Résumés
Abstract
This paper demonstrates how the choice of instrument facilitates acceptance of a new accountability requirement in the Ontario university sector as it helps balance the government’s need for control with the universities’ need for independence. The instrument, conceptualized as an agreement, embodies the negotiated character of the relationship between government and universities, and conveys the idea to different actors that their needs are met. Despite the promises of the instrument, when objectives are ambiguous, uncertainty is pervasive, and negotiation is limited, the increase in government control is minimized and the changes in university autonomy are negligible, thus suggesting that symbolic and rhetorical compliance may be the sustainable equilibrium between governments and governed. Nonetheless, some level of transformation is observed in the sector as the new tool contributes to strengthening priority alignment, highlighting the value of sharing stories, and increasing acceptance of reporting requirements.
Résumé
Cet article montre que le choix des instruments de politique publique facilite l’acceptation d’une nouvelle exigence de responsabilité dans le secteur universitaire en Ontario, et ce, en assurant l’équilibre entre le besoin de contrôle du gouvernement et la nécessité d’indépendance des universités. L’instrument, conceptualisé comme un accord, symbolise le caractère négocié de la relation entre le gouvernement et les universités, et donne l’impression que les besoins des deux parties sont satisfaits. Toutefois, malgré ses visées, lorsque les objectifs sont ambigus, l’incertitude est omniprésente, la négociation est limitée, le contrôle du gouvernement est minimisé et les changements dans l’autonomie des universités sont négligeables. Cela suggère qu’un respect symbolique et rhétorique peut assurer un équilibre durable entre gouvernants et gouvernés. Néanmoins, certaines transformations sont observées dans le secteur, alors que le nouvel outil contribue à renforcer l’alignement des priorités, à faire valoir l’importance de partager des récits, et à accroître l’acceptation des demandes de reddition de comptes.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Ahn, M.J. 2012. “Whither e-government? Web 2.0 and the future of e-government.” In C. G. Reddick & S. K. Aikins (eds.). Web 2.0 Technologies and Democratic Governance. New York, NY: Springer, p. 169-182).
- Bernier, P. 2012. “Transparency.” In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Public Administration. Retrieved from http://www.dictionnaire.enap.ca.
- Bovens, M. 2005. “From financial accounting to public accountability.” In H. Hill (ed.). Bestandsaufnahme und Perspektiven des Haushalts-und Finanzmanagements. Baden
- Baden: Nomos Verlag, p. 183-193). Retrieved from http://www.uu.nl.
- Boyce, M.E. 2003. “Organizational learning is essential to achieving and sustaining change in higher education,” Innovative Higher Education, 28(2): 119-136.
- Brunetto, Y. and R. Farr‐Wharton. 2005. “Academics’ responses to the implementation of a quality agenda,” Quality in Higher Education, 11(2): 161-180. doi: 10.1080/13538320500175175.
- Cavalluzzo, K S. and C.D. Ittner. 2004. “Implementing performance measurement innovations: evidence from government,” Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3-4): 243-267. doi: 10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00013-8.
- Clark, I.D., G. Moran, M.L. Skolnik and D. Trick. 2009. Academic transformation: The forces reshaping higher education in Ontario. Montreal, QC and Kingston, ON: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
- Council of Ontario Universities. 2004. Proposed university accountability framework. Toronto, ON: COU. Retrieved from http://www.cou.on.ca.
- Dill, D.D. and M. Beerkens. 2010. “Reflections and conclusions.” In D.D. Dill and M. Beerkens (eds.). Public policy for academic quality: Analysis of Innovative Policy Instruments. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, p. 313-335). doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3754-1_16.
- DiMaggio, P.J. and W.W. Powell. 1983. “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields,” American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160.
- Durant, R. 2008. “Sharpening a knife cleverly: Organizational change, policy paradox, and the ‘weaponizing’ of administrative reforms,” Public Administration Review, 68(2): 282-294.
- Enders, J., H. Boer and E. Weyer. 2012. “Regulatory autonomy and performance: The reform of higher education re-visited,” Higher Education, 65(1): 5-23. doi: 10.1007/s10734-012-9578-4.
- Ferlie, E., C. Musselin and G. Andresani. 2008. “The steering of higher education systems: A public management perspective,” Higher Education, 56(3): 325-348. doi: 10.1007/s10734-008-9125-5.
- García de Fanelli, A.M. 2006. “Los contratos-programa en las universidades: Lecciones de la comparación internaciona,”. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 14(11). Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org.
- Gornitzka, Å., B. Stensaker, J. Smeby and H. De Boer. 2004. “Contract arrangements in the Nordic countries—solving the efficiency/effectiveness dilemma?” Higher Education in Europe, 29(1): 87-101. doi: 10.1080/03797720410001673319.
- Gregory, R. 2003. “Accountability in modern government.” In G. Peters & J. Pierre (eds.). Handbook of Public Administration. London, UK: Sage Publications, p. 555-568.
- Grosjean, G. and J. Atkinson-Grosjean. 2000. “The use of performance models in higher education: A comparative international review,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(30): 35.
- Harvey, L. and B. Stensaker. 2011. “Accountability: Understandings and challenges.” In L. Harvey and B. Stensaker (eds.). Accountability in higher education: Global perspectives on trust and power. New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge, p. 7-22.
- Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. 2009. Towards an accountability framework for Ontario PSE. Toronto, ON: HEQCO, September. Retrieved from http://www.heqco.ca.
- Huisman, J. and J. Currie. 2004. “Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled water?” Higher Education, 48(4): 529-551. doi: 10.1023/B:HIGH.0000046725.16936.4c.
- Iacobucci, F. 2009. HEQCO letter to MTCU regarding the multi-year accountability agreements, November 3. Retrieved from http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/letter%20to%20Minister%20Milloy_re%20MYAAs.pdf.
- Jones, G.A., T. Shanahan and P. Goyan. 2001. “University governance in Canadian higher education,” Tertiary Education and Management, 7(2): 135-148.
- Jongbloed, B. and H. Vossensteyn. 2001. “Keeping up performances: An international survey of performance-based funding in higher education,” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(2): 127-145. doi: 10.1080/13600800120088625.
- Kassim, H. and P. Le Galès. 2010. “Exploring governance in a multi-level polity: A policy instruments approach,” West European Politics, 33(1): 1-21. doi: 10.1080/01402380903354031.
- Kennedy, D. 1997. Academic duty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
- Kübler, D. and J. De Maillard. 2009. “La mise en oeuvre: Entre application et reformulation de la décision.” In Analyser les politiques publiques. Grenoble, CH: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.
- Kymlicka, B.B. 1982. “Ontario.” In Systems of higher education: Canada (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Interbook Inc, p. 101-132.
- Lascoumes, P. and P. Le Galès. (eds.). 2004. Gouverner par les instruments. Paris, FR: Presses de Sciences Po.
- Lascoumes, P. and P. Le Galès. 2007. “Introduction: Understanding public policy through its instruments—From the nature of instruments to the sociology of public policy instrumentation,” Governance, 20(1). doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2007.00342.x/pdf.
- Lascoumes, P. and L. Simard. 2011. “L’action publique au prisme de ses instruments,” Revue Française de Science Politique, 61, p. 5-22.
- Le Galès, P. 2004. “La restructuration de l’état en Grande-Bretagne.” In P. Lascoumes and P. Le Galès (eds.). Gouverner par les instruments. Paris, FR: Presses de Sciences Po, p. 237-272.
- Lemelin, C. 1999. “Politique de l’enseignement universitaire et financement public.” In P. Beaulieu and D. Bertrand (eds.). L’État québécois et les universités: Acteurs et enjeux. Québec, QC: Presses de l’Université du Québec, p. 199-216.
- Lewis, D.R., D.D. Hendel and L. Kallsen. 2007. “Performance indicators as a foundation of institutional autonomy: Implications for higher education institutions in Europe,” Tertiary Education and Management, 13(3): 203-226. doi: 10.1080/13583880701502158.
- Maingot, M. and D. Zeghal. 2008. “An analysis of voluntary disclosure of performance indicators by Canadian universities,” Tertiary Education and Management, 14(4): 269-283. doi: 10.1080/13583880802481666.
- Maassen, P. and Å. Gornitzka. 1999. “Integrating two theoretical perspectives on organisational adaptation.” In B. Jongbloed, P. Maassen and G. Neave (eds.). From the eye of the storm: Higher education’s changing institution. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 295-316.
- Matland, R.E. 1995. “Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2): 145-174.
- Massy, W. 2011. “Managerial and political strategies for handling accountability.” In L. Harvey and B. Stensaker (eds.). Accountability in higher education: Global perspectives on trust and power. New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge, p. 221-244.
- McDavid, J.C. and L.R.L. Hawthorn. 2006. Program evaluation & performance measurement: An introduction to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- McDavid, J.C. and I. Huse. 2008. What is the value in public performance reporting: Findings from a five-year study of legislator uses of performance reports in British Columbia. Victoria, BC: School of Public Administration, University of Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.uvic.ca
- Metcalfe, A.S., D. Fisher, Y. Gingras, G. Jones, K. Rubenson and I. Snee. 2011. “Canada: Perspectives on governance and management.” In Changing governance and management in higher education: The perspectives of the academy. Dordrecht, Netherlands and London, UK: Springer, p. 390.
- Nelson, M., W. Banks and J. Fisher. 2003. “Improved accountability disclosures by Canadian universities,” Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 2(1): 77-107.
- Norris, D.F. 2010. “E-Government 2020: Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose, ” Public Administration Review, 70(1): 280-281. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02269.x.
- Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities (MTCU). 2005. Quality improvement fund (press release). Retrieved January 20, 2012, from http://www.tcu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/nr/05.11/bg1129.html.
- Pollitt, C. 1993. Managerialism and the public service. London, UK: Basil Blackwell.
- Power, M. 2000. “The audit society: Second thoughts,” International Journal of Auditing, 4, p. 111-119.
- Radaelli, C.M. 2010. “Récits (policy narrative).” In L. Boussaguet, S. Jacquot and P. Ravinet (eds.). Dictionnaire des politiques publiques (3rd ed). Paris, FR: Presses de Sciences Po, p. 548-553.
- Rae, B. 2005. Ontario: A leader in learning. Toronto, ON: Post-Secondary Review, Government of Ontario.
- Reale, E. and M. Seeber. 2012. “Instruments as empirical evidence for the analysis of higher education policies,” Higher Education, 65(1): 135-151. doi:10.1007/s10734-012-9585-5.
- Rosen, L. 2009. “Rhetoric and Symbolic Action in the Policy Process.” In G. Sykes, B. Schneider and D.N. Plank (eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research. New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge.
- Ryan, N., T. Williams, M. Charles and J. Waterhouse. 2008. “Top-down organizational change in an Australian government agency,” International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(1): 26-44.
- Sá, C. M., A. Kretz and K. Sigurdson. 2013. “Accountability, performance assessment, and evaluation: Policy pressures and responses from research councils.” Research Evaluation. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvs041.
- Sabatier, P.A. 2008. “Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis,” Journal of Public Policy, 6(01): 21. doi:10.1017/S0143814X00003846.
- Salmi, J. 2009. The growing accountability agenda in tertiary education: Progress or mixed blessing? Education Working Paper Series, 16. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Retrieved from http://worldbank.org.
- Scott, R.W. 2008. Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
- Shanahan, T. 2009. “Accountability initiatives in higher education: An overview-an examination of the impetus to accountability, its expressions and implications” (Speaking Notes). In Accounting or accountability in higher education. Toronto, ON. Retrieved from http://www.ocufa.on.ca.
- Shapiro, B.J. and H.T. Shapiro. 1994. Higher education: Some problems and challenges in a changing world (Discussion Series No, 4). Toronto, ON: Council of Ontario Universities.
- Skolnik, M.L. 2005. “The Rae Review and the structure of post-secondary education in Ontario.” In C. Beach (ed.). A challenge for higher education in Ontario. Kingston, ON: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy Queen’s University, p. 7-26).
- Snowdon, K. 2005. “Assessing the revenue framework and multi-year planning in the Rae report.” In C. Beach (ed.). A Challenge for Higher Education in Ontario. Kingston, ON: John Deutsch Institute for the Study of Economic Policy Queen’s University, p. 27-72.
- Stensaker, B. 2009. “Models of accountability or models to avoid?” In Accounting or accountability in higher education. Toronto, ON, p. 23-34.
- Stone, D.A. 1989. “Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas,” Political Science Quarterly, 104(2): 281. doi: 10.2307/2151585.
- Taylor, J. 2009. “Strengthening the link between performance measurement and decision-making,” Public Administration, 87(4): 853-871.
- Thomas, P.G. 1997. “Ministerial responsibility and administrative accountability.” In M. Charih and A. Daniels (eds.). New public management and public administration in Canada. Toronto, ON: The Institute of Public Administration of Canada, p. 141-163.
- Thomas, P.G. 2007. “Why is performance-based accountability so popular in theory and difficult in practice?” Presented at the World Summit on Public Governance: Improving the performance of the public sector, Taipei, Taiwan. Retrieved from https://www.ipac.ca.
- Trow, M. 1996. Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. University of California Berkeley, CA: Center for Studies in Higher Education. Retrieved from http://www.escholarship.org.
- Usher, A. and A. Potter. 2006. A state of the field review of post-secondary education. Toronto-Virginia Beach-Melbourne: Educational Policy Institute. Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca.ca.
- Vilalta, J.M. and J. Brugué. 2010. “Contracting for quality improvement and financing in public universities of Catalonia, Spain.” In D.D. Dill and M. Beerkens (eds.), Public policy for academic quality: Analysis of Innovative Policy Instruments. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Netherlands, p. 275-292. doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-3754-1_14.
- Watts, T., C.J. McNair and V. Baard. 2010. “From inception to inertia–An institutional perspective of a public accountability measure," Australasian Accounting Business and Finance Journal, 4(1): 6-28.