher education in most western countries is reviewed. Growth contraction, the catch word of higher education in the late '70s is likely to be displaced by rationalisation in the early '80s. In Part II of the paper some characteristics of recent evaluations in three quite dissimilar Australian universities are analysed; and policy statements are compared with the standards for evaluation proposed by Stufflebeam and others.

Against the prevalent response to higher education and from the insights gained from recent Australian evaluations, it is concluded that evaluation is one way of preventing radical change in higher education simply in the name of rationalisation. That is, evaluation which is initiated from within rather than imposed from without the institution, and which is concerned to provide the diverse publics served by higher education with evidence of the effective operation of society's colleges and universities.

Without doubt, the most difficult aspect of this research has been that of gathering (I am inclined to say "extracting") evidence; and this deserves to be a case study of itself. However, let us firstly consider the necessity for evaluation.

I - I n s t i t u t i o n a l and S o c i e t a l C o n t e x t

EVALUATION: NECESSARY AND LEGITIMATE

Evaluation as a human activity is as pervasive as membership of groups or organisations, both formal and informal. One could contend that evaluation activities increase proportionate to growth in organisational participation in modern societies. Etzioni has observed that man is increasingly drawn into the vortex of organisational life:

We are born in organizations, educated by organizations, and most of us spend much of our lives working for organizations. We spend much of our leisure time paying, playing and praying in organizations. Most of us will die in an organization, and when the time comes for burial, the largest of all - the state - must grant official permission (Etzioni, 1964, p. 1).

407

To illustrate the pervasiveness of evaluation in modern societies, Etzioni could be rewritten: As we are born so we are evaluated; during education we are evaluated; in employment we are subject to frequent evaluation; and at death an ultimate evaluation is determined. Evaluation is as natural a process as human interaction itself. For when two or more people come together an incalculable range of differing behaviour patterns occur and intrinsically, human beings engage in evaluation. Three aspects of evaluation, of relevance to the current study, are present in such human interactions:

1. Evaluation of actual behaviour or standards of performance; 2. evaluation of performance expectations; 3. diversity in modes of evaluation.

The relevance of these criteria will be mentioned later. Against this back- ground let me state, without much fear of contradiction, that evaluation in education is a process which is both necessary and legitimate. It is a process which depends on two principles:

1. Firstly, that evaluation is a pervasive and inevitable human activity; 2. and secondly, that effective evaluation can contribute to individual

human understanding and satisfaction as well as to organisational health.

Perhaps a third premise should be added, one which will allow us to focus more acutely on evaluation in education, this is that effective evaluation outcomes depend considerably on an adequate understanding of context. Let us turn then to look at the institutional context and the societal context of higher education before examining recent evaluations in Australian colleges and universities.

INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT

In Jakarta, Indonesia, an act of parliament known as PP5 was passed on 14 February 1980. Had this act been passed in Australia maybe our approach to evaluation in higher education would be markedly different. The PP5 Act, known in English as '"Administrative Regulations Concerning the Basis of Organization of State Universities/Institutes," seeks to specify and regulate through a monochrome administrative structure, the operations of institutes of higher learning throughout Indonesia. At Chapter IV, Paragraph 6, the PP5 Act states:

In carrying on their respective duties, all components of the university/institute must apply the principles of coordination, integration and synchronisation, both

408

within the university/institute environment and in contacts between the university/ institute and other institutions to achieve uniformity of action in the respective basic duties (Republic of Indonesia, 1980).

Those of you familar with Indonesian universities will appreciate the intent behind such legislation where previously, as one example, faculties and other institutional sub-units enrolled, examined, and generally adminis- tered their own students to the exclusion of other faculties or the institution as a whole. Given the diversity within Indonesia and within its higher education system, it would be outside the scope of this article to comment on the appropriateness of the new legislation.

How much easier would our lot be as teachers and administrators concerned with evaluation in universities and colleges if we had a uniform set of standards and prescribed performance expectations. Easier perhaps, duller most certainly. Given the relative youth of Australian higher education and the low participation rates, one might expect to find a greater degree of uniformity amongst institutions than exists. If Australian universities and colleges were established by remarkably similar parliamentary acts, why are they not more alike organisationally? If, with some variation in emphasis, they pursue an accepted triumvirate of functional outputs - teaching, research and public service - why do some institutions attain high reputations in one area and not in another? If all are funded from the same public purse, why is comparative measurement of outputs and effectiveness so difficult? How is it that universities which outwardly appear so radical are internally so conser- vative?

Questions like these are not easily answered. But they are better understood by reference to two distinctive characteristics of the institutional context in Australian higher education: one has to do with goals, the other with the administrative process.

GOALS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Universities, and increasingly as sector lines blur, CAEs (Colleges of Advanced Education), are characterised as institutions that pursue goals which are multiple, often conflicting and sometimes intangible or ambiguous. The view that a university meets its goals by pursuing teaching, research and public services is deceptive in its simplicity. For as James Perkins notes, a university is "one of the most complex structures in modern society; it is also increasingly archaic" (Perkins, 1973, p. 3). Complexity obtains because a university's formal structure does not describe the distribution of either actual power or responsibilities (and more shall be said about this shortly); and it is archaic because the multiplicity of goals which are ascribed to it, cannot be met by an organisational design more appropriate to its earliest

409

and primary activity, that of teaching and the dissemination of knowledge. The problems that devolve on colleges and universities as complex, multiple- goal organisations could be examined within three inter-related areas:

1. Problems in defining organisational goals; 2. problems in accomplishing what the total organisation sets as goals; 3. and problems associated with the evaluation of goal achievement.

Each area is relevant to our main study and merits closer research. In the present context it should be noted that a gap often exists between the official goals of the total organisation, best regarded as providing public justification for what the college or university does, and those goals often pursued by faculties, departments and other sub-units which explain the actual operation of the enterprise. The implications raised here, will be examined when we look at the frequency of evaluation exercises in Australian tertiary institutions in recent years.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

The administrative process in universities and colleges is, at best, a social process involving dynamic interactive relationships between individuals and groups. As a process it has been described by Daniel Griffiths (1957) as having two major elements:

1. Governance, or decision making in respect of policy determination; 2. decision implementation, this largely being the task of the administrative per-

sonnel who constitute a sub-system within an organisation.

It is the former, the decision making element, which makes the administration of institutions of higher education so distinctive. In Griffiths' estimation the manner in which decisions are made about an organisation's policies and goals determines not only the nature of the total administrative process, but also the structure and other processes which define the organisation itself.

THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS

The system of participative decision making through committees characterises governance in universities and colleges. In practice it presents, to outsiders as well as to those within the higher education community, a picture that is both fascinating and frustrating. Let us examine some of the frustra- tions, even superficially.

In the external environment, businessmen, military officers and public servants dilate on the apparently ineffective and inconclusive committee

410

system in universities and colleges. In Canberra, in the last week of February 1981 I coordinated an Institute for Higher Education workshop on Change Management. It was led by Professor James Adams of Stanford's Faculty of Engineering, the author of Conceptual Blockbusting. There, a former businessman, now university financial officer, said, yet again: "In universities, faculties reach decisions which office boys would make in industry". Even the staunchest defenders of participative decision making would agree with the ex-businessman some of the time. Committees have no doubt frustrated each one of us. On numerous occasions we would have willingly agreed that a camel is indeed the fabled committee-designed horse. But the governance patterns are so much part of tradition in Western higher education, they are so strongly embedded in its culture, that most Australian colleges and universities would subscribe to the hidden motto:

Pretium libertatis aeterna agenda or "The price of autonomy is eternal committee meetings."

The effect of this aspiration on the modes of evaluation acceptable in higher education is worth noting.

All tertiary institutions have that insatiable committee person who delights in dotting I's and crossing T's. He sits on select and sub-committees, he seeks to be on every ad hoc and standing committee and it's rumoured that he sleeps on a converted committee table. But looking externally, participative decision making has an increasing fascination for industrial and commercial corporations and evidence exists that companies are considering the higher education model. Pragmatic not philosophical questions motivate their enquiry. They are likely to be asking, for example: how often do tertiary teachers go on strike, or why do university people close ranks so quickly to defend their institution against external criticism, or how can such a labour intensive industry provide productivity and employee satisfaction? (The day is imminent when academics could be the sole occupational group working 50 or 60 hours plus per week and finding satisfaction with their work.) Within Australia there have been several notable excursions into industrial democ- racy and worker participation. Discussion of alternative organisational and decision making models - with some similarity to those found in universities - is appearing in North American journals. William Ouchi's Theory Z is one such contemporary illustration (Ouchi and Jaeger, 1977-78; Ouchi 1980). Ouchi uses the terminology of Douglas McGregor who distinguished two different management attitudes: the so-called Theory X which asserts that workers are basically lazy and untrustworthy; and Theory Y which holds the opposite view. Ouchi has developed a Theory Z in which companies emphasise long range planning, consensus decision making and strong

411

employer-employee loyalty. Hd draws extensively on the Japanese approach to corporate business life but one can see many striking parallels with decision making in contemporary universities and colleges.

Governance patterns in universities and colleges are not easily analysed. The participative decision making process clouds any analysis of the distribution of authority and power. Universities in the British tradition do not lack stratification. Hierarchies exist. The offices of chancellor, vice-chancellor, deputy vice-chancellor, dean, professor, associate professor, down to part- time tutor are evidence of a formal hierarchy. It is claimed, however, that the division of work is not based on the hierarchical relationship normally found in large organisations. The organisational environment which accom- modates academics is much more volatile - universities and colleges are at once hierarchical in structure and participative in the governance process.

Academic staff may lack authority associated with an hierarchical office but they possess power which is often defined as potential influence (Cartwright and Zander, 1968, p. 216). An individual faculty member's power, or his potential to influence, may be derived from a number of sources:

1. From his prestige, personally or in his discipline; 2. from his length of tenure at the institution; 3. from his acknowledged success in accomplishing the goals of the

organisation or of its sub-units; 4. in addition, and as a consequence of these characteristics, from his

marketability as an established cosmopolitan in the academic world.

This access to individual power, this recognition of individuality, with the freedom of action it carries, contributes to an intensely vibrant and polit- icized context within higher education institutions - a critical factor in the conduct of evaluations.

Action in most universities and colleges takes place at the departmental level (many would suggest that inaction occurs everywhere else). At the department level, and at the level of individual professionals, there are extremely viable communication and decision making networks. These link groups of people in various roles as clients, colleagues and customers, inside and outside the organisation, often cutting sharply across formal relationship patterns. Given the existence of multiple and ambiguous goals at the institutional level of higher education and some of the contextual factors that have been mentioned - participation, power and authority - it is easier to understand how active departments and academics are often committed to the more specific goals of subordinate units within the college or university. They may identify themselves firstly as physicists or philologists, or as members of the pharmacology department; and secondly, as academics of the

412

institution. Provided sub-unit goal activity is congruent with the institution's output goals, dysfunctionalism does not occur. But a disproportionate emphasis on specific subordinate goals by a department may invite some form of evaluation or review.

RECENT CHANGES AFFECT DECISION MAKING

In the past two decades several notable changes have occurred which affect the decision making process in Australian tertiary education institutions. These carry significant implications for any evaluation activity, particularly in universities.

1. Internally there has been a desire for increased participation in decision making - and this originates from a number of sources. Outcomes of this desire for democratization include the shift from professorial boards to academic boards, the election of departmental chairmen, increased student representation, and the election of sub-professorial deans. In the University of New England, for example, there is currently only one professorial dean. Perhaps there is more truth than ever in the adage: '"Old deans never die, they simply lose their faculties".

2. In the same time frame, a parallel external development has occurred as a corollary to the internal desire for democratization. This is, an increased external demand for accountability on the part of higher education institutions, accountability both of a social and a statistical kind. The internal and external demands share some common source elements: a desire to understand better, to participate more fully in, to give a more adequate account of the socially vital enterprise of higher education. Yet the two are almost antithetical. Demands for internal democratization and demands for more acute external accountability have placed even more strains on Perkins' "'archaic structure" of higher education.

3. One consequence of this antithesis has been an elaboration of the administrative structure and processes within colleges and universities - this is the second half of administration (identified by Griffiths), that concerned with decision implementation. This elaboration is not a simple application of Parkinson's Law, a growth occurring at a time when student numbers and resources are not increasing at rates to which institutions have been accustomed. Rather, it can be viewed as a response to the increasing external demands for facts, for evidence, for displays that money, time, people and total resources are justifiably spent in higher education.

413

SOCIETAL CONTEXT

Thus far we l~ave considered some of the powerful forces which characterise the institutional context of Australian higher education and which carry implications for evaluation. To conclude this section, let us look at the equally powerful forces active in the external environment of Australian universities and colleges. These external forces also influence the evaluation process within institutions.

A brief examination of the relationship between an organisation and its environment seems useful. Thompson and Ec Wen (1972, pp. 255-268)s ta te that a power relationship exists between an organisation and its environment: at one extreme the organisation dominates the environmental relationship; at the other the organisation is dominated by its environment. Where most organisations lie, in reality, is somewhere between the extremes of the con- tinuum. What this suggests is that an organisation adopts strategies for coming to terms with its environment. To ensure continuing viability in its environmental relationships, an organisation becomes responsive to changes in the environment which are crucial to its survival. For complex organisations there can be no fixed number of appropriate responses and the time frame for each would vary. An outstanding illustration of university/environmental respon- siveness can be found in the events following 4 October 1957, the date the Russians launched Sputnik and a critical watershed in American higher education.

An organisation's environment is not singular. It is made up of many types of environments to which an organisation responds differently. The concept of the "causal texture of the environment" has been introduced by Emery and Trist (1976, p. 241). To understand the relationship between an organisation and its environment, they say it is first necessary to examine the interdependencies within the environment, its causal texture. The authors identify four types of environment which influence an organisation's respon- siveness or level of adaptation. These are:

1. The placid, randomised environment; 2. the placid, clustered environment; 3. the disturbed, reactive environment; 4. the turbulent field environment.

In the light o f events since 1975, Australian colleges and universities seem to be operating in a turbulent field environment. The contribution of Emery and Trist to a paper on evaluation in higher education is twofold:

1. Firstly, complex organisations, in their environmental relationships increasingly encounter relative uncertainty;

414

2. and secondly, value consensus is of utmost importance when an organisation encounters an increased degree of uncertainty, as for example, in a turbulent field.

The main thesis to be advanced in this section is that there is currently a striking similarity in the generalized social response to higher education in most western countries. Environmental turbulence is not new to higher education - town and gown disturbances in Paris gave birth to Oxford Uni- versity as long ago as the 12th Century. What is remarkable is the congruence of this generalized social response in societies as dissimilar as Sweden and New Zealand, Britain and the United States, France and Australia. This congruence could be researched in two areas:

.

.

T h e p a t r o n ' s r e s p o n s e - the esteem, most tangibly expressed in financial terms, which governments, benefactors, corporations, employers and alumni accord higher education. T h e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' r e s p o n s e - the regard , expressed in degrees of involvement or commitment, which students and their sponsors - supportive parents, spouses, families or employers - have for the cost/benefit calculus underpinning higher education; and also in this second area, and of increasing significance, the stance taken by university and college staff and their unions whose interests are not exclusively institutional.

From the patron's perspective, let us glance at how differently higher education is structured, funded and controlled in some of the western countries named above. Contrast the pluralism of higher education in USA - its diverse relationships with legislature, with churches and corporations, with alumni and foundations - with the academic rigidity enforceable in France under its Higher Education Act. Compare non-university sectors of British higher education with the Advanced College sector in Australia where centralised funding, aided by state legislation, is provoking a centralised authority model.

From the participant's perspective differences also exist. In a comparison of any two western nations, there would be significant differences in the participation rates, in the form of student support, in fee charges, in the availability of tenure to academics and in the concept of redundancy pay- ments, to give a few examples.

Despite these systemic dissimilarities, in the societal context of western higher education, a prevalent response is becoming more and more clearly discernible. This generalised social response, expressed both by patrons and participants, is an unease or an apparent disenchantment with the institution of higher education. This unease is echoed in the increasing media coverage

415

given to issues affecting colleges and universities, too often of a negative nature, not entirely the fault of the media. Consider the following headlines, all taken from three recent issues of the same newspaper:

"Academics Frown on 'Hack' Degree" [ 1 ] "Lecturers Expect 4% Offer" [2] "High Cost of Campus Living" [ 3 ] "Overseas Students Numbers Drop 15%" [4] "Learning on the Dole" [5] "Computer Shortage Remedy Sought" [6]

Apart from deciding which paper they came from, the big question is: to which country do they apply? Do they apply only to one country or, in reality, to all western societies?

The contention is that all of these headlines would have equal applica- bility to France, Britain and the United States, to which one or more refer, as to Australian colleges and universities. Such public pronouncements, however specific or incomplete, are not novel. But they seem to reflect a new concern being expressed by patrons and by participants for the process of higher education in western societies. It is a concern which encompasses such matters as: the broader goals of higher education institutions and at once the marketability of a degree certificate; the overall effectiveness of institutional management and also the appropriateness of funding a lecturer's research project; the extent to which higher education conserves and criticises societal culture, and the details of student welfare services. It is a concern that increases with the increased provision of funds from the public purse. Finally it is a concern which merits balanced and sustained consideration by members of the higher education community.

Issues underlying this concern make up part of the causal texture of the environment surrounding contemporary higher education, and such issues invite the implementation of a process of thoughtful and systematic evaluation.

Similar sentiments were expressed in an address by the Chairman of the University Grants Committee (UGC) to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities (CVCP) of the United Kingdom.

I see nothing at present which would suggest the closure of a complete university. There is, of course, in all this quest ion of change and development a poli t ical element . The universit ies must no t only adapt themselves to new needs and new tasks, which in fact they have always done, but they must be seen to be doing so. There is, as I said at the beginning, a risk that too many denizens in the groves of academe believe themselves to be immune from the changes taking place in the rest of society, which they may regard as a t emporary aberrat ion in the long t ime scale of university development , and many have a feeling that they must refrain from (internally) and resist (external ly) all action of an unpalatable k i n d . . .

416

I have been told by too many people recently that the time for peer judgement is past, and that universities should either be controlled directly by the government machine, and that by a department of state not necessarily that of education and science, or by a UGC composed of hard-headed businessmen or trade unionists according to taste . . .

During the coming years, the universities, CVCP as a body and the UGC must not only work together to reshape the system to meet new needs and new opportunities, but must be seen to be doing so, and to be seen to be effective in doing so. If this does not happen, we shall cease to control our own destiny, because it is at any rate my own view that the greatest threat to the United Kingdom universities today is not a financial one (ABCD,47,9).

What Dr Edward Parkes said in October 1980 speaks directly to many of the issues faced by higher education in Australia today.

II - Recent Evaluations in Australian Higher Education

EVALUATION: RECOMMENDED AS IMPORTANT

The final sentence in the Report of the Inquiry into Education and Training (Williams Report) is short yet profound: "Educat ion is a continuing and changing process and it should be frequently reviewed" (Williams, 1979, 3, p. 72). For those concerned with evaluation in higher education its implications are direct, as direct as the several recommendations in the Williams' Report which endorse evaluation studies:

1. R. 6.26 which recommends " tha t the TEC [Tertiary Education Com- mission] in consultation with the relevant state authorities commission some evaluative case studies of the effects of amalgamations on costs and the type and quality of education received by students" (Williams, 1979, 1, p. 271 ). R.6.27 which recommends " tha t evaluative studies of courses be regarded as especially important in a period of consolidation in advanced education" (ibid, p. 273).

3. Recommendations in Chapter 18, particularly R. 18. 38 which recommends "an extension of systems research which probes the role and performance of Governments, Government Commissions and Boards, universities, colleges of advanced education and TAFE [Technical and Further Education] institutions, and then appraises proposals for reform" (ibid, p. 815).

.

An interesting comparison can be made between the Williams' Report, if it reflects the current needs of Australian higher education, and the obser-

417

rations of a former Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge University, made almost twenty years ago:

All over the country [Great Britain] these groups of scholars, who would not make a decision about the shape of a leaf or the derivation of a word or the author of a manuscript without painstakingly assembling the evidence, make decisions about admissions policy, size of universities, staff-student ratios, content of courses, and similar issues, based on dubious assumptions, sloppy data and mere hunch. . . Although dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, they have until recently resolutely declined to pursue knowledge about themselves (Ashby, 1963).

Universities are everywhere an abundant source of intellectual and scientific innovation for society, and yet, they have customarily been reluctant to engage in self-study, to respond to changes in society as far as they affect them, or, to accept readily, innovation in the operation of their own enterprise. Part o f this reluctance comes from a belief that universities are not merely distinctive institutions, but that they are unique as organisations.

EMERGENCE OF A SYSTEM OF HIGHER EDUCATION

However, twenty years is a long time in Australian higher education, a period sufficiently lengthy to have witnessed the emergence of a system of higher education and a growing interest in evaluation in education. In 1959 the Universities Commission was created to assist balanced developments in the university sector. In 1965 the Advisory Committee on Advanced Educa- tion was established. The inclusion of teachers colleges in the financing arrangements from 1972 created a comprehensive advanced college sector. The Technical and Further Education Commission established in 1975 provided the basis for the creation of the Tertiary Education Commission in 1977. The TEC is required to perform its functions with the object of pro- moting the balanced and coordinated development of the provision of post- secondary education in Australia.

Higher education in Australia is a relatively new system and this newness also applies equally to m a n y universities, advanced colleges and TAFE colleges. Institutions are new at being big and yet already must adjust to becoming smaller than could have been expected a decade ago - some have become so small that they have ceased to exist. At present TAFE institutions are generally exempt from this growth contraction. The diminution in resource allocation to universities and advanced colleges since the mid '70s finds some of its justification in demographic changes leading to a decline in growth rates for participation in higher education. The projections for the next twenty years offer little consolation. The Williams Report estimates that from an allocation o f 1.84 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 1977, higher education can expect a provision of between 1.53 per cent and

418

1.75 per cent of the GDP in the year 2001. Many CAEs and a number of smaller universities have not attained or fully expressed what Ashby calls "an inner logic" - a determined mechanism for the preservation of their unique identity, their own genetic coding. For such institutions where turbulence could be part of the internal environment, uncertainty high and values diver- gent, evaluation exercises must appear threatening.

INCREASING INTEREST IN EVALUATION

The increasing interest in evaluation in higher education in recent years can be attr ibuted to three general sources:

1. As a consequence of the rise in public funding of education (from 2.1 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product in 1956-57 to 5.8 per cent of the GDP in 1976-77) ;

2 . from an increase in communi ty awareness following the growth in participation in higher education;

3. and as one result of a greater concern for the links between education and employment .

Interest in evaluation in education seems to have developed faster than the capacity to undertake evaluation. Measurement of outcomes, of the quality and the efficiency of higher education activities, increasingly concerns state and federal coordinating agencies and these answer to ministers; and this concern is being relayed back to vice-chancellors, directors and principals.

The Australian Conference of Principals of Colleges of Advanced Edu- cation submitted to the Inquiry into Education and Training that,

� 9 evaluation criteria and procedures should be based on the concept that each institution can state its objectives and, in particular, how these will be of value to individual students and the community. Each institution should then be required to demonstrate as best it may its progress towards the attainment of its stated objectives (Williams, 1979, 1, p. 796).

In addition to government evaluation and course evaluation, the Principals' Conference suggested that governments encourage peer evaluation and self- evaluation. Even for single purpose CAEs, the specification of objectives may have been easier in a growth phase than during one of uncertainty or decline.

PEER EVALUATION IN UNIVERSITIES

As part of the cultural fabric of university life, peer evaluation owes its origins to the ideal of a self-regulating communi ty of scholars. Peer evaluation

419

of individuals and of individual activities within universities is commonplace as may be seen in academic appointments and promotions, the examination of theses, and t he assessment of research and publications. Less common, until recently, have been evaluations of institutional objectives and outcomes. And this for some of the reasons concerning goal ambiguity which were previously discussed; and also because some of the objectives are embedded in the very processes of education.

Forces in the social environment are capricious. Squalls blow up suddenly in turbulent waters. Sensing imminent change, many great helmsmen in Australian universities and colleges have set their crews to hastily organised make and mend exercises: some sails have been hoisted to catch the prevailing winds, some trimmed, and others taken down for repairs. In practice: reviews of the internal organisation of institutions are increasing; vacancies on the academic staff are rigorously scrutinised, with freezing or redeployment in mind; courses and options are eliminated if appropriate; departments are merged; facilities use is examined within and across institutions; and collabo- ration between institutions is being realistically explored.

Those who are helmsmen, crew, and even passengers on these voyages of institutional self-discovery do well to ask: is there a guiding star? and, what charts and maps are there upon which to plot the ship's course?

RECENT EVALUATIONS IN THREE UNIVERSITIES

What follows now is an at tempt to discover the compass points that have guided the course of recent evaluations in three Australian universities.

Three institutions were arbitrarily chosen because on the one hand they are sufficiently dissimilar to be representative of the range of Australian universities; on the other hand, universities were selected because through employment with five of them, it is the sector I understand best and also I hoped information could be easily obtained from reasonably nearby institutions.

From Table I it can be seen that the University o f Queensland belongs to the older group of Australian universities being established in 1910 and that it now has one of the largest enrolments, some 18,300 in 1980. Degree courses in a wide range of professional and other faculties are available. In 1980, the total staff numbered 3,406 and the recurrent budget was of the order of $70 million.

The University of New England, founded as a College of Sydney Uni- versity in 1938 and attaining autonomy in 1954, is the only Australian university not on the periphery of a large city. Some 8,461 students enrolled in 1980. Although there are no degree courses in core professions, the university has gained eminence for several distinctive degree programs not only at the postgraduate level. It used to be said that UNE claimed to be unique as the

420

TABLE I

Summary of Basic Data for Three Selected Institutions

Instit. Location Year 1980 1980 1980 Admin. 1980 Estab. Enrol. Acad. Tech. and Budget

Staff Other Staff

U o f Q St. Lucia Brisbane QLD 1910 18,358 1,210 2,196 ca $70

million

UNE Armidale 1938/ NSW 1954 8,461 485 835 ca $26

million

ANU Canberra 1946 ACT 1929/ 6,112 973 2,460 ca $90

1960 million

only university in the world surrounded by a rabbit p roof fence. Teaching in both the internal and external modes is a more fitting accolade, with almost two-thirds of enrolled students learning at a distance. Staff in 1980 numbered 1,320 and the budget about $26 million.

The Australian National University, the country 's only non-state university, with its distinctive Institute of Advanced Studies and its School of General Studies is sui generis in statute, structure and academic orientation. Established in 1946, its 1980 enrolment totalled 6,112 and its staff 3,433 with a recurrent budget o f $90 million. The ANU's programs for research and training in research are supported by facilities and staff of the highest international standards.

EVALUATION: ANALYSING A NEW ACTIVITY

Evaluation in Australian higher education is a new activity; and in seeking to discover some of the criteria that characterise recent evaluations, it seemed useful to pursue enquiries in three interrelated areas. To establish:

1. The frequency of evaluation and review activity; 2. the constitution of the review team; 3. the status of any ensuing report.

In the absence of published evaluation criteria, it was expected that analysis in these areas could illuminate some of the implicit standards used. At this

421

point in the analysis all evaluation/review exercises were accepted as nominated without distinguishing between academic evaluations and O and M type reviews.

FREQUENCY OF EVALUATION

Each of the three universities was asked to nominate evaluation/review exercises which had been undertaken in the years 1975-1980. Without, at this stage, examining the varying subject areas evaluated, let us accept the exercises as nominated for the purposes of a frequency analysis. Queensland advised that 34 evaluations were initiated in the period under review, UNE 23 evaluations and the ANU 41. The frequency of these evaluations in the years 1975-1980 is analysed in Fig. 1, Fig. 2, and Fig. 3. Doubtless statisti- cians could matrix a series of relationships involving the number of evaluations initiated and variables of age, enrolment, recurrent budget and so on for each institution. The three arbitrarily selected institutions had nominated a total of 98 evaluation or review exercises which were initiated in the period 1975-1980. The total has risen steadily year by year: nine evaluations were begun in 1975; 11 in 1976; 14 in 1977; 20 in 1978; a peak of 23 in 1979; and in 1980 21 evaluation or review exercises were initiated. This is displayed

10

m 4

0 - 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1 9 8 0

YeQF

Fig. 1. Frequency of review/evaluation exercises - The University of Queensland 1 9 7 5 - 1980. (Total review/evaluation exercises nominated: 34.)

10

8

._c

-~ 2 a:

0 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

Yeor

Fig. 2. Frequency of review/evaluation exercises - The University of New England 1975-1980 . (Total review/evaluation exercises nominated: 23.)

422

14

3 12 o +~ "E 10

~8 ._~ ~6 c~

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1 9 8 0 Year

Fig. 3. Frequency of review/evaluation exercises - The Australian National University 1975-1980 . (Total review/evaluation exercises nominated: 41 .)

24

[~ 20 .E

"~ 12 t~

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 Year"

m

m

1980

Fig. 4. Frequency of review/evaluation exercises - U of Q, UNE, ANU 1975-1980 . (Total review/evaluation exercises nominated: 98.)

in Fig. 4. Further extrapolations from this data should be undertaken cau- tiously because it is probably incomplete. Apart from the ANU, few institutions would hold a comprehensive record of all evaluations attempted; and in respect of ANU, the evaluation frequency data is complete only until July 1980. So we might assume the total number of exercises initiated in 1980 would, in reality, exceed those of 1979.

The simple conclusion to be noted from the frequency analysis of nominated evaluations is the steadily increasing phenomenon of evaluation across three quite dissimilar universities. At least these three institutions, and we might safely assume many more, are attempting to meet new needs and new opportunities in the environment surrounding contemporary higher education. Whether they are seen to be doing so, and are seen to be e f f e c t i v e

in doing so, must remain the subject of other research.

CONSTITUTION OF REVIEW TEAMS

Turning now to the second point of inquiry, the constitution of review teams. How the three institutions constituted evaluation teams for the nom-

423

inated exercises is analysed in Table II, Table III, and Table IV. A summary of the details on these tables appears in Table V. The use of Specifically Constituted Committees, that is, a committee unique to the specific evaluation exercise, has been favoured by the University of Queensland and the ANU to the extent of 64.7 per cent and 75.6 per cent respectively. Neither institution makes much use of Standing Committees, this being a mode employed by the UNE almost as extensively, 34.8 per cent, as that of Specif- icaUy Constituted Committees, 43.5 per cent. Both the U of Q and UNE have made significant use of other evaluative teams, including in-house education development and research units. Apart from primary utilisation of Specifically Constituted Committees, the ANU has used Small Groups for 14.6 per cent of its review activities. In each of the three universities it appears that Small Groups have been asked to undertake reviews more administrative in substance than academic.

A proposition could be advanced here that, notwithstanding the existence of guidelines for evaluations, the constitution of the review team varies as to the nature of the evaluation being undertaken.

STATUS OF REPORTS

Details concerning the third area of inquiry, that of the status of any ensuing report, are also included in Table II, Table III and Table IV. A second proposition, which has been the subject of differing opinion, related to the status, in terms of the degree of confidentiality or the measure of circulation, which was given each evaluation report by the university official who furnished it. From the summary in Table V it can be seen that Specifically Constituted Committees, which comprise 75.6 per cent of the ANU's review teams, produce reports in- the Confidential or Limited Circulation classifica- tions at 63.4 per cent of the total. At the University of Queensland, 64.7 per cent of the review teams are Specifically Constituted Committees and these edit reports having Confidential or Limited Circulation status to 73.5 per cent of all reports. The situation at the UNE finds Specifically Constituted Com- mittees being 43.5 per cent of the total and producing 39.2 percent of all reports in the Confidential or Limited Circulation status.

It may be happenstance, but the second proposition suggests an apparent relationship between Specifically Constituted Committees and reports which are Confidential or Limited Circulation. As a corollary, and drawing upon UNE data, the highest use of Standing Committees (34,8 per cent) has produced the largest number of reports of the status, Generally Available (47.8 per cent). Evidence and the time available is insufficient to pursue this now. The fact that committees have been used for more than 85 per cent of the review exercises surveyed supports Griffiths' contention that the process of decision making defines the character of an organisation; and, as discussed

424

0 oO

I

O~

o

0

r~ �9 ,...t

�9

0

Z

o&

o ~

i

�9

o~ g

�9

•

CO o 0

"o

X

Q2

6

~o

o= ~N

~ @ ~ ~o @~ ~o z~

425

•

•

.~.~ ~d �9 0

oo om

o

0 ",-~

0

X X ~

~D

o ~ o ~ O ~ o ~

~ 0 ,.~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ 0 0

0 cO

4 2 6

r

o

U~

.o

~ o ~

o & ~

o

. " .,~

~ o ~

•

X

X ~ X

Z ~

d

~d �9

~ o ~

X

"0

0

s

"0

0 .,n

o

427

0

Oh

o

,.~

0 0

0

2

0 z

e~

~D

i

0

o~

o

o O ~ •

.o ~ o

o

�9 ~ ~ , ~

p... O~

~ ~ 0 ~ o

o

o

t ~

e~

X X

X ~

o

~ . o

428

.<

~

o ~ ~

i

u~

0

o

i

X X X

~o

0

X

X ~X

0

o

.~<~

. ~

4-I

E 0

0

0 oO

X

u~

u~

XX

~E ~o

0o <3",

7 O",

o

O

o ~:

~ 0

~ o

0 Z

o a ~ N

Z ~

L

; . z . =

=o ~ o

o ~

i

~D

i

O

~3

~D

~D

~o r

•

~ ~ o

X X

eO

o o o

~, ~ .~ o ~ "~

429

tt~ v, D t""-

O", ~ O',

, cD

4 3 0

F~

0

0

0

�9 ~ =~ ~ < ~ o ~ o ~a

2~

o o

o ~ ~

0 O 0 0

�9 O

X

X

o',

431

i

0

o

o ~ N

~ i ~ ~ ~-~.~

o oo~ o o ~

~ n ~ ~ o o o 2 m ~ ~ m

0

O~

432

TABLE V

Summary of Review/Evaluation Exercises 1975-1980

Instit. Constitution of Review Team

Specif. Stand. Small Other Constit. C'ttee. Group

U of Q 64.7% 0 14.7% 20.6% UNE 43.5% 34.8% 8.7% 13.0% ANU 75.6% 4.9% 14.6% 4.9%

Instit. Status of Report

Confid. Limited Gen. Other Circ. Avail.

U of Q 23.5% 50.0% 11.8% 14.7% UNE 4.4% 34.8% 47.8% 13.0% ANU 12.2% 51.2% 36.6% 0

earlier, participative decision making characterises higher education. Of course, the membership of any committee and how that membership is appointed are critical factors in the acceptance granted its deliberations.

STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION

From this analysis of the frequency of reviews, the constitution of committees and the status of reports, it can be concluded that there is no single star to illuminate the conduct of evaluations. No one model would be acceptable, even within one institution. What then are the compass points which have guided reviews in the three institutions? In addressing this question we shall now examine two sources of evidence:

1. Institutional policy statements about the conduct of review and evaluation exercises;

2. a selection of evaluation commit tee reports.

In this brief survey of guiding principles it would be useful to hold in mind the standards for evaluation which have been proposed by Stufflebeam and others. Stated simply the attributes of good evaluation are:

433

From an unpublished paper by Stufflebeam (1978, pp. 5 - 7 ) - 1. Technical adequacy; 2. Utility; 3. Probity; 4. Practicality. From the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1981, pp. 13-15) - 1. Utility, 2. Feasibility; 3. Propriety, 4. Accuracy.

INSTITUTIONAL POLICY STATEMENTS

To turn now to institutional policy statements: of the institutions stud- ied, the ANU alone has formally approved guidelines and these have their origins as far back as 1973. Appendix No 1 is a copy of the ANU statement on Departmental Reviews in the School of General Studies; and at Appendix No 2, is the paper "Guidelines for the Conduct of Reviews" which was under consideration at UNE during 1980-1981. A close reading of these statements should provide opportunity to make comparisons amongst the above criteria for good evaluation, the practices at your college or university, and the following key points.

In the ANU School of General Studies, evaluations are institutionalised, occurring, as in Para. 2, approximately every ten years with more frequent variations if a headship or chair becomes vacant. The Vice-Chancellor has discretion, at Para. 3, to decide within the guidelines if a full review is necessary. In Para. 5, membership of review committees is prescribed and is pre- dominantly internal. It is noteworthy that both students and staff of the department concerned are formally on all Committees. The implications for Propriety and for Feasibility are clear. The review procedures are simply stated in Para. 6, as "consultations", presumably to be undertaken in terms of the general considerations listed in Para. 1.

In 1979 it was the opinion of the then Professorial Board of UNE "that the UNE should not adopt the ANU system of regular automatic reviews". (UNE, 1979). The 1980 paper agreed upon by the Academic Board provides a number of differing principles to those in use at the ANU. The Vice-Chan- cellor's responsibility for initiation of all reviews, Para. 1, seems to inhibit such action by Council or by a Faculty; suffice it to say that the exclusive terms of such responsibility would need to be measured in context. A committee, established prior to any evaluation committee, to assess the need for a review is specified in Para. 2. This aspect of needs assessment is congruent with the criterion of Utility. Also in Para. 2, as in Para. 3, is the implication

434

that review will be by committee, membership of which shall be predomi- nantly external. Terms of reference are to be specific to each review, Para. 4. A distinctive feature of UNE's proposed guidelines is the preparation of a briefing submission, Para. 5, which bears upon Feasibility and Propriety. Para. 9 provides that the report or part thereof may be distributed at the discretion of the Vice-Chancellor. This has implications for evaluation outcomes in terms of Propriety and Accuracy.

A closer scrutiny of institutional policy statements lies beyond the ambit of this article which has its focus on the incidence of recent evaluations. Let us rather look now at the evidence from reports of evaluations: as stated at the, beginning of this article the primary difficulty lay in obtaining review information and reports. In each institution, despite the courtesy extended, there was no great willingness to let me have reports, even those of the status Generally Available. In two of the three institutions I was advised that my request for such documents had been referred to the Vice-Chancellor. Anyone who has experienced a departmental evaluation, particularly a crisis-reactive review, would appreciate this sensitivity. Having both evaluated and been evaluated, it is a sensitivity to which I deferred.

OBSERVATIONS FROM REPORTS

The following observations arise from a study of two departmental/ faculty evaluation reports from each institution.

In the University of Queensland, which advised that it does not have formal review procedures, evaluation exercises are frequently known as the "Vice-Chancellor's Committee o f Enquiry" into the department or faculty of X, i.e., apart from those set in motion by the Professorial Board or Senate. This centralised initiative is evident in the constitution of committees, their membership and terms of reference, and the status of reports. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor or the President of the Professorial Board seems to chair many of the review exercises. Characteristically the membership of Queensland committees is of an External/Internal model - external to the department concerned but internal to the institution; whereas UNE tends towards an External/External model for academic evaluations, and ANU follows a mixed Internal/External model.

Among the many issues that arise from reading six diverse reports, four particular questions are provoked. Each one of these questions can be tested against the attributes for good evaluation.

1. What were the reasons for the composition of committee membership?

2. Why was the report accorded the Status it received? - Confidential through to Generally Available?

435

3. How honestly was the report written? (Circumspection in report lan- guage was a major difficulty in my assessment.)

4. Does the evaluation contribute effectively to the solution of the issue; or was a primary intention to assuage popular concern?

Overall, the reports at tempted to grapple with two sets of issues: one to do with needs, clients, programs and particularly resources; the other concerned with processes, structures, relationships and standards. A focus on goals, and the achievement of goals at the sub-unit or organisational level, formally linked the two sets of issues. There was evidence of intra-institutional turbulence with a degree of uncertainty and a lack of value consensus encompassing a number of reviews. Uncertainty caused some people to ask: to whose needs is the review directed and who will benefit from its outcomes? Lack of value consensus was apparent in the too frequent absence of mutual respect and trust. At best, (and one of the six reports approaches this) a review becomes an exercise in awareness, a voyage in self-discovery during which significant points at issue are resolved as part of the review process itself. At the other pole, some review committees operated like an academic Ku Klux Klan and a number of review reports read like judicial enquiries: adversarial relationships were provoked rather than understanding and consolidation being achieved; and those offending, both by commission and omission, were suitably dealt with.

It seems that this presentation has provided more of the anatomy of selected Australian evaluations than its physiology. Hopefully, the insightful reader will be able to animate these dry bones to the benefit of his own institution. There are several other factors which deserve consideration and have not been examined in this article. An important one is the politicised nature of the institutional context which was apparent from review reports. Little comment need be made except to observe that the existence of power groups, self-interest and conflict is real in higher education and should be both acknowledged and accommodated in effective evaluations. Ouchi's Theory Z has assisted my analysis of the preceding reports. It suggests that even universities could revitalise their participative committees. In respect of reviews, Ouchi suggests that more energy should be spent on discovering the essential problem and consequential needs, probably resulting in slimmer reports, and less in developing executive muscle to implement reports.

Conclusion

Growth contraction was the catch word of Australian higher education in the late '70s. Rationalisation, a theme of the Williams Report, is destined to displace it in the early '80s. The 1980s are likely to be a decade of radical

436

change in universities, CAEs and TAFE institutions and the 1980s may also be a decade of crisis for higher education in Australia. The two should be locked together and need not be linked together. And evaluation of higher education is one key way of keeping them apart, that is, evaluation which has Utility, Feasibility, Propriety and Accuracy, and which provides to the diverse publics served by higher education, evidence of effective organisational management. Above all else evaluations initiated from within are preferable to the imposition of a PP5 type uniformity from without.

Thus, it is contended that evaluation in higher education can be supported as a process which is inevitable and pervasive, as a process which is not prescriptive but which takes due cognizance of its context institutionally and societally; and evaluation is most firmly supported which intends to provide greater satisfaction and understanding as much to patrons as to participants.

In terms of using evaluation to revivify rather than to vivisect our colleges and universities, a recent publication from Bristol University has this appealing statement of intent: "Evaluation, or appraisal as they also call it, can be undertaken to influence future practice, to add to the body of knowledge, or to self-congratulate" (Bishop, 1980).

APPENDIX 1

The Australian National University Board of the School of General Studies Departmental Reviews

1. It is School policy that there will be regular reviews of depar tments in order to assess their records of teaching and research and o ther cont r ibut ions to the Universi ty; during the course of such a review it will be considered -

- whether the depar tment should cont inue and if so whether it should cont inue in its current fo rm;

- whether there are changes that should be made in the direct ion of the department ;

- whether there are changes that should be made which will increase the effectiveness of the depar tment .

2. Depar tments will be reviewed at intervals of approximate ly ten years. However al though less than ten years may have passed since the last review the Vice-Chancellor may, af ter appropriate consul ta t ion, decide that a review should take place in the following circumstances -

(1) when the headship becomes vacant and the last review was held more than 4 - 5 years ear l ie r ;

(2) when a chair in the depar tment becomes vacant and the last review was held more than 4 - 5 years earlier;

437

(3) when 4 or 5 years have-passed since a new department was established; (4) when there are special circumstances such that the Vice-Chancellor deems a

review is desirable.

The Vice-Chancellor may, after appropriate consultation, decide that two or more related departments should be reviewed at the same time whether or not all the departments are due for review in accordance with the circumstances set out above.

3. In the case of a review after approximately ten years and in the case of a review of a new department, the Departmental Committee will be asked to furnish a comprehensive analysis of the department. After consideration of the analysis and following any other consultations deemed appropriate the Vice-Chancellor may determine that a full review with appointment of a Review Committee is not necessary. In this event, there will in any case be a full review in 4 to 5 years' time.

Where a full review is to take place, the Vice-Chancellor or more usually a deputy, will consult the Departmental Committee (or a sub-committee appointed by the Committee where the Departmental Committee is very large). The Committee will raise whatever issues it considers relevant and may make suggestions as to persons who might be considered for appointment as members of the Review Committee.

4. When, in the case of a vacant headship or chair in a department or where there are special circumstances referred to in paragraph 2 (4) above the Vice-Chancellor determines that a review should take place, he or more usually a deputy will consult the Departmental Committee (or a sub-committee appointed by the Committee where the Departmental Committee is very large). The Committee will raise whatever issues it considers relevant and may make suggestions as to persons who might be considered for appointment as members of a Review Committee. The Vice-Chancellor may ask the Departmental Committee to furnish a comprehensive analysis of the Department and may, after consideration of the analysis and following any other consultations deemed appropriate, determine that a full review with appointment of a Review Committee is not necessary.

5. After taking such advice as he thinks fit the Vice-Chancellor will appoint a review committee comprising -

Vice-Chancellor or a deputy; Deputy Chairman of the Board; Dean of the relevant Faculty; two students from the departmental committee elected by the students of the departmental committee; two members of the academic staff of the department elected by the academic staff of the department; one senior member of the academic staff of a related department; one senior member of the academic staff of a different Faculty; two or more academics, or persons of equivalent standing, of a relevant discipline from outside the SGS (there could be circumstances in which these might be from within the University).

In cases where two or more related departments are being reviewed at the same time by the one committee the membership of the Review Committee will be appropriately adjusted.

6. During its deliberations the Review Committee will consult as widely as it thinks fit and will keep in close touch with the Departmental Committee.

438

7. The Review Committee will submit its report to the Vice-Chancellor. Dissenting reports may be submitted as well as the majority report.

8. The Vice-Chancellor will refer the Committee's report and any dissenting reports, except such sections as refer to particular individuals, to the Board of the School. The Board will as a first step transmit the reports, with such observations as it thinks fit, to Council for noting.

9. At the same time the Board will request the Dean of the Faculty concerned to arrange for appropriate consideration of the Review Committee's recommendations on academic matters and to report to the Board through the Faculty on action taken. The Board will report subsequently to Council. Recommendations on non-academic matters will be dealt with through the normal channels.

APPENDIX 2

The University of New England Guidelines for the Conduct of Reviews

The Board adopted the following set of guidelines for the conduct of reviews in the University:

1. The Vice-Chancellor shall be responsible for the initiation of all reviews in the University.

2. The Vice-Chancellor shall establish a committee to advise him on whether or not a review should be initiated.

The Committee shall consult with the faculties, departments and members of staff who might reasonably be expected to be affected by a review and give them an opportunity to express their views concerning the need for a review.

If the committee recommends that a review should be initiated the committee shall recommend:

(a) the membership of the review committee; (b) procedures to be adopted; (c) the date by which a report is to be submitted.

3. Generally, the review committee shall consist predominately of members who are external to the University.

4. I f the Vice-Chancellor decides to proceed with a review he shall, prior to its com- mencement, set out in writing its terms of reference, membership, procedures and reporting date and at the earliest opportunity report these to the Academic Board.

5. Wherever appropriate, a set of briefing submissions, which would include facts and views, shall be prepared by the area under review for the review committee prior to its undertaking the review.

6. The review committee shall consult the staff of the area under review sufficiently for there to be a consensus among those members of staff that their aims and activities are understood by the committee and that they (the staff members) have had adequate opportunity to make oral and written submissions in explanation of those aims and activities.

7. In preparing its report the review committee shall apply standards of evidence acceptable throughout the academic community.

439

8. The review committee shall make its report to the Vice-Chancellor who shall decide upon a course of action.

9. If the Vice-Chancellor decides to distribute the report, or part thereof, all those who could be reasonably expected to be affected by the report should receive a copy at least at the same time as other areas of the University.

10. No action shall be taken on issues arising from the report until all those who could reasonably be expected to be affected by the report have had an opportunity to comment on the report.

1 I. Recommendations arising from the report shall be notified to the Academic Board.

(These Guidelines were adopted by the Academic Board on 29 September 1980 and pending further consideration have yet to be approved by Council.)

Notes

1 The Times Higher Education Supplement (1981), 13 February, p. 7. 2 The Times HigherEducation Supplement (1981), 27 February, p. 2. 3 The Times HigherEducation Supplement (1981), 27 February, p. 5. 4 The Times Higher Education Supplement (1981), 13 February, p. 32. 5 The Times Higher Education Supplement (1981), 20 February, p. 8. 6 The Times Higher Education Supplement ( 1981), 13 February, p. 6.

References

A Bulletin of Current Documentation (ABCD), London: Association of Commonwealth Universities.

Ashby, E. (1963). Decision Making in the Academic WorM. Sociological Studies in British University Education Monograph No. 7, University of Keele.

Bishop, J. (1980). The Appraisal o f Buildings. School of Advanced Urban Studies, Univer- sity of Bristol.

Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (1968). Group Dynamics (3rd edition). London: Tavistock. p. 216 and pp. 215-297 passim.

Emery, F. E. and Trist, E. L. (1976). Systems Thinking. London: Penguin. Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Government Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 5 (1980). "Administrative

Regulations of the Republic of Indonesia, Number 5 of 1980, concerning the Basis of Organization of State Universities/Institutes," Chapter IV, Paragraph 6, (Jakarta).

Griffiths, D. E. (1957). "Administration as decision making," in Halpin, A. W. (ed.) Administrative Theory in Education. Chicago: Midwest Administration Center.

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1981). Standards f orE valua- tions of Educational Programs, Projects and Materials. New York: McGraw Hill. pp. 13-15.

Ouchi, William G. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Ouchi, W. G. and Jaeger, A. M. (1977-78) "Type Z organizations: a corporate alternative to village life," Stanford Alumni Bulletin. pp. 13 -17 and 31-32 .

Parkes, E. (1981). "Reshaping the British University System to Meet New Needs," an address to the CVCP on 24 October 1980 reported in A Bulletin of Current Documen- tation. No. 47, p. 9.

440

Perkins, J. A. (ed.) (1973). The University as an Organization New York: McGraw-Hill. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1978). "Philosophical, Conceptual and Practical Guides for Evaluating

Education," unpublished paper, College of Education, Western Michigan University, August 2.

Thompson, J. D. and Ec Wen, W. J. (1972). "Organizational goals and environments: goal- setting as an interactive process," in Brinkerhoff, M. B. and Kunz, P. R., (eds.) Complex Organizations and Their Environment. Iowa: Wm. C. Brown Co.

University of New England (1979). Professorial Board Meeting of 26 November. Williams, B. R. (Chairman) (1979). Education, Training and Employment. Report,of the

Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training, Canberra.

recent evaluations in australian higher education: context and incidence

Documents