An international comparative perspective on institutional policy to enhance institutional governance, policy-making and policy infrastructure, for improved institutional outcomes

1

An  international  comparative  perspective  on  institutional  policy  to  enhance  institutional  governance,  policy-­making  and  policy  infrastructure,  for  improved  institutional  

outcomes    

Association  of  University  Administrators  (AUA)  Annual  Conference  University  of  Manchester,  UK,  13-­16  April,  2014  

 Brigid  Freeman,  University  of  Melbourne,  Australia,  [email protected]    Nancy  Capell,  formerly  of  University  of  California  Office  of  the  President  (UCOP),    

United  States,  [email protected]    Andrew  Goldblatt,  University  of  California  –  Berkeley,  United  States,  [email protected]    

Miskus  Lapan,  Island  Research  and  Consultants,  Papua  New  Guinea,  [email protected]    

Tracie  Mafile’o,  Pacific  Adventist  University,  Papua  New  Guinea,  [email protected]    Sue  Thompson,  Otago  Polytechnic,  New  Zealand,  Sue  Thompson  [email protected]      

 Abstract    This  paper  presents  the  preliminary  findings  of  the  Institutional  Policy  Project,  and  invites  United  Kingdom  higher  education  providers  to  participate  in  this  research  project.  The  aim  of  the  Institutional  Policy  Project  is  to  explore  higher  education  institutional  policy  to  improve  governance,  enhance  institutional  policy-­‐making  quality  and  improve  institutional  outcomes  governed  by  institutional  policy.  The  Institutional  Policy  Project  involves  international  comparative  analysis,  and  studies  are  underway  with  respect  to  higher  education  institutional  policy  in  the  United  States,  New  Zealand  and  Papua  New  Guinea.  The  project  builds  on  doctoral  research  underway  regarding  Australian  university  governance,  policy  and  strategy.  The  Institutional  Policy  Project  represents  a  collaboration  between  the  University  of  Melbourne,  University  of  California  –  Berkeley,  Otago  Polytechnic,  Pacific  Adventist  University  and  Island  Research  and  Consultants  in  the  first  instance.  The  Institutional  Policy  Project  focuses  on  higher  education  institution  policy,  including  policy  infrastructure  (policy  human  resources,  meta-­‐policy  or  “policy  on  policy”,  professional  development  and  policy  repositories),  features  (policy  instruments,  approval  authorities,  the  policy  cycle),  policy  evaluation  and  review,  and  data  warehouse  systems  related  to  institutional  policy.  Institutional  policy  is  a  key  governance  mechanism,  and  good  practice  institutional  policy  is  essential  to  the  effective  operation  of  institutional  quality  management  systems.  The  project  will  contribute  to  a  better  understanding  of  institutional  policy,  enable  the  identification  of  good  practice  exemplars,  and  in  turn,  facilitate  improved  institutional  policy  making  practices.  The  paper  will  address  the  following  key  questions:  What  institutional  infrastructure  and  resources  are  in  place  to  support  institutional  policy?  What  are  the  features  of  institutional  meta-­‐policy  (that  is,  “policy  on  policy”)?  What  are  the  internal  and  external  contexts  for  institutional  policy?  What  are  the  similarities  and  differences  between  institutional  policy  in  Australia,  United  States,  New  Zealand  and  Papua  New  Guinea.  The  paper  will  provide  the  basis  for  consideration  of  United  Kingdom  institutional  policy  arrangements,  with  a  view  to  identifying  good  practice  exemplars  for  sector  learning  purposes.    Introduction    The  Institutional  Policy  Project  was  launched  in  2013  as  a  collaboration  between  policy  researchers  and  policy  practitioners  in  Australia,  the  United  States,  Papua  New  Guinea  and  New  Zealand.  The  Institutional  Policy  Project  involves  analysis  of  internet-­‐based,  publicly  available  documents,  the  conduct  of  semi-­‐structured  interviews  with  United  States,  Papua  New  Guinea  and  New  Zealand  higher  education  institution  managers  and  policy  practitioners,  and  administration  of  a  survey  of  United  States,  Papua  New  Guinea  and  New  Zealand  higher  education  institutions.  The  Institutional  Policy  Project  interviews  were  conducted  February  –  

2

April,  2014  and  included  21  United  States  respondents,  10  New  Zealand  respondents,  and  10  Papua  New  Guinea  respondents.1  The  Institutional  Policy  Project  builds  on  doctoral  research  currently  underway2  regarding  Australian  university  governance,  strategy  and  policy,  including  interviews  with  10  Australian  policy  practitioners.      The  United  States  survey  was  administered  (February  -­‐  April  2014)  through  email  discussion  lists  of  the  Association  of  College  and  University  Policy  Administrators  (ACUPA),  American  Association  of  Collegiate  Registrars  and  Admissions  Officers  (AACRAO)  and  University  Risk  Management  &  Insurance  Association  (URMIA).  The  New  Zealand,  Papua  New  Guinea  and  Australian  surveys  were  administered  in  (February  -­‐  April  2014)  through  the  Association  of  Tertiary  Education  Management  (ATEM)  Weekend  Update,  ATEM  Institutional  Policy  Network  (IPN)  email  discussion  list,  and  Australasian  Association  for  Institutional  Research  (AAIR)  Newsletter.    The  Papua  New  Guinea  survey  was  also  administered  manually  at  policy  workshops  held  in  Port  Moresby  and  Madang  in  April,  2014.  The  researchers  acknowledge  the  support  of  administering  organisations.  Survey  outcomes  and  final  survey  numbers  will  be  reported  separately  as  the  survey  remained  open  until  the  end  of  May,  2014.      The  Institutional  Policy  Project  examines  core  concepts  regarding  institutional  policy:  policy,  the  policy  cycle,  and  policy  management,  and  explores  organisational  and  practitioner  approaches  to  institution  policy.  The  project  aims  to  identify  good  practices  to  facilitate  the  progressive  improvement  of  higher  educational  institutional  policy  management,  and  policymaking  practices.  The  project’s  findings  will  feed  back  to  the  community  of  institutional  policy  practitioners  to  contribute  to  the  progressive  maturity  of  institutional  policy  practices  and  ongoing  reframing  of  the  institutional  policy  agenda.        Research  literature    Policy  theoretical  perspectives  and  policy  stages  heuristics,3  including  the  Australian  Policy  Cycle4  and  seminal  staged  approaches,5  provide  conceptual  frameworks  for  the  research,  recognising  idealised  policy  processes  vary  in  practice  not  least  with  respect  to  the  iterative  nature  of  the  process  itself.  Institutional  meta-­‐policy67  (or  “policy  on  policy”)  is  managed  through  institutional  policy  management  systems  inclusive  of  policy  suites,  policy  resources  and  infrastructure,  and  policy  users.8  Policy  infrastructure  may  include  policy  committees  charged  with  oversight  of  institutional  policy  management  systems.9  Institutional  policy  is  a  contemporary  issue,  as  institutions  face  increasing  requirements  for  governance  texts,  as      

 …  increasingly,  public  sector  institutions  are  also  required  to  construct  a  variety  of  formal  textual  accounts  of  themselves  in  the  form  of  development  plans,  strategic  documents,  sets  of  objectives  etc.  (as  are  individuals  in  the  form  of  annual  reviews  and  appraisals).  Symbolism  is  as  important  as  substance  here.  Such  texts  symbolize  and  

1     The  final  PNG  interviews  were  being  conducted  by  Miskus  Lapan  during  the  week  of  the  AUA  conference,  with  the  final  one  

scheduled  late  April,  2014.  2     Brigid  Freeman’s  PhD  research  regarding  Australian  university  governance,  policy  and  strategy  complements  the  international,  

collaborative  Institutional  Policy  Project,  which  she  is  leading.      3     Sabatier,  P.  A.  (Ed.).  (1999).  Theories  of  the  policy  process  (pp.  117-­‐166).  Boulder,  CO:  Westview  Press.  4     Bridgman,  P.  &  Davis,  G.  (1998).  Australian  Policy  Handbook.  Sydney:  Allen  &  Unwin.    5     See:  Lasswell,  H.D.  (1951).  ‘The  Policy  Orientation’  in  Lerner,  D.  &  Lasswell,  H.D.  (eds)  (1951).  The  Policy  Sciences,  Stanford  University  

Press,  Stanford;  Brewer,  G.D.  (1974).  The  policy  sciences  emerge:  To  nurture  and  structure  a  discipline.  Policy  Sciences,  5(3),  239-­‐244;  Jenkins,  W.I.  (1978).  Policy  analysis:  A  political  and  organisational  perspective,  M.  Robertson,  London;  Brewer,  G.  D.,  &  DeLeon,  P.  (1983).  The  foundations  of  policy  analysis  (p.  476).  Homewood,  IL:  Dorsey  Press.  

6     Dror,  Y.  (1971).  Design  for  Policy  Sciences.  New  York:  American  Elsevier  Publishing  Company.  7     Freeman  (2014),  Benchmarking  Australian  and  New  Zealand  university  meta-­‐policy  in  an  increasingly  regulated  tertiary  environment,  

Journal  of  Higher  Education  Policy  and  Management,  36:1,  74-­‐87,  DOI:  10.1080/1360080X.2013.861050  8     Clark,  S.  C.,  Griffin,  R.  A.,  &  Martin,  C.  K.  (2012).  Alleviating  the  Policy  Paradox  through  Improved  Institutional  Policy  Systems:  A  Case  

Study.  Innovative  Higher  Education,  37(1),  11-­‐26.  9     Clark,  S.  C.,  Griffin,  R.  A.,  &  Martin,  C.  K.  (2012).  Alleviating  the  Policy  Paradox  through  Improved  Institutional  Policy  Systems:  A  Case  

Study.  Innovative  Higher  Education,  37(1),  11-­‐26.  

3

‘stand  for’  the  corporate  consensus  of  the  institution,  and  indeed  these  exercises  on  institutional  extrapolation  can  also  work  as  a  means  of  manufacturing  consensus  –  the  focusing  of  activities  around  an  ‘agreed’  set  of  priorities  (Ball  199710).  They  provide  a  touchstone  of  shared  endeavour  which  displaces  or  subsumes  differences,  disagreements  and  value  divergencies.11      

 Variations  exist  in  terms  of  distribution  or  centralisation  of  policy  repositories,  level  of  centralisation  of  policy  co-­‐ordination,  standardisation  of  the  policy  process,  and  standardisation  of  style  guides  and  template  requirements.12  Institutional  policy  is  shaped  by  supranational  and  national  policy,  moderated  by  policy  stakeholder  demands,  and  respondent  to  the  tension  between  centralised  and  faculty  contributions13  through  institutional  governance  structures  and  policy  processes.      Features  of  institutional  meta-­policy  (“policy  on  policy”)    Institutional  meta-­‐policy  or  “policy  on  policy”  defines  the  range  of  policy  instruments  (for  example,  policies,  procedures  and  guidelines),  establishes  definitions  for  policy  instruments,  articulates  the  institution-­‐specific  policy  cycle,  establishes  a  classification  scheme  for  institution-­‐specific  policies,  defines  the  application  of  policy  instruments,  and  establishes  approval  authorities.14  This  section  examines  select  publicly  available  meta-­‐policy  statements,  policy  resources,  and  interview  responses  conceiving  “policy”,  the  “policy  cycle”  and  “policy  management”.    Conceiving  institutional  “policy”      Cornell  University,  a  research-­‐intensive  institution  in  Ithaca,  upstate  New  York,  has  demonstrated  longstanding  leadership  with  respect  to  institutional  policy.  Cornell  University  states  ‘university  policies  connect  the  university’s  mission  to  individual  conduct,  clarify  institutional  expectations,  support  compliance  with  laws  and  regulation,  mitigate  institutional  risk,  and  enhance  productivity  and  efficiency  in  the  university’s  operations’.15  Cornell  University  has  a  broad-­‐ranging  definition  of  policy:    

-­‐ it  has  broad  application  throughout  the  university  -­‐ it  helps  achieve  compliance  with  applicable  laws  and  regulations,  promotes  operational  

efficiencies,  enhances  the  university's  mission,  or  reduces  institutional  risks  -­‐ it  mandates  actions  or  constraints  and  contains  specific  procedures  for  compliance  -­‐ the  subject  matter  requires  university  president  and/or  executive  officer  review  and  

approval  for  policy  issuance  and  major  changes.16      As  such,  institutional  policy  is  conceived  as  a  mandatory  governance  instrument  that  connects  government  legislation,  institutional  strategy  and  individual  conduct,  and  represents  a  risk  mitigation  and  legislative  compliance  mechanism.      Howard  University,  a  private  historically  black  college  and  university  (HCBU)  in  Washington,  DC,  has  a  meta-­‐policy  that  seeks  ‘to  provide  the  University  community  with  easily  accessible  

10     Ball,  S.  J.  (1997).  Good  school/bad  school:  paradox  and  fabrication.  British  Journal  of  Sociology  of  Education,  18(3),  317-­‐336.  11     Ball,  S.  J.  (2003).  The  teacher's  soul  and  the  terrors  of  performativity.  Journal  of  education  policy,  18(2),  215-­‐228.  12     University  of  Wisconsin  Madison  2012.  Policy  Development  and  Administration  Benchmarking.  Accessed  23/2/2014  

http://adminexcellence.wisc.edu/content/uploads/2012/04/HR_UW_peer_policies_benchmarking_20120831.pdf.    13     Westerheijden,  D.  F.,  and  Kohoutek,  J.  (2014).  Implementation  and  Translation.  In  Drivers  and  Barriers  to  Achieving  Quality  in  Higher  

Education,  edited  by  Heather  Eggins,  5.  Amsterdam:  Sense  Publishers.    14     Freeman  2014.  Benchmarking  Australian  and  New  Zealand  university  meta-­‐policy  in  an  increasingly  regulated  tertiary  environment,  

Journal  of  Higher  Education  Policy  and  Management,  36:1,  74-­‐87,  DOI:  10.1080/1360080X.2013.861050  15     Cornell  University  n.d.  Formulation  and  Issuance  of  University  Policies.  Accessed  8/02/2014  

http://www.dfa.cornell.edu/cms/treasurer/policyoffice/policies/volumes/governance/upload/vol4_1.pdf,  p.  9.    16     Cornell  University  2014.  FAQ.  Accessed  30/03/2014  http://www.dfa.cornell.edu/treasurer/policyoffice/policies/faq.cfm  

4

and  understandable  policies  that  provide  faculty,  staff  and  students  with  clear  and  concise  guidelines,  transparency  and  clarity  on  how  the  University  conducts  business’.18  Howard  University  defines  institutional  policy  as  ‘a  governing  principle  formally  approved  and  established  to  provide  vision,  guidance,  assistance,  and  direction  to  the  University  community  in  the  conduct  of  University  or  Unit  affairs’.19  University-­‐wide  policy  is  differentiated  from  “local  policy”  (referred  to  as  “unit  policy”).  As  such,  institutional  policy  is  conceived  as  aspirational  and  operational  principles  guiding  and  directing  university-­‐wide  and  local  business.      United  States  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  for  the  Institutional  Policy  Project  conceive  institutional  policy  as  a  key  mechanism  to  interpret,  and  ensure  institutional  compliance  with,  federal  and  state  government  legislation  and  regulation.20  As  such,  policy  “operationalises”  government  legislation  at  the  institutional  level,  noting  that  in  some  instances,  statutes  conflict  which  requires  institutions  to  “pick  their  poison”.  Policy  has  legal  standing,  and  internal  institutional,  staff  and  student  compliance  requirements.  One  respondent  notes:  “You  don’t  want  a  policy  which  is  a  paper  tiger”.  United  States  interview  respondents  also  view  policy  as  rules  governing  or  guiding  practices;  the  “glue”  that  binds  issues  such  as  compliance,  risk  and  ethics;  and  the  authoritative  source  regarding  institutional  principles  around  any  given  matter.      In  Papua  New  Guinea,  the  largest  public  university,  the  University  of  Papua  New  Guinea,  is  based  in  Port  Moresby.  UPNG  conceives  academic  policy  and  rules  as  governance  instruments  supportive  of  equity  and  academic  quality.  UPNG  also  employs  policy  as  a  mechanism  to  address  corruption:      

While  working  according  to  the  rules  can  sometimes  be  painful,  if  the  principal  of  equity,  of  equal  treatment  for  all,  is  to  apply  in  an  organisation,  then  the  same  policies  and  processes  must  apply  equally  to  all  as  well.  Corrupt  practices  emerge  when  compliance  to  rules  is  not  taken  seriously,  or  is  deliberately  subverted.  Chaos  in  an  organisation  emerges  when  units  within  the  organisation  do  not  work  in  harmony,  or  establish  alternate  and  conflicting  operational  procedures.  …  Their  development  is  guided  by  the  enduring  question  of  quality  assurance.21  

 Papua  New  Guinea  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  for  the  Institutional  Policy  Project  conceive  institutional  policy  as  rules,  guidelines  and  guiding  principles  to  direct  staff  ‘how  to  deal  with  situations’,  ‘achieve  the  aims  and  goals  of  the  university’  and  ‘help  us  in  our  operations’.  Policy  is  viewed  as  a  proactive  decision-­‐making  process  and  mechanism  for  good  governance;  ‘the  way  we  do  things’;  either  written  or  unwritten,  following  Papua  New  Guinea’s  oral  traditions.  Policies  are  conceived  as  a  mechanism  to  ensure  consistent,  fair  treatment  of  all  students,  and  ‘achieve  the  aims  of  the  country’  in  terms  of  poverty  reduction,  health  and  education.  Policies  facilitate  compliance,  and  reduce  risk.  Respondents  suggested  that  institutions  establish  policies  ‘just  so  we  are  safe’;  noting  that  ‘if  [we]  operate  outside  policy,  it  can  lead  to  all  sorts  of  problems’,  potentially  including  ‘chaos  …  from  a  lack  of  procedure’.  In  Papua  New  Guinea  policy/knowledge/action  is  ‘relational  and  communal’  in  nature,  such  that  the  policy  cycle  and  policy  implementation  occurs  in  the  context  of  relationships.  These  relationships  must  be  cared  for:  policy  does  not  occur  in  a  vacuum  

18     Howard  University  2010.  Formulation  and  Issuance  of  Howard  University  Policy  –  Policy  on  Policies.  Accessed  8/02/2014    

http://www.howard.edu/secretary/documents/400-­‐001PolicyonPoliciesversion5.pdf    19     Howard  University  2010.  Formulation  and  Issuance  of  Howard  University  Policy  –  Policy  on  Policies.  Accessed  8/02/2014  

http://www.howard.edu/secretary/documents/400-­‐001PolicyonPoliciesversion5.pdf    20     Legislation  and  regulation  relevant  to  United  States  higher  education  institutions  includes  that  relating  to  budget  appropriations,  

student  financial  aid,  homeland  security,  intellectual  property,  research,  and  international  students  (see  Harvard  University  2014.  Office  of  Federal  Relations  (webpage).  Accessed  19/02/2014  http://ofr.harvard.edu/site/policies-­‐issues/).    

21     Hynes,  R.  2007.  Staff  Handbook  2007  Foreword  A  simple  guide  to  UPNG  rules,  regulations  and  processes.  Accessed  17/02/2014  http://www.upng.ac.pg/staff_home.html      

5

separate  to  relationships  and  effective  policy  both  takes  account  of,  and  is  fuelled  by  and  negotiated  around,  relationships.  Positions,  status,  correct  titles  and  acknowledgement,  and  protocol  are  key  in  Papua  New  Guinea  policy  and  practice.      In  New  Zealand,  the  Bay  of  Plenty  Polytechnic,  in  regional  Tauranga,  differentiates  between  academic  policy  (‘principles  and  procedures  which  provide  the  framework  for  effective  teaching,  learning  and  assessment  outcomes  for  students’),  and  management  policy      

…  principles  and  procedures  which  provide  guidance  for  the  day  to  day  organisation  and  management  of  the  organisation’).  [Policies]  provide  the  framework  for  the  effective  and  efficient  operation  of  the  Polytechnic  and  assist  employees  in  reaching  sound  decisions.22  

 As  such,  the  Bay  of  Plenty  Polytechnic  conceives  institutional  policy  as  principles  and  processes  guiding  the  institutions’  academic  and  administrative  operations,  and  supporting  institutional  decision-­‐making.      The  University  of  Canterbury,  in  Christchurch  New  Zealand,  defines  policy  as:    

Principles  that  identify  formal  expectations  of  staff  and  students  on  specified  University  matters.  Policies  are  formally  documented  and  approved  by  Council  or  its  delegated  authority.  Boundaries  are  defined  and  a  framework  provided  within  which  operating  procedures  may  be  developed.  Compliance  is  expected  and  non-­‐compliance  may  result  in  censure,  penalties  or  disciplinary  action.23  

 As  such,  the  University  of  Canterbury  conceives  institutional  policy  as  documented,  mandatory  principles  bounding  expectations.      New  Zealand  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  for  the  Institutional  Policy  Project  view  institutional  policy  as  governing  principles  articulating  the  institution’s  position  or  expectations  on  a  certain  matter.  Policy  establishes  the  parameters  for  institutional  decision-­‐making,  guides  behaviour  and  outcomes,  and  represents  best  practices,  mandatory  requirements,  and  principles  to  ensure  equitable  treatment.  Policy  represents  a  risk  mitigation  strategy.  Many  New  Zealand  respondents,  particularly  those  from  the  Institute  of  Technology  and  Polytechnic  (ITP)  sector,  report  that  policy  represents  an  integral  part  of  quality  management  systems.  Reflecting  former  New  Zealand  regulator  requirements,  policy  aligns  directly  in  many  instances  to  quality  standards;  however  institutional  change  is  underway  to  reflect  revised  regulator  quality  system  and  sector  evaluation  requirements.  New  Zealand  higher  education  institutions  also  conceive  institutional  policy  as  a  mechanism  to  promote  achievement  of  obligations  broadly  under  the  Treaty  of  Waitangi,  and  address  Māori  and  Pacifika  access  and  participation.  For  example,  the  Bay  of  Polytechnic  is  committed  to  Te  Ao  Māori  (the  Māori  world)  and  embeds  their  philosophy  of  Te  Waka  Hourua  (or  the  twin  hulled  waka  [canoe])  into  their  standards.24      

22     Bay  of  Plenty  Polytechnic  2013.  BoPP  Policy  Framework  G01  Creating  Policy.  Accessed  17/02/2014    

https://www.boppoly.ac.nz/sites/default/files/qms/Creating%20Policy.pdf,  p.  5.    23     University  of  Canterbury  n.d.  Policy  Library  Definitions.  Accessed  17/02/2014  

http://www.canterbury.ac.nz/ucpolicy/definitions.shtml    24     The  Bay  of  Polytechnic  Quality  Management  System  (QMS)  Standard  1  –  Institutional  Academic  Quality  Management  states  that:  ‘…  

the  Bay  of  Plenty  Polytechnic  will:  Ensure  an  effective  means  of  increasing  Māori  participation  in  governance  and  decision  making;  Establish  and  maintain  structures  that  ensure  effective  accountability  to  Māori;  Establish  and  maintain  working  relationships  with  hau  kainga,  iwi,  Māori  organisations  and  community;  Support  and  develop  Māori  staff  profiles  within  the  organization;  Provide  access  to  opportunities  for  Māori  which  meets  their  needs  and  aspirations  and  contribute  to  Māori  strategic  and  economic  development;  Ensure  the  development  and  delivery  of  quality  programmes  that  validate  and  enhance  Mātauranga,  meeting  the  needs  of  iwi  and  Māori  communities;  Develop  and  implement  strategies  to  improve  Māori  student  participation,  retention  and  success;  Develop  and  implement  institution  wide  strategies  to  ensure  that  programmes,  their  delivery  and  environment  of  Bay  of  Plenty  Polytechnic  reflect  New  Zealand’s  dual  heritage’  (n.p.;  personal  correspondence).  

6

The  Australian  Catholic  University  (ACU),  a  multi-­‐state,  multi-­‐campus  public  university  established  as  a  company  limited  by  guarantee  under  the  Corporations  Act  2001  (Cth),  maintains  that  ‘policies  are  an  official  position  statement  of  the  University  and  establish  the  key  principles  and  provisions  that  govern  decision-­‐making  processes.  Policies  are  mandatory  and  include  details  of  the  University’s  expectations  and  how  it  will  act’.25  Policy  assists  the  Australian  Catholic  University  to:  ‘comply  with  relevant  legislation  and  national  standards;  comply  with  ACU  Senate-­‐mandated  statutes  and  regulations;  establish  the  University’s  position  across  a  range  of  matters;  support  the  University’s  Mission  and  Values;  achieve  the  University’s  strategic  goals;  promote  operational  efficiencies  and  reduce  risks;  and  meet  community  expectations’.26  As  such,  policy  articulates  officially  mandated  principles  necessary  to  comply  with  government  and  university  legislation,  linked  in  an  integrated  way  to  institutional  vision,  mission  and  strategy.  Policy  represents  a  risk  mitigation  strategy,  respondent  to  community  expectations.        Charles  Sturt  University,  a  public  university  located  in  northern  New  South  Wales,  conceives  institutional  policy  as  an  instrument  to  guide  institutional  decision  making:  ‘Policies  and  procedures  help  the  University  to  ensure  that  staff  and  students  act  responsibly  and  make  rational,  well-­‐informed  decisions.  They  help  it  to  be  consistent  in  its  approach  to  decision-­‐making  and  problem  solving  across  the  University’s  diverse  locations’.27  Further,  Charles  Sturt  University  maintains  that:      

Policies  set  out  the  principles  or  standards  of  conduct  that  must  be  observed  by  staff  (and,  where  relevant,  students)  in  making  decisions,  participating  in  University  activities  or  performing  functions  related  to  the  University.    Policies  “guide  any  decision-­‐making  in  relation  to  processes,  activities  and  initiatives  which  happen,  or  are  expected  to  happen,  frequently  …  i.e.  [sic]  repetitive  functions.”  (Roberts,  1996,  182)  

 As  such,  policy  is  directly  aligned  with  decision-­‐making  and  related  to  the  concept  of  rational  and  ethical  conduct.      Australian  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  report  that  the  term  “policy”  may  be  broadly  interpreted  to  include  higher  education  institution  strategy  and  formal  decisions  of  governing  bodies,  subordinate  committees  and  senior  staff,  as  well  as  “big  P”  policies  as  defined  in  institutional  meta-­‐policy.  Respondents  conceive  institutional  policy  as  institutional  statements  of  principle  or  intent,  providing  the  definitive  or  authoritative  source  regarding  the  institutions  position  with  respect  to  any  given  matter.  Respondents  note  institutional  policy  must  be  compliant  with  government  legislation  and  regulation.28      Policy  cycle  …  a  “life  cycle”  for  institutional  policy      In  the  United  States,  the  University  of  Wisconsin-­‐Madison,  a  public  research-­‐intensive  university  in  Wisconsin,  articulates  a  policy  cycle  for  administrative  institutional  policy  development  and  review.  The  Campuswide  Administrative  Policy  Development  Process  depicts  the  policy  cycle  stages  of  initiate  and  plan,  develop  and  review,  implementation,  and  maintenance.29  Each  phase  identifies  the  respective  roles  of  the  executive  sponsor(s),  administrative  policy  coordinator,  functional  owner  and  stakeholders.  For  example,   25     Australian  Catholic  University  2013.  ACU  Governance:  Policy  on  Policy  Development.  Accessed  17/02/2014      

http://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/571697/ACU_Policy_on_Policy_Development_-­‐_Final.pdf,  p.  6.      26     Ibid.  27     Charles  Sturt  University  2011.  Preparing  Policies,  Procedures,  Guidelines  and  Forms  Guideline,  p.  2.  Accessed  17/02/2014  downloaded  

from  http://www.csu.edu.au/adminman/      28     In  Australia,  legislation  which  is  particularly  relevant  from  a  policy  perspective  includes  the  Higher  Education  Support  Act  2003,  

Education  Services  for  Overseas  Students  Act  2000  (ESOS  Act),  occupational  health  and  safety  legislation,  privacy  and  industrial  relations  legislation.        

29     University  of  Wisconsin-­‐Madison  2012.  Campuswide  Administrative  Policy  Development  Process.  Accessed  23/02/2014  http://adminexcellence.wisc.edu/content/uploads/2012/04/overview_policy_development_process_20120831.pdf      

7

Campuswide  Administrative  Policy  Development  Process  depicts  the  “maintenance”  phase  (see    Figure  1).  

 Figure  1:  University  of  Wisconsin-­Madison  campuswide  administrative    

policy  development  process    Again  in  the  United  States,  each  of  the  academic  institutions  (campuses)  and  health  institutions  comprising  the  public  research-­‐intensive  University  of  Texas  System  maintains  Handbooks  of  Operating  Procedures  (HOP).  These  policies  supplement  the  University  of  Texas  System  Rules  and  Regulations.  Administrative,  academic  and  governance  policies  held  in  the  campus-­‐specific  Handbook  of  Operating  Procedures  (HOP)  are  developed  using  a  policy  cycle.  The  University  of  Texas  at  Austin  diagrammatically  depicts  their  policy  cycle30  (see  Figure  2).    

 Figure  2:  University  of  Texas  at  Austin  policy  cycle  

 The  associated  University  of  Texas  Policy  Flowchart31  for  administrative  policies  indicates  that  the  formative  stage  involves  policy  stakeholders  and  the  policy  owner;  the  review  stage  (generally  referred  to  as  “consultation”  in  Australia  and  New  Zealand)  involves  governance  groups,  the  Policy  Office  Advisory  Group  (POAG),  Legal  Affairs  and  the  University  Policy  Office;  and  the  final  approval  stage  involves  campus  and  University  of  Texas  System  senior  executives.  The  academic  governing  body  (Faculty  Council)  has  a  separate  process  for  the  development  of  

30     University  of  Texas  at  Austin  n.d.  HOP  Policy  Lifecycle.  Accessed  27/02/2014  http://www.policies.utexas.edu/policy-­‐process/policy-­‐

lifecycle    31     University  of  Texas  at  Austin  n.d.  HOP  Policy  Process  Flowchart.  Accessed  27/02/2014    

http://www.policies.utexas.edu/content/policy-­‐flowchart    

8

“educational  policy”,  which  includes  college  and  school  meetings  (at  least  annually),  and  curriculum  committee  and  potentially  faculty  consideration  of  curriculum  matters.      United  States  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  for  the  Institutional  Policy  Project  conceive  the  policy  cycle  either  as  a  “cradle  to  grave”  policy  process,  or  a  process  primarily  focused  on  policy  review.  The  “cradle  to  grave”,  “life  cycle”  or  “policy  pipeline”  metaphors  provided  by  interview  respondents  involve  the  various  policy  cycle  stages  broadly  including  “creation  –  implementation  –  updating  –  review”.  Conversely,  the  “policy  cycle  as  policy  review”  view  focuses  explicitly  on  post-­‐approval  policy  review  processes  including  maintenance  functions,  implementation  evaluation,  formal  review  against  practices,  and  ongoing  text  amendment  to  accommodate  internal  or  external  changes.  Almost  all  respondents  report  challenges  regarding  the  final  stages  of  the  policy  cycle;  that  is,  policy  implementation,  and  policy  implementation  monitoring  and  evaluation  (for  example,  absence  of  evaluation  activity,  limited  evaluation  capacity,  dislocation  between  development,  implementation  and  evaluation).  Concurrently,  many  respondents  saw  this  as  a  challenge  for  policy  “owners”  or  “responsible  officers”,  rather  than  policy  practitioners  centrally  managing  institutional  policy.      In  Papua  New  Guinea,  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  conceive  the  policy  cycle  in  various  ways:      -­‐ as  a  process  to  develop  policy  (through  “top  down”,  governing  body  initiated  projects;  or  “bottom  up”  whole  of  institution  projects)  generally  including  the  stages  draft  –  approve  –  implement/execute;    

-­‐ a  process  to  review  policy  (evaluate,  review,  approve  amendments);    -­‐ a  process  to  amend  written  texts  to  ensure  their  currency  (approve  amendments);  and  -­‐ policy  implementation.      Respondents  noted  that  policies  are  dynamic,  live  documents  reflecting  constantly  changing  practices  and  government  requirements:  ‘[we]  cannot  continue  to  use  the  same  policies’.  However,  many  respondents  noted  that  institutions  were  not  keeping  pace  with  the  requirement  for  ‘continuous  reviewing,  developing,  assessing’,  such  that  policy  implementation,  evaluation  and  review  represent  significant  challenges.  One  respondent  noted:  ‘the  need  for  review  is  pressing,  to  equip  institutions  to  meet  the  many  challenges  they  face’.  Several  respondents  commented  on  Papua  New  Guinea’s  oral  tradition  (‘oral  policy  at  village  level  …  [involving]  respect  for  rules,  respect  for  policy’).  Thomas  suggests  that  ‘written  policy  is  not  part  of  the  traditional  PNG  context,  but  policy  is  created  through  narratives  in  the  traditional  context’.  Further,  he  suggests  the  benefits  of  the  traditional  PNG  approach:  ‘community  involvement  in  the  creation  of  policy;  community  involvement  in  the  application  of  policy;  complete  transparency;  built  on  narratives,  which  enhance  human  cognition’.32  Finally,  the  pressure  to  rapidly  address  unmet  student  demand  within  constrained  government  funding  places  quality  pressures  on  institutions.  The  full  policy  cycle  is  considered  imperative  to  improve  quality  in  this  context  of  quantitative  growth.      In  New  Zealand,  Victoria  University  of  Wellington,  based  in  the  nation’s  capital,  depicts  their  policy  cycle  in  a  ‘new  policy  flowchart’  and  ‘significant  amendments  to  policy  flowchart’.33  The  policy  cycle  relevant  to  a  new  policy  involves  determination  to  proceed,  review  of  existing  policies,  drafting,  identification  of  policy  sponsor,  senior  executive  consideration,  revision,  approval,  publication  and  review.  The  significant  amendment  process  involves  determination  to  proceed,  drafting  of  amendments,  policy  sponsor  review  of  amendments,  senior  executive  consideration,  revision,  approval,  publication  and  review.  As  such,  the  policy  cycle  for  a  new  

32     Thomas,  B.  (2014).  Op  cit.    33     Victoria  University  of  Wellington  n.d.  New  Policy  Flowchart  and  Significant  Amendments  to  Policy  Flowchart.  Accessed  12/03/2014  

http://www.victoria.ac.nz/about/governance/strategy.    

9

policy  can  only  proceed  after  a  review  of  existing  policies  to  reduce  the  likelihood  of  duplication  (and  potentially  policy  proliferation),  and  the  identification  of  the  appropriate  policy  sponsor.  In  other  respects  the  two  discrete  policy  cycles  are  identical,  with  the  additional  step  in  the  amendment  process  involving  policy  sponsor  consideration.      New  Zealand  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  for  the  Institutional  Policy  Project  conceive  the  policy  cycle  either  as  a  “life  cycle”  involving  policy  development  and  review,  as  a  policy  review  process,  or  as  a  gap  analysis  process.  Similar  to  the  United  States  respondents,  the  New  Zealand  respondents  reported  that  further  attention  needed  to  be  paid  to  policy  implementation  evaluation  and  maintenance.  Reflecting  New  Zealand  higher  education  sector  focus  on  quality  management,  many  respondents  aligned  the  policy  process  with  institutional  quality  management  systems.      In  Australia,  Macquarie  University,  a  public  university  based  in  New  South  Wales,  identifies  discrete  policy  cycle  stages  governing  the  policy  process  in  their  Policy  Framework  Policy  as      

 …  development  (establishing  need;  researching  and  analysis;  drafting  including  a  Discussion  Paper  for  new  policies);  consultation  (extensive  and  wide  consultation);  [pre-­‐approval]  review  (legal  review;  review  by  Vice-­‐Chancellor;  notification  to  the  University  Council);  [pre-­‐approval]  review  and  sign-­‐off  by  the  University  Policy  Reference  Group);  approval  (consideration  by  Approval  Authority;  communication;  implementation);  and  maintenance  (monitoring;  reviewing).34    

 As  such,  the  Macquarie  University  approach  spans  the  entire  “draft  –  implement  –  review”  policy  life  cycle.    The  University  of  Southern  Queensland  (USQ),  a  public  university  based  in  Toowoomba  in  regional  Queensland,  has  explicitly  mapped  its  Policy  and  Procedure  Development  Cycle  onto  a  generic  quality  cycle  –  Approach,  Deployment,  Results,  Improvement  (ADRI)35  (see  Figure  3).  This  approach  conceives  the  policy  cycle  as  equivalent  to  a  generic  quality  assurance  process,  and  spans  the  “draft  –  implement  –  review”  policy  life  cycle.  The  University  of  Southern  Queensland  “Approach”  stage  encompasses  the  identification  of  the  need  to  develop,  amend  or  review  policy  triggered  by  a  series  of  hypotheticals,  and  preliminary  stakeholder  consultation.  The  “Deployment”  stage  encompasses  drafting,  impact  assessment,  development  of  communication  and  training  plans,  endorsement  and  approval,  communication  and  training,  and  policy  implementation.  The  “Results”  stage  encompasses  formal  policy  evaluation  and  review,  whilst  the  “Improvement”  stage  progresses  the  review  recommendations  (no  change,  minor  or  major  amendment,  repeal).                

34     Macquarie  University  2014.  Policy  Framework  Policy.  Accessed  19/02/2014  

https://www.mq.edu.au/policy/docs/policy_framework/policy.html,  n.p.    35     University  of  Southern  Queensland  2013.  Accessed  19/02/2014  http://policy.usq.edu.au/data/render/13386PL_files/13386PL.pdf,  p.  

6.    

10

 Figure  3:    University  of  Southern  Queensland  policy  and  procedure  development  cycle  

 The  USQ  Policy  and  Procedure  Framework  notes  that  the  policy  cycle  –  whilst  staged  –  is  intentionally  iterative.36      Australian  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  conceive  the  policy  cycle  primarily  as  the  staged  policy  development  “life  cycle”  (draft  –  approve),  or  policy  development  and  review  “life  cycle”  involving  “draft  –  approve  –  implement  –  review”  cycle  stages  as  a  base.  A  few  respondents  view  the  policy  cycle  solely  as  post-­‐approval  processes  (policy  implementation  and  review),  possibly  reflecting  institutions  with  mature  policy  suites  where  the  focus  has  shifted  from  policy  proliferation  to  maintenance  and  suite  integrity.  Similar  to  the  United  States  and  New  Zealand  respondents,  the  Australian  interview  respondents  report  that  further  attention  needs  to  be  paid  to  policy  implementation  monitoring,  evaluation  and  review.      Policy  management    In  the  United  States,  the  University  of  Texas  at  Austin  has  assigned  policy  management  responsibility  to  the  University  Policy  Office:    

 The  University  Policy  Office  (UPO)  is  an  administrative  unit  with  responsibility  for  the  strategic  design  and  implementation  of  a  university  policy  management  program.  Our  department  coordinates  policy  lifecycle  management  with  key  policy  owners  for  policies  contained  in  the  Handbook  of  Operating  Procedures  (HOP).  The  office  also  maintains  the  university’s  policy  website  and  HOP  policy  library.37  

 United  States  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  for  the  Institutional  Policy  Project  conceive  policy  management  as  processes  around  ensuring  consistent,  standardised  policy  text  presentation;  committee  secretariat  processes  shepherding  policy  through  various  consultation,  endorsement  and  approval  processes;  or  management  responsibilities  associated  with  ensuring  actual  policy  implementation.  Some  respondents  conceive  policy  management  as  maintenance  of  the  suite  of  policy  texts  in  terms  of  review  schedules  and  gap  analysis.  In  a  couple  of  instances,  respondents  view  policy  management  as  a  process  ensuring  alignment  between  policy,  practice,  delegations,  and  compliance.  The  latter  appeared  to  be  either  senior  organisationally,  or  experienced  policy  practitioners.      

36     University  of  Southern  Queensland  2013.  Accessed  19/02/2014  http://policy.usq.edu.au/data/render/13386PL_files/13386PL.pdf,  p.  

6.    37     University  of  Texas  at  Austin  2012.  Accessed  12/03/2014  https://www.policies.utexas.edu/about-­‐us  

11

In  Papua  New  Guinea,  Divine  Word  University,  a  national  Catholic  university  based  in  Madang,  has  established  a  suite  of  academic  policies  to  support  the  quality  management  of  academic  programs.  These  policies  are  ‘designed  to  promote  excellence  in  learning  and  teaching.  This  suite  of  policies  addresses  appointment  of  highly  qualified  staff,  staff  development  activities,  performance  appraisals,  academic  workloads,  annual  reviews  and  updating  of  program  specification  documents,  reflection  on  student  assessment  results,  consultation  with  external  experts  in  the  various  disciplines,  student  admission  and  progression,  and  research’.38  As  such,  Divine  Word  University  employs  institutional  policy  as  a  mechanism  to  support  academic  quality  management.      Papua  New  Guinea  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  for  the  Institutional  Policy  Project  conceive  policy  management  as  the  responsibility  of  governing  bodies  (council,  academic  board),  senior  executives  (“top  management”)  and  policy  “owners”.  All  respondents  reported  that  there  was  ‘no  one  person  in  the  middle’;  rather  ‘everyone  is  responsible’.  Policy  management  is  conceived  as:  gap  analysis  to  ensure  that  policies  are  in  place  spanning  the  full  operations  of  the  university;  or  policy  review  to  ensure  the  relevance  and  currency  of  policies.  Some  respondents  suggested  that  policy  management  required  further  attention.      The  University  of  Auckland,  a  research-­‐intensive  university  in  New  Zealand,  has  an  integrated  approach  to  legislative  compliance  and  institutional  policy  spanning  legislation,  rules,  regulations,  policies  and  statutes  (see  Figure  4).      

 Figure  4:  Policies,  Statutes,  Regulations,  Rules  and  Legislation39  

38     Divine  Word  University  2012.  Learning  and  Teaching  Plan  2013.  Accessed  19/02/2014  

http://www.dwu.ac.pg/en/images/downloads/form_and_doc/Learning_and_Teaching_Plan_2013.pdf,  p.  9    39     University  of  Auckland  n.d.  Policies,  Statutes,  Regulations,  Rules  and  Legislation.  Accessed  27/02/2014  

https://policies.auckland.ac.nz/default.aspx    

12

Under  this  framework,  legislation  (that  is,  governance  acts  and  quasi-­‐  legislation  such  as  regulations)  establishes  external  compliance  requirements  for  the  university,  whereas  university  polices  and  statutes  establish  internal  compliance  requirements,  operationalised  through  standards,  guidelines  and  frameworks  including  the  delegations  framework  and  legislative  compliance  register.  Whilst  this  is  not  necessarily  a  “policy  management  system”,  it  does  integrate  governance  texts,  issues  concerning  external  and  internal  compliance,  and  delegations.  The  system  is  operationalised  through  the  institutional  meta-­‐policy,  Establishment  of  a  Policy  within  the  University  of  Auckland  procedure  document,  which  seeks  to  ‘ensure  that  University  policies  are  developed,  established,  approved  and  operate  in  an  appropriate  and  consistent  manner’.40        New  Zealand  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  for  the  Institutional  Policy  Project  conceive  policy  management  as  the  implementation  of  institutional  meta-­‐policy,  oversight  of  the  entire  suite  of  administrative  and  academic  policy  (including  responsibilities  held  by  the  academic  governing  bodies),  and  ensuring  that  policy  is  effectively  implemented  and  monitored.  Centralised  and  devolved  policy  management  responsibilities  were  identified,  including  policy  committee  and  central  policy  manager  responsibilities,  and  responsibilities  held  by  policy  “owners”  or  “sponsors”.  Respondents  also  suggested  that  policy  management  involves  continuous  maintenance,  and  ongoing  gap  analysis.  Once  again,  the  management  of  policy  was  reported  in  terms  of  implementation  of  quality  management  systems,  and  external  evaluation  of  institutional  performance,  reflecting  the  New  Zealand  higher  education  regulator’s  influence  on  institutional  policy.      Sydney  University  is  a  research  intensive,  metropolitan  Australian  university.  The  Sydney  University  Policy  Management  Unit,  structurally  located  in  the  Office  of  General  Counsel,  conceives  policy  management  as  implementation  of  the  university’s  policy  framework,41  the  University  of  Sydney  (Policies  Development  and  Review)  Rule  2011.42    Responsibilities  of  the  Policy  Management  Unit  include:      

• maintaining  the  Policy  Register,  the  University’s  official  repository  of  policy  documents  

• managing  requests  for  approval  to  develop  new  policies  or  amend  existing  ones  • developing  drafting  protocols  and  templates  for  University  policy  documents  • providing  training  in  policy  drafting  and  development  and  the  use  of  template  documents  

• assisting  with  developing  and  drafting  policy  • reviewing  existing  policy  documents  • identifying  new  policy  requirements  • developing  systematic  processes  for  reviewing,  publishing  and  improving  policy  documents.43  

 Australian  higher  education  managers  and  policy  practitioners  interviewed  conceive  policy  management  either  holistically  as  the  implementation  of  the  institutional  meta-­‐policy,  or  as  a  record-­‐keeping  function  related  to  ensuring  the  integrity  of  the  online  policy  repository.  The  view  that  “management  of  policy”  equals  “record  keeping”  appears  to  be  particularly  prevalent  where  policy  practitioners  primarily  concentrate  on  policy  presentation  through  the  administration  of  templates  and  standard  formatting  of  documents.  In  other  instances  where  policy  is  not  managed  centrally,  respondents  conceive  policy  management  as  a  decentralised  

40     University  of  Auckland  n.d.  Establishment  of  a  policy  within  the  University  of  Auckland  procedure  document,  p.  1.  Accessed  

27/02/2014  https://policies.auckland.ac.nz/policy-­‐display-­‐register/establishment-­‐of-­‐a-­‐policy-­‐within-­‐the-­‐university-­‐of-­‐auckland-­‐procedure-­‐document.pdf    

41     University  of  Sydney  2012.  Policy.  Accessed  19/02/2014  http://sydney.edu.au/legal/policy/,  n.p.    42     University  of  Sydney  2011.  University  of  Sydney  (Policies  Development  and  Review)  Rule  2011.  Accessed  19/02/2014  from  

http://sydney.edu.au/policies/showdoc.aspx?recnum=PDOC2012/259&RendNum=0    43     University  of  Sydney  2013.  About  us.  Accessed  19/02/2014  http://sydney.edu.au/legal/policy/about/index.shtml,  n.p.    

13

role  performed  (or  indeed,  frequently  not  performed)  by  the  person  holding  the  position  of  nominated  “responsible  officer”.  In  at  least  one  instance,  respondents  viewed  policy  management  as  the  process  automated  through  the  information-­‐technology  based  policy  repository  for  policy  amendment,  approval,  publication  and  review  purposes.      Institutional  policy  infrastructure      Policy  committees      Higher  education  “institutional  policy  infrastructure”  refers  to  policy-­‐related  structures,  frameworks  and  resources.  This  includes  meta-­‐policy,  dedicated  centralised  and  decentralised  human  resources  responsible  for  performing  policy-­‐related  functions,  professional  development  and  capacity  building  initiatives,  and  policy  libraries,  or  repositories.  Institutional  policy  infrastructure  also  includes  formal  governance  structures  such  as  policy  committees  charged  with  some  institutional  policy  mandate.  This  section  explores  examples  of  higher  education  institutional  policy  committees  established  to  support  institutional  policy.      In  the  United  States,  the  public  research-­‐intensive  University  of  California,  encompassing  ten  semi-­‐autonomous,  geographically  dispersed  campuses  has  an  academic  policy  committee  and  separate  administrative  policy  committee.  Campus-­‐specific  academic  governing  bodies  and  administrative  policy  committees  underpin  this  system-­‐wide  structure.  The  system-­‐wide  University  Committee  on  Educational  Policy  (UCPE)  is  a  subcommittee  of  the  system-­‐wide  Academic  Senate.  The  UCPE  is  concerned  with  broad  questions  of  curriculum  and  academic  organisational  unit  structure,  and  provides  a  conduit  for  faculty  responses  to  legislation  (for  example,  federal  and  state  legislation;  Board  of  Regents  By-­‐Laws,  Standing  Orders  and  Regents  Policies44)  and  education-­‐policy  related  administrative  policies.45  The  administrative  Policy  Steering  Committee  (PSC)  and  attendant  support  committee,  the  Policy  Advisory  Committee  (PAC)  is  a  system-­‐wide  committee  structure  with  responsibility  under  the  University  of  California  President  for  oversight  of  processes  regarding  system-­‐wide  administrative  policy  development,  amendment  and  review.  While  the  UCPE  has  a  substantive  interest  in  education  and  some  administrative  policy  –  illustrating  in  part  the  University  of  California’s  approach  to  shared  governance,  the  Policy  Steering  Committee  and  sub-­‐committee  are  principally  administrative  policy  process-­‐oriented,  drawing  on  technical  expertise  as  required.      Santa  Clara  University,  a  Jesuit  Catholic  university  in  California’s  Silicon  Valley  has  a  tradition  of  employing  policy  committees.  A  1994  governance  review46  sought  to  ensure  that  the  Santa  Clara  University  Policy  Committees’      

 …  formulation  …  would  not  create  another  layer  of  bureaucracy  or  impede  timely  decision  making  or  innovation,  but  would  be  guided  by  principles  of  good  practices  in  governance,  would  recognize  legitimate  differentiation  of  spheres  of  responsibility  and  competence,  and  would  ensure  collaboration.47      

The  University  Policy  Committees  were  redeveloped  following  the  1994  governance  review  according  to  identified  principles  of  good  governance.48  The  University  Policy  Committees  for  

44     Refer  http://regents.universityofcalifornia.edu/governance/bylaws/index.html  45     University  of  California  Academic  Senate  2014.  University  Committee  on  Educational  Policy  (UCEP).  Accessed  17/02/2014    

http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/ucep/    46     Santa  Clara  University  2014.  University  Policy  Committees  Charter  (webpage).  Accessed  17/02/2014    

http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm  47     Santa  Clara  University  (2014),  University  Policy  Committees  Charter  (webpage).  Accessed  17/02/2014  

http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm  48     “1.  Strengthen  academic  excellence  and  the  Catholic  and  Jesuit  identity  of  the  University  in  a  mutually  reinforcing  way.  2.  Ensure  that  

the  Statement  of  Purpose  guides  policy  development,  decision  making,  and  priority  setting.  3.  Exercise  collaboration  based  on  the  recognition  that  Santa  Clara  University  can  flourish  only  if  there  is  a  healthy  sense  of  community  in  which  all  members  have  a  role  in  working  for  the  common  good.  4.  Recognize  the  domains  of  primary  authority  and  responsibility  of  the  various  University  

14

various  matters,  for  example,  academic,  administrative,  planning  and  budget  matters,  have  authority  to  ‘formulate  and  recommend  new  University  policy  and  major  strategic  change;  (and)  review  significant  change  in  existing  policy’,49  suggesting  that  their  ambit  expands  to  include  both  substance  and  process  across  administrative,  academic  and  governance  policies.              In  Dunedin,  southern  New  Zealand,  the  research-­‐intensive  University  of  Otago  has  a  “gatekeeper”  Policy  Management  Group,  which  has  overarching  responsibility  for  the  implementation  of  the  institutional  meta-­‐policy.  The  Policy  Management  Group  is  ‘convened  by  the  Registrar  and  Secretary  to  Council  that  has  responsibility  for  overseeing  the  Policy  Framework,  including  guidance  on  best  practice  and  the  development  of  forms  and  procedures’.50  The  policy  committee  provides  a  centralised,  largely  administrator-­‐driven  perspective  on  new  policy  proposals,  or  proposals  for  policy  amendment  and/or  review.  The  policy  committee  is  principally  focused  on  process.  Responsibility  for  policy  content  remains  with  the  respective  policy  “owners”  and  technical  experts.  The  Policy  Management  Group  functions  independently  of  the  Senate,  which  has  authority  for  academic  policy.        Federation  University  Australia,  comprising  the  former  Ballarat  University  and  Monash  University  Gippsland  campus  in  regional  Victoria,  Australia,  has  a  Policy  Committee  comprising  senior  administrators.  The  Policy  Committee  has  responsibility  for  ‘the  development,  review,  approval  and  endorsement  of  policies  and  procedures  at  the  University  and  contributes  to  the  implementation  of  the  annual  Policy  Management  Plan,  by  providing  support,  advice  and  elevating  awareness  of  project  objectives  to  the  University  community’.51  The  specific  terms  of  reference  are  as  follows:      

1.   Monitor  the  status  of  policies  and  procedures  to  ensure  they  are  developed,  implemented  and  reviewed  consistently  throughout  the  University;  

2.   Assist  in  the  promotion  and  assessment  of  compliance  in  relation  to  the  development  and  review  of  policies  and  procedures;  

3.   Provide  advice  on  policy  gaps,  overlaps  and  inconsistencies  within  the  policy  framework;  

4.   Endorse  approved  final  drafts  of  policies  and  procedures  for  publishing  in  the  University’s  Policy  Library;  

5.   Authorised  to  refer  final  drafts  of  policies  and  procedures  back  to  Approval  Authorities  for  further  review  if  required;  

6.   To  foster  growth  of  policy  awareness  and  participation  at  the  University;  7.   To  monitor  and  provide  support  in  achieving  the  outcomes  of  the  annual  Policy  

Management  Plan.52    In  New  South  Wales,  Wollongong  University’s  Education  Policy  Review  Subcommittee,  a  sub-­‐committee  of  the  University  Education  Committee  of  Academic  Senate  has  responsibility  with  respect  to  academic  policy  to:    

1.     advise  the  Academic  Senate,  through  [the  University  Education  Committee],  on  course  rules,  including  proposals  for  major  changes  to  their  structure  and  intent,  and  related  

components  and  expect  participants  in  the  process  to  be  held  accountable  for  carrying  out  their  responsibilities.  5.  By  means  of  clear  and  appropriate  communication  be  open,  accessible,  and  understandable  to  members  of  the  University  community.  6.  Be  efficient,  effective,  and  productive.  7.  Foster  innovation  and  change.  8.  Strive  for  continuous  improvement  and  a  culture  of  active  participation.  9.  Ensure  timely  and  effective  response  to  the  changing  external  environment.”  (from  http://www.scu.edu/governance/committees/policy.cfm.  Accessed  17/02/2014)    

49     Ibid,  n.p.    50     University  of  Otago  2013.  Policy  Framework.  Accessed  17/02/2014  

http://www.otago.ac.nz/administration/policies/otago015490.html    51     Federation  University  Australia  2014.  University  Policy  Committee  (webpage).  Accessed  17/02/2014  

http://federation.edu.au/staff/governance/academic-­‐board/standing-­‐committees/policy-­‐committee    52     Federation  University  Australia  2014.  University  Policy  Committee  (webpage).  Accessed  17/02/2014  

http://federation.edu.au/staff/governance/academic-­‐board/standing-­‐committees/policy-­‐committee    

15

procedures  and  academic  policy;  2.     identify  gaps  in  education  policy  and  areas  for  improvement;  3.     develop  draft  education  policies  and  procedures,  as  needed;  4.     engage  the  University  community  and  other  committees  in  developing  and  reviewing  

education  policies  to  ensure  their  effectiveness  in  providing  quality  outcomes;  5.     facilitate  the  implementation  of  education  policy  requirements  across  the  University  

community  by,  for  example:  a.     communicating  and  providing  advice  on  those  requirements  to  relevant  people;  and  

b.    developing  supporting  tools  -­‐  such  as  guidelines,  checklists  and  forms  -­‐  where  appropriate;  

6.    monitor,  evaluate  and  review  education  policies  on  an  ongoing  basis  to  ensure  their  currency  and  effectiveness.53    

 As  such  the  Wollongong  University  policy  committee,  primarily  comprised  of  faculty,  has  both  a  substantive  and  process-­‐oriented  ambit  for  academic  policy  spanning  the  policy  cycle  end-­‐to-­‐end,  inclusive  of  policy  implementation  monitoring,  evaluation  and  review.      Resources      The  Institutional  Policy  Project  explored  resources  available  to  support  institutional  policy,  including  internet-­‐based,  publicly  available  documents,  research  publications  including  conference  presentations,  and  information  volunteered  through  participant  interviews,  surveys,  follow-­‐up  communications  and  discussion  lists  managed  by  the  Association  of  College  and  University  Policy  Administrators  (ACUPA)  and  Association  for  Tertiary  Education  Management  (ATEM)  Institutional  Policy  Network.      The  project  identified  a  large  number  of  resources  -­‐  including  governance  texts,  presentations,  and  institution-­‐specific  internet-­‐based  materials  -­‐  regarding  the  various  ways  in  which  higher  education  institutions  define  policy,  conceive  the  policy  cycle,54  and  in  some  instances,  conceive  policy  management.  Much  of  this  information  supports  the  policy  development  function.  Many  higher  education  institutions  in  all  countries  examined,  other  than  Papua  New  Guinea,  have  publicly  available  meta-­‐policy.  Higher  education  institutions  in  Australia  were  more  likely  to  have  publicly  available  meta-­‐policy  than  those  in  the  United  States,  or  non-­‐university  (ITP  and  Wananga)  sector  institutions  in  New  Zealand.  These  texts  are  frequently  referred  to  as  “policy  on  policy”,  or  “policy  framework”,  and  may  be  codified  as  institutional  policy,  or  represented  in  an  array  of  documentation  including  references  to  institutional  (quasi)  legislation,  process  diagrams,  flowcharts  and  internet-­‐based  guides.      Longstanding  policy  development  activity  –  most  particularly  in  the  United  States  and  Australia  -­‐  has  resulted  in  a  plethora  of  online,  basic  resources  regarding  policy  presentation  including  templates  adopted  to  facilitate  presentation  consistency  and  accessibility.  The  centrality  of  consultation  in  the  policy  development  process  has  resulted  in  a  wealth  of  information  regarding  policy  stakeholder  consultation  strategies,  effective  meeting  procedure  and  proposal  shepherding.  Policy  repositories  are  common  in  Australia  (where  they  frequently  encompass  both  academic  and  administrative  policy),  the  United  States  (where  they  frequently  focus  on  administrative  policy),  New  Zealand  (less  frequently  in  terms  of  publicly  available  documentation  through  the  ITP  and  Wananga  sector).  Policy  repositories  are  not  common  in  Papua  New  Guinea,  primarily  reflecting  the  more  limited  availability  of  internet  facilities,  and  continuing  tradition  of  hard  copy  academic  handbooks.  Finally,  the  prominence  of  the  policy  promulgation  function  has  given  rise  to  both  traditional  and  ICT-­‐based  communication  strategies  (for  example,  induction  sessions  and  internet-­‐based  notice  boards).   53     University  of  Wollongong  2013.  Education  Policy  Review  Subcommittee  (EPRS)  Terms  of  Reference,  p.  1.  54     The  policy  cycle  is  frequently  articulated  in  meta-­‐policy  or  depicted  in  basic  flow-­‐charts  or  process  diagrams.  

16

 In  addition  to  numerous  resources  supporting  the  policy  development  function,  there  is  some  limited  information  available  regarding  the  drafting  of  policy  provisions  (that  is,  the  “body”  of  policy  texts,  as  opposed  to  stylistic  or  presentation-­‐related  guidance).  Unlike  strategic  planning  literature  that  frequently  focuses  explicitly  on  the  drafting  of  plan  substance,55  institutional  policy  drafting  resources  largely  concern  the  fields  peripheral  to  actual  policy  provisions,  alongside  plain  language  (“non-­‐legalese”),  gender  inclusive  language  and  grammatical  advice  (for  example,  “use  active  voice”).  Advice  regarding  the  mechanics  of  formulating  policy  provisions  is  rare.  A  small  number  of  case  studies  and  conference  presentations56  provide  information  regarding  the  quantity  (full-­‐time  equivalence)  and  location  of  dedicated  policy  practitioners,  and  discuss  emerging  approaches  to  policy  management.      A  small  number  of  institutional  policy  specific  materials  focus  on  issues  such  as  the  centralisation  or  decentralisation  of  institutional  policy  and  attendant  decision-­‐making.  While  there  are  a  large  number  of  examples  of  institution-­‐specific  governance  arrangements,  there  is  only  limited  research  regarding  the  hierarchy  of  governance  texts,  meta-­‐policy  elements,  and  policy  cycle  stages  and  requirements.57  There  is  also  very  little  information  or  training  resources  available  regarding  policy  implementation  evaluation.      Compartmentalization  of  institutional  policy      Despite  the  scope  of  institutional  policy  across  various  dimensions  –  vertical  organisational  spread,  from  the  governing  body  through  corporate  and  academic  organisational  units,  and  horizontal  functional  spread  spanning  governance,  administrative  and  academic  matters  –  the  Institutional  Policy  Project  interviews  found  evidence  of  the  compartmentalisation  of  institutional  policy.  The  research  interviews  explored  the  relationship  between  institutional  policy  and  strategy,  budget,  delegations  of  authority,  quality,  risk,  compliance  and  audit,  and  institutional  research  (IR).  Preliminary  results  are  presented  in  Table  1.      Level  1  =  Silo   Interviewees  report  no  apparent  or  current  linkage    Level  2  =  Emergent   Interviewees  acknowledge  the  potential  for  linkage    Level  3  =  Aligned   Interviewees  report  well  established  and  articulated  linkages    Table  1:  Maturity  grid:  Perceived  linkage  between  institutional  policy  and  strategy,  budget,  delegations,  quality,  risk,  compliance  and  audit,  and  institutional  research  (IR)    As  depicted  in  Table  1,  the  clear  majority  of  responses  in  all  countries  could  be  categorised  as  Level  1,  where  interviewees  perceive  no  current  or  potential  linkage  and  frequently  misunderstand  the  question.  This  “siloed”  response  was  highest  amongst  United  States  respondents,  where  almost  all  respondents  perceive  no  current  linkages.  This  suggests  a  dislocation  between  institutional  policy  –  or  the  management  of  institutional  –  and  functional  areas  responsible  for  governance  (strategy,  budget,  delegations),  compliance  and  audit,  quality  and  risk,  and  institutional  research.      Almost  all  of  the  remaining  responses,  with  only  a  few  exceptions,  represent  ‘Level  2’  where  interviewees  suggest  no  current  linkage  but  acknowledge  the  legitimacy  (and  not  infrequently  importance)  of  the  conceptual  connection  and  operational  integration  (that  is,  “emergent”  perceptions).  Interviewees  holding  organisationally  senior  positions  were  more  likely  to  perceive  the  imperative  of  such  integration.    

55     For  example,  the  SWOT  analysis  approach  devised  by  Humphrey  (Stanford  Research  Institute,  now  SRI  International)  involves  an  

analysis  of  an  organisation’s  Strengths,  Weaknesses/Limitations,  Opportunities  and  Threats.  56     Refer  to  presentations  of  the  United  States  based  Association  of  College  and  University  Policy  Administrators  (ACUPA),  and  

Australasian  Tertiary  Education  Management  (TEM)  Conference  run  by  the  Association  of  Tertiary  Education  Management  (ATEM).    57     See,  for  example,  Freeman  2014.  Benchmarking  Australian  and  New  Zealand  university  meta-­‐policy  in  an  increasingly  regulated  

tertiary  environment,  Journal  of  Higher  Education  Policy  and  Management,  36:1,  74-­‐87,  DOI:  10.1080/1360080X.2013.861050  

17

 In  a  very  small  number  of  cases  (representative  of  Level  3)  interviewees  identify  established  and  articulated  linkages,  and  stress  the  strategic  and  operational  imperative  of  congruence  between  these  areas.  Such  responses  were  generally  elicited  from  organisationally  senior  interviewees  from  higher  education  institutions  with  mature  (“aligned”)  policy  management  systems,  clear  conceptions  of  policy  as  a  governance  instrument,  and  well-­‐aligned  governance  and  management  systems.  This  preliminary  analysis  suggests  that  the  conceptual  and  operational  integration  of  policy  with  audit  and  compliance  functions,  institutional  research  and  evaluation,  quality,  risk,  strategy  and  budget  frameworks,  and  delegations  of  authority  requires  more  attention.      External  and  internal  contexts  for  institutional  policy      In  all  countries  investigated,  institutional  policy  is  contextualised  and  shaped  by  external  and  internal  contexts.  Interview  respondents  identify  external  contexts  for  institutional  policy  as:  government  legislation,  principally  including  higher  education  and  economic  policy;  regulation  (for  example,  higher  education  quality  assurance  and  institutional  evaluation  regimes  and  professional  association/organisation  accreditation);  and  changing  revenue  structures  (for  example,  diminishing  government  contributions  and  increasing  non-­‐government  contributions  including  student  private  investment).  Interview  respondents  also  identify  internal  contexts  shaping  institutional  policy  as:  the  level  of  centralised  or  decentralised  (devolved)  decision  making;  increasing  accountability  requirements;  changing  governance  models,  particularly  those  relating  to  governing  body  structure  and  composition,  and  shared  governance  models.  Several  respondents  also  identified  institutional  size  (for  example,  increasing  student  numbers;  changing  composition  of  faculty),  organisational  structure/restructure  and  changing  program  profile  as  important  contexts  for  institutional  policy.  In  Papua  New  Guinea,  Thomas  identifies  key  factors  as  ‘Vision  2050  [and  DSP  2030/MTDP2015,  population  is  expanding  rapidly,  transition  to  21st  Century  in  short  timeframe,  significant  budgetary  constraints,  fraud  and  financial  misconduct  significant  risks,  wantokism  constant  challenge’.58  The  severe  paucity  of  higher  education  student  places  and  concomitant  pressure  on  institutions  to  rapidly  expand  despite  limited  government  funding,  limited  qualified  lecturers,  financial  constraints,  and  sector  requirements  for  quality  contextualise  the  Papua  New  Guinea  higher  education  system.59  The  extent  to  which  there  is  variation  between  countries  requires  further  consideration.      Similarities  and  differences  between  institutional  policy  in  Australia,  United  States,  New  Zealand  and  Papua  New  Guinea      Policy    In  all  jurisdictions,  policy  is  conceived  as  an  instrument  to  mitigate  institutional  risk  and  increase  operational  efficiencies.  Respondents  from  all  jurisdictions  referred  to  policy  as  governing  principles  or  statements  of  intent;  the  authoritative  source  articulating  the  institution’s  position  on  certain  matters.  In  the  United  States  in  particular,  policy  is  perceived  as  a  mechanism  to  interpret  and  operationalise  government  legislation;  whereas  respondents  from  other  jurisdictions  reported  that  institutional  policy  must  be  compliant  with  government  legislation.  The  difference  between  being  respondent  to,  or  aligned  with,  government  legislation  speaks  to  the  broader  role  of  government  in  higher  education  and  the  varying  interpretations  of  institutional  autonomy  in  the  different  jurisdictions.  In  the  United  States  and  Australia,  in  particular,  policy  was  seen  as  directly  related  to  institutional  mission  and  strategy,  noting  that  in  some  instances  policy  is  aspirational,  whereas  in  most  it  is  operational  in  substance.  In  New  Zealand  and  Australia,  policy  is  viewed  as  a  governance  mechanism  linked  to  rational  or  sound  decision-­‐making,  whereas  in  Papua  New  Guinea,  policy  is  considered  a   58     Thomas,  B.  (2014).  Policy  in  PNG  Higher  Education:  Contextualising  the  Challenges.  Presentation  to  PNG  Policy  Workshop,  April  2014.    59     Ibid.    

18

mechanism  to  promote  equity  and  academic  quality,  maintain  order  and  reduce  conflict.  In  New  Zealand,  policy  is  a  key  mechanism  to  promote  achievement  of  the  Treaty  of  Waitangi  obligations  and  equitable  treatment  of  Maori  and  Pasifika  students.      Policy  cycle    The  concept  of  a  staged  (but  iterative)  policy  process  resonated  with  respondents  in  all  jurisdictions.  The  “policy  cycle”  is  articulated  in  formal  policy  meta-­‐policy  and  related  documentation,  and  conceived  by  respondents  either  as  a  “cradle  to  grave”  cycle  involving  drafting/creation,  implementation,  updating  and  review  or  as  a  post-­‐approval  process  largely  focused  on  reviewing  policy  for  maintenance  and  currency  purposes.  In  a  few  instances,  the  policy  cycle  was  conceived  as  a  “gap  analysis”  or  “consolidation”  process  to  ensure  the  ongoing  integrity  of  the  policy  suite.  Respondents  from  the  United  States  were  more  likely  to  conceive  the  policy  cycle  as  a  post-­‐approval  policy  review  process,  possibly  reflecting  the  maturity  of  their  suites  of  policy  documentation.  In  many  instances,  the  policy  cycle  for  administrative  policy  was  distinguished  from  the  policy  cycle  for  academic  policy,  not  only  in  terms  of  endorsement  and  approval  authorities  but  also  management,  publication,  evaluation  and  review.  This  arrangement  was  more  prevalent  in  the  United  States  than  other  jurisdictions,  where  management  of  administrative  policy  is  frequently  undertaken  separately  from  academic  policy.  Indeed  in  some  such  instances  institutional  meta-­‐policy  and  centralised  policy  resources  were  restricted  to  administrative  policy,  unlike  Australia  and  New  Zealand  arrangements.      Despite  idiosyncratic  approaches  by  individual  higher  education  institutions,  there  is  a  remarkable  similarity  in  cycle  stages  and  sequence,  suggesting  a  degree  of  similarity  in  institutional  governance  structures  and  decision-­‐making  processes.  In  most  cases,  respondents  noted  challenges  with  respect  to  monitoring  and  evaluating  policy  implementation,  and  many  reported  backlogs  of  policies  awaiting  formal  review.  In  New  Zealand,  the  policy  cycle  was  not  infrequently  mapped  to  institutional  quality  management  system  requirements  and  processes,  particularly  in  the  ITP  sector.        Policy  management    The  manner  in  which  higher  education  institutions  manage  policy  varied  considerably  between  institutions,  more  noticeably  than  between  jurisdictions.  Representing  somewhat  of  a  continuum,  the  myriad  ways  in  which  institutions  conceived  policy  management  is  represented  in  Table  2,  below:    Presentation   -­‐ ensuring  compliance  with  policy  template  style  guide  specifications  (that  is,  

formatting  documents)  Editing  for  comprehension  and  “policy  speak”  

-­‐ performing  policy  editing  and  “word-­‐smith-­‐ing”  functions    

-­‐ performing  record-­‐keeping  functions  Records  and  accessibility    -­‐ maintenance  of  an  online  policy  repository  (that  is,  data  entry  and  information  

technology  functions)  Professional  support   -­‐ maintenance  of  a  policy  website  (linked  to  the  policy  repository,  but  including  other  

content)  -­‐ facilitation  of  the  policy  cycle  Process  -­‐ shepherding  draft  policies  through  endorsement  and  approval  

processes/committees  Scope   -­‐ maintenance  of  the  suite  of  policy  (including  “gap  analysis”)  Professional  development  

-­‐ developing  and  conducting  policy-­‐related  training  

-­‐ ensuring  alignment  of  policy,  practice  and  compliance    Congruence  -­‐ ensuring  alignment  of  legislation,  delegated  or  quasi-­‐legislation  and  policy    

Compliance     -­‐ implementation  of  policy  compliance  systems  or  processes    

19

Holistic  management   -­‐ implementation  of  institutional  meta-­‐policy  Policy  implementation   -­‐ responsibility  for  actual  policy  (for  example,  “policy  owners”)  

-­‐ responsibility  for  monitoring  and  evaluating  implementation  of  policy      

Policy  implementation  monitoring  and  evaluation   -­‐ responsibility  for  policy  review  

Table  2:  Variety  of  conceptions  of  “policy  management”      Policy  infrastructure    In  terms  of  formalised  policy  infrastructure  -­‐  policy  committees  –  the  research  illustrates  differences  between  the  United  States,  Australia,  Papua  New  Guinea  and  New  Zealand  with  respect  to  policy  committee’s  terms  of  reference,  policy  focus  (administrative/academic;  some/all)  and  membership  (administrators/faculty).  In  some  instances,  policy  committees  play  “gatekeeper”  functions  authorising  policy  projects  whereas  in  other  instances,  policy  committees  have  delegated  authority  for  discrete  academic  policy  matters.  Variations  also  exist  with  respect  to  focus,  from  policy  cycle,  or  process-­‐related  matters  to  policy  substance,  or  expertise-­‐related  matters.  At  least  some  higher  education  institutions  employ  policy-­‐specific  governance  structures  to  manage  some  if  not  all  elements  of  institutional  policy.      Policy  resources      In  terms  of  policy  resources,  the  longstanding  focus  on  policy  development  activity  –  most  particularly  in  the  United  States  and  Australia  -­‐  has  resulted  in  a  large  range  of  publicly  accessible  policy  development  and  consultation  resources.  In  addition,  publicly  accessible  policy  repositories  are  ubiquitous,  more  so  in  the  United  States  and  Australia  than  New  Zealand  and  Papua  New  Guinea.  The  frequent  conception  of  policy  management  as  a  record-­‐keeping  function,  coupled  with  information  communication  and  technology  advances,  has  resulted  in  much  attention  on  these  public,  online  policy  repositories.  In  the  United  States,  there  is  a  clear  delineation  in  many  institutions  examined  between  academic  and  administrative/governance  policy  which  is  not  as  evident  in  Australia  and  New  Zealand,  such  that  “central”  policy  management  –  where  this  exists  –  not  infrequently  is  restricted  to  administrative/governance  policy.      In  all  of  the  countries  investigated,  there  is  a  dearth  of  literature  and  institution-­‐specific  resources  regarding  value-­‐adding  policy  cycle  stages  such  as  higher  education  institutional  benchmarking  (that  is,  policy  borrowing  and/or  alternative  policy  option  analysis).  Unlike  the  public  policy  information  base  regarding  evidence-­‐based  decision-­‐making  and  policy  evaluation,  and  the  traditional  involvement  of  academic  governing  bodies  in  continual  program/course  and  organisational  unit  review,  there  appears  to  be  limited  literature,  institution-­‐specific  resources  and  centralised  expertise  regarding  institutional  policy  implementation  evaluation  and  review.  The  focus  on  policy  development,  coupled  with  organisational  and  conceptual  distance  from  policy  “owners”,  perhaps  explains  the  apparent  lack  of  resources  regarding  policy  implementation  monitoring,  evaluation  and  review.          Conclusion      Policy  is  understood  in  a  variety  of  ways;  from  an  instrument  for  risk  mitigation  purposes,  to  a  tool  to  promote  operational  efficiencies.  Policy  articulates  institutional  parameters,  principles,  rules  and  statements  of  intent.  There  are  some  notable  points  of  difference,  for  example,  the  relationship  between  government  legislation  and  institutional  policy.  Conceptions  of  the  policy  cycle  –  including  both  the  “cradle  to  grave”  and  “policy  cycle  as  policy  review”  models  –  are  surprisingly  consistent  both  between  and  within  the  countries  explored.  There  exists  an  ongoing  dichotomy  between  policy  practitioners  focused  primarily  on  basic  document  formatting,  information  technology,  data  entry  and  record-­‐keeping  functions  as  opposed  to  policy  managers  focused  on  strategic  management  of  institutional  policy  in  tandem  with  policy  

20

“owners”.  These  patterns  are  evident,  despite  fundamental  variations  between  the  countries  and  institutions  themselves.  In  almost  all  instances,  policy  functions  are  dislocated  from  the  strategy,  compliance/audit,  quality,  risk  and  institutional  research  agendas.  The  research  confirms  that  policy  implementation  monitoring,  evaluation  and  review  represent  the  next  tranche  of  policy-­‐related  activity  for  higher  education  institutions  in  the  United  States,  Australia,  Papua  New  Guinea  and  New  Zealand.