Higher Education

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 277–292 | Cite as

Performance indicators as conceptual technologies

Abstract

This paper posits that performance indicators (PIs)are conceptual technologies that shape what issuesacademics think about and how academics think aboutthose issues by embedding normative assumptions intothe selection and structure of those indicators.Exploring the assumptions embedded in Alberta's(Canada) PIs yields an initial typology of assumptionsthat academics can apply to performance indicators inhigher education to understand, refine or criticallychallenge their introduction.

Canada conceptual technology critical theory higher education institutional effectiveness performance indicators performance funding resource allocation 

References

  1. AECD (1994). New Directions for Adult Learning in Alberta. White Paper. October. Edmonton: Advanced Education and Career Development.Google Scholar
  2. AECD (1996). Encouraging Excellence and Rewarding Success in Alberta's Public Adult Learning System: A Proposal for Implementing a Performance Funding Envelope. December. Edmonton: Advanced Education and Career Development.Google Scholar
  3. AECD (1997). Rewarding Progress Towards Goals: Highlights of Alberta's Performance Envelope Funding. July 31. Edmonton: Advanced Education and Career Development.Google Scholar
  4. AECD (1998). 1997/98 Annual Report. Edmonton: Advanced Education and Career Development.Google Scholar
  5. AECD (1999). 1998/99 Annual Report. Edmonton: Advanced Education and Career Development.Google Scholar
  6. Barnetson, R.J. (1997). Marketing The University of Calgary to Frosh. Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Calgary, Faculty of Education.Google Scholar
  7. Barnetson, B. (forthcoming, a). 'The metaphors and beliefs legitimating performance funding'. Quality in Higher Education.Google Scholar
  8. Barnetson, B. (forthcoming, b). 'Performance indicators, chaos theory, and planning', in Cutright, M. (ed.), Chaos Theory and Higher Education: Leadership, Planning, and Policy. Baltimore: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  9. Barnetson, B. and Boberg, A. (2000). 'Resource allocation and public policy in Alberta's post-secondary system', Canadian Journal of Higher Education. In press.Google Scholar
  10. Bateman, M. and Elliott, R.W. (1994). 'An attempt to implement performance-based funding in Texas higher education: A case study', in Epper, R.M. (ed.), Focus on the Budget: Rethinking Current Practice, State Policy and College Learning. Denver: Education Commission of the States. 41-52. ERIC Document Reproduction Service. ED 375 790.Google Scholar
  11. Boberg A. and Barnetson, B. (2000). 'System-wide program assessment with performance indicators: Alberta's performance-funding mechanism', Canadian Journal of Program Assessment (Winter), 1-26.Google Scholar
  12. Borden, V.H.M. and Banta, T.W. (eds) (1994). 'Using performance indicators to guide strategic planning', in New Directions for Institutional Research 82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Burke, J.C. and Serban, A.M. (eds) (1999a). 'Performance funding for higher education: Fad or trend?', in New Directions for Institutional Research 97. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Burke, J.C. and Serban, A.M. (1999b). 'State synopses of performance funding programs', in Burke J.C. and Serban. A.M. (eds), Performance Funding for Public Higher Education: Fad or Trend? New Directions for Institutional Research 97, 25-48.Google Scholar
  15. Cave, M., Hanney, S., Henkel, M. and Kogan, M. (1997). The Use of Performance Indicators in Higher Education: The Challenges of the Quality Movement, 3rd ed. London: Jessica Kingsely.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, M.D., March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1972). 'A garbage-can model of organizational choice', Administrative Science Quarterly 17, 1–25.Google Scholar
  17. Cutright, M. (1999). 'Planning in higher education: A model from chaos theory'. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association. Montreal. April.Google Scholar
  18. Cutright, M. and Griffith, B. (1997). 'Higher education in the service of the economy: Education ministry reconfigurations and the corporatist agenda'. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Parkland Institute. Edmonton.Google Scholar
  19. Dochy, F.J.R.C., Segers, M.S.P. and Wijnen, W.H.F.W. (1990). Management Information and Performance Indicators in Higher Education: An International Issue. The Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  20. Ewell, P.T. (1987). Assessment, Accountability and Improvement: Managing the Contradictions. American Association for Higher Education Assessment Forum. ERIC Document Reproduction Service. ED 287 330.Google Scholar
  21. Gaither, G.H. (ed.) (1995). 'Assessing performance in an age of accountability: Case studies', in New Directions for Higher Education 91. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  22. Gaither, G.H., Nedwek, B.P. and Neal, J.E. (1994). Measuring Up: The Promise and Pitfalls of Performance Indicators in Higher Education. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report. No. 5. ERIC Document Reproduction Service. ED 383 279.Google Scholar
  23. Ingram, D. (1991). Critical Theory and Philosophy. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
  24. Kaufman, R. (1988). 'Preparing useful performance indicators', Training and Development Journal (September), 80-83.Google Scholar
  25. Kells, H. (1992). Self-regulation in Higher Education: A Multinational Perspective on Collaborative Systems of Quality Assurance and Control. London: Jessica-Kingsley.Google Scholar
  26. Layzell, D.T. and Caruthers, J.K. (1995). 'Performance funding at the state level: Trends and prospects'. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of ASHE. Orlando. ERIC Document Reproduction Service. ED 391 406.Google Scholar
  27. Lincoln, Y.S. (1991). 'Advancing a critical agenda', in Tierney, W.G. (ed.), Culture and Ideology in Higher Education: Advancing a Critical Agenda. New York: Prager, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
  28. March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (eds) (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Oslo: Universiteforlaget.Google Scholar
  29. McDonnell, L.M. (1994). 'Assessment policy as persuasion and regulation', American Journal of Education 102, 394–420.Google Scholar
  30. McDonnell, L.M. and Elmore, R.F. (1987). Alternative Policy Instruments. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  31. Neave, G. (1980). 'Accountability and control', European Journal of Education 15(1), 49–61.Google Scholar
  32. Newson, J.A. (1994). 'Subordinating democracy: The effects of fiscal retrenchment and university-business partnerships on knowledge creation and knowledge dissemination in universities', Higher Education 27, 141–161.Google Scholar
  33. Pal, L. (1992). Public Policy Analysis, 2nd ed. Toronto: Nelson.Google Scholar
  34. Peters, M. (1992). 'Performance indicators in New Zealand higher education: Education or control?', Journal of Educational Policy 7(3), 267–283.Google Scholar
  35. Peters, M.C., Freeman-Moir, J. and Peters, M.A. (1993). 'Competition in tertiary education'. Unpublished paper. University of Canterbury, Education Department.Google Scholar
  36. Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  37. Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  38. Polster, C. and Newson, J. (1998). 'Don't count your blessings: The social accomplishments of performance indicators', in Currie, J. and Newson, J. (eds), Universities and Globalization: Critical Perspectives. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 173–182.Google Scholar
  39. Porter, T.M. (1995). Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Sciences and Public Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Power, M. (1994). 'The audit society', in Hopwood, A.G. and Miller, P. (eds), Accounting as Social and Institutional Practice. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 299–316.Google Scholar
  41. Power, M. (1996). 'Making things auditable', Accounting, Organizations and Society 21(2/3), 289–315.Google Scholar
  42. Ruppert, S.S. (ed.) (1994). Charting Higher Education Accountability: A Sourcebook on Statelevel Performance Indicators. Denver: Education Commission of the States.Google Scholar
  43. Schmidtlein, F.A. (1999). 'Assumptions underlying performance-based budgeting'. Paper presented at the 39th annual AIR Forum. Seattle.Google Scholar
  44. Schneider, A. and Ingram, H. (1990). 'Behavioral assumptions of policy tools', Journal of Politics 52(2), 510–529.Google Scholar
  45. Slaughter, S. (1990). The Higher Learning and High Technology: Dynamics of Higher Education Policy Formation. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  46. Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L.L. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Wagner, R.B. (1989). Accountability in Education: A Philosophical Inquiry. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alberta Colleges & Institutes Faculties AssociationEdmontonCanada
  2. 2.The Johns Hopkins UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations