Applying a democratic evidence-based decision-making model: a case illustration of policy development at an Arab University

ABSTRACT

This case study explores the potential for democratic governance in state-regulated Arab higher education systems focusing on institutional committee members’ adoption of deliberative, empowered and participatory evidence-based decision-making practices while engaged in university policy development. Amidst a landscape characterised by the forces of globalisation and internationalisation, coupled with an intensifying focus on quality assurance and accreditation that increasingly shape governance structures, this research examines decision-making at the practical micro-level within an Arab State institution. This university, mirroring others in the Gulf Cooperation Council region, functions within a largely centralised political system where government bodies exert substantial influence. By presenting an illustrative case of grassroots democratic evidence-based decision-making during committee members’ formulation of a new institution-wide policy, this study aims to partially bridge the conceptual and applied research void. It delves into the opportunities and challenges of practicing shared, evidence-based decision-making in multiplex universities operating within characteristically state-regulated, management-centric political contexts.

KEYWORDS:

• Evidence-based decision-making
• democratic governance
• university governance
• higher education policy
• Arab higher education

Introduction

Over the past century, the focus of higher education has expanded well beyond the development of reasoning and philosophical inquiry to the preparation of individuals with academic and professional skills for employment. This has further evolved in the past decades to incorporate civic knowledge, skills, and values, particularly in Western University systems where such institutions are believed to be conduits of political orientations and democratic values (Benson et al., 2007; Boyte & Kari, 2000; Kołczyńska, 2020). Reflective of this is the American Council on Education and Campus Compact declaration signed by over 500 presidents of U.S. colleges and universities, iterating the imperative role of higher education institutions in fostering democratic citizenship and participatory decision-making among learners. In Europe, the Bologna Process 2020 Report (European Education and Culture Executive Agency EECEA, Eurydice, 2020) highlights the social dimension of higher education quality, prompting institutions to demonstrate commitment towards ‘developing policies that encourage and support higher education institutions to fulfil their social responsibility and contribute to a more cohesive and inclusive society’ (p. 91). Studies which assess linkages between education systems and citizenship demonstrate a positive correlation between schooling and active citizenry and, in contexts of democratic orientation, increased levels of congruence between individual values and the governing system are evident (Kołczyńska, 2020). As such, in the Western context, universities are increasingly expected to play a more prominent role in preparing graduates to be civically engaged to apply democratic practices within their employment and social contexts. This preparation can be effectively facilitated by embedding and modelling participatory governance in the operational ethos of universities, enacted through democratic engagement while providing service to the university community.

Pivoting from examining higher education’s expanded civic and democratic mission, our focus narrows to a pragmatic exploration within the unique educational and governance environment of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) within the Arab States. In this investigation, we delve into our firsthand experiences as members of a policy committee in a national, state-funded university in the GCC to closely examine the grassroots-level deliberative, participatory decision-making practices we engaged in against a governance backdrop characterised by democratic deficit. Our analysis is rooted in a critical engagement of the internal decision-making structures and authority-levels we embraced whilst serving in a committee established by the President, to shed light on how such approaches to authority distribution and collaborative, deliberative decision-making can pave the way for implementing participatory governance frameworks traditionally dominated by hierarchical practices. This study gains particular relevance as Arab higher education sectors, notably within the GCC, undergo transformative reforms, driven by integration into global knowledge networks and increasing conformity with Western accreditation norms. We start by dissecting democratic governance principles in the university setting and establish a critical link to evidence-based management to lay the groundwork for an in-depth exploration of grassroots governance practices’ role in this rapidly evolving educational environment.

University governance in the GCC

Recent studies have shed light on the transformation that higher education governance has undergone under socio-political and paradigm shifts, and as universities have evolved from institutions for the select elite, to ones open to the masses who increasingly expect responsiveness and accountability. Understanding that governance and decision-making in universities and colleges are characterised by various elements and are impacted by multiple factors which include power structures, management models, strategic and operational processes (that either enable or thwart particular types of governance), the nature of stakeholder and beneficiary groups, along with an institution’s mission and mandate – the complexity and shifting trends of decision-making structures become apparent (Bleiklie & Kogan, 2007; Costandi et al., 2018; Gumport, 2000).

Looking more closely within the Arab region, we find that the predominant role occupied by public higher education institutions is one of state agency with centralised decision-making and curtailed self or ‘civil’ governance solely aimed at fulfilling government direction based on political and economic agendas (Costandi et al., 2018; ElAmine, 2018). The university of focus in this analysis – described further in the ensuing sections – is not a public but a private non-profit institution, one that is, however, funded by the government. The university reflects characteristics of both the state model and the self-governance model – having visible independent governance mechanisms in place, such as various strategic and operational committees comprised of academics and staff, while simultaneously reflecting centralisation in Board-level determinations and resolutions that at times override committee level decision-making, resulting in ambiguity of the level, location, mode, and influence of governance and a perceived delegitimisation of localised consultation and participatory decision-making. This imparts what Costandi et al. (2018) have summarised, where ‘power has become centralised while discretion and responsibilities have become decentralised’ (p. 74). This juxtaposition underscores a critical tension within the university’s governance structure, where the pursuit of localised empowerment through participatory, inquiry-based decision-making is at odds with overarching centralised controls. The extant literature on governance within Arab universities remains sparse, highlighting the pressing need for this relatively underexplored area of inquiry to be carefully studied. Where studies exist in this domain, there appears an acknowledgement of governance characteristics such as high centralisation, with state authorities wielding substantial influence over institutional administration, often through appointed supreme councils. A pertinent example is Remache’s (2019) analysis of Al Ain University in the UAE, where central governance from its inception in 2004 led to the rapid turnover of university presidents within just six years. In light of evolving national reform strategies within the GCC under pressures of globalisation and economic diversification, there has been a discernible shift to re-evaluate internal structures and governance models from models of state dominance towards a framework allowing for increased transparency, accountability and nimbleness – ultimately to elevate the global stature of these universities and meet student needs in a crowded, increasingly-competitive higher education sector. Specifically, Remache’s study illustrates Al-Ain University’s endeavours to address governance by decentralising decision-making, with greater allocation of shared responsibilities and the restructuring of communication pathways to effectively distribute decision-making responsibilities among the various internal groups. The author states, ‘connecting the governance structure and practice to the Ministry’s Standards for Institutional and Program Accreditation [sought to] pave [the] way to a new model of governance with a resulting positive effect on the constituencies’ organisational commitment and organisational performance. The idea is for colleges, departments, centres and units to start sharing responsibility and to influence decisions on major strategic issues’ (p. 1051). This shift towards open and shared governance at Al-Ain University reflects a broader movement within the GCC to reformulate university decision-making, especially amidst a growing, globally-sensitive, and arguably increasingly Western, footprint.

The GCC’s university governance shifts are evident through the recent establishment of long-term national development strategies which prioritise education reforms within an environment of rapid social and economic transformation. Nurturing knowledge-based and diversified economies have played a central driver in these changes, with ‘world-class’ and ‘first-rate’ being common aspirations for revamped education systems. To achieve these objectives, many GCC countries have identified mechanisms to reach these goals such as through the development of social responsibility, where the [UAE], Ministry of Education National Consultations Report (United Arab Emirates UAE Ministry of Education [MOE], 2022) for example, explicitly outlines new measures that ‘dismantle the hierarchal structure of schools’ and the establishment of ‘new higher education governance structures’ (p. 15). Moreover, in the UAE’s National Strategy for Higher Education 2030, institutionalising and ensuring transparency of reporting is emphasised (United Arab Emirates [UAE], Ministry of Education [MOE], 2017). Similarly, Qatar’s National Development Strategy 2024–2030, which encompasses education, identifies ‘strengthening decision-making capabilities and accountability’ through enhanced governance structures and more transparent reporting (p. 29). Thus, these strategic shifts reflect a high-level of receptivity to shared, participatory approaches in the place of traditionally centralised exclusionary decision-making.

As academic researchers and practitioners, we undertook this study into micro-level decision-making using an evidence-based approach to better understand how deliberative, empowered and participatory democratic governance could be enacted within a complex university structure that reflects aspects of centralisation, leading to some gaps in democratic processes. It is important to note here that universities in the Arab States are not alone in their treading on a contested terrain of governance. European institutions have encountered wide-sweeping calls for increased democratic decision-making on policy development (Classen & Duwell, 2015). Hence, this exploration resonates within the broader challenges faced by universities globally and scrutinises governance dynamics within Arab universities due to their being notably under-researched.

Having broadly and quite selectively defined university governance structures, along with a more context-specific look within the GCC, we next turn to examine with greater detail the key principles of evidence-based decision-making and their application within higher education contexts.

History and key principles of the evidence-based model

Evidence-based Management (EBMgt), adopted from Evidence Based Medicine (EBM), emerged in the late 1990s and is a ‘professional form of managerial practice’ that utilises a decision-making model (Rynes et al., 2014, p. 305). To understand the origins of EBMgt, one must examine the definition of Evidence Based Medicine, which is ‘the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions … ’ regarding the care of individual patients (Sackett et al., 1996, p. 71). Evidence Based Medicine is a process that utilises the best available research evidence, clinical expertise, and the patient’s preferences (Haynes et al., 2002; Sackett et al., 1996). The approach is a shift from authority-based to evidence-based medical practice and shared decision-making with patients. Due to the ever-increasing need for professional accountability, Evidence Based Medicine has been adopted in allied professions such as nursing, psychology, and social work and is known as Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) (APA Presidential Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice, 2006; Gambrill, 1999; Melnyk et al., 2000).

As a result of the utility of evidence-based approaches, Pfeffer and Sutton (2006) and others adapted Evidence Based Medicine to the field of management. EBMgt is defined as utilising a ‘combination of critical thinking, and the best available evidence’ in decision making, which includes a) scientific evidence and is traditionally defined as ‘scientific research’ outcomes; b) experiential evidence, also known as practice experience and wisdom of practitioners; c) organisational evidence or information and data from the organisation, and; d) Stakeholder evidence including organisational values and stakeholders’ concerns (Barends & Rousseau, 2018; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006). It is noteworthy to emphasise that these evidence-based approaches do not simply consist of taking an intervention, strategy, or practice that has been deemed as a ‘best practice’ or ‘evidence-informed’ and using that as the sole solution or intervention. Instead, there are decision-making steps within all of the evidence-based approaches (EBMgt, EBM, EBP), which typically entail six explicit steps: 1) Asking: identifying a problem and translating it into an answerable question; 2) Acquiring: systematically searching for four types of evidence; 3) Appraising: critically appraising the evidence for relevance; 4) Aggregating: collecting and weighing the evidence; 5) Applying: integrating and applying the evidence in the decision-making process 6) Assessing: evaluating the outcome of the decision (Barends et al., 2014; Morrell & Learmonth, 2015).

The absence of EBMgt in higher education governance

The integration of EBMgt into healthcare has demonstrated significant benefits, including increased managerial accountability, enhanced patient safety, and financial effectiveness as highlighted by Walshe and Rundall (2001) and McLarty and McCartney (2009). This success suggests that EBMgt could similarly improve decision-making, accountability, and outcomes in higher education. Yet, research on EBMgt’s application in this sector, particularly regarding governance, remains sparse. Waal and Kerklaan (2013) argue that for higher education to excel, it must adopt EBMgt to bolster decision-making capabilities at all levels of leadership, moving well beyond a sole focus on improving teaching quality. However, the sector has historically undervalued administrative leadership and its impact on overall university and societal impact, compared with research and teaching. This devaluation is accompanied by a stigma against transitioning into leadership roles, suggesting a hesitancy within academic to adopt EBMgt within academia (Gonaim, 2016), with Bernal and Apa (2018) describing the transition from academic to leadership positions in universities as ‘leaving the light’.

EBMgt offers a transparent, democratic alternative to traditional authority-based management in academic governance, emphasising evidence over hierarchy and engaging stakeholders in the decision-making process. This approach promotes transparency, stakeholder engagement, and the use of the best available evidence, addressing the limitations of authority-based models prevalent in Arab higher education institutions (Barends & Rousseau, 2018; Gambrill, 2006). Transitioning from entrenched authoritarian systems to evidence-based practices presents challenges, as these systems, we argue, are deeply embedded in the culture of state-agent Arab universities. Nonetheless, recognising the value shift could pave the way for transformative change in governance and decision-making practices, especially at a critical time when GCC and other Arab States are engaged in system-level education reforms, with increased sensitivity to governance structures.

University case study background: evidence-based management at an Arab higher education institution

Given the dearth of research into the tangible application of EBMgt within higher education institutions in the Arab States, towards a broader goal of increased deliberative, participatory democratic governance, an illustrative case study from the points of view of the authors/committee members was utilised for this investigation – captured in our conscious practices whilst serving on a diversity policy development sub-committee. According to Epler (2019), the illustrative case study approach may be employed when describing the application of theory; as such, this methodological vehicle presented the implementation of a democratic decision-making model stemming from critical, social justice, and evidence-based management theoretical foundations. This reflective method also provided an avenue to further conceptualise the understudied realm of democratic governance in Arab higher education institutions – a befitting approach given that the work centred on the development of a diversity policy. Where the policy we were actively constructing sought to promote equality, enhance representation and inclusion, and cultivate an environment of open dialogue and mutual respect – particularly in contexts marked by difference – we were especially attuned to embracing and enacting practices that included a wide range of perspectives and strengthened cohesion in transparent ways. Transitioning from a reflective examination of democratic governance within a policy development setting to an illustrative case, we observe the application of these principles in one GCC higher education institution.

The university, located in the GCC, was founded in 2017 as an independent, non-profit graduate institute offering master’s and doctoral-level programmes in almost thirty social science, humanities, and business disciplines. As a sister organisation to a pre-existing research and policy studies centre, the university was borne out of a vision to prepare Arab scholars and practitioners to become adept at critically analysing and responding to the complex socio-cultural, political, economic, and humanitarian needs of the region. Moreover, it was instigated to remedy the jarring deficit of Arab scholarship in disciplines within social sciences and humanities and public administration. Rather than achieve this by partnering with an existing accredited university in a satellite/branch campus model – as commonly practiced in the GCC especially with Western partner institutions – the founders sought to initiate a small, selective university based on an interdisciplinary curricular approach situated within the Arab experience and research lens. We note this here to highlight that the institution did not formally adopt an existing Western-style governance model, as is often the case with branch or satellite campuses in the Arab region but constructed its decision-making framework by adopting a selection of practices from a range of accessible socio-culturally and politically-informed models.

The university, having secured national licensure and accreditation, has secured international accreditation for several of its twenty programmes. Structured as a not-for-profit, self-governing private institution, it is worthwhile to note that it is governed by a board of trustees with at least one high-ranking government official from the figurative and bureaucratic centre of the state, which dually provides a hundred percent of the university’s operating budget. The university’s executive leadership, the University Council, includes the president, executive director, and deans, and is supported by a faculty senate tasked with evaluating and suggesting academic policies and programmes. Moreover, the university’s day-to-day and strategic decisions are facilitated by various committees, composed of both academic and non-academic members, designed to promote a self-governance model (see Table 1). However, despite the structured framework intended to delineate clear scopes and decision-making powers, the actual practice of democratic governance, in terms of authority and accountability, remains opaque. Illustrative of this are decisions impacting the larger campus community that are more-often issued as memos or directives with little to no activation of existing committees or transparent deliberation that leverages evidence-based approaches.

Table 1. University governance.

Within this setting, the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC), whose composition reflected diverse academic and administrative voices, was convened under presidential directive to establish a university diversity policy, in direct response to an accreditation requirement from a western-based agency. The IEC, comprised of academic and administrative staff, convened to address the creation of a Diversity Policy at the University, a move prompted by accreditation requirements requiring a clear definition of the university’s commitment to diversity across various aspects such as race, ethnicity, religion, social status, abilities, intellectual ideas, political perspectives, and values. A specialised Diversity Policy Subcommittee, formed from IEC’s existing members with expertise in policy drafting and insights into diversity at local, regional, and global levels, was established, incorporating several key directors, one academic, and an invited student representative who was also a citizen of the country.

Methodology

Our methodology involved applying Barends et al. (2014) model of evidence-based management, which includes the six steps of asking, acquiring, appraising, aggregating, applying, and assessing to enact, reflect on, and evaluate the set of governance and decision-making procedures we followed as a policy-drafting committee. In recognising the mixed governance model of the university, having elements of both self-governance and state-governance, we were dissatisfied with solely using an EBMgt model that did not also simultaneously address critical aspects of university governance, such as participatory, liberatory, deliberative and transparent approaches. In order to apply a functional model that addressed decision-making based on sound evidence while dually being sensitive to avoiding practices that reproduce power imbalances, we adapted the evidence-based decision-making model to incorporate contemplative, emancipatory, justice-affirming principles to be able to study how our work could expand participatory democratic processes in university governance. From the onset of the committee work, we consciously sought to enact inclusive, localised, and evident decision-making; immediately following the study we set out to examine the process of countering the potential effects of centralised decision-making. Rather than perpetuate or reproduce institutional interpellations, we strove to assume a role of agency in establishing shared, empowering, decision-making.

The following table illustrates our merged approach to local governance in a democratic-deficit higher education context, combining evidence-based decision-making (Barends, et al., 2014) and empowered, participatory democratic governance (Fung & Wright, 2003; Edwards, 2010) (see Table 2).

Table 2. Democratic evidence-based decision-making model.

In this case illustration, which maintained high fidelity due to the authors’ direct involvement in this governance work, we examined archival data from the committee’s policy development process. This data, stored in an electronic folder accessible to all committee members, included documents such as meeting minutes, policy drafts, and reference documents to enable transparent and collective deliberation and authorship of the policy. The careful review of documents was accompanied by a series of scheduled reflective debriefing sessions that sought to capture participants’ views on the evidence-based deliberative, participatory approaches tested during the policy-drafting.

Adhering to a six-step methodology proposed by Barends et al. (2014), modified to explicitly align to empowering democratic participatory practices at every phase, the study sought to investigate the potential for thoughtful and deliberative integration of stakeholder voices and carefully curated evidence to confirm the extent to which balanced, transparent, localised, and emancipatory decision-making practices could be modelled in a centralised, democratic-deficit context. It was implicitly understood that crafting an organisation-wide policy would require practices informed by what EBMgt has adopted from EBM (Barends et al., 2014) and is the ‘conscientious, explicit and judicious use of the best available evidence from multiple sources’ (Sackett et al., 1996, p. 71) – with an initial source of evidence imparted by member expertise based on formal education and field practice.

Results

This section presents the findings of the research study, which applied EBMgt principles adapted to include participatory, deliberative emancipatory approaches in the generation of a comprehensive diversity policy within a university framework.

Step 1 Asking

The initial step to evidence-based decision making is the foundation of the process and involves translating a need, issue, or problem into an answerable question (Barends et al., 2014). From an empowered, participatory democratic governance perspective, this phase prompted us to question how our work could address possible equity gaps and/or power imbalances and how our decision-making processes could facilitate consultation and participation from all representative groups. As such, our inquiry was on both form and purpose. While undertaking this work, we were especially mindful of balancing power, in the sense of activating the authority of all committee members to inform university policy. We were mindful of localising the inquiry – the formulation of a diversity policy – as closely as possible to the institution’s and constituents’ needs.

The process of developing a diversity policy for the institution emerged from first asking Why do we need a diversity policy? and What do we want to see occur within the institution as a result of this policy? This entailed the committee determining the need that had to be met, upon which decisions would be taken. We asked, Whose voices needed to be included in the policy drafting process? From a social justice, liberatory perspective, the inclusion of diverse voices in the process was a deliberate attempt to reduce centralisation and dominant voices from drowning those of minority, historically silenced members of the community. From a diversity standpoint, it was important to investigate the decision from various perspectives while keeping the stakeholders and country context in mind. Reflecting equitable and shared governance approaches in the work itself was a priority in the development of the policy.

Step 2 Acquiring

After the posing of a practical question, the next phase included systematically searching for and finding evidence related to the query (Barends et al., 2014) that is, diversity policy articulation in higher education. We were cognisant that such an undertaking could come with implicit biases where ideological selections of knowledge from dominant frameworks could supersede other less dominant forms (Apple, 2004). We embarked on collecting evidence based on scientific, experiential, organisational, and stakeholder values and concerns from local, regional, and international sources. This involved accessing national and international standards and frameworks related to diversity, keeping in mind contextual socio-cultural factors. In the acquisition process, it became crucial for committee members to create a common platform for equitable and easy accessibility for all members so that the evidence itself was shared. We understood that remedying a democratic deficit required us to intervene in accepted norms that gave way to authority-based decision-making, and to employ modest means for resistance to non-democratic practices towards transformation at the most basic and accessible levels. To this end, a digital folder was created on the intranet, with co-ownership and accessibility provided to all members of the committee. Consequently, this allowed every member, regardless of their position within the university or level of expertise to actively engage with, scrutinise, and assess the gather evidence, making the acquisition stage a collective and transparent effort.

Step 3 Appraising

The appraisal step involved analysing and judging the evidence for its applicability, relevance, and trustworthiness (Barends et al., 2014). As in the previous step, committee members were careful not to disproportionately favour evidence from Western universities, often regarded as epistemologically superior. We curtailed the urge to model the policy exclusively on Western models, opting to appraise a diverse array of samples, particularly those from institutions sharing our academic mission and socio-cultural context. The sub-committee gathered information through a lens that encompassed local, regional, and global, dimensions. The meticulous appraisal process itself required us to be cognisant of the various stakeholders, including students, academics, employers, the public/local community, and regulatory/accrediting bodies. By prioritising context-relevant evidence, we sought to demonstrate our sensitivity to the needs and impacts on those directly affected by the policy decisions.

Step 4 Aggregating

This step involved consolidating all collected evidence to facilitate its comprehensive evaluation (Barends et al., 2014) and was undertaken by the sub-committee by categorising the evidence according to region and policy goal. We considered Western institutions with branch campuses as well as national, home-grown universities, public, versus private to ascertain the socio-cultural influences behind those diversity policies (conservative, liberal, etc.). During the aggregating phase, we carefully weighed the evidence and had dynamic discussions about the evidence we should include and exclude, being mindful of providing substantial leverage to evidence from less dominant frameworks. This careful selection process was guided by a commitment to uplift expertise (as ‘evidence’) from marginalised voices, including those from within the institution which were often overlooked or silenced.

Step 5 Applying

Subsequent to the above-noted steps, this next phase involved applying the evidence within the decision-making process (Barends et al., 2014) which, within the committee’s work, involved drafting the diversity policy based on the work of the previous phases, and in such a way as to have it reflect the needs of its target beneficiaries. The sub-committee integrated the policy components and relevant stakeholder values to draft an institution-relevant policy, deciding on the scope, articles, owners, and consumers of the policy. All members contributed according to their area of expertise, and thus power and leadership were distributed (Bolden, 2011). In the practice of empowered democratic governance, balancing power asymmetries is a priority, as is active and vocal ‘citizenry’ (Edwards, 2010). To activate this, our subcommittee met regularly and allowed each member to share their input, even when views were disparate. For instance, some members believed the diversity policy should be limited in scope to visible and demographic-related diversity, while others felt strongly that the policy should include academically-related matters such as respect for intellectual and research diversity. The subcommittee further embarked on consulting others within the academe who would be directly affected by the policy and its scope, in the spirit of ensuring that other members’ voices within the institution were invoked.

Following the subcommittee’s completion of the draft, our chair forwarded it to the IEC committee for an initial evaluation, providing a summary of the gathered, appraised, and synthesised evidence, and detailing the frequency and objectives of our meetings to ensure a unified understanding of the university’s diversity commitments in the proposed policy. The chair highlighted the diverse skill sets within the subcommittee, emphasising the deliberate transparency of our process.

Following initial feedback from the co-chairs, the subcommittee chair distributed the policy draft to the IEC for additional comments. We iteratively refined the draft, reassessing evidence and stakeholder perspectives, and logging all feedback. Subsequent group discussions led to a revised draft, incorporating relevant feedback while excluding suggestions outside the policy’s scope or beyond our capacity, with justifications provided for such decisions. The chair then sought the subcommittee’s unanimous approval before presenting the final version to the President, accompanied by a summary of the inclusive and transparent evidence-based processes we employed. This approach emphasised our commitment to participatory decision-making and challenged the traditional governance model normally practiced at our university that excluded stakeholders or shrouded decisions in ambiguity.

Step 6 Assessing

The final step included evaluating the outcome of the decision(s) (Barends et al., 2014) which took place as a review of our own policy drafting process and its outcomes. The sub-committee engaged in a detailed assessment of whether the diversity policy sub-committee achieved its intended objectives, focusing on ensuring appropriate representation of its beneficiaries, the adoption of transparent and inclusive information-gathering, and participatory evidence appraisal methods. This evaluation was crucial for affirming the work’s effectiveness in embodying the very principles of equity and inclusion that we aimed to promote.

Members of the sub-committee reflected on how the policy drafting process reflected a level of sensitivity to open and consultative approaches that surpassed traditional institutional approaches, leading to a more inclusive and representative policy drafting process. Key to this assessment was the recognition of how the process successfully interrupted prevailing institutional practices that historically leaned towards exclusion and centralised, authority-driven decisions. In its post-drafting debriefing, the sub-committee highlighted several factors that contributed to its successful execution: (a) Localised influence: Tailoring the policy to the specific context and needs of the institution’s stakeholders. This took place through adapting researched best practices as suited to the local context; (b) Equal Distribution of Power: Distributing power and leadership across sub-committee members so that no single perspective dominated the policy formulation. This was manifested by sharing information-gathering duties and providing equal voice to all members; (c) Extensive Deliberation: Thoughtful, inclusive deliberation was adopted by the sub-committee even when members had divergent opinions, creating a ‘comfort zone’ for contention when it arose and resilience in negotiating shared understandings; (d) Open Evidence Sources and Dialogue: Open channels of communication and in the making of evidence sources accessible established a more equitable space for decision-making.

In reflecting on the policy drafting process, the sub-committee observed a departure from conventional institutional methods, one that achieved a more inclusive, open, and consultative approach. This was evident to us in the way the processes we followed actively countered historical institutional tendencies towards exclusion and rapid, centralised decision-making.

The success of this approach was attributed to several key elements: adapting best practices to our unique context, ensuring no single viewpoint dominated by evenly distributing power among members, fostering a space for thorough, inclusive deliberation, and maintaining transparency through open access to evidence and reflective, non-combative dialogue.

This approach received unanimous praise from the IEC, with commendations from the dean and chair for the sub-committee’s ‘open and inclusive process’ and positive acknowledgments from other members on the effective use of diverse evidence. This feedback, alongside the Board of Trustees’ approval of the policy, underscored the sub-committee’s success, setting a precedent for future committee endeavours. Our case thus illustrates the potential of integrating evidence-based decision-making with principles of emancipatory, empowering governance, to offer a replicable model for enhancing shared, localised and liberatory decision-making in higher education.

Discussion

The aim of this paper was to present a successful case example in which academics and administrators leveraged an opportunity for participatory empowerment in decision-making within an Arab higher education institution operating within a region exhibiting democratic deficit. We presented how we took incremental steps towards inclusionary evidence-based approaches and emphasised the need for a bi-fold model that infuses both empowered democratic participation and evidence-based decision-making understanding that they are a powerful combination that can counter authoritarian practices. A shortfall of empowered participatory governance that Edwards (2010) notes is that it is prone to the shortcomings of democratic deliberation. For example, an authoritarian leader may attempt to implement democratic practices such as voting by consensus to appear that he is utilising a participatory approach or even actually attempting to adopt a new approach; however, even if consensus is reached, there is no assurance the decision is logical, valid, or appropriate for the circumstances. To reduce this potential, and achieve our goal of an emancipatory decision-making method, we applied evidence-based decision-making as a specific process within an empowered participatory technique. Blending these approaches at micro-level work could prevent potential pitfalls of functioning under one model.

The overall process illustrated in this case study took about four months, which some may consider time-consuming and a barrier to implementation – especially when juxtaposed with centralised, authority-based practices that seek to ‘short-cut’ decision-making with the goal of expedition and efficiency. Some administrators might try to expedite processes by sole authoring ready-made policy documents that they expect would be immediately approved by a committee to be forwarded to upper management for consideration. A mentoring approach, in those instances, could include showing appreciation for the colleague’s effort but helping them understand the accountability consequences and the utility of engaging the committee stakeholders in the process. We contend that regardless of a higher education institution’s governance model, there exists some room for academics and administrators to exercise agency at lower and more localised levels. Furthermore, members of a university community can be prompted to understand that empowered participatory decision-making processes – while consuming more time for dialogue and deliberation – are critical mechanisms for modelling accountability and good citizenship. After all, the bulk of an academic’s time is spent implementing precise methodologies in research and teaching with an expectation of quality outcomes for all involved.

In reflecting upon this case study, our analysis did not specifically focus on student involvement in the participatory process. Yet, we align with evidence-based principles and believe students are valued stakeholders at higher education institutions and should be informed and involved. There are generative effects in modelling and involving students in these processes. A principle of empowered participatory governance consists of inclusive stakeholder participation from all arenas (Edwards, 2010). The Bologna Process and other large-scale higher education institution initiatives emphasise or even mandate student participation in university governance. The higher education institution, in this case, had started a new initiative driven by the institutional accreditation process to involve students in university-level committees. Therefore, as noted earlier, a student was invited to serve on the larger committee.

Governance structures on paper may be practiced quite differently on the ground, especially in the Arab world. We recommend that it is essential to be more conscious of how to infuse evidence-based participatory methods in practical ways to influence higher education institution governance structures positively. This could include additional attention to student and community involvement. We encourage academics to be aware of governance structures, think deeply, and consider how those structures and practices allow or permit certain voices while excluding others. Then it is essential to deliberately resist the temptation to fall into the habits of following standard authoritarian practices that manifest as marginalisation and hegemony that isolates and disempowers. From a critical, emancipatory perspective, acting upon this awareness is a form of resistance. We can promote transparent and distributed decision-making that leads to governance reforms from ‘the bottom-up’ through micro level endeavours through everyday actions in university committees.

Building on the insights garnered from this reflective exercise in which we leveraged the room for empowered participatory practices, it next becomes imperative to discuss how such local methods can be accepted and sustained, especially amidst potential resistance. An incremental approach such as the one we employed can gently shift institutional culture towards appreciating the merits of the inclusivity and accountability inherent in participatory processes. By underscoring the inclusivity and transparency of democratic evidence-based decision-making in this applied model, and leveraging the localised autonomy of academics and administrators, we believe that institutions can demonstrate the social justice and practical benefits of participatory practices. This endeavour aligns with the nurture of a culture that prioritises accountability and models exemplary citizenship and likewise advocates for a critical examination of existing governance structures within state-regulated universities in the GCC by focusing on self-empowerment for collective empowerment. Furthermore, promoting transparent and distributed decision-making can initiate grassroots governance reforms, entrenching them into the institution’s foundation. We suggest that such practices can champion a gradual but transformative shift towards governance models that are responsive to the academic community and reflective of the emerging changes in globalisation and international knowledge systems.

Conclusion

In this paper, we presented an illustrative example of evidence-based, empowered democratic decision-making at a higher education institution in a regional context characterised by democratic deficit. As committee members tasked with drafting a diversity policy for our university, we took deliberate steps to adopt transparent, evidence-informed practices that sought to resist power imbalances and increase transparency, dialogue, and inclusion. Within our immediate span of control, we employed practices that resisted perpetuating disparity in access to information and lack of transparency in the setting of a policy purpose and structure. In this manner, we undertook what Edwards (2010) refers to as ‘relocating the level and location at which decisions are made’ (p. 111). Understanding that university governance is a contested terrain that has and continues to undergo significant shifts towards centralisation and market-models (Dobbins, 2011), much to the consternation of its academics and students, we believe it is imperative that academic and other staff employ inclusive, transparent practices which seek to build shared decision-making that is especially attuned to social equity. Higher education institutions can continue to play a role in modelling good citizenship and democratic stewardship when its members make concerted efforts and take deliberate actions towards transparent, just-oriented practices.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Open Access funding provided by the Qatar National Library.