Abstract
The paper scrutinises the dynamics and the nature of peer review in the programme evaluation and accreditation process within the context of diverse individual and institutional legacies in South Africa. It analyses the peer review process and highlights the contestation at political, policy and epistemological levels. The paper argues that, although the diversity of the review teams very often led to consensus based more on political compromises than on sound professional and academic grounds, all participants experienced the process as educative — offering conceptual and practical opportunities for development. It points to the need for problematisation of peer review and for a critical examination of its possibilities and limits in programme review.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage.
Beck, U. (1999) World Risk Society, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Biesta, G. (2006) Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future, London: Paradigm Publishers.
Blasé, J. (1998) ‘The Micropolitics of Education Change’, in A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan and D. Hopkins (eds.) International Handbook of Educational Change, London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 544–557.
Bourdieu, P. (1994) Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Chubin, D.R. and Hackett, E.J. (1990) Peerless Science, Peer Review and U.S. Science Policy, New York: State University of New York Press.
Council on Higher Education [CHE]. (2010) Report on the National Review of Academic and Professional Programmes in Education HE Monitor no.11 Pretoria: CHE.
Foucault, M. and Gordon, C. (1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings 1972–1977, New York: Pantheon Books.
Greenstein, R. (1995) Education, Identity and Curriculum Policies in the New South Africa, Johannesburg: EPU/WITS.
Higher Education Quality Committee/Council on Higher Education [HEQC/CHE]. (2004) Framework for Programme Accreditation, Pretoria: CHE.
Higher Education Quality Committee/Council on Higher Education [HEQC/CHE]. (2005a) Code of Ethics, Pretoria: CHE.
Higher Education Quality Committee/Council on Higher Education [HEQC/CHE]. (2005b) Using Criteria to Make Part/or Holistic Judgements for Accreditation, Pretoria: CHE.
Higher Education Quality Committee/Council on Higher Education [HEQC/CHE]. (2005c) National Review of the Structured Master of Education Programmes Manual, Pretoria: CHE.
Horrobin, D.F. (1982) ‘Peer review: A philosophically faulty concept which is proving disastrous for science’, The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2): 217–218.
Jongbloed, B. and Goedegebuure, L. (2001) ‘From the entrepreneurial university to the stakeholder university’, Paper presented at the CHEPS International Conference of Universities and the Regional Development in the Knowledge Society; 12–14 November, Bacelona, Spain.
Materu, P. (2007) ‘Higher education quality assurance in Sub-Saharan Africa — Status, challenges, opportunities, and promising practices’, World Bank Working Paper no.124, Washington, DC: World Bank.
McMillan, J.H. and Schumacher, S. (2006) Research in Education — Evidence-Based Inquiry, 6th edn, Pearson: Boston.
Meighan, R. and Harber, C. (2007) A Sociology of Educating, New York: Continuum.
National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE). (1996) A Framework for Transformation, Pretoria: NCHE.
Nzimande, B. (1992) ‘Keynote address at a meeting held at the university of fort hare in 1992 to establish a national forum of social scientists concerned with the development of research among historically disadvantaged South Africans’, University of Fort Hare.
Pagani, F. (2002) Peer Review: A Tool for Cooperation and Change — An Analysis of an OECD Working Method, Paris, France: OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/33/16/1955285.pdf, accessed 27 May 2011.
Pillay, V. (2004) ‘Towards a Broader Understanding of the Micropolitics of Educational Change’, Perspectives in Education 22 (4): 129–138.
Sack, R. (2003) Developing Shared and Broader Visions for Education in Africa through Peer Reviews ADEA Working Group for Education Sector Analysis, Paris: UNESCO/ADEA.
Schmelkin, L. (2003) Peer Review: Standard or Delusion, Division 5 Presidential Address to the American Psychological, August, Toronto, Canada.
Smith, R. (1997) ‘Peer Review: Reform or Revolution? Time to Open Up the Black Box of Peer Review’, British Medical Journal 315: 759–760.
Weber, E. (1996) ‘Perishing by publishing: Academic appointments’, The Liberal Universities and The Liberatory Struggle in South Africa, Mimeo.
Weiss, C. (1988) ‘Exploring Research Utilisation’, in J. Hofmeyr and J. Muller (eds.) Research Utilisation Seminar. How Research and Information are Used, South Africa: Witwatersrand, Centre of Continuing Education.
Weller, A.C. (2002) Editorial Peer Review, its Strengths and Weaknesses, Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc., American Society for Information Science and Technology, Monograph Series.
Wits School of Education. (2006) Response to the HEQC Accreditation Report, Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand.
Ziman, J. (1982) ‘Bias, Incompetence, or bad management?’ The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2): 245–246.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cross, M., Naidoo, D. Peer Review and the Dilemmas of Quality Control in Programme Accreditation in South African Higher Education: Challenges and Possibilities. High Educ Policy 24, 517–534 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.13
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/hep.2011.13