Transparency and Accountability in Higher Education as a Response to External Stakeholders and Rules: A Comparison Between Three Country-Case Studies
SIDREA Series in Accounting and Business Administration, ISSN: 2662-9887, Vol: Part F25, Page: 15-47
2022
- 2Citations
- 31Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Book Chapter Description
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) have been increasingly under pressure to enhance accountability towards their stakeholders and to disclose relevant, updated, and reliable information about their performance in terms of teaching/education, research, and other activities, often labeled “third mission”, aiming, for instance, at spreading and validating research in society. Based on an exploratory qualitative research, build through the analysis of literature, of national legislation, and of the information disclosed in different institutional websites, the purpose of this chapter is to offer a general overview of the present accountability requirements and of the instruments or resolutions, rule-driven but also voluntary, adopted in three European countries used as Country-Case Studies: the Netherlands, Portugal, and Italy. In addition, this contribution aims at proposing a general assessment of the degree of transparency and accountability of public-funded HEIs. Findings indicate that there is quite a strong emphasis on accountability towards public or private funders/sponsors and to actual and future students and their families. It has also been realized that the weakest area in terms of transparency of HEIs’ performance is that of transfer and consulting activities, contrasting to the attention paid to the disclosure of teaching and education performance information. Overall, HEIs in the three countries seem to be transparent but especially towards expert stakeholders who know exactly what to look for and where, since performance information is often scattered and available on wide documents, making the access and usability of information relatively low. The current research aims at contributing to the literature on transparency and accountability, particularly on performance information disclosure in the specific environment of public-funded higher education institutions, from an international comparative perspective, while offering to managers and policymakers some hints on how to assess their current transparency practices, as well as some suggestions about possible future amendments and improvements. Clearly, additional investigation is needed to further validate some findings and to introduce other transparency dimensions and national contexts.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85161359238&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85698-4_2; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-85698-4_2; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85698-4_2; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-85698-4_2
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know