2014
DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2014.943776
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Too little and too much trust: performance measurement in Australian higher education

Abstract: A striking feature of contemporary Australian higher education governance is the strong emphasis on centralized, template style, metric-based, and consequential forms of performance measurement. Such emphasis is indicative of a low degree of political trust among the central authorities in Australia in the intrinsic capacity of universities and academics to do their work efficiently and effectively. At the same time, it is indicative of a deep-seated political trust in highly centralized and top-down forms of … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
24
0
2

Year Published

2015
2015
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
24
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…These studies tend to take a critical look at standardised test‐based performance measures, and contend that these are neither proven to contribute towards improving educational performance (Sahlberg, 2010), nor to enhancing the trust between particular stakeholder groups (Vidovich & Currie, 2011). Instead, authors recommend placing more trust in the professional judgment of teachers and promote alternative approaches, including dialogic governance or ‘teacher research’ to develop ‘intelligent modes of accountability’ (Sahlberg, 2010; Beckett, 2012; O’Neill, 2013; Zalec, 2013; Woelert & Yates, 2014).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These studies tend to take a critical look at standardised test‐based performance measures, and contend that these are neither proven to contribute towards improving educational performance (Sahlberg, 2010), nor to enhancing the trust between particular stakeholder groups (Vidovich & Currie, 2011). Instead, authors recommend placing more trust in the professional judgment of teachers and promote alternative approaches, including dialogic governance or ‘teacher research’ to develop ‘intelligent modes of accountability’ (Sahlberg, 2010; Beckett, 2012; O’Neill, 2013; Zalec, 2013; Woelert & Yates, 2014).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such views are important for a range of reasons. First, historically higher education has enjoyed a high level of trust in amongst publics internationally and between students, institutions, and teachers and has only recently seen this confidence challenged (Baert & Shipman, 2005; Enders 2013; Woelert & Yates, 2015). If data usage, linkage, and analytics occur without permission and usage results in harm, there is potential for loss of trust in tertiary institutions.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“… Ability to hypothetically and methodologically, basically fathom their own understanding of inventive, look into the movement of cutting edge academic experience (Woelert, P. et al, 2015).…”
Section: Findings and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%