Brigid Freeman

The COVID-19 pandemic has destabilised higher education systems globally, nationally and locally.  At present, while long-term ramifications of this emergency are unclear, early and ongoing responses have sought to avert COVID-induced institutional collapse. 
Higher education systems are seeking to return to business-as-usual, while developing disruption-resilient responses by embracing rapid decision-making, technology-enabled learning, and flexible student admissions. At the same time, they are reimagining internationalization. This chapter provides a diagnostic lens through which to view how higher education systems and institutions have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic in industrialised (Australia, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and developing (Chile, India and South Africa) economies.
The study also examines how higher education stakeholders might better prepare for future crisis situations.  In particular, a range of diagnostic indicators is proposed and evidenced to highlight how stakeholders might monitor institutional and sector-wide vulnerabilities and gaps in coverage at pre-crisis and post-crisis stages.  The analysis closes with a presentation and discussion of indicators spanning system geopolitics and jurisdictions, system regulation, teaching and learning, research, pathways, governance and leadership, infrastructure, human resources and financing. 
See: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004512672_002

Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education and research are increasingly recognized globally as fundamental to national development and productivity, economic competitiveness and societal wellbeing. There has been a global turn to STEM that is clearly evident in government efforts worldwide to elaborate STEM policy governing school science and mathematics, and tertiary level education and research in the STEM disciplines. This shift is also reflected in emerging research priorities that are most frequently conceived in STEM terms, underpinned by commitments to internationalization and multidisciplinarity. This chapter explores STEM policies and programs from an international perspective extending from the Anglosphere, East Asia, Western Europe and Latin America to the Middle East. We identify discernible trends and parallels regarding government STEM policy and structural responses, school and tertiary level STEM education participation, comparative performance measured by international assessments such as PISA and TIMMS, STEM research and innovation, and issues concerning gender and under-represented groups. The chapter examines various programs and solutions including school-level curriculum and pedagogy reform to enhance science and mathematics participation and performance, teaching-related initiatives, and strategies at the tertiary-level to redress current systemic disparities.

This chapter provides an introduction to science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in Australia by exploring school science and mathematics, STEM in vocational education and training (VET) and higher education and research and development (R&D), and associated issues: teaching quality, disparities with respect to gender and indigeneity, and the STEM labour market. This chapter also provides an introduction to key policies, programmes and structures supportive of enhanced STEM participation, performance and outcomes. While the STEM policy agenda in Australia is somewhat fragmented and at times apparently contradictory, it is all-encompassing. STEM practices, policies and programmes span the institutions of schools, VET providers and universities, and the science and innovation space involving industry and education. Frequently framed in human capital and R&D terms, the STEM agenda is presented as the solution to Australia’s future in the knowledge economy.

This guide is a resource for staff of Australasian tertiary institutions who are responsible for developing, reviewing or managing policies for their institution – particularly those who are new to such a role. The guide is provided by the ATEM Institutional Policy Network, a special interest group of the Association for Tertiary Education Management (ATEM).  Workshops and forums of the network are often attended by people who have been asked to develop policies, or who have moved into an institutional policy management role, without much previous experience of such work. Most institutions have in place resources, support and tools for staff responsible for policy development, but this is still not universally the case. Even where support is available, staff may not be aware of it, or it may not fully meet their needs. In such cases, they may seek support and guidance from other staff within the institution, or from those in similar roles at other institutions.
This guide attempts to provide in-depth support more conveniently and comprehensively in textual form. It collates ideas and suggestions on effective practice in policy development, management and review gathered from workshops and forums of the network over the past seven years. Since the first edition was published in 2010, the network’s thinking on a number of key challenges in policy development has developed further, as members have improved on previous practice. Over time, inroads have been made into some apparently intractable problems. A second edition of the guide is necessary to update many of its sections with these new ideas and improvements.

The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) announces profound reforms to India’s education system, which in turn will increase internationalisation opportunities for foreign institutions and scholars. Approved by India’s Union Cabinet on 29th July 2020, Prime Minister Narendra Modi declared that the NEP will “lay [the] foundation of the new India of the 21st century” and “make India future ready” (Outlook Web Bureau, 2020). It reflects the Government of India’s ambition to “have an education system by 2040 that is second to none” (Ministry of Human Resource Development [MHRD], 2020a, p. 3). Where implemented, the NEP’s radical reforms would embed access, equity, affordability, accountability, and quality in school and higher education systems, reflecting India’s complexities, scale and extensive array of Central and State government policy actors, and public and private education stakeholders.

From early 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic devastated our world, fundamentally altering our higher education systems, institutions, ways of working, learning, and researching. We entered a state of uncertainty, which continues to this day (Tilak & Kumar, 2022). Amidst these disruptions “it seemed possible that a post-COVID world could emerge that embraced positive change” (Freeman et al., 2021a, p. 2). Observing the varied ways in which higher education responded to this crisis, our higher education in emergencies group developed a diagnostic lens (Leihy et al., 2022) reflecting our readings of higher education and emergencies in education (EiE) research. The framework evidences our collective interest in international comparative analysis, and consideration of global, national and local dimensions (see Marginson & Rhoades, 2002).

As national borders reopen after a lengthy COVID-induced pause there is renewed interest in nurturing opportunities offshore for vocational education and training (VET). Drawing on interviews, focus groups and consultations conducted from 2017-2021 regarding VET engagement (Freeman, 2017a; 2017b) and strategy (India Reference Group, 2019), India’s National Education Policy 2020 (Freeman, 2021) and cross-border internships (Freeman & Barker, 2022a, 2022b), this article contributes to the conversation about India’s skills agenda.

During 2020 and beyond, coronavirus disease has profoundly disrupted global economic, health and higher education systems. As universities shuttered campuses and businesses locked down, Australia's export education sector stalled. Many international students who were able to return home, did so, while those who could not, would experience varying levels of support and exclusion. Government policies and practices during 2020 are analysed alongside research literature and media reports to provide an overview of how the COVID-19 pandemic affected the Australian higher education sector and international students. Specifically, the analysis addresses the emerging and emergent impact of this pandemic on the public higher education sector and its international education activities and proposes corresponding recommendations for systemic and institutional recovery. These recommendations call for increased government fiscal and welfare support, strengthened regulatory safeguards, extended post-study work rights, progress regarding foreign qualifications recognition, and institution-level strategies. A long and varied list of sources chronicles events.

The agencies responsible for tertiary education quality assurance in Australia and New Zealand have established regulatory regimes that increasingly intersect with tertiary institution policy management. An examination of university meta-policies identified good practices guiding university policy and policy management. Most Australian and half of New Zealand universities have developed meta-policy, or policy on policy, with the most comprehensive articulating policy definitions, range and application of policy instruments, categorisation, approval authorities and policy cycle stages. Sound meta-policy provides an essential framework for good policy-making, and is the key to the development of positive policy outcomes. Increasing tertiary sector regulation provides a contemporary imperative to embrace university meta-policy as one mechanism to embed good practice policy process to facilitate these improved policy outcomes. (see: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1360080X.2013.861050#.UqfezKXWEYU)

This policy brief was prepared for the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise to identify Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) policies introduced by Sweden’s leading comparator countries. As a highly competitive, advanced European economy, Sweden’s comparators identified for this study include other Nordic countries (Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland), other European countries (France, Germany), high-performing Anglosphere countries (United States, United Kingdom, Australia) and dynamic East Asia (Japan, South Korea). Rather than focusing on Swedish Government policy priorities and commitments to science, technology and innovation, this policy brief reveals the prevalence of Sweden’s comparator country’s STEM policies. It highlights STEM-related government policy priorities, STEM policy objectives and focus areas, while also referencing climate, energy, space and security policies that are heavily reliant on STEM skills, knowledge and capabilities. Building on this evidence base, further research will be undertaken to analyse key STEM policies of these comparator countries, to contribute to discussions regarding the development of Swedish STEM policy.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) in Australia. This paper explores government, student and community attitudes to STEM; it provides a context for science and mathematics school provision and participation, and examines funding, curriculum and accountability. In terms of science and mathematics performance, this paper examines TIMSS and PISA data for Australian school students and the National Assessment Program - Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) results, with data regarding under-represented cohorts (remote and very remote; Indigenous; low SES) and concerns regarding the long tail of underperformance. Tertiary sector participation in STEM disciplines is examined, including the position of disadvantaged cohorts (indigenous students, women in various STEM disciplines). The paper explores issues associated with science and mathematics teaching, including teacher qualifications, professional development, teacher shortages, standards and the centralisation of staffing arrangements. Information is provided regarding the STEM labour force, including that regarding STEM labour market shortages, particularly in engineering. The research and innovation sector is briefly examined. The paper provides an overview of recent reports and policy statements regarding STEM-related matters, including schooling and teacher quality; language, literacy, numeracy and generic skills; universities, R&D, innovation; the labour market; engaging the community and Indigenous Australians. Finally, the report provides an overview of state and territory STEM policies and reports, bringing together both the federal and state approaches to science, technology, engineering and mathematics as a background for consideration of internationally comparable data arising from the Securing Australia's Future (SAF) STEM: Country Comparisons Project.

This paper was prepared for the Securing Australia's Future (SAF) STEM: Country Comparisons project conducted by the Centre for the Study of Higher Education for the Australian Council of Learned Academies. This paper provides a 'snapshot' of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) policies and programs of numerous countries, regions and specialist topics examined, including: Western Europe, Finland, France, United Kingdom, United States, Canada, New Zealand, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Brazil, Argentina, Portugal, Israel, Canada (Indigenous), United States (Indigenous), South Africa, International Agencies and Literature Review (Student Identity). Characteristics, lessons for Australia and key policies and programs are presented for each country, regional or special interest. These features are drawn from the researchers reports delivered for the STEM project.

SIU-AIU Conference on Internationalisation of Higher Education 2017
Symbiosis International University, Pune, India, 8-10 April 2017

This paper presents findings from two internationalization research projects, and introduces a new project launched by the Australia India Institute. The first explores the role of Indian and Chinese diasporic scholars in building international collaborations, and the second maps humanities research capacity in the Asia region. These projects provide contextual background for a new project by the Australia India Institute exploring opportunities for increased bilateral engagement between India and Australia. The projects share a common objective-building successful partnerships between Australia and India. This paper presents three conclusions. Firstly, 'fit' is important for successful partnerships. 'Fit for purpose partnerships' are particularly important when initiatives are contextualised by scale, distance and global competition for collaboration. Secondly, 'international collaboration' is best conceived in broad terms; it is much broader than the lucrative export education market. Finally, academic and business diaspora can play a key role in establishing and sustaining successful international collaborations between India and Australia.

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.

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.

This case study explores the application of the policy cycle to implement two related University of Melbourne governance policy projects. The meta-policy (policy on policy) project represented a continuous quality improvement initiative using an elongated policy
cycle, whereas the delegations project, triggered by an institution-wide policy suite review, was implemented as a policy development initiative using a truncated policy cycle. The case study focuses on the development of key elements of institutional meta-policy (range of policy instruments, classification scheme, application of policy instruments, approval authorities, and policy cycle stages) and delegations documentation, including key elements of the delegations policy (framework, guiding legislative provisions, delegations principles), the attendant schedules (finance, building works, research-related, human resources and other
contract/document delegations) and delegations register. The case study illustrates that institutional meta-policy and delegations policy are inherently interdependent, and may be concurrently improved through implementation of the policy cycle involving extensive policy stakeholder consultation and policy benchmarking.

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 requiring review to reflect government and sector developments, and institutional strategic agendas. This paper examines how universities are shaping their university meta-policy and policy review processes to evaluate policy implementation and content to reflect emerging trends and individual institutional aspirations. The paper concludes by discussing some innovative and good practice approaches, systems and resources for policy review aimed at tertiary managers currently grappling with this important challenge.

In many parts of the world, there is uncertainty about the diminishing quality of higher education systems. Concurrent crises have negatively impacted the well-charted policy trajectories in education (i.e., what is being taught), learning (i.e., what is being learned and how), and knowledge (i.e., what ought to be taught). Existing policy interventions primarily focus on formal spaces of learning, despite the growing recognition of informal learning, and long-standing commitments to lifelong learning. While school, vocational, and higher education are addressed under SDG4, the new realities of impending, multiple emergencies demand a reimagination of what it means to learn in an unpredictable environment. There is a need to build robust equitable infrastructures that can sustain the global mobility of learners across sectors as well as pedagogic tools and processes to interrogate and share diverse sustainable approaches being practised across the G20 nations. This Policy Brief calls for sustained effort to expand spaces, tools and methods of learning and put forward a blueprint for learning for/towards sustainable development as a key policy directive across all SDGs.

This report charts the landscape of Australian work integrated learning (WIL) and Indian internships to present models to increase Australia-India WIL engagement. This report of key findings and analysis, and the accompanying report, Building the Evidence Base for Cross-border Work Integrated Learning Models: The Case of Australia and India (Freeman & Barker, 2022), was commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Education. The research was undertaken by the Australia India Institute.

This report sets out the evidence base for the development of cross-border work integrated learning (WIL) models to increase Australia-India WIL engagement. It elaborates key findings and analysis summarised in the accompanying report, Opportunities to Increase Australia-India WIL Engagement: Key Findings and Analysis (Freeman & Barker, 2022).

This report presents the findings of research commissioned by the Australian Government Department of Education and prepared by the Australia India Institute under the project, Opportunities for Australia to Partner with Industry in India.

The project aimed to identify and analyse Australian and Indian higher education and vocational education and training (VET) WIL opportunities, including governing policy and legislative frameworks, participation levels, good practices and barriers. Informed by these findings, the project developed four models to encourage domestic and international students enrolled with Australia’s VET and higher education institutions to engage with Indian host organisations for broadly defined WIL activities.

This profile explores humanities research in Singapore. Following a thematic introduction by Nicki Tarulevicz and Antonia Finnane, the substantive report by Brigid Freeman commences with an overview of the higher education system. It then proceeds to explore humanities research and cultural institutions, humanities research policy, funding and incentives, humanities research outputs, and international engagement.

This profile explores humanities research in the Republic of Korea (Korea). Following a thematic introduction by Kenneth Wells, the substantive report by Brigid Freeman commences with an overview of the higher education system features. It then proceeds to explore humanities research and cultural institutions, humanities research policy, funding and incentives, humanities research outputs, and international engagement.

This profile explores humanities research in Japan. Following a thematic introduction by Vera Mackie, the substantive report by Brigid Freeman commences with an overview of the higher education system. It then proceeds to explore humanities research and cultural institutions, humanities research policy, funding and incentives, humanities research outputs, and international engagement.

This profile explores humanities research in Indonesia. Following a thematic introduction by Helen Creese, the substantive report
by Brigid Freeman and Helen Creese commences with an overview of the higher education system. It then proceeds to explore humanities research and cultural institutions, humanities research policy, funding and incentives, humanities research outputs, and international engagement.

This profile explores humanities research in India. Following a thematic introduction by Robin Jeffrey, the substantive report by Brigid Freeman begins with an overview of the higher education system. It then explores humanities research and cultural institutions, humanities research policy, funding and incentives, humanities research outputs, and international engagement.

This profile explores humanities research in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Following a thematic introduction by Antonia Finnane, the substantive report by Brigid Freeman, Antonia Finnane, and Kam Louie begins with an overview of the higher education system. It then proceeds to explore humanities research and cultural institutions, humanities research policy, funding and incentives, humanities research outputs, and international engagement.

This profile explores humanities research in China. Following a thematic introduction by Kam Louie, the substantive report by Brigid Freeman commences with an overview of the higher education system. It then proceeds to explore humanities research and cultural institutions, humanities research policy, funding and incentives, humanities research outputs, and international engagement.

Recognising the growing importance of Australia’s education engagements with India, this policy report examines key elements of the NEP relating to schools, higher education (teaching), research, and vocational education and training (VET). It draws heavily on the Australia India Institute report, India’s National Education Policy 2020 and Australia’s Education Engagement: Key Findings from Roundtables (Freeman, 2021). That report , which was funded by the Australian Department of Education, Skills and Employment, proposed priority action areas that Australia’s education system and institutions can take now to respond to the NEP reform agenda and maximise the impact on Australia-India education engagement. The recommendations are mutually reinforcing, symbiotic, and potentially beneficial for both Australian and Indian education stakeholders.

A first-ever mapping of humanities research engagement across Australia and the Asia region, the report highlights the potential for building shared fields of knowledge, strengthening regional networks, and enhancing Australia’s reputation and influence in the region. It is designed to assist policy makers and researchers in government and higher education to make evidenced-based assessments about future research collaboration opportunities, and cultural and knowledge diplomacy initiatives. Volume 1 is now available (see attached). Volume 2 (forthcoming) provides a set of profiles which document humanities research strengths, organisational structures and policy settings in China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Australia – will be published online later this year.

The National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) is a bold, aspirational policy that will transform India’s education landscape over the next 20 years to 2040. This report summarises
key elements of the NEP reforms for school education, higher education, vocational education, and research and research training, including preliminary steps taken since the NEP was launched. It briefly provides contextual materials regarding Australia’s existing engagements and reflects the contributions of over 200 Australian and Indian stakeholders at a series of roundtables. It seeks to answer the question, “What actions can Australia take to maximise the impact of the NEP reforms on Australia-India education engagement”?

Victoria’s India Strategy: Our Shared Future prioritises the relationship with India, including international education, Victoria’s largest services export sector. As outlined in Victoria’s International Education Sector Strategy, a vibrant international education sector is central to positioning Victoria as Australia’s Education State. Victorian universities are well placed to leverage their longstanding international education and online learning experience to achieve success in international markets.
This policy brief reflects the outcomes of the Online Learning in Higher Education Industry Sector Roundtable conducted in India in February 2020. This event involved 62 participants from Australian universities, Indian higher education institutions (Indian School of Business, Amity Online and Institute of Management Technology Centre for Distance Learning, Ghaziabad), Australian and Indian government authorities, KPMG, Rajasthan Royals and Indian private MOOC platform, UpGrad.
Together with desktop research, the roundtable participants have helped shape the three recommendations offered in this Policy Brief. These would see Victorian universities increase the supply of online higher education content in India through partnerships with relevant Indian and global platforms and by making available a targeted package of offerings reflecting India’s price and brand sensitivities, complemented by a faculty professional development program.

These are exciting times for higher education institutions, industry and governments seeking to leverage technology for advancing student learning in the 21st century.
Many Australian and Indian higher education institutions have adopted new technologies, curriculum and pedagogies to introduce quality assured online learning. Some have longstanding expertise in open and distance education, while others have specialised in delivering high quality, face-to-face, regular mode teaching.
The Commonwealth Department of Education and Training (DET) commissioned the Australia India Institute to develop a collection of ten case studies from Australia and India. This collection aims to illustrate how quality assured online learning is being prioritised and developed by higher education institutions and education technology companies in both countries. The objectives of the collection are to identify the key features and approaches used for developing innovative cultures and strategies that foster high levels of student engagement and student achievement.
The APEC Quality Assurance of Online Learning Toolkit (2017) (the APEC toolkit) provides the framework for assessing the approaches adopted in the case studies. The three broad areas of assessment are innovative culture, student engagement, and student achievement. Each of these contains domains that represent assessable features of institutional practice.

The Australian and Indian cases selected are current, innovative, robust and clearly demonstrate quality. They include a range of public and private higher education providers and their partners. The case studies identify the innovative approaches pursued by higher education institutions individually or via collaborative ventures and partnerships with education technology companies and government departments. They identify the diverse technologies, learning management systems, curriculum design, delivery and assessment approaches for student engagement and achievement.

Online: See https://www.aii.unimelb.edu.au/publications/case-studies-of-australian-and-indian-quality-assured-online-learning/

Navigating India’s skills system represents a significant obstacle to Australian vocational education and training (VET) providers seeking to penetrate India's skills development market. Accordingly, this report provides a guide to India’s skills system based on research conducted by the Australia India Institute for the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training. The report aims to facilitate increased Australia-India bilateral engagement in VET and related skills development initiatives.

This report summarises the research conducted by the Australia India Institute for the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training on developments in India’s higher education sector. It outlines key areas of difference between the higher education systems in Australia and India and highlights the challenges and opportunities for effective engagement between Australian universities and Indian higher education institutions.

This paper complements A Report on Australia's Engagement with India's Higher Education System by providing additional data and analysis regarding the nature and extent of university engagement. The report has been prepared by the Australia India Institute for the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training.

Higher education admissions represent an increasingly important policy focus for governments and institutions as massified systems characterized by growing competition seek to address the inter-related challenges of merit selection, fairness and equality. UNESCO commissioned this review to provide an international comparative analysis of: higher education systems; legislative and regulatory frameworks for higher education systems and admission arrangements; higher education admissions policies; and examples of good practice admission policies and programs. This review explores higher education systems, legislative frameworks and admissions policies in 28 countries in Africa, the Anglo-sphere, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, Russia and Western Europe.

The Survey of Chinese and Indian diasporic scholars in Australia was undertaken for the Asia Literacy: Language and Beyond project. The project was led by Professor Ien Ang, Institute for Culture and Society, University of Western Sydney and the Asia Literacy: Language and Beyond Expert Working Group. The project was administered by the Asia Literacy: Language and Beyond secretariat under the ACOLA Securing Australia’s Future program. The Survey of Chinese and Indian diasporic scholars in Australia explored the role that Chinese and Indian diasporic scholars living in Australia play in the promotion of people-to-people links with researchers and communities in China and India, as well as elsewhere.
  The research literature regarding diaspora and increased connectivity with scholars in China and India is rich and compelling. China’s growth in research investment, publication and participation has been remarkable; while India’s growth in research publication and participation has increased substantially in recent years, supporting India’s depiction as the “sleeping giant”. Chinese and Indian diaspora are spread throughout the world, across all continents. Notwithstanding the important ‘identity’ issues associated with the concept of, and implications arising from “diaspora” assignation, this includes very large numbers of globally mobile Chinese and Indian scholars. These scholars play a vital role in driving innovation and economic growth, forging international collaborations and improving cross-cultural understanding. In Australia, the resident population of Chinese and Indian immigrants has rapidly increased, and now totals some 387,000 Chinese and 337,000 Indian immigrants (2011). The number of foreign-born scholars (including doctoral candidates) in Australia includes large and growing numbers of scholars from China and India. At the same time, Chinese and Indian international students are vitally important to Australia’s export education industry, while the recruitment of the best Chinese and Indian graduating students through “two-step migration” contributes to the flow of international scholars into Australia.
  The transnational flows of people and ideas and international scholarly collaborations have grown in recent decades. This growth has been attributed to the rising importance of global phenomena, dispersion of expertise, high cost of major research infrastructure, growth of information communication technology and ease of international travel. Concomitantly, the proportion of the world’s collaboratively authored scholarly publications has increased, as has Australia’s. In the globalized, knowledge-based world, preliminary concerns regarding “brain drain” have now turned to opportunities to leverage “brain circulation” and “diaspora options”. Globally, governments have developed diaspora policy responses spanning economic, knowledge-economy, migration, education and research and development (R&D) considerations. The Australian, Chinese and Indian governments have all recognized the important opportunities presented by expanding people-to-people connectivity and international research collaborations. 
  The Asia Literacy: Language and Beyond secretariat administered the survey in the period July-August, 2014. In total, 244 survey responses were received. The survey respondents were overwhelmingly Australian citizens or permanent residents. The vast majority was born in China (89 respondents) or India (85 respondents). The remaining respondents were born in Australia (11), another Asian country (35), a Pacific country (7), or another country outside the Asia-Pacific region (9).  Respondents identified their ethnic and/or cultural backgrounds in various ways, broadly described in most instances as ‘Chinese’ or ‘Indian’. Many respondents elaborated, demonstrating the complexity and layering of ethnicity conceptions spanning geographical, religious and cultural distinctions. The age profile was skewed towards mid- to late-career respondents.
  The respondents were highly educated, primarily doctoral degree holders, or holders of a postgraduate degree or postgraduate diploma. Respondents’ postgraduate qualifications were predominantly obtained from Australia, followed by India and China; however some obtained their postgraduate qualifications from the dominant export education players (the United States, United Kingdom and Canada). Over half of the respondents had stability in their employment arrangements, having employment in a permanent position. The respondents were overwhelmingly employed in a research-intensive position, from a wide disciplinary spread predominantly science and engineering. Many respondents were multilingual. Almost all were fluent in English and many were also fluent either in Indian languages (predominantly Hindi) or Chinese languages (predominantly Putonghua).

Recent years have witnessed a significant increase in the number of Australians living and working in Asia. With the expectation of increasing global mobility, there has emerged a need to better understand the motivations and experiences of Australians relocating overseas to further align policies and practices to the emerging realities of Australia-Asia relations.
  The Survey of Australians living and working in Asia was commissioned by the Expert Working Group for the Asia Literacy: Language and Beyond project under the ACOLA Securing Australia’s Future program. The project was led by Professor Fazal Rizvi of the University of Melbourne. In total, 333 survey responses were received, including 228 respondents (68.47 per cent) residing in Asia (primarily China including Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam). A majority of survey respondents were aged over 45 years, male, highly educated and employed as a professional, researcher or manager in highly paid positions. This report provides an indicative and illustrative account of Australians living and working in Asia.
  An estimated 760,000 – 860,000 Australians live and work overseas; an additional 265,000 are overseas on a short-term basis as “visiting citizens”. Australia’s expatriates have been characterized as skilled, highly qualified, relatively young, highly paid professionals – ‘some of Australia’s most employable citizens’.  They represent Australia’s contribution to global “brain circulation”. The number is growing due to improving communication and transport technologies and the expansion of transnational organisations. While Australian expatriates are concentrated in Western Europe, the United Kingdom, Ireland and North America, a large number are based in Asia. However, estimating the number of Australian expatriates living in Asia is problematic, due in part to the differing methodologies and objectives associated with such data collection exercises. For example, while the Southern Cross Group estimated that some 122,434 Australian expatriates were living in Asia in 2001, the United Nations estimated that the number totaled some 84,231 in 2013. However, in both calculations, the population was concentrated in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, China and Thailand.
  This report builds on the research literature regarding motivations (for individuals, organisations and home-countries), preparation (pre-departure and in-country, cross cultural/intercultural and language training), the experience, and expatriate-oriented policies such as global community engagement initiatives, dual/multiple citizenship, expatriate parliamentary representation, and expatriate voting rights. 
  The survey revealed a range of motivations for Australians living and working in Asia. The majority of respondents indicated that they relocated to Asia for career-related motivations, and a large proportion was seeking to experience a different culture. A low proportion of respondents were motivated by financial considerations, contradicting the popular perception that international relocation is largely driven by economic reasons. The findings indicate that while financial considerations remain relevant in many cases because of declining opportunities in Australia, relocation was also driven by a range of cultural, moral and political reasons.
  The social experience is an important element of expatriate life, with respondents socializing with locals, expatriates and expatriate groups. Australians relocating to Asia have acquired new knowledge and skills, and worked with people from diverse backgrounds. The majority of respondents were employed with Australian government and non-government organisations, and transnational organisations, primarily in the education, training or research industry. Living and working in Asia has enabled Australians to enhance their global networks and realize opportunities for the improved practice of public diplomacy.
  Expatriates report missing their family and friends, and Australia’s wide spaces and fresh air. However, communication technology has helped expatriate Australians remain connected to Australia, with respondents maintaining regular communication with family and friends in Australia. Expatriates remain up to date with current affairs in Australia, regularly accessing online news sources and news outlets. The benefits of these connections are apparent both when Australians are overseas, and when they arrive home. Mechanisms ought to be developed to maximize the opportunities arising from these connections.
  Preparation for living and working in Asia was uneven. There was a diversity of views as to how this preparation was best undertaken, from self-directed pre-departure preparation, to language programs, to those who believed this was best done by “living it”. Few respondents participated in orientation provided by Australian government or non-government organisations. Respondents consulted books, websites, colleagues, friends and neighbours, and sourced information about their current Asian country of residency through prior visits to the country, friends and colleagues and higher studies and research. Few respondents nominated their employing organisations as a source of knowledge. Many respondents had previous exposure to living and working in an international environment, with the majority having lived and worked in an Asian country before. The vast majority reported that their experience would have been greatly enhanced by greater proficiency in an Asian language. There appear to be opportunities for organisations and education systems to expand efforts to prepare Australians for global mobility. 
  The vast majority of respondents looked forward to experiencing another country and its cultures, consistent with the emergence of globally mobile individuals interested in immersion in new cultures. However, Australians relocating with families have experienced a range of unexpected and difficult challenges, especially spouses who move for their partners (frequently referred to as “trailing spouses” in the literature). They would like programs that better help them relocate and become involved in local communities and employment. Respondents also reported challenges regarding bureaucratic hurdles, and language and workplace communication.
  The survey did not reveal any distinctive pattern regarding perceptions of Australia. While many respondents regarded themselves as an ambassador for Australia, they reported that Australia is still regarded by many as a mainly “white” country. In any program of public diplomacy, attempts to overcome this are clearly needed. For Australians living and working in Asia there is an intense recognition of the emerging importance of Asia as the centre of global processes and opportunities. Many respondents felt that it was inadequately recognised in Australia that Australia’s future lies in the Asian region.  Programs of public diplomacy therefore demand not only communication through people to people links between Asia and Australia, but also opportunities for Australians who have lived in Asia to communicate their understanding to their fellow Australians. 
  This survey has major implications for thinking about both Asian literacy and public diplomacy. In relation to Asian literacy, the vast majority of respondents agreed that Australians needed a better understanding of changes taking place in Asia. The findings confirm the importance of Australia’s education system through Asian literacy programs, Asian language training and intercultural development in positioning young Australians to maximize their opportunities for global mobility, and educate young Australians to live and work in Asia’s thriving region. In relation to public diplomacy, the findings suggest that Australians living and working in Asia are playing a major role in defining the place of Australia in the Asian region, and forging better understandings of their fellow Australians of the opportunities and imperatives for Australia in the Asian century.

The motivation for this project is the Australian Government’s desire to improve the range and quality of higher education performance indicators in Australia. To work efficiently, a demand-driven and performance funded system of higher education requires the provision of robust information on the quality of qualifications offered by universities and other approved higher education providers. This has been the primary motivation behind the suite of performance measurement instruments that have been or are currently being developed following the recommendations of the Advancing Quality in Higher Education (AQHE) Reference Group (2012). In particular, the AQHE Reference Group recognised the lack of data underpinning key performance outcomes, including graduate outcomes, and recommended a national survey to capture institution-level data on employer satisfaction with graduates' skills and attributes.
Since graduate employment is usually one of the main objectives of completing a higher education qualification, employer perceptions of the readiness of graduates to enter the workplace forms an essential part of the quality signals.
The Department of Education (then the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education [DIICCSRTE]) commissioned this project to canvas methodological options for a national survey of employer satisfaction with graduate attributes and to conduct a pilot of the survey."

The Review of the University of Tasmania Delegations Register (the Review) was initiated by Governance and Legal as a continuous quality improvement initiative. The Review was undertaken to identify prescribed and non-prescribed delegations; ensure alignment of delegations documentation with governance and policy instruments; examine the breadth of delegations categories; examine documentation and framework accessibility and presentation; and consider professional development requirements.

The Review focused on administrative delegations detailed in the Delegations Register (including financial transactions, contracts, employment and remuneration, and external representation), other administrative delegations including risk and travel, and the role of various university governance committees.

The Review was undertaken by Brigid Freeman, Manager Policy and Delegations, Governance and Legal, University of Tasmania in 2011.

The Review methodology involved a desktop examination of delegations of authority prescribed in University governance instruments; a benchmarking exercise; Delegations Workshops; an extensive series of interviews; consultations with responsible organisational units (including Financial Services, Human Resources and the Legal Office); consultation with academic and professional staff via the UTAS Policy Network; and finalisation of draft delegations documentation in conjunction with key senior executive members.

The Review identified a series of changes required to both reflect current good practice, enhance efficiencies and/or operations by changing delegations in a small number of instances, streamlining and clarifying delegations documentation itself, and more clearly articulating delegations to encourage transparency and the consistent application of University of Tasmania delegations of authority across the University.

The Report on the University Policy Benchmarking Project: Implications for the University of Tasmania presents the findings of the University Policy Benchmarking Project and examinesthe implications for the University of Tasmania within the context of the current review of the Operational Policy Development and Review Policy, and associated Procedure, Manual and support resources (i.e. Policy Repository, Policy Website and Policy Toolkit).

The COVID-19 pandemic has wrought extensive, multi-dimensional changes on higher education systems and institutions, globally. In light of these challenges, this presentation introduces the Higher Education in Emergencies Domains (HEED) framework as a tool or heuristic for holistic understanding and future planning. Comprising nine interconnected domains-geopolitics and jurisdictions, system regulation, financing, infrastructure, teaching and learning, research and research training, pathways and portals in and out, governance and leadership, and human resources-HEED offers an array of domain-specific indicators. These domains are examined in concert with a Response-Recovery-Prevention and Preparation (RRPP) risk management cycle. The synthesis of these frameworks provides a granular yet comprehensive lens through which to analyse the varied policies and strategies enacted for pandemic response and recovery. Furthermore, it offers invaluable insights into developing robust preparations for forthcoming emergencies within higher education contexts.

Panel presentation at the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, Stockholm.
Cast:
- Maria Nilsson, State Secretary at the Ministry of Education;
- Beatrice Boots, Director, Netherlands National STEM Platform, and Chair of the Board of the EU STEM Coalition;
- Dorte Salomonsen, Talent and Development Manager for the Danish STEM business, Astra;
- Dr Brigid Freeman, Academic Fellow, University of Melbourne and (formerly), Visiting Professor National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration, New Delhi.

Gustav Blix, responsible for elementary school issues at Swedish Enterprise, moderates.

This lecture explores cross-border higher education qualifications recognition. It traces the emergence of UNESCO recognition conventions and draws on research regarding India's qualifications recognition regimes. This lecture identifies barriers preventing formal acceptance of qualifications gained by returning Indian international students and introduces the Mechanism for the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications, Australia-India. It aims to highlight the importance of contemporary qualifications recognition regimes for inbound international student admission, and successful post-study transition for returning Indian graduates. In doing so, it explores issues particularly relevant to international offices.

This invited presentation was given at the International Seminar on Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education, convened by the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) and the British Council. It was held in Delhi, India

Globally, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, research and development (R&D), and innovation are considered critically important for national productivity, economic competitiveness and societal wellbeing. This paper explores the findings of the STEM: Country Comparisons project that considered STEM in East Asia, the Anglo-sphere, Western Europe, Latin America and the Middle East. The research revealed a global turn to STEM, and this paper discusses trends and parallels regarding government STEM policy and structural responses, school and tertiary level STEM education participation, comparative performance through PISA and TIMSS assessments lenses, STEM R&D, and issues concerning gender and under-represented groups including Indigenous peoples. The paper discusses programs and solutions including curriculum and pedagogy reform, teaching-related initiatives, and strategies to redress current systemic disparities.

India's aspirations for skills development are ambitious, both in providing employment and entrepreneurship solutions for the country's youth and other unemployed cohorts, and establishing India as the global capital for the production of skilled workers. This presentation explores India's expanding skills system and increasingly vocationally-oriented higher education system. Particular attention will be given to systemic and individual challenges associated with recruiting students, addressing parity of esteem issues, building the system through public and private models, and providing both skills development and pathways to sustainable employment. The presentation will discuss the internationalisation of India's skills system through both development and cooperative engagement models, and explore the implications of this internationalisation agenda.

Australian International Education Conference (AIEC), 10-13 October 2017, Tasmania, Australia.

This presentation will discuss the policy and regulatory environment governing international student mobility and transnational education between Australia and India. The presenters will investigate opportunities for increased engagement by examining key developments in Australian and Indian government policy and regulation, and major elements of Australian university internationalisation plans. This case study reflects the importance of Indian international students to Australia’s successful export education market, and illustrates the growing interest in Australia’s engagement with rapidly emerging India’s higher education system. The case demonstrates increasing government and institutional interest in diverse forms of international education. The presenters will identify practical responses to the complex policy and regulatory environment for international education practitioners.

This presentation will discuss the policy and regulatory environment governing international student mobility and transnational education, illustrated by the case of Australia and India. The presenters will scope opportunities for increased engagement by examining key developments in Australian and Indian government policy and regulation, and major elements of Australian university internationalisation plans. This case study reflects the importance of Indian international students to Australia’s successful export education market, and illustrates the growing interest in Australia’s engagement with rapidly emerging India’s higher education system. The case demonstrates increasing government and institutional interest in diverse forms of international education. The presenters will identify practical responses to the complex policy and regulatory environment for international education practitioners.

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.

New Zealand tertiary education organisations (TEOs) and Australian tertiary education providers both face regulation increasingly reliant on institutional policy to evidence compliance. Whereas the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) Tertiary Evaluation Indicators require evidence that institutional policies and practices are ‘legal and ethical’ and ‘minimise barriers to learning', Australian providers must comply with the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) Threshold Standards and evidence policy implementation, benchmarking and improvement over time. Policy and compliance practitioners on both sides of the Tasman are grappling with these issues and in some instances, duplicating effort to respond to requirements. This session will draw on a study involving document analysis of publicly available, internet-based institutional meta-policy (that is, policy on policy) and associated resources of some New Zealand and Australian tertiary education providers, and reflect on contemporary policy management themes emerging from Association for Tertiary Education Management (ATEM) Institutional Policy Network forums, ATEM teleconference policy group discussions, and discussions held (December 2012) with staff from select New Zealand universities and polytechnics. These reflections span institutional policy management systems and processes, and experiences regarding policy implementation compliance. While many institutions have established systems for developing institutional policy, few have publicly available information demonstrating how policy is ‘legal and ethical’, few appear well placed to evidence compliance, and there are limited resources available to support value-adding policy cycle stages required to comply with regulator requirements. This session explores avenues for trans-Tasman policy borrowing, networking, and information-exchange to collaboratively face these regulation-driven institutional policy challenges.

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.

The machinations of Australian universities are revealed in complex delegations of authority documentation, including university foundation and delegated legislation (such as statutes and regulations), comprehensive suites of university policy and records of governing body decisions. The key role of delegations as university governance instruments is supported by the requirement in the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) Threshold Standards that financial, academic and managerial delegations be documented, observed and reviewed. Delegations documentation embodies university decision-making structures, reflects university meta-policy and is detailed to the extent that university policy is developed and implementation-oriented. The paper is based on document analysis of Australian university’s publicly available, internet-based delegations documentation, and will be supported by member checking as a form of validation. The paper explores how universities frame delegations through legislation, policy and registers, and identifies key underpinning delegations principles.  The paper explores the scope and categories of delegations, and relationship with university industrial instruments and finance policies. The paper provides a preliminary benchmark against which sector compliance with TEQSA delegations Threshold Standards can be considered. The paper concludes by presenting a series of features and approaches supportive of increased transparency in university decision-making.

This paper presents the outcomes of web‐based research examining 16 Australian and New Zealand University Policy Frameworks. The research explored the various ways in which Australasian Universities articulate University Policy Frameworks (through Policy on Policy, or ‘meta‐policy’ statements and other mechanisms), and undertake policy development and review. The paper explores the hierarchical relationships between governance and policy instruments, approval authorities and University policy scope. The paper examines various Australian University Policy Cycle models, including those identified as ‘value adding’. The paper explores policy promulgation methods including Policy Websites and Policy Repositories, and examines the range of tools available to support the Policy Cycle. The role of ongoing monitoring and evaluation is examined, and policy review mechanisms to support continuous policy ‘quality’ improvement. The research suggests some key criteria for the quality management of University Policy Frameworks from an Australasian, cross‐Tasman perspective.

This presentation was given at the the Internship Summit 2022 - International Internships (19 May 2022). It discusses research undertaken regarding opportunities to progressively scale participation and investment in cross-border internships with countries targeted for bilateral engagement. It presents models developed within the context of the Australia-India relationship that may appeal to other jurisdictions. These models extend existing approaches to internships by applying them to a cross-border context. The models include: − domestic and international students undertaking extracurricular activities with peers in target countries (credit bearing and not); − online internships with host organisations from target countries located in Australia and offshore; − placement-based internships with host organisations from target countries in Australia; and − offshore placement-based internships in target countries for domestic and international students enrolled in Australia. These models emerged as the COVID-19 pandemic saw international borders close, learning and work pivot online, and access to traditional internship models closed off. As higher education institutions adapt, recover and embed emergency preparedness and response strategies, these models aim to increase opportunities for students of one jurisdiction to learn with industry and peers overseas. Our research elaborates new ways to navigate barriers to participation and provides good practice advice to institutions interested in building crossborder internships.

This presentation introduces a diagnostic instrument for higher education in emergencies. It draws on research conducted over the period 2020-2021 regarding response and recovery phases in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic; an emergency which Auld et al. (2021) assessed as a super wicked problem.  In discussing this framework, the presentation comprises four parts. First, I start by sharing some of my preliminary thoughts from March 2020 on potential responses by higher education institutions. Second, I present the key findings of a virtual network established in April 2020 to discuss university decision-making and institution-level policy change. Third, I introduce our Higher Education in Emergencies Domains (HEED) framework (Leihy et al., 2022) developed to explore higher education emergency response, recovery, prevention, and preparedness phases. Fourth, using this framework as scaffolding, I highlight some matters the COVID-19 pandemic brought into sharp relief to illustrate the benefit of broad-ranging analysis. I conclude by highlighting our choices going forward: learn from the past, or not.

This paper was presented as part of the webinar series for the international Public Policies Investigators consortium, 22 October 2021. It examines research conducted on qualifications recognition governance, including the emergence of qualifications recognition conventions, research findings and myths uncovered. It concludes by identifying opportunities to maximise recognition of students learning outcomes and qualifications.

This presentation was given at the Policy Seminar held at the Australian Catholic University (ACU), Sydney, Australia, for the Association for Tertiary Education Management (ATEM). It provides an introduction to global trends in higher education to contextualise institutional policy systems, and discusses the implications arising from increasing student numbers, the drive for excellence in innovation and research, government policy shifts, and the role of policy in steering staff practices, objectives and aspirations. In closing, it discusses the key elements of emerging university policy systems, with an example provided of KFUPM.

This is a presentation given by Brigid Freeman (University of Melbourne) and Kerrie Henderson (University of Sydney) to the Understanding the Sector: Practical Complaint and Misconduct Handling: Policies, Systems and People seminar held by the Association for Tertiary Education Management on 8th March 2019 at the Australian Catholic University in Sydney, Australia.

This is a professional development presentation given at the Association for Tertiary Education Management (ATEM) Institutional Policy Seminar at the Australian Catholic University (ACU), North Sydney, 26th October 2018. Presentation by Brigid Freeman and Kerrie Henderson.

This is an invited presentation for the Japan Association for Higher Education Research (JAHER) 2017 International Session: Academic and social assessment of research activities and outputs and their impacts. This session was held at Tohoku University in Sendai, Japan on 27 May 2017.

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.

This paper has been developed to guide a professional development exercise for the Association for Tertiary Education Management (ATEM) Developing Policy in Tertiary Institutions seminar. It focuses on the policy cycle employed by tertiary sector institutions to develop institutional policy. It is timely to revisit this issue in light of emerging requirements of the Tertiary Education Quality Standards Agency (TEQSA) regarding policy development, benchmarking, implementation, evaluation and review. The University of Melbourne Policy Development and Review Cycle is used as an organising construct to explore stages of an elongated, comprehensive policy cycle. This policy cycle includes: identification and confirmation; preliminary consultations; drafting; benchmarking; consultation; revision; compliance checking; endorsement; approval; communication and publication; implementation; implementation and compliance monitoring; implementation evaluation; triennial review. Following the lead of others in examining reasons for policy failure, this paper explores examples of poor policy practice in relation to various policy cycle stages. Revisiting the policy cycle will position policy practitioners and stakeholders to more ably implement institutional policy projects.

This paper has been prepared to stimulate discussion with staff from the University of Auckland, University of Waikato, University of Otago and Waikato Institute of Technology (Wintec), with a view to establishing a dialogue about tertiary sector institutional policy. The issues raised draw on recent university policy presentations (Freeman, 2012a; Freeman, 2012b; Freeman, 2010) and the Policy without (much) pain (Aitken et al, 2010) better practice guide to institutional policy, and reflect discussions generated through Association for Tertiary Education Management (ATEM) initiatives. ATEM is an Australasian association of tertiary sector managers from universities, institutes and associated bodies. ATEM Policy Development Forums and the Institutional Policy Network were founded by Mark Hatwell (Monash University) and Dr Kai Jensen (RMIT). The Institutional Policy Network membership comprises staff from 43 tertiary institutions in Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea, and the policy guide has been very broadly disseminated. Issues canvassed in forums have included: compliance, policy culture, policy human resources, policy and administrative law, scanning and gap analysis, meta-policy (Dror, 1971) (or ‘policy on policy’), policy repositories, models of policy development, managing feedback, student-related policy, implementation, communication, training and delegations of authority.

Australian universities have established corporate and academic governance systems and sophisticated suites of documentation to govern academic and administrative operations. This includes legislative instruments, strategic plans, university meta-policy, policy instruments and delegations of authority registers. Such policy and strategy is influenced by Commonwealth government higher education reform, as evidenced by the introduction of the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) and Threshold Standards. This paper examines the research methods to be used to explore Australian processes underpinning university policy and strategy development and review. These methods involve a sequential exploration strategy (Cresswell, 2003) including qualitative research (document analysis, ongoing validation through member checking, semi-structured interviews and data analysis) and quantitative research (survey and data analysis).

This presentation is a professional development exercise focused on university policy review for Association of Tertiary Education Management (ATEM) policy practitioners.  The presentation poses a series of questions: What is university policy? What is policy review? What is policy evaluation? Why is policy review an important contemporary issue for university managers? How are universities grappling with this issue? This presentation is based on an examination of publicly accessible Australian university policies on policy (that is, meta-policy) including all Australian universities (40) from all states and territories. In addition, some examples are drawn from New Zealand and American university websites. The presentation provides a bank of policy review-related resources developed to collectively frame the policy review agenda, and concludes by raising some questions about the ‘elephant in the room’ – policy evaluation.

This presentation will introduce some basic information regarding university delegations of authority. Delegations policies, schedules and registers are some of the most important, but impenetrable suites of documents governing university operations. Policy practitioners regularly engage with delegations and must ensure that delegations embedded in formal policy statements mirror delegations in governance instruments. However, to do so requires an understanding of some basic definitions, an appreciation of the extent of the detail and a grasp of the fundamental delegations principles. This presentation defines ‘delegates’ and ‘delegations of authority’, and describes the process by which delegations are conferred on university staff and committees. It examines the scope and breadth of delegations by category, and explores some key underpinning delegations principles. This presentation is intentionally descriptive and therefore somewhat tedious. However, as delegations are inherently consequential for policy work, the objective of this presentation is to unravel some of the complexities inherent in delegations documentation for policy practitioners.

The University of Tasmania has recently undertaken a Review of the University of Tasmania Delegations Register to examine formal delegations of authority. The Review was triggered byrecurring questions regarding the accuracy, accessibility and scope of the existing Delegations Register and undertaken alongside significant governance reforms and management restructures.As such, a key objective of the Review was to capture existing good practice, and identify opportunities for improvement. The Review was undertaken internally by the Policy andDelegations Office of Governance and Legal, and involved a literature review, documentanalysis, interviews, workshops, benchmarking and consultation through the UTAS Policy Network. This paper is structured as a series of questions and answers to provide a snapshot of "who does what‟ in relation to key administrative matters at the University of Tasmania, exploredelegations of authority concepts and present proposed new arrangements for the University of Tasmania. Importantly, the proposed new documentation remains subject to both further staff andsenior executive deliberation and University Council approval. The Review highlighted keypoints of differentiation between delegations documentation and university policy statements, where "policy‟ is defined as “a statement of intent or principle which regulates, directs and controls University operations” (Policy Development and Review Policy, 2010). In terms of keylesson learned, the Review confirmed the importance of consulting people exercising delegations in order to ascertain and articulate "who (actually) does what‟ at an Australian university.Such consultation is almost imperative for implementation buy-in.

This paper explores Australian and New Zealand university policy websites and identifies bestpractice features deserving of attention through the awarding, today, of six Policy Oscars.This paper is one output from a University Policy Benchmarking Project. This project wasundertaken to: examine the state of policy and policy development in Australasian universities as reflectedthrough university websites; identify good practice exemplars and features; identify quality resources supporting the university policy development cycle; and establish models for university policy management.University policy development is a current and topical issue, and the research clearly revealed significant activity in this area amongst selected Australasian universities.

This is a professional development program delivered at the Australian Catholic University (9 June 2017) in Sydney, Australia. The target is Australian university policy managers and developers. The program was delivered for the NSW/ACT region of the Association for Tertiary Education Management (ATEM).

This is a professional development program delivered as an Aotearoa region event in Wellington, New Zealand in July 2016. The target audience included managers and policy practitioners from New Zealand universities, institutes of technology and polytechnics, and private training establishments.

This is a professional development program conducted at the Auckland University of Technology (Auckland New Zealand) on Friday, 13 November 2015 for the Aotearoa Region, Association for Tertiary Education Management). Developed by Brigid Freeman (Research Fellow, University of Melbourne and Australian Academy of the Humanities), the program was conducted with Dr Ineke Kranenburg (Academic Director, Tari Huataki Akoranga, Auckland University of Technology).

This is a professional development seminar for Australian higher education institution's managers and policy practitioners regarding institutional policy. The seminar was run by Brigid Freeman with Kathryn Blyth and Gerard Goodwin-Moore from the Australian Catholic University in Sydney, Australia.

More Australian students studying abroad likely to have flow-on benefits for export education sector. New research has found that more Australian students studying abroad would complement Australia's high inbound student flows, and, by increased reciprocity, help address perceptions of Australia's export education sector as highly transactional. But the report shows there are currently multiple barriers to learning outside Australia for students within Australia's VET and higher education system. The researchers specifically examined exchanges between Australia and India, with a special focus on work integrated learning (WIL), although many of the findings are expected to be applicable to exchanges with other nations.

While public policy and higher education more specically have been extensively explored in the scholarly literature, policy and policymaking at the higher education institution level has received scant attention. This presentation explores good practices in 'institutional policy' identied through research conducted in the United States and Australasia (Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea). Institutional policy is an important governance artefact enabling higher education institutions to articulate principles regarding academic and administrative operations and matters. The presentation explores the place and substance of institutional policy frameworks ('meta-policy'), the policy cycle, the emergence of comprehensive policy suites and attendant dissemination mechanisms, and policy infrastructure. It culminates in an examination of institution-policy related challenges experienced across numerous jurisdictions.

This study is contextualised by higher education policy reforms initiated three decades ago by the Hawke-Keating Labor Government under the leadership of John Dawkins, then Minister for Employment, Education and Training. The profound changes that these policy choices signalled have since become known as the Dawkins reforms. In a fiscally constrained environment, the Dawkins reforms aimed to improve the higher education system’s capacity to respond efficiently and effectively to Australia’s changing economic, social, and cultural conditions, as part of a broader economic reform agenda. Dawkins prescribed recasting the role of central and state governments, modernising the system structure, changing financial policies, expanding the student population, refocusing programs, and extending research capacity. At the institutional level, reforms foreshadowed included establishing more robust governance, management, and accountability practices. One of the fundamental objectives of the Dawkins reforms was a desire to drive the system towards greater diversity, with universities encouraged to forge their own teaching offerings and research specialisations. However, in recent years it has become clear that progress towards this goal has been at best limited. Indeed, universities appear to have converged their structures and disciplinary profiles, and key institutional practices. This has led policy researchers to suggest there has been a trend across the Australian higher education system towards isomorphism.

How might we understand and explain the extent and nature of this isomorphism? In the aftermath of Dawkins’ radical prescriptions for reform, extensive attention has focused on Australia’s shifting higher education policy settings and universities, including studies applying insights from new institutionalism. However, there have been only limited attempts to analyse institutional policymaking in Australian universities, despite extensive public policymaking research, as well as normative and ideology-focused studies analysing discrete academic and administrative institutional policies. There has also been only limited research analysing the mechanisms and processes instituted to govern, manage, develop, and review institutional policy, and the ways, if any, Australian university policy processes mimic particular public policy models, heuristics or theories. Furthermore, studies have yet to analyse the extent to which Dawkins’ promise of diversity has been realised within the domain of institutional policy, and whether institutional policy developments might potentially be a source of isomorphism.

To address these gaps in knowledge, I adopted an overall research design involving empirical mixed methods of qualitative and quantitative data collection (i.e., interviews, documents, and a survey), and thematic analysis. This study finds that despite Dawkins central promise of diversity, Australian universities show remarkable homogeneity in policy governance, policymaking processes reflecting the policy cycle heuristic, and key policy suite inclusions. Notwithstanding differences between universities with respect to the form and substance of individual policies, policy management models and technologies, this study finds that isomorphism is expressed in university policy governance and policymaking due to coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures exerted by government, system regulators and the policy practitioner professional network. Updated Threshold Standards and COVID-19 disruptions suggest imperatives for Australian universities to accommodate rapid policymaking and policy implementation evaluation to ensure robust policy governance and legitimacy.

This paper presents a Case Study of the amalgamation between the Australian Maritime College and University of Tasmania. The paper explores the nature, history, costs and benefits of higher education institutional mergers and identifies a range of 'success factors'. The Australian and Tasmanian educational landscapes and relevant Commonwealth Government policy context framing the amalgamation are examined. The paper examines steps leading up to, and factors motivating, the amalgamation between AMC and the University of Tasmania, including anticipated administrative efficiencies (able to be free-up funds for AMC's academic program), impending Commonwealth teaching and research funding cuts, failure to secure 'University' status, and changing corporate governance arrangements. The Case Study tracks and evaluates progress of a number of key amalgamation-related initiatives focusing on the institution's academic (Faculty/School/Centre) structures, research and research training, governance and administrative structure. The evaluation suggests that AMC, in resisting change to their academic structure and program, sacrificed their assets, administration and expertise without truly exploiting a potentially invaluable opportunity.