tmpB602 TMP

Botha J & Muller N (eds) 2016. Institutional Research in South African Higher Education.
Stellenbosch: SUN PRESS
Institutional Research
and External Reporting
10
Herman Visser and Jean Skene
Introduction
Reporting information on higher education institutions to external agencies can take various
forms, including mandatory reporting and voluntary reporting. It is evident that, over
time, both mandatory reporting and voluntary reporting to external bodies/agencies have
increased in volume, quantity and complexity. The growth in external reporting has also
been observed internationally (Henderson 2016:25-31; Ma, Kulich & Hu 2016:35). Ma et
al. (2016) point out that there is considerable disagreement regarding the extent to which
external reporting is a benefit or burden for institutions. One of the reasons for this lies in
the variety and nature of external reporting required. LoGrasso (2016:61) also highlights
the increase in external reporting as one of the areas of growth in the evolving role of
institutional researchers.
One of the most important functions of an IR office is that of external reporting, especially
mandatory external reporting. In small or understaffed IR offices, this is often almost all that
there is time for. This observation is supported by Volkwein (2012). External reporting is,
however, important for all higher education institutions, including larger and more complex
institutions. It is therefore important for higher education institutions and specifically for
institutional researchers to understand the reasons for and nature of external reporting.
From the early days of the Southern African Association for Institutional Research (SAAIR)
the Association has focused on capacity building for external reporting to the South African
Department of National Education (DNE) (as it was called until 1994), the Department of
Education (DoE) (1994 to 2008, when Basic and Higher Education were housed in one
department), and since 2009, the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET).
From 1980 to 1998, reporting was based on the South African Post-Secondary Education
system (SAPSE). Since 1999, a significant component of external reporting is based on the
Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS). The SAAIRs focus on capacity
building for mandatory reporting prompted the Association to offer HEMIS workshops (see
Chapters 2 and 5 for further details), the first such event was offered in 2004. In 2015, the
attendance of the HEMIS Institute for the first time exceeded 100 delegates and was the
largest of the professional development events offered by the SAAIR thus far. The fact that in
recent years colleagues from other southern African countries such as Botswana and Namibia
have also attended HEMIS Institutes, even though this system is not used in their countries,
points to the importance of external reporting also in other Southern African countries. The
189
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA
Botha J & Muller N (eds) 2016. Institutional Research in South African Higher Education. Stellenbosch: SUN PRESS
Institutional Research in South African Higher Education
increased focus on external reporting is an international trend. This is evident from the fact
that several volumes of New Directions for Institutional Research address this topic (Burke
& Minassians 2002a; Brown 2008; Morest 2009; Borden et al. 2013, Terkla & Leary 2014;
and Powers & Henderson 2016). Henderson (2016) highlights the ever expanding demands
for external reporting in the United States of America. This is a world-wide phenomenon,
mainly as a result of increased requirements for accountability to external agencies.
The relationship between higher education institutions (public and private) and government
impacts directly on external reporting. Efficient and accurate external reporting processes,
in particular by public higher education institutions, is pivotal to successful submissions by
those institutions to the different regulatory bodies set up by government. Governance,
autonomy, transparency and accountability influence external reporting, and thus, if one
is to understand the nature and scope of external reporting, it is important to understand
their related dynamics in higher education. In this chapter, we discuss the factors impacting
on external reporting and the impact of external reporting on institutional research offices
and functions. Guided by our primary research question, which explores the links and
interactions between institutional research and external reporting, we focus our discussion
on the following issues: (a) external reporting in the southern African context as seen from
an institutional research perspective; (b) a comparison of the legislation and policies of
different countries in the southern African region related to external reporting; (c) country
reporting to external agencies; and (d) the impact of external reporting on institutional
research offices.
Types and levels of external reporting

Brown (2008:88-94) distinguishes three types of external reporting, namely, mandated
reporting, voluntary reporting and reporting to professional associations. She further
distinguishes between various levels of mandatory reporting, namely, federal/national and
state/provincial levels, and finally between different levels of voluntary reporting, namely,
not-for-profit reporting and for-profit reporting.
Mandatory reporting is typically statutory reporting to government agencies. Voluntary
reporting is where there is not a statutory requirement and the reporting can be to
international ranking organisations, donors, professional associations and other stakeholders
as well as to government agencies. Examples of voluntary reporting to government agencies
in South Africa include reporting on teacher education to the Department of Basic Education
and reporting on enrolments and graduates to the Department of Agriculture.
Atchinson & Hosch (2016) maintain that the practice of benchmarking in higher education
has become a widely-used instrument to measure institutional improvement and growth.
They discuss the ways in which the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),
the proposed Student Unit Record System (SURS) and institutional data sharing initiatives
form part of external reporting in the United States of America (USA). The Higher Education
Management Information System (HEMIS) used in South Africa is a unit record system.
After concerns raised by universities regarding privacy issues, the former DoE decided that
information on individual students would not be made available from HEMIS to third parties
190
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
Institutional Research and External Reporting
in an identifiable format. The DHET has maintained this stance. Information from HEMIS is
therefore reported to third parties only at an aggregate level. Information at disaggregated
levels is anonymous and made available only for specific purposes after ethical clearance
has been granted. A few institutional data-sharing initiatives exist in South Africa, for
example (a) the Universities of Technology performance measurement and benchmarking
initiative, where summarised data are shared before institutional HEMIS submissions are
made to the state; (b) information is shared between the universities participating in the
Siyaphumelela Project; and (c) the Peer Data Sharing System (PDS) system developed
and made available by IDSC, a private company active in the field of higher education
data management. IDSCs web-based PDS system uses HEMIS data from the DHET for
the purposes of benchmarking and comparative analytics. The DHET has agreed that the
information may be made available to anyone, and not only to the users of IDSCs Higher
Education Data Analysis (HEDA) software.
According to the Carpenter-Hubin & Crisan-Vandeborne (2016:90), guidebooks which
publish comparative information sets on Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and ranking
organisations draw either on publicly available information sources and/or on information
provided by colleges and universities. A Common Data Set (CDS) was developed in the USA
in response to the increasing demand for institutional data.
Several South African higher education institutions provide institutional information on a
voluntary basis to international ranking organisations such as Shanghai Jia Tong Universitys
Academic Rankings of World Universities (ARWU), the Quacquarelli Symonds (QS) World
University Rankings (WUR), the Thomson Reuters (TR) ranking, and the Times Higher
Education (THE) rankings, which also include a BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South
Africa) ranking and an African ranking. Most of the information required from institutions by
ranking organisations is available in the HEMIS data sets, however, Institutional Researchers
are confronted with a number of challenges when it comes to the provision of institutional
data to international ranking organisations. For example, information about research
associates (other than post-doctoral research fellows), is reported in the Human Research
component of HEMIS, but this information is not reported consistently by higher education
institutions. Post-doctoral research fellows are reported in a separate HEMIS module
since these persons cannot be classified as students or employees. Some of the financial
information (such as research information per subject cluster) is available in HEMIS, but
it is reported in terms of individual institutional interpretations and not in a standardised
manner. This is an area of concern because it can lead to inconsistencies in the reported
data and to misinterpretation. A big concern for South African institutions is the fact that
many of the criteria used by ranking organisations do not provide sufficiently for the context
of African and other developing countries. This is a topic of ongoing discussion between
ranking organisations and HEIs. In a sense, the THE BRICS and the THE African rankings
are responses to these concerns. Much more work, however, remains to be done to address
these concerns adequately.
Reporting to professional associations in South Africa includes reporting to bodies such as the
Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA), the Health Professions Council of South Africa
(HPCSA), the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA), the South African Institute of Chartered
191
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
Accountants (SAICA). Institutions also report institutional information to donors and other
external stakeholders when required by specific agreements or on an ad hoc basis.
After exploring the relationship between governance, autonomy and accountability, and the
impact of this on external reporting, we will focus in the rest of this chapter on mandatory
or statutory reporting and country reporting.
The relationship between governance, autonomy and external reporting

Throughout the world, the relationship between governments and higher education
institutions is changing. These changes also impact on governance, autonomy and
accountability and, therefore, also on reporting to government agencies.
According to Marginson & Considine (2000), governance relates to the internal relationships
between role players, external relationships between role players and the intersection
between these two types of relations. Policy documents require precise formulations,
especially because it is critical that policy documents should be unambiguous and indicate
the accountabilities of the different role players clearly. This is applicable to internal
relationships in higher education institutions and to the relationships between higher
education institutions and government agencies at different levels and between HEIs and
other external roleplayers.
There are various models to describe the relationship between higher education institutions
and different levels of government. Clarks triangle (1983:143) was one of the first typologies
developed to describe governance systems. According to this typology, the coordination
of higher education is located between three axes: a market-like coordination, a stateinduced co-ordination and a coordination based on academic oligarchy. Van Vught (1993)
poses a continuum with a state control model at the one end and a state supervising model
at the other end with other models possible between these two extremes. He highlights
two aspects related to governance, namely autonomy and academic freedom. Academic
freedom is the freedom of individual academics to teach and do research without fear of
punishment or termination of employment. He distinguishes two sub concepts of autonomy,
namely, substantive autonomy and procedural autonomy. Substantive autonomy refers to the
power of a higher education institution to determine its own goals and programmes, while
procedural autonomy refers to the power of a higher education institution to determine the
means by which its goals and programmes will be pursued. Van Vucht (1994) maintains that
for higher education, in particular when the aims include the stimulation of innovation in
higher education institutions, state steering is the preferred model to arrange the relationship
between higher education and the state, rather than the top-down state supervising model
of state control. Van Vught (1994:7) summarises his views as follows: Government should
provide the general (not so detailed) rules within which institutions can use their autonomy
and within which the market can function. The institutions should try to maximize their
innovative capacities within the context provided by government. The market should be
used to let societal needs come to the fore. Although only the two main role players were
discussed above, Von Vught (1993:18) identified several actors that impact on governance,
namely, the higher education institutions themselves, academics working in the higher
192
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
education institutions, governmental agencies, intermediate organisations (between higher

education institutions and government) and various types of consumers of higher education
such as students, employers, and contractors. The impact of these other role players will
not be discussed in this chapter. It is evident from the discussion above that the governance
model and level of intervention by government in procedural and substantive matters of
higher education institutions will impact on the reporting to government agencies.
Tefera & Altbach (2003:6) higlight the fact that public higher education institutions dominate
in Africa. This is reflected in their governance structure, especially in Anglophone countries.
In their analysis of twelve case studies of South African higher education institutions, originally
conducted for the Council on Higher Education in 2002, Hall, Symes & Luescher (2004:94)
mapped the degree of representivity in governance against the degree of delegation of
authority. Based on this mapping, they identified four types of governance. Governance
types are differentiated on the basis of the extent to which participants are represented
in the decision-making processes and the organisational effectiveness and capacity for the
implementation of policies. The governance types are (a) self-referential governance systems
with shallow levels of delegation; (b) inward-looking governance systems with developed
systems of delegation; (c) representative governance systems that are well tuned to public
interest and with strong systems of delegated responsibility; and (d) governance systems in
which institutions are attuned to public interest and experience strong systems of delegated
authority.
In response to the governance types identified by Hall et al. (2004), Symes & Luescher,
Moja, Cloete & Olivier (2002:39) identified the omission of the dynamics of relationships at
national level as a major shortcoming. Bunting (1994:44) pointed out that higher education
institutions in South Africa had no legal or statutory autonomy during apartheid. They had
a pragmatic autonomy that was granted only for the purposes of administrative efficiency.
Muller, Maassen & Cloete (2006:292-293) describe how the policy and governance
processes in South Africa during apartheid were aligned with the top-down state control
model of governance. The new model of state steering developed after 1994 was based on
the premise that it should still provide for a state-driven and planned policy process, but
a number of important changes in the relationship between government and the higher
education sector were instituted. The key difference was that the goals and processess in
the democratic dispensation would be progressive and participatory. Muller et al. (2006)
argued that the centralised policy-driven reform process that evolved in South Africa during
the early years of the democratic dispensation could be divided into three phases: (1) policy
formulation, (2) policy implementation and (3) policy evaluation. The policy formulation
phase included the development of the National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI) (the
African National Congress (ANC) policy statement which was developed before 1994), the
National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) during 1994-1996, the publication
of the Green Paper on Higher Education, the White Paper on Higher Education in 1997
(Republic of South Africa 1997a) and the promulgation of the Higher Education Act in 1997
(Republic of South Africa 1997b). The policy implementation phase was characterised by the
development of new relationships between the (new) national department of education and
higher education institutions. This phase included the establishment of the Division of Higher
193
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
Education in the Department of Education, the abolition of the Universities and Technikons
Advisory Council (AUT) (Republic of South Africa 1997b) in 1998, the establishment of the
Council on Higher Education (CHE) in 1998 (Republic of South Africa 1997b:4-19) and its
Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) in 2001. This phase also included a range of
other implementation activities such as the establishment of the National Students Financial
Aid Scheme (NSFAS) in 1999 (Republic of South Africa 1999), the setting of conditions and
criteria for the registration of private higher education institutions and programmes in 2002
(latest amendments in 2016) (Republic of South Africa 2002 & 2016) and the establishment
of the HEQCs frameworks for accreditation of academic programmes in 2004 (Council on
Higher Education Higher Education Quality Committee 2014). Policy evaluation included
the National Plan for Higher Education that outlined priorities and set targets for HEIs,
the recommendations of the National Working Group about restructuring the institutional
landscape which led to the establishment of comrehensive universities as a new institutional
type and the mergers of HEIs. It also included the move from a consensus seeking to a
more top-down approach as reflected in the amendments to the Higher Education Act
that provided more powers to the Minister and the way institutional restructuring and the
new funding framework were implemented. The restructuring of Higher Education and the
change in government-institutional relations contributed to the ongoing reorganization of
governance relationships. This followed the broader trend to more control by government
that started since the introduction of the Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR)
strategy in 1996 when the Minister of Finance announced that it was not open to consultation
or negotiation, which was the general expectation. GEAR was later replaced in 2005, but
this introduced a new approach of more government control and less consultation. We will
now discuss the ways in which these phases contributed to the governance model used in
South Africa.
The National Education Policy Investigation (NEPI) Report (1992:86) distinguished between
a state directed system in which a central state authority takes the major decisions affecting
individual Post-Secondary Education (PSE) Institutions and a state supervised system in
which PSE institutions should be self-regulating and the central authority would use preaudits (planning and budgets) or post-audits (assessment of outcomes) to shape the PSE
system. In the latter system, the central government establishes a set of rules that guides
the self-regulatory behaviour of decentralised institutions. This means that the institutions
are given conditional autonomy to self-regulate as long as they act in a responsible manner
and meet key criteria such as the provision of comprehensive and accurate information.
One of these conditions is that the information provided by higher education institutions
to government agencies must be comprehensive and accurate. If this requirement is not
met, the DHET may withhold a portion of the subsidy. This obviously impacts directly on
statutory/mandatory reporting in particular. Moja, Muller & Cloete (1996) introduced the
notion of a state interference model of governance, the model that was subsequently
adopted by the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) (1996:175). In terms of
this model, however, state interference should not be regarded as a point on the continuum
somewhere between state control and state supervision because it allows for arbitrary forms
of intervention in times of crisis. The manner in which the state responds to a specific crisis in
institutional governance may, however, impact on future relations between the state and the
sector concerning matters of governance. The National Commission on Higher Education
194
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
(NCHE 1996:174-180) proposed the implementation of a co-operative governance

model as the preferred form of state supervision for the new democratic South Africa.
The three models for the relationship between the government and higher education
institutions are summarised below. The first model, state control, is premised on effective
and systematic state administration of higher education, executed by a professional and
competent civil service. This is typically found in continental European higher education
systems such as France, Germany and the Scandinavian countries. This model is far removed
from the Anglo-Saxon tradition of higher education governance, which is a more familiar
reference for South African universities (and for most southern African universities). The
second model, state supervision, is based on less centrist forms of control. The locus of
power shifts from centralised control to steering. The steering model provides the broad
regulatory framework to steer institutions by means of instruments such as planning and
funding to achieve the outcomes desired by government. This is based on the more familiar
Anglo-Saxon tradition of higher education governance. In the traditional British and United
States approach, the influence of the state is considered to be appropriately weak (Van
Vught 1993:27-31 and Moja et al. 1996:146-147). The third model, state interference,
is based on control in higher education that is neither systematic nor regulation through
steering, but on arbitrary forms of intervention. Difficulties arise when the imperatives of
system-wide governance have to be reconciled with the management of failing institutions
within a framework of cooperative governance. According to Kraak (2001), this model is
used in many developing countries, particularly in Africa. The NCHE (1996:176), however,
regarded state interference as an unattractive option for South Africa, and as a result
governement intervention is restricted to specific problem areas and it is excercised through
the appointment of an Administrator who takes temporary control of the internal governance
of the institution. This is based on the premise that as long as higher education institutions
meet specific conditions no intervention is required, but, under certain conditions, the
Minister may intervene. In the case of maladministration, the Minister may according to the
provisions in the Higher Education Act, appoint an Administrator to take over the authority
of the council and management of a HEI and perform functions related to the governance
or management of the HEI. The intention of the revised governance model was to institute
some government steering, but only after consensus between the government, institutions
and other role-players on the nature of the steering in line with the notion of cooperative
governance. Du Toit (2014:79), however, argues that the cooperative governance model was
never really implemented in South Africa, citing the institutional mergers during 2004-2006,
the Programme and Qualification Mix exercise (since 2003) and government-led student
enrolment planning (since 2006) as examples of state control. Worldwide, there is a lack
of common ground with respect to the ideal model for the relations between governments
and higher education institutions and other stakeholders. This makes the traditional
government-led negotiations between the various stakeholders more problematic, resulting
in compromises that are more difficult to achieve. Because these pressures make it difficult
to continue with the traditional models in practice, especially where a market approach
is followed, alternatives are being developed to adjust traditional models. This probably
explains why South Africa opted for a model between the extremes. It also helps to explain
the apparent move from state supervision and the contradiction of moving back towards
state control. It is therefore important to find the appropriate balance between an approach
195
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
to system-level governance in which the state steers largely autonomous institutions and a
regime in which the state exercises direct control.
According to Bailey (2014:65), tertiary/higher education governance in developed countries
saw a shift from a state control to a state supervision model of governance, with the focus
on steering. This follows the trend in Western European countries reported by Van Vught
(1993:9).
In response to economic, social and political factors, many governments, including the South
African, are revisiting their funding models. It can probably be expected that a number of
factors such as the lack of economic growth, political developments and social change will
result in governments moving further away from the state supervision model.
In South Africa, governance of public higher education institutions is regulated by Chapter 4
of the Higher Education Act (Republic of South Africa 1997). In Chapter 4 the composition
and functions of institutional governance structures, institutional statutes and rules are
specified.
The pivotal relationship between higher education institutions, on the one hand, and
government, on the other, impacts directly on how external reporting will take place.
Accountability, transparency and external reporting

With all the complex changes in higher education, accountability to external stakeholders is
becoming ever more important. With reference to the situation in higher education in the
USA, Morest (2009:17) states that,
Colleges and universities increasingly rely on institutional research offices to
document performance by providing data to external audiences. In fact, most of
the funding available to colleges and universities today comes with some kind of
reporting requirement. In addition, accrediting bodies have significantly shifted
their orientation toward data-driven continuous improvement.
This is also true in southern Africa where higher education is undergoing many changes.
Institutions are increasingly dependent on external stakeholders, in particular for financial
resources. These external stakeholders hold higher education institutions accountable
to demonstrate efficiency, quality and sound stewardship of public funds. Because the
governments are under increasing financial pressure and because they are required to be
accountable to tax payers, government in its turn also requires accountability from higher
education institutions. There are also increasing pressures to benchmark institutions using
international and national ranking agencies. All of these developments lead to increasing
demands on higher education institutions for external reporting.
Burke and Minassians (2002a:1) state that in the 1990s in the USA, reporting the performance
of higher education institutions became the preferred approach to accountability for public
higher education. Performance reports proliferated at national, state, system and campus
levels during that decade.
196
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
Chen & Haynes (2016:11) raise important questions regarding accountability and
transparency, namely, the importance of transparency for higher education institutions; the
reasons for the importance of transparency; and the degree of transparency required to
ensure accountability.
They concur with the general assumption that transparency will lead to greater
accountability, but point out that it takes place at a cost. It requires resources usually in the
form of sufficient capacity in IR offices to generate the reports called for in the quest for
transparancey They indicate that institutional researchers are responsible for (a) obtaining
ethical clearance for the research required by institutional reports, (b) ensuring compliance
with all relevant statutes in the management and use of institutional information and (c)
verifying the identity of parties requesting institutional information (Chen & Hayes 2016:17).
Although some external requests for institutional information, such as mandatory reporting,
require little or no scrutiny, other requests require careful consideration of the expected use
of the information. Chen & Haynes (2016:17) also refer to the growing need for the training
and professional development of IR staff members. In South Africa the training workshops
offered by the SAAIR are a response to this need (see Chapter 5).
According to McCormick (2009:98) public reporting formats range from reflective
accountability reporting (typically to accreditation agencies) to various forms of performancebased initiatives (typically through reports to funding agencies). The performance-based
initiatives include performance reporting, performance budgeting and performance funding.
In performance reporting, higher education institutions respond to government requirements
and report the results of improved institutional performance in order to demonstrate
external accountability and institutional improvement. This type of reporting is usually based
on a prescribed list of indicators for all higher education institutions. The costs related to
performance budgeting and performance funding imply that institutional performance must
be added to the traditional budget considerations when costs are calculated. Performance
budgeting is based on promised results whereas performance funding is based on actual
results. In South Africa performance budgeting is to some degree applied in the calculation
of the teaching subsidy for institutions, based on the institutions enrolment plan as a
proportion of the planned systemic enrolments. The subsidy for teaching output and for
research are examples of performance funding as it is based on actual results. Performancebased accountability represents a shift in accountability for public higher education from
accounting of expenditures to the accounting of results.
Higher education legislation governing external reporting requirements

In this section we discuss the legislation currently governing the external reporting
requirements of different countries in the southern African region.
In the South African higher education context, the White Paper 3 (Republic of South Africa
1997:14) states that the principle of accountability implies that institutions are answerable
not only to their own governing bodies and to the institutional community, but also to
broader society. In terms of Section 27 of the Higher Education Act (Republic of South Africa
1997) at least 60% of the Council members of all public South African higher education
197
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
institutions must be external to the institution (not employed by the institution or students
of the institution). Furthermore, in terms of Section 26 of the Act, the chairperson and vicechairperson of Council must be external to the institution. Reporting to the Council of an
institution is regarded as internal reporting.
The White Paper 3 (Republic of South Africa 1997) also states that institutions that receive
public funds must report on how the money is spent, submit the results they have achieved
with the resources at their disposal and report on their compliance with national goals
and policies. It followed that the implementation of a new funding formula in 2004 would
lead to new requirements for planning, information collection, analysis and reporting, and
that this would require more sophisticated information systems of institutional and system
management. The White Paper for Post-school Education and Training (Republic of South
Africa 2013a:27) affirms the principles of academic freedom, institutional autonomy and
public accountability, but emphasises that
these principles may at times be in conflict with one another, and it is worth
noting (and reaffirming) the 1997 White papers unequivocal statement that there
is no moral basis for using the principle of institutional autonomy as a pretext
for resisting democratic change or in defence of mismanagement. Institutional
autonomy is therefore inextricably linked to the demands of publicaccountability

(Republic of South Africa 2013a:27).
In terms of Section 41 of the Higher Education Act (Republic of South Africa 1997) the
Council of a higher education institution must provide the Minister with a report on the
institutions performance and the spending of public funding in respect of the preceding
year. This report must be submitted on the date and in the format determined by the
Minister. The DHET has recently developed additional reporting regulations, in terms of
which universities must report annually on their Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan
and financial statements (Republic of South Africa 2014). The information used by the
DHET to calculate subsidy allocations and by the Auditor General to verify the performance
indicators in the DHET's Annual Performance Plan must be submitted to the DHET in a
particular format determined by the Department. Before submission the universitys external
auditors must audit it. Progress reports and audited statements are required annually on
each of the earmarked grants a university receives (Republic of South Africa 1997). Given all
these reporting requirements it is clear that South Africa is currently implementing a system
of conditional autonomy in the governance of public higher education institutions.
Section 20 of Namibias Higher Education Act (Republic of Namibia 2003) states:
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law contained, a higher education
institution or any other person must, at the written request of the NCHE [National Council
for Higher Education], furnish it with such information as the NCHE may reasonably require
for purposes of the performance of its functions in terms of this Act. In November 2013
the Namibian Cabinet approved a new Funding Framework (NCHE 2015:8). All higher
education institutions are expected to submit student, staff and research output data
annually to the NCHE for the production of annual statistical reports on higher education.
In addition to these submissions, the public higher education Institutions are expected to
198
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
submit data on the subjects offered, facilities and equipment, as well as medium term plans
and budgets to be used when Government subsidies are calculated.
In terms of Section 24 of Botswanas Tertiary Education Act (Republic of Botswana 1999)
tertiary institutions must submit an annual report of their activities in each year of their
operation before or by the end of December to the Tertiary Education Council (TEC) and, at
an interval determined by the TEC, they must also submit a detailed assessment of the steps
taken towards achieving the aims and objectives for which the institution was established.
In terms of Article 12(2) of the Higher Education Act of Zambia (Republic of Zambia
2013:107) higher education institutions must submit data on the enrolments, records of
achievements and award of learners to the Higher Education Authority at intervals and
in a manner as determined by the Authority ). Achievements refer to courses passes and
award refers to completion of qualifications as specified in Article 30 (Republic of Zambia
2013:115) and Article 36 (Republic of Zambia 2013:116). The governance and regulatory
framework for HEIs is described in Part V of the Act (Republic of Zambia:112-117). The
Act prescribes that higher education institutions must keep and maintain records and
provide such information as the Minister may prescribe (Republic of Zambia 2013:122).
The Act furthermore prescribes in Article 9(1) that the Council of a public higher education
institution must prepare estimates of the income and expenditure of the institution and
submit the estimates to the Minister, at least four months before the commencement of
the financial year, for scrutiny and consolidation into the Ministrys estimates (Republic of
Zambia 2013:135).
The Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education Act (Republic of Zimbabwe 2006:12)
determines that every institution of higher education must prepare and submit to the
Council (a) an annual report of its activities within six months after the 31st December each
year and (b) a detailed assessment at such intervals as the Council may determine of the
steps taken towards the achievement of the aims and objectives for which it was established.
In all the countries discussed, these pieces of legislation are intended to ensure public
accountability on the part of higher education institutions. In addition to these requirements
that relate specifically to national higher education bodies, institutions are also accountable
in terms of legislation governing other Ministries. For example, South African universities
have to report to the Department of Labour in terms of the Employment Equity Act. In
Botswana, during the consultative process for the development of the Tertiary Education
Policy, one of the concerns raised by stakeholders was the multiple accountabilities to
different government departments (Republic of Botswana 2008:2).
Despite the legislative processes governing the gathering of information in these countries,
there are studies that have shown that this is not always sufficient to ensure sound data
collection. We will discuss this later.
The Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Education and Training
(SADC 1997:6) states as one of its objectives: to develop and implement a common system
of regular collection and reporting of information by Member States about the current status
and future demand and supply, and the priority areas for the provision of education and
199
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
training in the region. This is reiterated as an objective of the Sub-sector for Co-operation
in Education and Training as the core Sub-Sector in the Human Resources Development
(HRD) Sector (SADC 1997:20).
The Southern African Regional Universities Association (SARUA) was founded in 2005 with
membership open to all public universities in SADC member countries. The mandate and
purpose of SARUA is to assist in revitalising and strengthening leadership and institutions of
higher education in the southern African region. In doing so, the Association endeavours
to enable the regional higher education sector to respond to developmental challenges in
the region and to contribute to national and regional development (SARUA 2016). Kotecha,
Wilson-Strydom & Fongwa (2012:vi) point out that individual countries in the SADC region
need to develop and refine data collection that can be used for analytical purposes within
a systemic framework. This function is not yet fully developed in all SADC countries, which
points to an important area for future integration and development. Then only will the
higher education sector in the region be able to drive evidence-based policy and institutional
development for the benefit of all SADC citizens.
In their report, the Centre for Higher Education Transformations (CHET) project on crossnational performance indicators of flagship universities in eight African countries, Bunting
& Cloete (2012:12) point out various challenges regarding the availability and quality of the
higher education data from these universities. Despite the fact that many of these universities
are in countries that require annual reports to government agencies (as discussed above),
some of these universities provided inconsistent and incorrect data to CHET. In order to
address this problem, researchers of CHET visited the institutions to discuss the templates
and to collect as much raw data as possible. Despite the data problems, the CHET project
team believe that they were able to make reasonable assessments of the eight universities,
and that these assessments would provide a basis for further development of cross national
performance indicators (Bunting & Cloete 2012:65).
Between 2008 and 2010 the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) assessed the education
data quality of twelve SADC countries and reported their findings and recommendations
for each of these countries based in terms of the UIS Data Quality Assessment Framework
(DQAF) (World Bank & UIS 2003). The DQAF framework is intended to provide a framework
for a comprehensive evaluation of the quality of education data, including an assessment
of a countrys data production measured against international norms and standards.
Based on the framework, the UIS identified and recommended areas for improvement.
The framework consists of three categories and six dimensions of data quality assessment.
The three categories are: (1) institutional environment, (2) statistical procedures, and (3)
statistical results. The six dimensions are: (a) prerequisites of data quality, (b) data integrity,
(c) methodological soundness of data gathering and management, (d) accuracy and reliability
of data, (e) serviceability of data, and (f) accessibility of data. The review was conducted in
support of the African Unions action plan, Second Decade of Education for Africa, and
the SADCs education programme (UIS 2014:ii). The UIS report (UIS 2014:7) concluded
that evidence-based decision-making, monitoring, evaluation and policy planning require
a reliable and timely production of education statistics. The production of these statistics
requires institutional, organisational and technical capacity from institutional to national
levels. The UIS report points out that information gaps or data of insufficient quality should
200
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
not hinder opportunities to assess the progress made with the implementation of the African
Unions priority areas and the achievement of national and international goals, although this
progress relies on the availability of sound statistical information systems. The UIS report
also highlights the importance of data quality as a cornerstone of evidence-based decisionmaking. Finally, the UIS report identifies best practices and emphasises the importance of
capacity development, data quality and collection systems (UIS 2014:22).
The UIS report identified best practices in education data management in Lesotho, Malawi,
Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Zambia. All these countries have stable statistical
frameworks in place that are aimed at national development and accountability. Botswana
and South Africa have provisions for the legal enforcement of the national statistical system
with clearly specified roles and responsibilities for participating bodies. In Botswana,
Mauritius and South Africa, participating bodies in the national statistical system are
noted for having a shared interest in developing and maintaining a culture of data quality.
Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, United Republic
of Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe all adhere to the international classification norms of
the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 1997 manual (UIS 2014:21),
which determines, among other things, a comparative reporting standard for qualification
types. This standard has subsequently been updated after extensive consultation with all
countries. Other best practices noted are that Namibia, South Africa and Zambia have
policies in place for the timely collection, revision and dissemination of statistical data,
both centrally and in the countrys regions, and that South Africas documentation and
dissemination procedures for statistics adhere to international standards throughout the
information system (UIS 2014:22). These findings of the UIS are encouraging.
In addition to these best practices in data gathering and management, the UIS identified
various challenges related to data quality, data collection and capacity development,
noting that central statistical agencies in the SADC are in various stages of development
with varying levels of capacity to manage the statistical system. The UIS points out that the
training for quality standards was not systemic or comprehensive. Ministries of education
lack clarity concerning mandates, delegation of authority and data quality standards. There
is an insufficient understanding of what data quality means. It was noted that in many SADC
countries Education Management Information System (EMIS) policy development was either
lacking or weak, that recruitment and retention data is not available or of good quality,
and that the lack of dedicated budgets and slow financial procedures impact negatively
on the implementation of planned activities for the collection, processing, analysis and
dissemination of data. Because of limited collaboration between EMIS and other education
sectors, data collections were found to be ad hoc, uncoordinated, incomplete and nonstandardised (UIS 2014:22). Over and above these capacity issues at country level, there
are also significant capacity gaps at institutional level in some of the higher education
institutions. The SAAIR aims to make a contribution to close this gap by means of its HEMIS
capacity-building workshops.
Some of the UIS recommendations are (1) that Botswana should clarify and reinforce the
relations between the Central Statistical office, the Ministry of Education and other data
producing bodies, (2) that Lesotho should pay greater attention to post-secondary data
collection, including tertiary level data and (3) that Namibia needs to address the gaps in
201
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
some sub-sectors, notably in higher education (UIS 2014:32). With the development of a
new funding formula for higher education and a higher education management information
system (NCHE 2015), Namibia is in a process of addressing the issues raised by the UIS.
Similarly, Lesotho is also in the process of addressing the issue raised by UIS. Their Council
of Higher Education intends to improve their systems for collecting, storing processing and
managing statistical data from higher education institutions, and has engaged consultants to
assist in the development of a Higher Education Management Information System (HEMIS).
From this overview, it is clear that many of the countries in southern Africa have stable
data quality assessment frameworks in place to support national development and to meet
accountability requirements. This was also confirmed by our analysis of the legislation on
higher education reporting in a number of southern African countries. The majority of the
countries in southern Africa meet the international classification norms and standards. South
Africa, Namibia and Zambia have policies in place for the timely collection, revision and
dissemination of statistical data, both centrally and in the countrys regions. South Africas
documentation and dissemination procedures for statistics adhere to international standards
throughout the information system. There are, however, also a few aspects that require
attention. These areas for improvement are discussed in the rest of this chapter.
Country reporting to External Agencies

Country reporting involves the standardised reporting of national data for the information of
international external agencies in order that it can be used for the comparison of countries.
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank
are examples of such organisations, and all three provide comparative statistics on the state
of higher education in member countries.
One of UNESCOs five principal functions is the exchange of specialized information (UIS
2014:ii). UNESCOs Institute for Statistics (UIS) runs several surveys to collect data on key
topics in education, literacy, science and technology, culture and communication. These
surveys contain one or more questionnaires, which are completed annually or biennially
by more than 200 countries and territories around the world (UIS 2016a). From the annual
data collection, the UIS produces a range of indicators to track trends in tertiary education at
global, regional and national levels, including enrolment and graduate ratios disaggregated
by sex and type of programme, enrolment rates in private and public institutions, and
graduates by field of study (UIS 2016b). Furthermore, the UIS has developed a series of
unique identifiers to track student mobility. The UIS defines mobile students as those who
study in foreign countries where they are not permanent residents (UIS 2016b). The UIS
notes that many countries are unable to provide precise statistics on their tertiary education
systems. As a result, in order to improve the collection and quality of these data, they
work with the national statisticians through training workshops and diagnostic studies (UIS
2016c). Training workshops are held about every two years and generally focus on UIS
data collection instruments, cross-national comparability of data, data analysis and use for
policymaking, indicator development, and emerging statistical issues (UIS 2016c).
202
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
In May 2007 a resolution was adopted at Ministerial level by the OECD Council to
strengthen the co-operation between South Africa and a number of other countries through
the Key Partners Programme which is aimed at enhanced engagement (OECD 2016a). The
programme consists of a mix of elements (OECD 2016b), including partnerships in OECD
bodies, adherence to OECD instruments, integration into OECD statistical reporting and
information systems, and sector specific reviews.
South Africa is an associate or partner in a number of OECD bodies, including the Programme
on Institutional Management in Higher Education (OECD 2016a). In cooperation with
South Africa, the OECD gathers and publishes statistics on a wide range of indicators on
agriculture, development, economy, education, energy, environment, finance, government,
health, innovation and technology, jobs and society in South Africa.
Since 1963 the World Bank has been active in supporting the growth and diversification of
tertiary education systems in developing countries and in promoting essential policy reforms
to make the sector more efficient, relevant, equitable, transparent, and responsive. Bodies
such as the OECD, UNESCO and the Association for the Development of Education in
Africa (AEDA) collect and share complementary and highly informative data on international
higher education. From 2003 to 2012 the World Bank lent over US$ 3.7 billion for 126
education projects with tertiary education components in 61 countries. In the ten years
from 2003-2012, World Bank lending for tertiary education averaged US$ 369 million per
year (World Bank 2016). The African region received a 15% share of this money. To account
for the money borrowed from the World Bank, these countries have to meet strict external
reporting requirements.
Future developments in external reporting and their implications for

institutional research offices
It is evident that as the requirements for transparency and accountability increase, external
reporting is becoming increasingly more important for higher education institutions. Chen
and Haynes (2016:19) maintain that the landscape of institutional research has changed
over the past 20 years and the trend is likely to continue. Since institutional research offices
are usually responsible for external reporting, these changes bring additional demands on IR
offices to meet the changing needs. Demands for accountability by higher education are being
articulated with increasing frequency. So, for example, McCormick (2009:97) notes that one
of the most important aspects of these changing demands is the need for accountability.
Furthermore, IR units must report to a range of stakeholders. Since governments, foundations
and other stakeholders require more information from higher education institutions, it is
becoming more important for IR offices to integrate the processes required for external
reporting with internal reporting requirements. Reflective accountability is important, also
with reference to public reporting.
Morest (2009:17-27) relates accountability, accreditation and continuous improvement
to the building of a culture of evidence. External reporting is an important dimension of
such a culture. The demands for more evidence, for accountability and for transparency
are increasing. IR offices make sure that adequate resources are available, in particular,
203
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
appropriately trained staff to embrace the anticipated future changes. Leimer (2009:1)
points out that the dwindling public spending on Higher Education in the United States
has resulted in new funding sources such as the Achieving the Dream Initiative of the
Lumina Foundation. Participation in this initiative requires stakeholders to enhance their
own evidence-based decision-making processes and to report progress to the Foundation.
Similarly, a number of South Africas higher education institutions receive funding from the
Kresge Foundation in the USA for the Siyaphumelela project.
Swing (2009:5-16) makes a strong case for institutional researchers to be change agents.
Such a role clearly applies also to external reporting. The work of Swing and others has
resulted in the Statement of Aspirational Practice for Institutional Research developed by the
AIR (AIR 2016). The role of institutional research is likely to change from merely a reporting
role to a major role in institutional governance. As calls for accountability and transparency
increase, it will be critical for IR offices to understand data requirements of the various
external bodies, to do the necessary analyses and to use different ways of reporting.
Since the scope of data requests from external agencies is continually broadening,
institutional researchers will have to move beyond the release of accurate data. They are
also required to take reasonable care that external agencies can interpret and use the data
correctly (Brown 2008). Complex information requests from external bodies that yield little
benefit to higher education institutions are not the best use of scarce resources, and should
be considered carefully (Carpenter-Hubin & Crisan-Vandeborne 2016:97-98).
According to Henderson (2016:13), it can be extremely tedious and time consuming to
respond to external requests for information. It is therefore imperative for IR offices to reengineer the ways in which they provide data to external stakeholders. They need to work
towards the development and use of a shared vocabulary which will serve to align internal
and external reporting processes better.
Ma et al. (2016:43-45) emphasise that institutional researchers should make a concerted
effort to understand external reporting requirements and the uses of external data better.
They suggest that institutional researchers should improve the generation of external
reports, increase the efficiency and effectiveness of external reporting, ensure accuracy and
consistency of external reporting, and recycle reports for use beyond their original use. In
South Africa, several higher education institutions make their HEMIS data widely available
within their institutions, and some institutions align their internal reporting processes with
the HEMIS information. Much more can and should be done, however, to align these
data with other internal data generated in the course of other processes such as planning
and budgeting, resource allocation, risk management, performance management, quality
assurance and compliance and marketing.
Kirby & Floyd (2016) argue that institutional researchers should make better use of other
internal constituencies and that they should utilize external relationships to provide more
appropriate and higher-quality external reporting. LoGrasso (2016:65) also supports the
more efficient use of resources for external reporting.
204
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
According to LoGrasso (2016:61-63), institutional researchers will have to be more proactive

and should evaluate external requests carefully and improve planning for external reporting.
He also proposes that the master data set used for external reporting should include the
requirements of items most regularly requested in a simple and consistent manner. He
also argues that requests from internal and external sources should be better aligned and
that the structure of the master data set should provide for as many requests as possible.
Furthermore, flexible reporting tools are required to allow for proactive data analysis.
External reporting combined with internal analysis enables institutional researchers to
add value to the institution in a manner that could not be achieved if they were to focus
exclusively on external reporting or internal analysis (Powers 2016:101). A combined,
coordinated external reporting and internal analysis function can strengthen the institutional
knowledge and enhance the competitiveness of institutions. It is important to identify the
priority questions across all stakeholders. This requires the optimal appropriate integration
of the two advanced types of intelligence identified by Terenzini, issues intelligence and
contextual intelligence (Terenzini 1993).
The increased external reporting requirements will demand several strategies of institutional
researchers if they are to manage them better. Firstly, they will need to align external
and internal terminology and classifications so that their clarification and consistency is
enhanced. This should facilitate the provision of consistent information to external parties
other than the government, e.g. international rankings organisations, donors, and other
external stakeholders. Secondly, they will have to enhance the master data set used for
external reporting and align it to internal reporting. Thirdly, benchmarking with peers will
provide information that can be used to enhance the quality of the service offered by their
institution. Fourthly, they will need to obtain a contextual understanding of the countrys
higher education system, regional higher education systems and international higher
education systems and related systems.
Conclusion
We have illustrated by means of many examples across the world that the demands on
higher education institutions to report information on their activities and performance are
continually increasing. We have argued that institutions need to move beyond a compliance
mode, and to embrace external reporting as an opportunity to advance insights into higher
education among a broad range of stakeholders. Higher education institutions, and particular
their IR offices, would do well to develop systems and procedures to integrate internal and
external reporting in a seamless manner to ensure consistency and transparency. We have
indicated that there is a wide range of stakeholders expecting reports from higher education
institutions, including the state, funding bodies, foundations, industry partners, alumni, and
the public in general. The information requests and requirements of all these stakeholders
exert increasing pressure on IR Offices.
Different models for organising the relationship between the government and higher
education were discussed, most notably a direct control model and a steering model.
Although the steering model is inscribed in key policy documents and in legislation relevant
205
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
to South African Higher Education, there are indications that the South African government
veers towards more direct control of higher education institutions. We have indicated
that, whatever the operative model may be at a particular time, the fact that we live in an
audit society (Powers 1999) which is characterised by high demands for accountability
and transparency in the public and private sectors (including higher education) implies that
higher education institutions must meet extensive external reporting demands.
We have illustrated that the demands of country reporting to various international agencies
go beyond the reporting to the state within which a particular higher education institution
is located. We have given examples of the broader range of external stakeholders carrying
higher education statistics that necessitate external reporting. These include international
bodies such as UNESCO and the OECD, voluntary associations such as the Southern African
Universities Association (SARUA), and commercial companies such as the various rankings
organisations.
External reporting can no longer be considered a secondary responsibility of IR offices, nor
can IR Offices continue to handle these information requests on an ad hoc basis. IR Offices
would do well to develop integrated data sets, information systems, and reporting processes
to enable institutions to report accurately, consistently and comprehensively to a range of
internal and external stakeholders.
References
AIR. 2016. Statement of Aspirational
Practice for Institutional Research.
[Online] Available: http://www.
airweb.org/Resources/ImprovingAnd
TransformingPostsecondary Education/
Pages/Statements-of-AspirationalPractice-for-Institutional-Research.aspx
Atchinson, E.S. & Hosch, B.J. 2016.
Benchmarking Current availability,
possible new national alternatives,
and making a contribution to the
discussion, in K. Powers & A.E.
Henderson (eds.), Burden or benefit:
External data reporting, New Directions
for Institutional Research, 166:73-87,
dhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ir20135
Bailey, T. 2014. The roles and functions
of Higher Education Councils and
Commissions in Africa: A synthesis
of eight case study reports. Cape
Town: Centre for Higher Education
Transformation (CHET).
Bice, S. & Coates, H. 2016. University
sustainability reporting: taking stock of
transparency. Tertiary Education and
Management, 22(1):1-18. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/13583883.2015.1115545
Borden, V.M.H., Calderon, A., Fourie, N.,

Benetto, L., Bonaccorsi, A., 2013.
Challenges in Developing Data
Collection Systems in a Rapidly Evolving
Higher Education Environment. New
Directions for Institutional Research,
2013(157):39-58. http://dx.doi.
org/:10.1002/ir
Braun, D. & Merrien, F.-X. 1999. Governance
of universities and modernisation of the
state: Analytical aspects, in D. Braun
& F.-X. Merrien (eds.), Towards a New
Model of Governance for Universities?
A Comparative View. Higher Education
Policy Series 53. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers. 9-33.
Brown, J.A. 2008. Institutional research
and external reporting: The major data
seekers, in D.G. Terkla (ed.), Institutional
research: More than just data, New
Directions for Higher Education,
2008(141):87-96. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/he.296
Bunting, I. 2014. African Universities
Performance Indicator Data: A Manual
on Collecting Academic Programme,
Student and Academic Staff Data. Cape
206
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
Town: Centre for Higher Education

Transformation (CHET).
Bunting, I. & Cloete, N. 2012. Cross-National
Performance indicators: A case study
of 8 universities. Cape Town: Centre
for Higher Education Transformation
(CHET).
Burke, J. C. & Minassians, H.P. 2002a.
Authors notes, in J.C. Burke & H.P.
Minassians (eds.), Reporting Higher
Education Results: Missing links in the
Performance Chain Research, New
2002(116):1-4.
Burke, J. C. & Minassians, H.P. 2002b. The
new accountability: From regulation to
results, in J.C. Burke & H.P. Minassians
(eds.), Reporting Higher Education
Results: Missing links in the Performance
Chain Research, New Directions for
Institutional Research, 2002(116):5-19.
Carpenter-Hubin, J. & Crisan-Vandeborne,
L. 2016. Guidebooks and Rankings: The
Value of Optional External Reporting,
in K. Powers & A.E. Henderson
(eds.), Burden or Benefit: External
Data Reporting, New Directions for
Institutional Research, 2016(166):89-99,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ir20135
Chen, P.D. & Haynes, R.M. 2016.
Transparency for whom? Impacts
of accountability movements for
institutional researchers and beyond,
in K. Powers & A.E. Henderson
(eds.), Burden or benefit: External
data reporting, New Directions for
Institutional Research, 2016(166):11-21,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ir20135
Clarke, B. 1983. The Higher Education
System: Academic Organizations in
Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Council for Higher Education. 2014. Criteria
for Programme Accreditation. Pretoria:
Council for Higher Education Higher
Education Quality Committee.
Du Toit, A. 2014. Revisiting Co-operative
governance in Higher Education: A
discussion document. Pretoria: Higher
Education South Africa (HESA).
Global Reporting Initiative. 2013. Global
reporting initiative G4 sustainable
reporting guidelines. Amsterdam: Global
Reporting Initiative. Access: www.

globalreporting.org
Hall, M., Symes, A. & Luescher, T.M.
2004. The culture of governance
in South African public higher
education, Journal of Higher
Education Policy and Management,
26(1):91-107, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/1360080042000182555
Henderson, A.E. 2016. Growth of burden
in Federal and State reporting, in K.
Powers & A.E. Henderson (eds.), Burden
or benefit: External data reporting, New
2016(166): 23-33, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/ir20135
Kirby, Y.K. & Floyd, N.D. 2016. Maximising
institutional research impact through
building relationships and collaborating
within the institution, in K. Powers
& A.E. Henderson (eds.), Burden or
benefit: External data reporting, New
2016(166):4759, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/ir20135
Kotecha, P. (exec. ed.), Wilson-Strydom,
M. & Fongwa, S.M. (eds.). 2012. A
Profile of Higher Education in Southern
Africa, Volume 2: National Perspectives.
Johannesburg: Southern African Regional
Universities Association (SARUA).
Kraak, A. 2001. Policy ambiguity and
slippage: Higher Education under the
New State, 1994-2001. Commissioned
paper. Cape Town: Centre for Higher
Education Transformation (CHET).
LoGrasso, M.F. 2016. Easing the burden
of external reporting, in K. Powers
& A.E. Henderson (eds.), Burden or
2016(166):6172, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/ir20135
Ma, Y., Kulich, J. & Hu, S. 2016. Burden in
the eye of the beholder: Why should
administration care?, in K. Powers
& A.E.Henderson (eds.), Burden or
2016(166):35-46, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/ir20135
McCormick, A.C. 2009. Toward
reflective accountability, in R.M.
Gonyea & G.D. Kuh (eds.), New
207
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
2009(141):97106, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/ir.289
Marginson, S. & Considine, M. 2000.
The Enterprise University: Power,
Governance and Reinvention in
Australia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Moja, T., Cloete, N. & Olivier, N. 2002.
Report 2: Is moving from co-operative
governance to conditional autonomy a
contribution to effective governance?,
in Effective governance research project:
Challenges of co-operative governance.
Pretoria: Council on Higher Education.
Moja, T., Muller, J. & Cloete, N. 1996.
Towards new forms of regulation in
Higher Education: The case of South
Africa. Higher Education, 32:129-155.
Morest, V.S. 2009. Accountability,
accreditation and continuous
improvement: Building a culture of
evidence, in C. Leimer (ed.), Imagining
the Future of Institutional Research, New
2009(143):17-27, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/ir.302
Muller, J., Maassen, P. & Cloete, N. 2006.
Modes of governance and the limits
of policy, in N. Cloete, P. Maassen,
R. Fehnel, T. Moja, H. Perold & T.
Gibbon (eds.), Transformation in Higher
Education: Global pressures and local
realities in South Africa, (Second revised
edition). [Online]. Access: http://www.
chet.org.za/books/transformation-highereducation http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/14020-4006-7_23
National Commission on Higher Education
(NCHE). 1996. A framework for
transformation: Final report. Pretoria:
HSRC Press.
National Council for Higher Education
(NCHE). 2015. Funding Framework for
Public Higher Education Institutions in
Namibia. Windhoek: National Council
for Higher Education (NCHE).
National Education Policy Investigation
(NEPI). 1992. Post-Secondary Education:
Report of the NEPI Post-Secondary
Education Research Group. Cape Town:
Oxford University Press.
OECD. 2016. South Africa and the OECD.
[Online]. Available: http://www.oecd.org/
southafrica/south-africa-and-oecd.htm
[2016, May 3].
OECD. 2016b. Global Relations Key
Partners. [Online]. Available http://www.
oecd.org/globalrelations/keypartners/
[2016, May 3].
Power, M. 1999. The audit society: Rituals of
verification. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
acprof:oso/9780198296034.001.0001
Powers, K. 2016. Future of external reporting,
in K. Powers & A.E. Henderson (eds.),
Burden or benefit: External data
reporting, New Directions for Institutional
Research, 2016(166):101110, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ir20135
Powers, K. & Henderson A.E. (eds.). 2016.
Burden or benefit: External data
reporting, New Directions for Institutional
Research, 2016(166):101110, dhttp://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/ir20135
Republic of Botswana. 1999. Tertiary
Education Act, Chapter 57:04.
Gaborone: Republic of Botswana.
Republic of Namibia. 2003. Higher Education
Act 26 of 2003, Government Gazette no
3125. Windhoek: Republic of Namibia.
Republic of South Africa. 1997a. White paper
3: A programme for Higher Education
Transformation. Government Gazette
no 18207, 15 August 1997. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
Republic of South Africa. 1997b. Higher
Education Act 101 of 1997, as
amended, in Government Gazette no
1655, 19 December 1997. Pretoria:
GovernmentPrinter.
Republic of South Africa. 1999. National
Student Financial Aid Scheme Act 56
of 1999. In Government Gazette no
20652, 19 November 1999. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
Republic of South Africa. 2002. Regulations
for the Registration of Private Higher
Education Institutions. Government
Gazette no 24143, 13 December 2002.
Pretoria: Government Printer.
Republic of South Africa, Department of
Higher Education and Training. 2013a.
The White paper for post-school
education and training: Building an
expanded, effective and integrated postschool system, as approved by Cabinet
208
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10
on 20 November 2013. Pretoria:

Government Printer.
Republic of South Africa. 2013b. Higher
Education and Training Information
Policy. Government Gazette no
36973, 1November 2013. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
Republic of South Africa. 2014. Regulations
for reporting by Public Higher Education
Institutions. Government Gazette
no 37726, 9 June 2014. Pretoria:
Government Printer.
Republic of Zambia. 2013. Higher Education
Act 4 of 2013. Lusaka: Government
Printing Bureau.
Republic of Zimbabwe. 2006. Zimbabwe
Council for Higher Education Act 1
of 2006 [chapter 25:27]. Harare:
Government Printing Bureau.
SARUA. 2016. The Southern African
Regional Universities Association.
[Online]. Available: http://www.sarua.
org/?q=content/about-us [2016, May 3].
Swing, R.L. 2009. Institutional researchers
as change agents, in C. Leimer (ed.),
Imagining the Future of Institutional
Research, New Directions for Institutional
Research, 2009(143):5-16, doi: 10.1002/
ir.302
Tefera, D. & Altbach, P.G. Trends and
Perspectives in African Higher
Education, in D. Teferra & P.G. Altbach
(eds.), African Higher Education: An
International Reference Handbook.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
714 pp.
Terkla, D.G. & OLeary, L.S. (eds.). 2014.
Assessing civic engagement, New
2014(162):1-97, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1002/ir.20071
The Southern African Development
Community (SADC). 1997. Protocol on
Education and Training, 8th September
1997. Blantyre: Southern African
Development Community (SADC).
[Online] Available: http://www.sadc.
int/files/3813/5292/8362/Protocol_on_
Education_Training1997.pdf [2016,
May8]
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS). 2014.
Assessing Education Data Quality in
the Southern African Development

Community (SADC): UIS Information
paper 21. [Online]. Available: http://
www.uis.unesco.org/Education/
Documents/IP-2014-education-dataquality-africa.pdf [2016, May 3].
UIS. 2016a. UIS Questionnaires. [Online]
Available: http://www.uis.unesco.org/
UISQuestionnaires/Pages/default.aspx
[2016, May 3].
UIS. 2016b. Higher Education. [Online]
Education/Pages/tertiary-education.aspx
[2016, May 3]
UIS 2016c. Statistical capacity building
Training and expert meetings. [Online]
StatisticalCapacityBuilding/Pages/trainingexpert-meetings.aspx [2016, May 3].
Van Vught, F.A. 1993. Patterns of Governance
in Higher Education: Concepts and
Trends. New papers on higher education
9: Studies and Research. Paris: UNESCO.
Van Vught, F.A. 1994. Autonomy and
Accountability in Government/
University Relationships, in J. Salmi
& A.M. Verspoor (eds.), Revitalizing
Higher Education. Series: Issues in
Higher Education. Oxford: IAU Press.
PMCid:PMC1030004
Volkwein, J.F. 2012. The Structure and
Functions of Institutional Research
Offices, in Gerald W McLaughlin,
Richard D. Howard & William E. Knight
(Eds.), The Handbook of Institutional
Research. New Jersey: Jossey-Bass.
World Bank & UNESCO Institute of Statistics
(UIS). 2003. A framework for assessing
the quality of education statistics.
January 2013. [Online] Available: http://
unstats.un.org/unsd/dnss/docs-nqaf/
WB-UNESCO-DQAF%20for%20
education%20statistics.pdf [2016,
May3].
World Bank. 2016. Tertiary Education
(Higher Education). [Online]
Available: http://web.worldbank.
org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EX
TEDUCATION/0,,contentMDK:20298
183~menuPK:617592~pagePK:
148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:2
82386,00.html
209
DOI: 10.18820/9781928357186/10

tmpB602 TMP

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

tmpB602 TMP

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Botha J & Muller N (eds) 2016. Institutional Research in South African Higher Education.

Stellenbosch: SUN PRESS

Herman Visser and Jean Skene

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Types and levels of external reporting

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Institutional Research and External Reporting

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

The relationship between governance, autonomy and external reporting

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Institutional Research and External Reporting

education institutions, governmental agencies, intermediate organisations (between higher

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Institutional Research and External Reporting

(NCHE 1996:174-180) proposed the implementation of a co-operative governance

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Accountability, transparency and external reporting

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Institutional Research and External Reporting

Higher education legislation governing external reporting requirements

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Institutional Research and External Reporting

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Institutional Research and External Reporting

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Country reporting to External Agencies

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Institutional Research and External Reporting

Future developments in external reporting and their implications for

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Institutional Research and External Reporting

According to LoGrasso (2016:61-63), institutional researchers will have to be more proactive

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Borden, V.M.H., Calderon, A., Fourie, N.,

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Institutional Research and External Reporting

Town: Centre for Higher Education

Reporting Initiative. Access: www.

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Institutional Research and External Reporting

on 20 November 2013. Pretoria:

the Southern African Development

2016 AFRICAN SUN MeDIA

Potrebbero piacerti anche