Using interest group theory and the idea of public policy development and application following sequential stages, this paper explores how key decisions were made about the establishment and implementation of the controversial national quality assurance program for higher education that operated in Australia from 1993 to 1995. The paper explains how Australia came to introduce a quality assurance program that differed substantially from those established in other OECD countries.
BaldwinPeter.Hon. (1991). Higher education: Quality and diversity in the 1990s: Policy statement. Canberra: AGPS.
2.
BentleyA. F. (1908). The process of government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
BeswickD. G.HarmanG. S. (1984). Educational policy in Australia. In HoughJ. R. (Ed.), Education policy: An international survey (pp. 28–70). London: Croom Helm.
4.
BirnbaumR. (1994). The quality cube: How college presidents assess excellence. Journal of Higher Education Management, 9 (3), 71–82.
5.
Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (Brian Wilson, Chair). (1993). Quality Assurance Program: 1993 guidelines for higher education institutions. Canberra: Department of Employment, Education and Training.
6.
CoombsF. S. (1994). Education policy. In NagelS. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of policy studies. New York: Marcel Dekker.
7.
ElmoreR. E.McLaughlinM. W. (1992). Strategic choice in federal education policy: The compliance-assistance trade-off. In LiebermanA.McLaughlinM. W. (Eds.), Policy making in education: Eighty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 159–194). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
FromanLewis A.Jr. (1966). Some effects of interest group strength in state politics. American Political Science Review, 60 (4), 952–962.
9.
HarmanG. (1985). Handling education policy at state level in Australia and America. Comparative Education Review, 29 (1), 22–46.
10.
HarmanG. (1996a). Quality assessment with national institutional rankings and performance funding: The Australian experiment, 1993–1995. Higher Education Quarterly, 50 (4), 295–311.
11.
HarmanG. (1996b). Quality assurance for higher education: Developing and managing quality assurance for higher education systems and institutions in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: Unesco Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific.
HouseE. R. (1973). School evaluation: The politics and the process. Berkeley: McCutchan.
14.
HusénT.KoganM. (Eds.). (1984). Educational research & policy. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
15.
JonesCharles O. (1979). An introduction to the study of public policy. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury.
16.
KoganM. (1975). Educational policy-making: A study of interest groups and parliament. London: George Allen & Unwin.
17.
ManhoodH. R. (1990). Interest group politics in America: A new intensity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
18.
MassaroV. (1996). Institutional responses to quality assessment: Developing diversity. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 18 (1), 35–44.
19.
PetersB. G. (1986). American public policy: Promise and performance. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.
20.
RogersJ. (1989). Social science disciplines and policy research: The case of political science. Policy Studies Review, 9 (1), 13–29.
21.
TrumanD. B. (1951). The governmental process. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
22.
van VughtF. A. (1994). Western Europe and North America. In CraftA. (Ed.), International developments in assuring quality in higher education (pp. 3–17). London: Falmer.
23.
WilliamsP. R. (1991). The CVCP academic audit unit. Birmingham: Academic Audit Unit.
24.
ZeiglerH. (1992). Interest groups. In HawkesworthM.KoganM. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of government and politics (pp. 377–392). London: Routledge.
25.
ZeiglerH.PeakW. (1972). Interest groups in American society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
26.
ZijderveldD. C. (1997). External quality assessment in Dutch higher education: Consultancy and watchdog roles. Higher Education Management, 9 (1), 31–41.
