Higher education governance and policy: an introduction to multi-issue, multi-level and multi-actor dynamics

Abstract

This thematic issue introduces the multifaceted nature of contemporary public policy-its multi-level, multi-actor and multiissue features-using the case of higher education policies from around the world. To do so, this introduction first describes how higher education as a policy sector should be garnering far more attention from scholars interested in political, economic and social transformation. A framework for identifying and accounting for how the 'multi-s' characteristics configure and re-configure public policy is then introduced. Next, this thematic issue's contributions are summarized with highlights of how they bring to life the different 'multi-s' features. This introduction concludes with a discussion of what the proposed framework of the 'multi-s' offers to studies of higher education policy coordination. In so doing, the objectives of this thematic issue are to highlight what the case of higher education policy coordination offers to studies of public policy and to initiate a dialogue between all social scientists and practitioners interested in the increased complexity of governing, producing and using knowledge today. This thematic issue of Policy and Society focuses on the increased multifaceted characteristic of contemporary public policy (Peters, 2015). Using the case of higher education policies from around the world, we highlight the multi-level, multi-actor and multi-issue-'multi-s'nature of public policy in areas of growing international and political attention. The global shift towards knowledge-based economies and societies has placed 'knowledge' at the core of contemporary public policy and policy-making. The governance of knowledge, however, is not a neatly contained policy coordination exercise: it requires collaboration across multiple policy sectors that may have previously experienced very little or less interaction. A non-exhaustive list of relevant policy areas includes higher education, research, trade, foreign policy, development and home affairs (migration). Higher education policy coordination is thus permeated with respective sectoral concerns, with discussions taking place across distinct policy arenas, sometimes in silo, both inside and

Who benefits from HEIs engagement? An analysis of priority stakeholders and activity profiles of HEIs in the United Kingdom

“…Hussler, Picard, and Tang 2010; Hewitt-Dundas 2012), without considering HEIs' stakeholder prioritisation. On the other hand, stakeholder engagement has been discussed in the context of HE governance (Bleiklie and Kogan 2007;Chou et al 2017), and with regard to the alignment of curricula to different stakeholders and particularly students (stakeholder curricula, e.g. Osborne, Davies, and Garnett 1998), but not so much in relation to HEIs' overall missions.…”

The political process of international education: Complementarities and clashes in the Manitoba K-12 sector through a multi-level governance lens

“…In presenting the findings of the study, we follow the three categories proposed by Chou et al (2017), examining first the distribution of authority across the stakeholder groups (the category of multi-level characteristics), then analyzing the heterogeneity of values among stakeholders (the category of multi-actor characteristics) and, subsequently, describing the complementarities and clashes between stakeholder groups (the category of multi-issue characteristics). Within each section, we describe the unique themes that emerged from the data.…”

“…federalism), and Type II, where the focus is on issue or task jurisdictions across different levels of authority where jurisdictions may overlap (as in international education). These two categories may not be sufficient to examine stakeholder dynamics across policy sectors, as each sector might have a distinct method of coordination and uphold their unique sectorial rationales (Vukasovic et. al., 2017).…”

“…Se centra en 1) distribución de autoridad; 2) heterogeneidad de valores; y 3) complementariedades y enfrentamientos en cuestiones de política. Se aplica un marco de gobernanza multinivel (MLG;Chou et al, 2017;Hooghe & Marks, 2003), como lente teórica orientadora, para examinar las interacciones entre los gobiernos (federal-provincial), las organizaciones no gubernamentales, administradores escolares, estudiantes internacionales y sus familias en el contexto del sector Manitoba K-12. Los datos para este estudio se obtuvieron mediante análisis de documentos y 40 entrevistas semiestructuradas.…”

Contesting Contextual Forces of National Politics—Explaining German Transnational Education from a Policy Design Perspective

“…While (higher) education was once declared a neglected policy field (Jakobi, Martens, & Wolf, ), much effort has been made by scholars to understand public policy coordination in higher education using the governance concept and its analytical potential (Braun & Merrien, ; Clark, ; Dobbins & Knill, ; Huisman, ; Schimank, ). Subsequently, comprehensive research revealed the (co‐)existence of different multilevel institutional arrangements (Benz, ; Capano, ; Chou, Jungblut, Ravinet, & Vukasovic, ; Peters & Pierre, ) departing from the overused governance‐concept by widening the scope of the original approach. By then, governance was threatened to be reduced to a “catch‐all” term (Lange and Schimank , p. 18) or to an “empty signifier” (Offe, ).…”