Search results

Alongside universities, there are an increasing number of ‘third sector’ organisations actively involved in shaping widening participation (WP). In partnering with universities, employers and collaborative programmes like Uni Connect, they are responsible for delivering on institutional and national policy objectives around WP, as well as accountable to their own organisational missions. Despite being part of established practice in WP, with their activities praised by policymakers, their roles and practices are rarely considered in assessments of WP activity. In comparison with universities, they can experience different expectations, challenges and opportunities and can also have separate agendas driven by their missions and organisational sustainability. This chapter explores how these organisations have emerged, the roles that they have created for themselves and how they have attempted to sustain or develop these. It traces how these organisations have emerged as key players in national and institutional policy and draws on interviews with third sector leaders and practitioners to understand how WP is understood and done outside higher education providers (HEPs).

This paper aims to explore whether the key drivers identified in digitalization policies are being prioritized by practitioners in health and social care and to what degree the goals of the policies are being enacted.

The investigation comprised two stages. First, the key drivers of digitalization in the national policies were identified. Second, a survey was disseminated to practitioners within health and social care, asking them to indicate their stance on each key driver (using Likert scales).

The findings of this paper are twofold. First, they demonstrate that practitioners more readily enact the key drivers centered around their everyday operations, such as improving services and care and increasing efficiency. Second, it shows that key drivers of a more rhetorical nature, such as “becoming the best,” do not yield benefits for practitioners.

This paper shows that for policies to have an effect in practice and to contribute to change, they should be rooted in key drivers centered around practitioners’ everyday operations, promoting specificity over abstraction.

While previous studies have involved policy analysis, few studies investigate the enactment of policies, how they are implemented and whether they contribute to changes in practice.

This chapter aims to contribute to research on standards and regulation in education, taking as a point of departure three sets of interrelated policies, core to the globalised educational agenda: policies on competencies and skills, school autonomy and performance-based accountability, representing a new governmental logic founded on the values of efficiency, quality, competitiveness and outcomes. The chapter has a double purpose: first, to make a theoretical contribution to the literature interrogating the new modes of governing schools and curricular knowledge. It does this, by explicating the relationship between the regulative dimension of global policy discourses, embodying the principle of performativity, and the discourses regulating pedagogic practices in local sites, where policies are enacted. Second, to present aspects of a study carried out in the Greek education context, in which policies towards a post-bureaucratic administration regime (school autonomy, national testing, accountability mechanisms) have failed to be institutionalised. Focusing on the Modern Greek Language curriculum and its enactments in demanding school settings, the study illustrates how discourses on inclusion, diffused within the educational field and invading the school space, exert strong control over teachers' instructional practices. It is argued that developments of Bernstein's theory of knowledge pedagogisation provide a language to describe the complex ways in which regulative discourses operate in global times, affecting the recontextualisations of curricular policies. The theory thus contributes to the literature on the enactments of globalised education policies and helps explain the diversity of national and institutional responses to such policies.

The purpose of this paper is to understand, from principals’ points of view, how a teacher registration reform is enacted by examining the potential changes in the relationships between principals and newly qualified teachers (NQTs). The reform entailed principals performing an aptitude assessment of new teachers in their probationary year.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with five principals from two Swedish municipalities on three occasions in one academic year. A third follow-up interview was conducted one year later with four of the principals, the fifth no longer being in post.

The assessment appears to be downplayed by the principals, whereas the supportive dimension and the facilitation of NQTs’ professional development seem to be acknowledged and made explicit. For some of the principals, their creative translation of the reform’s intentions transformed these relations and strengthened their leadership.

The study is small-scale and was carried out in a specific period of policy implementation from the principals’ perspectives. Future studies would benefit from involving both principals’ and teachers’ perspectives.

Policymakers appear to have underestimated the structural aspects of the reform, even though in general the reform enactments had some kind of positive effect on these relations.

For some principals, their creative translation of the reform’s intentions transformed relations and strengthened their leadership.

The data are from a unique period when a reform was implemented and later partly withdrawn. The study deepens the understanding on how principals tries to enact and balance their roles as evaluators of NQTs and pedagogical and instructional leaders.

The architects of institutional policy are rarely those tasked with operationalising it. This can create gaps between what is set out in policy and what happens on the ground. This is an under-researched area and one this chapter will shed a light on. This chapter examines the role that widening participation (WP) practitioners play in operationalising policy. Focusing upon the implementational level of the policy enactment staircase, it examines the roles of individuals working at the coalface in enacting WP policy. Drawing upon research conducted by the author in 2016–2017 with higher education providers (HEPs) in England (Rainford, 2019), it supplements this with data from a sector-wide survey conducted by the editors of this book in 2021. In drawing together these two data sets, it offers a rich picture of who works in WP within HEPs in England. It examines the multitude of roles undertaken by these practitioners and how this varies across the sector both in HEPs and collaborative Uni Connect partnerships. This chapter also highlights how practitioners can shift the focus of how policy is operationalised. In doing so, it examines some of the challenges faced by practitioners and the extent to which they are given the tools to carry out this essential work. While this chapter argues that practitioners have a level of agency in the work they do, this can be constrained by both national and institutional policies. It argues that these constraints are often shaped by competing imperatives of both social justice and economic drivers.

The study examines the instigating factors behind the development of the local content (LC) policy in Ghana and it further investigates the accountability mechanisms that drive the LC policy implementation to promote sustainable development.

The study reports on a series of interviews with key actors using Institutional Theory and the application of Bovens’ (2010) Global Accountability Framework as a lens for discussion and interpretation of results.

The results reveal that two forces instigated LC policy enactment. One is external funding pressure from the Norwegian government and the World Bank. The other is the government’s engagement of Civil Society Organisations and other internal stakeholders to justify its activities and missions to signal adherence to impartiality, neutrality, and, to a lesser extent, solidarity. The analysis also reveals tensions in how accountability legitimacy relates to implementation of the LC policy. The study further discovers that while participation, transparency, monitoring, and evaluation are frequently invoked as de jure institutional legitimacy in oil and gas contracts, actual practices follow normative (de facto) institutionalism rather than what the LC policy law provides.

The interview had a relatively small number of participants, which can be argued to affect the study’s validity. Nevertheless, given the data saturation effect and the breadth of the data obtained from the respondents, this study represents a significant advancement in LC policy enactment knowledge, implementation mechanisms and enforcement in an emerging O&G industry.

The findings of this study suggest that future policy development in emerging economies should involve detailed consultations to increase decision-maker knowledge, process transparency and expectations. This will improve implementation and reduce stakeholder tension, conflict and mistrust.

The findings of this study build on earlier investigations into legitimacy, accountability and impression management in and outside the O&G sector. Also, the findings reveal the legitimising tactics used by O&G actors to promote local content sustainable development targets.

This chapter traces the history of widening participation (WP) policy from 1992 to 2021, as seen largely from the point of view of a practitioner involved in policy enactment. After a brief overview of the history of widening access to higher education (HE), with its long tradition of outreach to adults, this chapter focuses on the significant shift to WP among young people in 1992. Following attempts to specify the problem and to provide the available evidence about it, a range of initiatives was introduced, designed to test appropriate interventions. This chapter identifies three broad strands of intervention – changes in the funding method, the requirement for institutions to produce WP strategies, and the development of collaborative programmes, all underpinned by a programme of research. Though the balance of these three strands has varied ever since, all have always been present. Underpinning all this intervention was a general assumption, again differentially emphasised, that widening access and participation to HE, though an ambition for the whole sector, would be an activity separate from and subordinate to the existing missions and ‘business’ of institutions and accepting the existing market hierarchy. From 2010 onwards, there was a sharper policy shift, which sought to make the existing market both a market in entry qualifications and a genuine financial market in tuition fees, with students seen as consumers, and a determination to ensure value for money for all and from all institutions. In spite of this, the three strands of intervention remained.

Widening participation (WP) has increasingly become part of the normal ‘business’ of English higher education (HE) providers during the last 25 years. WP entered the policy mainstream for the entire HE sector following the Dearing Review (NCIHE, 1997) and the election of a new Labour government wedded to notions of social justice but also concerned with ‘lifelong learning’ in the name of human capital growth. This book employs a dual usage of the term ‘business’ in relation to WP policy, practice and culture in the context of the marketised English HE system. The first, figurative, usage explores the ways in which WP has been drawn into institutional positionality as HE providers are encouraged to differentiate themselves in the market. The second, literal, usage explores the ways in which the business of WP has become ‘business as normal’ for the sector and institutions, increasingly intertwined with other activities and which play out variously, often in response to regulatory demands of the state. This introductory chapter first contextualises these developments with a brief overview of the evolution of the HE sector in England before proposing a multilevel model – the HE policy enactment staircase – as a way of thinking about how policy is made, enacted and implemented within the sector. This chapter then draws upon this model to acts as a structure for this book. It does this by moving from a macro-level exploration of ideological levels of policymaking, through National/Sectoral level right down to the issues at an institutional and operational levels. In doing so, this chapter creates a framework from which to understand how the various elements and levels of the business of WP play out within the English HE sector.