424
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Education Policy

Monitoring and evaluation implications of the 2014 regulations for reporting by public higher education institutions in South Africa

Article: 2302580 | Received 30 May 2023, Accepted 02 Jan 2024, Published online: 22 Jan 2024

References

  • Boughey, C., & McKenna, S. (2021). Understanding higher education: Alternative perspectives. South Africa.
  • Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  • Council on Higher Education. (2013). A proposal for undergraduate curriculum reform in South Africa: The case for a flexible curriculum structure. Council on Higher Education.
  • Department of Education. (2001). The national plan for higher education. Department of Education.
  • Department of Higher Education and Training. (2013). Report of the ministerial committee for the review of the funding of Universities. Department of Higher Education & Training.
  • Department of Higher Education and Training. (2014). Regulations for reporting by public higher education institutions in South Africa. Department of Higher Education & Training.
  • Department of Higher Education and Training. (2015). Planning and reporting template for 2014 regulations for reporting by public higher education institutions in South Africa. Department of Higher Education & Training.
  • Department of Higher Education and Training. (2020). Ministerial statement on the implementation of the university capacity development programme. Department of Higher Education & Training.
  • Donaldson, S. I. (2007). Program theory-driven evaluation science. Lawrence.
  • European Commission. (2013). Evaluation sourcebook. European Commission.
  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and 'Mode 2' to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
  • Hood, C., & Peters, G. (2004). The middle aging of new public management: Into the age of paradox? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267–282. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh019
  • Ile, I., Eresia-Eke, C., & Allen-Ile, C. (2012). Monitoring and evaluation of policies, programmes and projects. Van Schaik.
  • Nkonki-Mandleni, B. (2021). Monitoring and evaluation for university–community impact in driving transformation agenda. South African Journal of Higher Education, 37(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.20853/37-1-5679
  • South Africa Government. (2007). Policy framework for government-wide monitoring and evaluation. The Presidency.
  • South African Government. (2012). National development plan 2030. The Presidency.
  • Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.2307/3381236
  • Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. Connell, A. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 65–92). The Aspen Institute.