Figure 1 - uploaded by Brigid Freeman
Content may be subject to copyright.
Source publication
In recent years Australian universities have developed comprehensive suites of policy to underpin university legislative instruments and respond to accountability and quality imperatives. This agenda has resulted in a proliferation of centralised academic and administrative policy documentation. This documentation is maturing and progressively requ...
Citations
... Institutional policy (hereafter 'policy') refers to policies that are established internally by universities. Meta policies (also known as policy frameworks or 'policies on policy') provide for the development, implementation and review of policy (Freeman 2015(Freeman , 2018Carlson and Freeman 2019;Devlin and O'shea 2011;Clark, Griffin, and Martin 2012;Rainford 2021;Freeman 2012Freeman , 2014c. These meta policies are mandated by the Australian higher education regulator (Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency 2021) and define the institutional policy instruments, their classification and application, specify approval authorities, and establish the 'cycle for policy development and review' (Freeman, Hatwell, and Jensen 2013, 9). ...
University institutional policy is poorly understood. While policy is required by law for universities to accept funding and is revered for articulating values, mitigating risk, and guiding practice, policy is frequently considered absurd and resisted in practice. This is the policy-practice divide. To gain a better understanding of this divide and the nature of the resistance, we asked policy actors to describe their experiences with policy development, implementation, enact-ment, and review. We asked: If policy is absurd, what is the nature of the relationship between policy and university management, and how do those who enact policy deal with this absurdity? We discovered that university management has an infinitely regressive self-fulfilling relationship with policy because they intentionally exclude the workforce from policy-making and see themselves as solely responsible for policy interpretation and implementation. However, when Kierkegaard's concepts of absurdity, faith, hope, and doubt are applied to policy actors' experiences, we see that resistance can be characterised positively as a 'leap of faith', where those who enact policy overcome their doubts and reinterpret it to achieve some semblance of good. This is an unintended consequence for managerialism, as deliberately creating a policy-practice divide solicits resistive 'good' practices from policy actors. ARTICLE HISTORY
... 148). Challenges regarding environment policy implementation and review are consistent with research regarding institutional policy more broadly in Australian, United States, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea higher education institutions (Freeman, 2010;Freeman, 2012;Freeman, Jensen & Hatwell, 2013;Freeman, 2014;Freeman, Capell, Goldblatt, Lapan, Mafile'o & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, Lapan, Mafile'o, Capell, Goldblatt & Thompson, 2014). ...
... There is an emerging body of research exploring institutional policy focused on specific academic matters, including plagiarism and academic integrity (Jordan, 2001;Sutherland Smith, 2010;Bretag et al., 2011), research training (Tinkler & Jackson, 2000, admissions (Freeman, 2015) and student attendance (Marburger, 2006;Aaron, 2012). There is also a small body of work exploring higher education environment policies (Wright, 2006;Freeman, 2015), and policy implementation evaluation and review (Freeman, 2012a;Freeman, 2012b;Wong, Wong and Pang, 2015). More recently, research has provided an international comparative perspective of institutional policy development and management (Freeman, Lapan, Mafile'o, Capell, Goldblatt & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, Capell, Goldblatt, Lapan, Mafile'o & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, 2014). ...
The Irish playwright George Bernard Shaw argued that: “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” We all communicate every day in a number of different ways and to different audiences. It is easier to talk about desirables than to achieve them. We therefore assume that it is just a matter of sending an email, putting a poster on a wall or posting something on Facebook, Twitter or Yammer. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. Shaw in his argument alluded to the missing link in communication. What actually happens as a result of communication taking place? Did the recipient receive, read, and most importantly, understand the communication in the manner that it was meant to be understood? Most change management strategies fail or are not properly executed because of the lack of recognition of the virtues of a well designed communication strategy. Communication should be authentic, perceived to be relevant to employees and students, consistent with action, endorsed by senior management and continuously monitored and evaluated.
These desirables are easier said than done especially when one is trying to institute change across a geographically‐dispersed, multi‐campus university. This was the case with the University of Western Sydney (UWS) which also reflects the diverse culture of the Greater Western Sydney region. This paper reviews the complex communication strategy that was developed to support the UWS Summer initiative where the ultimate aim was to enhance the student experience by introducing an additional teaching and learning session to provide students with flexibility and choice in their study ‐ a popular intervention for students but not for staff. A key driver behind the staff communication strategy was to build a foundation of engagement and enthusiasm about UWS Summer that would radiate outwards to the students. Promoting the opportunity of UWS Summer and encouraging students to participate was an entirely different challenge for the team.
This paper traces the development of such an interventionist change management strategy where it was critically important to ensure that any communication framework that was developed was perceived to be inclusive and all pervasive. This paper will also discuss how the communication strategy for UWS Summer was refined and executed over a two‐year period, with a focus on stakeholder engagement, cross‐unit collaboration, multi‐channel delivery and information cascading. The main goal was to build communication excellence and encourage teamwork, active participation and a flow of communication between the central co‐ ordinating team and the various academic and business operation groups with the University. Sometimes, this would prove to be exceedingly frustrating but for the most part it became an

extremely rewarding endeavor: a bit like joining the dots in a numbered puzzle and sharing the big picture with your colleagues.
This change management process is located within the context of a strategic initiative at UWS. The very focused and clear intention was to build and maintain relationships across the University so that the intervention was understood and, through that initiative, a measure of organisational effectiveness was achieved and could be modeled in other initiatives across the University. It will explore the ways in which the communications strategy was designed to communicate with key publics to support organisational transformation and growth. Also discussed are the challenges of applying a communication strategy where the subject of the communication is a brand new, complex initiative that requires the participation and cooperation of Academic and Professional staff within multiple Schools and Business Units.
The paper will also explore the approach that was taken to dealing with pockets of resistance and scepticism, converting sceptics into project champions, and communicating the serious or mundane aspects of the project while instilling a sense of fun and excitement.
Relationship building played a major part in the success of the strategy, particularly in the first year when success hinged on winning the hearts and minds of those key stakeholders who would not only be recipients of communications but, in some cases, the conduits of them. The project team managed to bring together individuals and teams from across the University that had never interacted before. Many of the activities and processes executed by the team led to improved communications overall within and between Schools and Business Units.
... 148). Challenges regarding environment policy implementation and review are consistent with research regarding institutional policy more broadly in Australian, United States, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea higher education institutions (Freeman, 2010;Freeman, 2012;Freeman, Jensen & Hatwell, 2013;Freeman, 2014;Freeman, Capell, Goldblatt, Lapan, Mafile'o & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, Lapan, Mafile'o, Capell, Goldblatt & Thompson, 2014). ...
... There is an emerging body of research exploring institutional policy focused on specific academic matters, including plagiarism and academic integrity (Jordan, 2001;Sutherland Smith, 2010;Bretag et al., 2011), research training (Tinkler & Jackson, 2000, admissions (Freeman, 2015) and student attendance (Marburger, 2006;Aaron, 2012). There is also a small body of work exploring higher education environment policies (Wright, 2006;Freeman, 2015), and policy implementation evaluation and review (Freeman, 2012a;Freeman, 2012b;Wong, Wong and Pang, 2015). More recently, research has provided an international comparative perspective of institutional policy development and management (Freeman, Lapan, Mafile'o, Capell, Goldblatt & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, Capell, Goldblatt, Lapan, Mafile'o & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, 2014). ...
A review of the University’s academic year was commissioned in 2012. This review
revealed that the two things students wanted most were: greater flexibility and choice.
From this extensive review, the University’s fledgling summer program was rebranded
as ‘UWS Summer’ and expanded with over 100 units of study on offer across five
campuses. This initiative was conceptualised within a case study framework and was
piloted and monitored as an action research/learning project. Embedded within the
overarching project implementation strategy was a continuous improvement
methodology designed to provide a structured approach to reviewing and improving
performance, which are two key elements of the academic year optimisation strategy.
This paper will explore the growth and development of the initial UWS Summer
concept, and how this was successfully piloted over two years. It will discuss the
relevance of three key implementation issues: the critical importance of authentic
consultation with staff and students, the need for detailed operational planning, and the
necessity of serious consideration of resource implications.
... 148). Challenges regarding environment policy implementation and review are consistent with research regarding institutional policy more broadly in Australian, United States, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea higher education institutions (Freeman, 2010;Freeman, 2012;Freeman, Jensen & Hatwell, 2013;Freeman, 2014;Freeman, Capell, Goldblatt, Lapan, Mafile'o & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, Lapan, Mafile'o, Capell, Goldblatt & Thompson, 2014). ...
... There is an emerging body of research exploring institutional policy focused on specific academic matters, including plagiarism and academic integrity (Jordan, 2001;Sutherland Smith, 2010;Bretag et al., 2011), research training (Tinkler & Jackson, 2000, admissions (Freeman, 2015) and student attendance (Marburger, 2006;Aaron, 2012). There is also a small body of work exploring higher education environment policies (Wright, 2006;Freeman, 2015), and policy implementation evaluation and review (Freeman, 2012a;Freeman, 2012b;Wong, Wong and Pang, 2015). More recently, research has provided an international comparative perspective of institutional policy development and management (Freeman, Lapan, Mafile'o, Capell, Goldblatt & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, Capell, Goldblatt, Lapan, Mafile'o & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, 2014). ...
In recent years, Australian university managers have increasingly put pen to paper to articulate their various approaches to the environment, and sustainability more broadly. Australian universities are operating in a difficult context of increasing regulation, reporting and accountability requirements concerning their environmental and sustainability-related activities and obligations. Concurrently, they are facing increasing calls to provide solutions reflecting myriad and potentially conflicting priorities of staff, students, and the broader community. In response, a plethora of planning, design and policy instruments have been produced to scope, evidence, guide and monitor these ambitious endeavours. This presentation will explore how a number of Australian universities have responded. In particular, the research will examine Australian universities’ approaches in areas spanning: the natural environment; the built environment and precincts; use of natural resources; sustainability-focused teaching, learning and research; and the relationship between the physical and cultural environment. Publicly available governance documentation, principally including plans and policies, will provide the lens for the research. The presentation aims to communicate key findings to practitioners, including examples of good practice, to support ongoing development and documentation of effective planning and policy solutions.
... 148). Challenges regarding environment policy implementation and review are consistent with research regarding institutional policy more broadly in Australian, United States, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea higher education institutions (Freeman, 2010;Freeman, 2012;Freeman, Jensen & Hatwell, 2013;Freeman, 2014;Freeman, Capell, Goldblatt, Lapan, Mafile'o & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, Lapan, Mafile'o, Capell, Goldblatt & Thompson, 2014). ...
... There is an emerging body of research exploring institutional policy focused on specific academic matters, including plagiarism and academic integrity (Jordan, 2001;Sutherland Smith, 2010;Bretag et al., 2011), research training (Tinkler & Jackson, 2000, admissions (Freeman, 2015) and student attendance (Marburger, 2006;Aaron, 2012). There is also a small body of work exploring higher education environment policies (Wright, 2006;Freeman, 2015), and policy implementation evaluation and review (Freeman, 2012a;Freeman, 2012b;Wong, Wong and Pang, 2015). More recently, research has provided an international comparative perspective of institutional policy development and management (Freeman, Lapan, Mafile'o, Capell, Goldblatt & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, Capell, Goldblatt, Lapan, Mafile'o & Thompson, 2014;Freeman, 2014). ...
Higher education institutions codify institutional decisions and publish governance instruments in part in response to government regulation and accountability requirements, and increasing corporatisation. This paper explores technology-based solutions to communicate governance instruments (principally institutional policy), and considers the relationship between policy and institutional research derived from business intelligence (BI) systems. Data is drawn from surveys and interviews with higher education managers and policy practitioners from the United States and Australasia (Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea). While the management and communication of higher education institutional policy from fundamentally different contexts varies in many respects, there is a remarkable level of consistency. These commonalities include approaches to institutional policy websites, online policy libraries and the use of information technology-based systems to operationalise finance, human resources and student life cycle policy, particularly between the United States, Australia and New Zealand. This paper explores institutional policy technologies and practices progressively professionalising this emerging field.
... Higher education policy practitioners frequently employed the language and approach of the stepped, sequential policy cycle, whilst acknowledging variation from idealised models. 26 Similarly, research regarding Australian university policy process confirms the utility and relevance of the policy cycle as a heuristic to explain model policy development and policy review processes 27 (Figure 1). Figure 1: Australian university policy cycles: Policy formulation, and policy review Policy cycle 1: Policy formulation Policy cycle 2: Policy review Source: Freeman, 2012 The policy cycle 'disaggregates complex phenomenon into manageable steps'. 28 Recognising myriad variations and the iterative, instrumentalist nature of the approach, the policy cycle concept resonates with institutional policy practitioners and reportedly encapsulates institutional practices at least with respect to those stages undertaken or facilitated principally by dedicated policy practitioners. ...
This paper uses the lens of the stepped, sequential policy cycle and the policy triangle to explore the roles that institutional policy practitioners play with respect to higher education institutional policy in the United States, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea. The Institutional Policy Project surveyed and interviewed policy practitioners from these countries in 2014 to explore conceptions of higher education institutional policy, the policy cycle, and policy management. Despite considerable contextual differences, there is much consistency with respect to the roles that policy practitioners play in relation to these institutional governance artifacts. These roles are " front-loaded " in the policy cycle, predominantly focused on policy drafting, policy borrowing and policy stakeholder consultation (the context of policy text production). Institutional policy practitioners are less involved in the context of influence where policy is initiated or revisited, the context of practice where policy is implemented, or the context of outcomes where policy is evaluated. The research demonstrates the challenge for policy practitioners to influence policy implementation and evaluation in any substantive manner given that they are effectively, and frequently appropriately, disconnected from these stages. Institutional Policy Project
... Waikato Institute of Technical Education), University of Auckland, Otago Polytechnic and Otago University in New Zealand in December 2012 (Freeman, 2012c ...
... Most Australian universities (25 of 40) have university meta-policy where there is a discernible policy cycle (Freeman, 2012a). For example, the Macquarie University Policy Framework (2012) illustrates a straightforward policy cycle representative of model 1, with policy cycle stages of: development, consultation, legal/Vice-Chancellor/University Policy Reference Group consideration, approval and maintenance. ...
... Reviews focused on presentation-related matters have sought to determine whether policy is: correctly formatted; simple and accessible; categorised and written consistently. More sophisticated reviews have focused on both presentation-and practice-related matters by seeking to ensure that policy is: correctly formatted, simple, categorised and consistent; as well as accurate (in that it reflects practice); compliant with legislation, strategy and delegations; and benchmarked for good practice (Freeman, 2012b). The increasingly regulated environment involving a shift towards evidence of policy implementation with necessitate a shift towards monitoring, evaluation and sophisticated policy review focused on policy practice. ...
Australian and New Zealand universities have developed increasingly sophisticated meta-policy, that is, 'policy on policy' or policy framework statements, to articulate university policy development, review and management processes. In part, this development represents a response to growing government accountability and transparency agendas and higher education sector quality and regulation requirements. University meta-policy invariably covers a broad spectrum of issues including range and application of policy instruments, policy classification schemes, approval authorities and policy cycles. Australian and more recently New Zealand universities have focused considerable effort on the development of policy infrastructure including meta-policy, online policy repositories, and the collation and consistent presentation of university policy documentation. Comprehensive suites of governance, academic and administrative policy documentation are now available online from almost all Australian and New Zealand universities. The increasingly regulated university environment – in particular the requirement to evidence policy implementation in Australia, and policy and practice legality/ethics in New Zealand, provides renewed impetus for considering emerging policy management models.
This presentation will explore outcomes from the Institutional Policy Project, which involves a collaboration between the University of Melbourne, University of California – Berkeley, Otago Polytechnic in New Zealand, and Pacific Adventist University and Island Research in Papua New Guinea. The presentation will specifically explore responses provided by United States higher education institution policy administrators and senior managers through survey responses. Consideration will be given to how United States higher education institution policy practitioners conceive policy and the policy cycle. In addition, the presentation will explore the various ways in which institutions frame and conduct policy work, through policies on policy ("meta-policy"), policy repositories, and policy management approaches. Finally, the presentation will celebrate a number of good practices revealed through the US-based research.
Sensible, implementable, reviewable policy systems and processes are pivotal governance artefacts for New Zealand tertiary education organisations, but how do you know if your institution stacks up? This presentation will explore outcomes from the Institutional Policy Project involving collaboration between Otago Polytechnic, the University of Melbourne, University of California – Berkeley, and Papua New Guinea’s Pacific Adventist University and Island Research and Consultants. This research explored New Zealand tertiary education organisation policy practitioners’ conceptions of policy, policy development systems and processes (including policy cycles), and institutional meta-policy (including policy frameworks). Policy borrowing and practice reframing will be promoted by highlighting exemplary policy systems and processes from New Zealand and comparator countries, and establishing a framework for a practical Policy Toolkit.
Australian and New Zealand universities have developed increasingly sophisticated meta-policy, that is, 'policy on policy' or policy framework statements, to articulate university policy development, review and management processes. In part, this development represents a response to growing government accountability and transparency agendas and higher education sector quality and regulation requirements. University meta-policy invariably covers a broad spectrum of issues including range and application of policy instruments, policy classification schemes, approval authorities and policy cycles. Australian and more recently New Zealand universities have focused considerable effort on the development of policy infrastructure including meta-policy, online policy repositories, and the collation and consistent presentation of university policy documentation. Comprehensive suites of governance, academic and administrative policy documentation are now available online from almost all Australian and New Zealand universities. The increasingly regulated university environment – in particular the requirement to evidence policy implementation in Australia, and policy and practice legality/ethics in New Zealand, provides renewed impetus for considering emerging policy management models.
