从评价角度看绩效:如何运用战略决策工具拓展评价思维

Q2 Social Sciences Evaluation Journal of Australasia Pub Date : 2022-08-27 DOI:10.1177/1035719X221120293
B. Harris, Lyn Alderman
{"title":"从评价角度看绩效:如何运用战略决策工具拓展评价思维","authors":"B. Harris, Lyn Alderman","doi":"10.1177/1035719X221120293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Australian higher education continues to be plagued with decreases in funding and increases in regulation. This is leading to a reality within many universities where quality alone is not enough to consider academic programs viable and sustainable. Today, universities compete fiercely for students, as increasing or retaining market share is required to remain financially sound. Universities usually make these difficult decisions through an analysis of internal student data as a metric of performance. Factors such as declining student enrolments, high attrition rates, low progression rates and poor student feedback would typically strike university executives as alarming; however, this is often not the full picture. This process can often become political and not grounded in evidence-based informed decision-making, as strategic decision-making to reduce academic programs may have direct impact on academic employment. Moreover, these analyses often lack independent evaluation and consideration of the broader environment. This can lead to tensions between faculty and university administration, which may lead to political outcomes guided by passionate academic debate rather than strategic evidence-based decision-making. This theoretical article outlines how an internal evaluation team can contribute to this exercise to stretch evaluative thinking by applying a range of strategic decision-making tools to evaluate academic program performance.","PeriodicalId":37231,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","volume":"22 1","pages":"237 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance through the lens of evaluation: How to stretch evaluative thinking with strategic decision-making tools\",\"authors\":\"B. Harris, Lyn Alderman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1035719X221120293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Australian higher education continues to be plagued with decreases in funding and increases in regulation. This is leading to a reality within many universities where quality alone is not enough to consider academic programs viable and sustainable. Today, universities compete fiercely for students, as increasing or retaining market share is required to remain financially sound. Universities usually make these difficult decisions through an analysis of internal student data as a metric of performance. Factors such as declining student enrolments, high attrition rates, low progression rates and poor student feedback would typically strike university executives as alarming; however, this is often not the full picture. This process can often become political and not grounded in evidence-based informed decision-making, as strategic decision-making to reduce academic programs may have direct impact on academic employment. Moreover, these analyses often lack independent evaluation and consideration of the broader environment. This can lead to tensions between faculty and university administration, which may lead to political outcomes guided by passionate academic debate rather than strategic evidence-based decision-making. This theoretical article outlines how an internal evaluation team can contribute to this exercise to stretch evaluative thinking by applying a range of strategic decision-making tools to evaluate academic program performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"237 - 253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evaluation Journal of Australasia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X221120293\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation Journal of Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X221120293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

澳大利亚高等教育继续受到资金减少和监管增加的困扰。这导致了许多大学的现实,单凭质量不足以认为学术项目是可行和可持续的。如今,大学在争夺学生方面竞争激烈,因为需要增加或保持市场份额才能保持财务状况。大学通常通过分析内部学生数据作为衡量成绩的指标来做出这些艰难的决定。学生入学率下降、高流失率、低进步率和学生反馈不佳等因素通常会让大学高管感到担忧;然而,这往往不是全貌。这一过程往往会变得政治化,而不是基于循证的知情决策,因为减少学术项目的战略决策可能会对学术就业产生直接影响。此外,这些分析往往缺乏对更广泛环境的独立评估和考虑。这可能会导致教职员工和大学管理层之间的紧张关系,这可能导致以激烈的学术辩论而非战略性循证决策为指导的政治结果。这篇理论文章概述了内部评估团队如何通过应用一系列战略决策工具来评估学术项目绩效,从而为拓展评估思维做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Performance through the lens of evaluation: How to stretch evaluative thinking with strategic decision-making tools
Australian higher education continues to be plagued with decreases in funding and increases in regulation. This is leading to a reality within many universities where quality alone is not enough to consider academic programs viable and sustainable. Today, universities compete fiercely for students, as increasing or retaining market share is required to remain financially sound. Universities usually make these difficult decisions through an analysis of internal student data as a metric of performance. Factors such as declining student enrolments, high attrition rates, low progression rates and poor student feedback would typically strike university executives as alarming; however, this is often not the full picture. This process can often become political and not grounded in evidence-based informed decision-making, as strategic decision-making to reduce academic programs may have direct impact on academic employment. Moreover, these analyses often lack independent evaluation and consideration of the broader environment. This can lead to tensions between faculty and university administration, which may lead to political outcomes guided by passionate academic debate rather than strategic evidence-based decision-making. This theoretical article outlines how an internal evaluation team can contribute to this exercise to stretch evaluative thinking by applying a range of strategic decision-making tools to evaluate academic program performance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Evaluation Journal of Australasia
Evaluation Journal of Australasia Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
Utilising existing data for a pilot social return on investment analysis of the family wellbeing empowerment program: A justification and framework Evaluation at the cutting edge: Driving innovation and quality The best medicine: Lessons from health for policy randomistas Evaluator perspective: Meet an Australian Evaluation Society Fellow – Nan Wehipeihana Meta-evaluation: Validating program evaluation standards through the United Nations Evaluation Quality Assessment (EQAs)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1