A critique of the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission’s policies on university education in New Zealand from a stakeholder theory perspective

Abstract

The importance of tertiary education to individuals and to society is widely recognised, not only in New Zealand, but in most other countries. Major changes have been initiated by governments worldwide that have identified tertiary education as valuable in promoting the economic, social, and cultural goals of the 21st century (Arts & Tatenhove, 2004; Berkowitz, 2006; 2000a; Nelson, 2002; UNESCO, 1998). The fundamental intentions of the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission’s (TEAC) policies are to link tertiary education’s roles and responsibilities to these goals using a stakeholder-based policy development process. This research critiques TEAC’s policies from a university academic staff perspective, investigating how well the policies were articulated, implemented and executed. Taking a case study approach, the researcher interviewed academic staff (n=60), and analysed their answers to quantitative and qualitative questions using content analysis and a stakeholder theory perspective. The quantitative findings indicated general agreement amongst the participants with the policy intentions, while the qualitative responses identified a misalignment between the values and priorities of government and academic staff. It is clear from this study that there are significant discrepancies between the policy makers and academic staff about the meaning of key concepts used in the policies. From the academic staff perspective this is largely due to inadequate consultation between TEAC and their stakeholders, particularly at the policy formation stage of the process. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) applied to TEAC’s policy documenation supported the academic staff perspective. These findings should guide policy makers to articulate clear intentions, which is necessary for constructive implementation and execution of policy. For TEAC’s policies to be consequential they needed to promote active involvement from key stakeholders. This research provides evidence of a gap between TEAC’s policy intentions and the outcomes achieved. Further research would enable the improved use of stakeholder concepts. This would be beneficial for implementing future government policy to ensure that consultation with the key stakeholders occurs when policy is being developed, leading to effective changes and improved policy. While stakeholder theory provides a rational means for understanding the policy process, its present form and application is limited in regard to stakeholder identification and prioritisation. Furthermore, critical discourse analysis needs to be applied from the start of the policy generation stage to ensure that the language used does not pose a barrier to meaningful stakeholder partipation. Academic staff were given the opportunity to engage in TEAC’s process, however they consider their input has been largely ignored.