Pushkinskaya st. 43. office 10
Rostov-on-Don, Russia
344082
e-mail: info@hjournal.ru 
tel. +7(863) 269-88-14

cubsEN (2)

Formation of Alternative Approaches to the Modern Reform of Higher Education

Formation of Alternative Approaches to the Modern Reform of Higher Education

Journal of Economic Regulation, , Vol. 11 (no. 4),

One of the general factors that determined the direction of development and, at the same time, large-scale reform of higher education in many countries of the world was the widespread use of various technologies of new public management (NPM) as modern and popular management tools in public sector. Their application was supported and substantiated by the ideology of the new managerialism, which involves the active use of these technologies, along with stimulating the development of a competitive environment through quasi-market institutional approaches. The success of reforming higher education should be linked with the readiness to overcome these traps by significantly adjusting the vector of strategic changes, which should take into account the peculiarities of the logic of the functioning and reproduction of the professional academic community, involve it in the development of strategies for the development of universities, and the development of approaches to assess the effectiveness of their activities. The emergence of the number of institutional traps, stable self-replicating institutional norms, which generally negatively affect the results of higher education's functioning, are tested as negative side effects of the modern reforms. There are the traps of metrics, budget underfunding, human resources, bureaucratization, informatization and digitalization, and others. The values and expectations of the academic community, the features of the professional activities of its various components should be taken into account.


Keywords: higher education; performance measurement,; New Public management (NPM); universities; quasi-market; institutional traps

References:
  • Volchik, V. V., Korytsev, M. A., Maslyukova, E. V. (2018). Institutional traps and New Public Management in education and science. Upravlenets – The Manager, 9(6), 17–29. DOI: 10.29141/2218-5003-2018-9-6-2. (In Russian).
  • Kollini, S. (2016). Why are universities needed? M.: Ed. house of the Higher School of Economics. (In Russian).
  • Korytsev, M. A., Ipatova, A. V., Nikolaenko, I. O. (2019). Integration of universities in the context of reforms of higher education: European experience and Russian practice. Actual Problems of Economics and Law, 13(2), 1174–1183 (In Russian).
  • Le Grand, D. (2011). The Other Invisible Hand: Choice and Competition in Public Service Delivery. M. Ed. Gaidar Institute. (In Russian).
  • Ajayan, S., Balasubramanian, S. (2020). “New managerialism” in higher education: the case of United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Comparative Education and Development, 22(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCED-11-2019-0054
  • Alach, Zh. (2016). Performance measurement and accountability in higher education: the puzzle of qualification completions. Tertiary Education and Management, 22(1), 36–48.
  • Bisbe, J., Malagueño, R. (2012). Using strategic performance measurement systems for strategy formulation: Does it work in dynamic environments? Management Accounting Research, 23, 296–311.
  • Broadbent, J., Laughlin, R. (2009). Performance management systems: A conceptual model. Management Accounting Research, (20), 283–295.
  • Choong, K. K. (2014). The fundamentals of performance measurement systems. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, (63), 879–922.
  • Coates, H. (2010). Defining and monitoring academic standards in Australian higher education. Higher Education Management and Policy, 22(1), 1–17.
  • Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher education: From monitoring to management. Quality Assurance in Education, (11), 5–14.
  • Cunningham, S. (1997). Performance indicators for multiple audiences: The Colorado experience. Assessment Update, (9), 10–11.
  • Duque, L. (2013). A framework for analysing performance in higher education. Madrid: Universidad Carlos III de Madrid.
  • Feller, I. (2009). Performance measurement and the governance of American academic science. Minerva, (47), 323–344.
  • Freeman, B. (2014). Benchmarking Australian and New Zealand university meta-policy in an increasingly regulated tertiary environment. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, (36), 74–87.
  • Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Forrester, G. (2011). Performance management in education: Milestone or millstone? Management in Education, (25), 112–118.
  • García-Aracil, A., Palomares-Montero, D. (2010). Examining benchmark indicator systems for the evaluation of higher education institutions. Higher Education, (60), 217–234.
  • Jo E. (2019). Defending the university? Doctoral Thesis. Karlstad University Studies.
  • Johnsen, A. (2005). What does 25 years of experience tell us about the state of performance measurement. Public Money and Management, (25), 9–17.
  • Kallio, K.-M., Kallio, T. J. (2014). Management–by–results and performance measurement in universities – implications for work motivation. Studies in Higher Education, 39(4), 574–589.
  • Kumar, A. G. (2019). Freedom from autonomy: A critique on the new managerialism in higher education. In The Future of Higher Education in India (pp. 279–290). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9061-7_17
  • Lewis, J. (2015). The politics and consequences of performance measurement. Politics and Society, 34(1), 1–12.
  • Lomas, L. (2007). Are students customers? Perceptions of academic staff. Quality in Higher Education, (13), 31–44.
  • Lumino, R., Gambardella, D, Grimaldi, E. (2017). The evaluation turn in the Higher education system: Lessons from Italy. Journal of Educational Administration and History. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2017.1284767
  • Modell, S. (2004). Performance measurement myths in the public sector: A research note. Financial Accountability and Management, (20), 39–55.
  • Orr, D., Jaeger, M., Schwarzenberger, A. (2007). Performance-based funding as an instrument of competition in German higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, (29), 3–23.
  • Pettersen, I. J. (2015). From metrics to knowledge? Quality assessment in higher education. Financial Accountability & Management, 31(1), 23–40.
  • Sirvanci, M. (1996). Are students the true customers of higher education? Quality Progress, (29), 99–102.
  • Spence, C. (2018). ‘Judgement’ versus ‘metrics’ in higher education management. Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0300-z
  • Vuori, J. (2013). Are students customers in Finnish higher education? Tertiary Education and Management, (19), 176–187.
  • Wang, X. (2002). Assessing performance measurement impact: A study of U.S. local governments. Public Performance and Management Review, (26), 26–43.
  • Woodall, T., Hiller, A., Resnick, S. (2014). Making sense of higher education: Students as consumers and the value of the university experience. Studies in Higher Education, (39), 48–67.
  • Yorke, M. (1991). Performance indicators: Towards a synoptic framework. Higher Education, (21), 235–248.
Publisher: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Founder: Ltd. "Humanitarian perspectives"
Online ISSN: 2412-6047
ISSN: 2078-5429