Modelling Teachers Accountability in the Higher Educational Institutions Using Decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory Approach

Abstract

This article aims to identify teachers’ accountability in the context of higher educational institutions (HEIs). Most of the literature has used student-oriented outcomes as basic building blocks of accountability. This article contributes to the literature by gauging teachers’ perceptions in conceptualising accountability in the HEIs. Indicators of accountability have been identified from the literature. Decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method has been used to explore the nature of interrelationships among these indicators. Results reveal that accountability indicators have varying impact and some of these indicators have cause and effect type of relationship among them. The article underscores the role of performance-based accountability system (PBAS) which will help in assessing and evaluating teachers in the HEIs. It is argued that accountability strengthens the autopoietic nature of the HEIs and enables underlying knowledge generation and dissemination processes. Using accountability indicators, teachers can self-assess their performance and adapt to evolving needs of students, businesses, and societal stakeholders. The relationships among accountability indicators can be used by policymakers to steer the HEIs.

Keywords

Accountability performance evaluation decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory performance-based accountability system autopoietic

Introduction

Higher education has emerged as a key growth catalyst in the overall development of the economies globally. It is defined as a level of education that is provided by universities, vocational universities, community colleges, liberal arts colleges, institutes of technology and other collegiate level-institutions, such as vocational schools, trade schools and career colleges that award academic degrees or professional certifications. Higher quality education has been a major issue that many economies are dealing to cope with. With regard to this, governments are making efforts to support teaching and research not only with allocation of funds but also by engaging funding agencies, research laboratories and other actors in the knowledge co-creation processes (Goertz et al., 2001; Slaughter & Cantwell, 2012). In the current environment of shrinking public funds and increasing tuition fees, a sense of urgency has emerged to track the performance of higher educational institutions (HEIs) in the hope that their costs can be managed without compromising quality or accessibility (Tahar & Boutellier, 2013). Metrics ranging from graduation rates to costs per student have been developed to gauge the performance of the HEIs; however, the capacity to assess the performance of the HEIs remains challenging. Nonetheless, during the last few decades, many policy initiatives have been undertaken to address accountability in the HEIs (Huisman & Currie, 2004). Accountability means the justification of an activity; it means proving, in the most efficient manner, responsibility for the performance of certain results.

In the context of public services including the HEIs, accountability has been a widely used term and primarily expressed through external quality processes. However, it is a term that is rarely explicitly defined in the literature (Leveille, 2005). Accountability, which is closely related to evaluation of efficiency, effectiveness and performance, requires proving that higher education has achieved planned results and performance in an effective manner. Highlighting efficiency and effectiveness and emphasising results and outcomes are the basic characteristics of accountability in higher education. Accountability in higher education includes such elements as the rational use of resources, provision of evidence, evaluation of evidence, attaching importance to costs and effectiveness and improving the education process (Grath, 2018; Huisman & Currie, 2004; Kai, 2009).

In the HEIs, various mechanisms of accountability hover on teacher’s qualifications, recruitment process, and peer review (Kniola, 2013). Accountability depends on complying with standards of practice as well as on professional interactions with colleagues, students, and other educational stakeholders (Leithwood, 2005). It is also closely related to evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness of performance of all the stakeholders involved. In the past two decades, higher education accountability has witnessed rapid development and has become an important policy measure in many developed and developing economies for administering higher education. There have been studies reported in literature which showcase the adaption of accountability phenomenon in the operational higher educational system of the nation. To substantiate this, authors such as Avalos (2004), Jansen (2004), Kleinhenz and Ingvarson (2004), Morris (2004), Vidovich et al. (2007), Suspitsyana (2010) and Conway and Murphy (2013) have elucidated the use of accountability construct in Chile, South Africa, Australia, Hong Kong, China, USA and Ireland’s higher education systems, respectively. They have explained that the incorporation of accountability construct in the system has led to better performance of the stakeholders and also resulted in improved student outcomes. A major research gap that has been traced by the researchers is the relatively scant research on employee-level accountability in the higher education system. So, the main unit of this study is higher education teachers’ perception. Another gap that was identified was that globally, this construct has spread to a great extent but in the Indian conditions, where still accessibility and affordability are prime concerns of the system, accountability has been reported in a very primitive form. Therefore, this study tries to explore accountability construct within the domain of Indian higher education system.

Accountability in HEIs is a multidimensional construct and involves stakeholders such as policymakers, governing bodies, teachers, students, recruiters and parents, and each stakeholder varies in their perceptions of accountability. For some, accountability is just sharing responsibility, while for others, it is a tool to measure effectiveness of performance (Alexander, 2000). This article aims to explore the role of accountability measures in affecting teachers’ performance as well as enhancing effectiveness. The unit of analysis is teachers of the Indian HEIs. The research questions are: What are the various indicators of accountability? and How are these indicators related to each other? Indicators of accountability have been derived from literature on accountability. Interrelationships among these indicators have been derived using the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method. DEMATEL method was originally developed by the Science and Human Affairs Program of the Battelle Memorial Institute of Geneva between 1972 and 1976 to study and resolve the complicated and intertwined problem group (Warfield, 1976). DEMATEL method could improve comprehension of a specific as well as a cluster of intertwined problems and contribute to identification of workable solutions by a hierarchical structure (Tzeng et al., 2007). Unlike traditional techniques, such as the analytic hierarchy process, which assume that elements are independent, this method, one of the structural modelling techniques, can identify the interdependence among the elements of a system through a causal diagram. The causal diagram uses digraphs rather than directionless graphs to portray the basic concept of contextual relationships and the strengths of influence among the elements.

Findings of the article will help policymakers to infuse accountability in the HEIs. Subsequent sections of the article deal with literature review, methodology, results, discussions and conclusions.

Review of Literature

The main objective of this study is to find out a cause-and-effect relationship between the indicators of accountability. Therefore, before going to the quantitative analysis, it is necessary to explore the literature qualitatively for the concept of accountability. Gay et al. (2009) state that, “qualitative research seeks to probe deeply into the research setting to obtain in depth understanding about the way things are, and why they are that way, and how participants in the context perceive them.” It was therefore important to identify studies that applied the qualitative approaches to try and understand how accountability leads to a developed education system. So, in this part of the study, a brief overview about the concept of accountability in higher education has been elaborated.

Accountability in Higher Educational Institutions

Accountability refers to setting responsibility for achievement of performance (Romzek, 2000). Accountability in the HEIs refers to aspects such as professional, bureaucratic, test- and performance-based, consequential, and result- or outcome-based (Anderson, 2005; Epstein, 1993; O’Day, 2002; Stetcher & Camm, 2010). Professional accountability demands that teachers answer to their professional peers and stakeholders in accordance with adherence to professional standards (Anderson, 2005). Major academicians have linked accountability to the context of goal setting theory. Goal setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1991) states that contingency of goal characteristics such as difficulty, attainability, specificity, feedback and acceptance accountability is expected, which can then be operationalised and used to produce better outcomes at work. Therefore, it can be adjudicated with this linkage that level of individual accountability helps in intensifying the state of goal attainment in the system.

Education is an intricate activity and its accountability depends on professional competence such as specialised knowledge and skill sets (O’Day, 2002) and its successful operationalisation such as teaching quality. Accountability refers to defining standards of practice and complying with them (Maile, 2002). Accountability in the HEIs is gaining importance due to rising fees, disappointing retention and graduation rates, poor learning, and lack of employability skills (Leveille, 2005). Accountability in the HEIs engenders public trust and contributes towards the well-being of the society (Cheng & Tsui, 1997). Therefore, the HEIs are under increasing scrutiny with respect to what they do, how well they do it, and at what cost. Accountability culminates into sustainability of standards (Lewin et al., 2011); therefore, it has become a global concern (Locke and Latham 1990).

New Public Management and Accountability

Evolution of knowledge societies, increasing competition, increasing population and economic meltdowns had necessitated reform in the HEIs (Dobbins et al., 2011). Governments are facing budgetary restrictions and thus, are adopting policies of liberalisation and privatisation to govern the HEIs (Broucker & Wit, 2013; de Boer et al., 2009) and using markets as a coordination mechanism (Middlehurst, 1997). These reforms aim to enhance the efficiency and the effectiveness of HEIs. With roots in neo-liberalism, the new public management (NPM) has become a general approach to governance and management in the public sector (Goedegebuure & Hayden, 2007). The changing patterns of HEIs have led to a new wave of NPM, which incorporates performance targets and quantifiable outputs. NPM had been blended with the construct of managerialism in order to gain control over activities of HEIs. The focus on accountability has grown with NPM and led to the emergence of performance indicators for HEIs (Broucker & Wit, 2013).

Marketisation and Privatisation in Higher Educational Institutions and Accountability

Neoliberal approaches, fast technological changes and marketisation have resulted in evolution of the HEIs similar to privatisation of businesses (Jayasuriya, 2015; Kalfa & Taksa, 2016; Lo, 2016; Olssen, 2016). Competition among the HEIs necessitates enhanced sense of responsibility among their stakeholders, and accountability has become a central mechanism for instilling efficiency (Slaughter & Cantwell, 2012).

Changes in Patterns of Funding

In the context of HEIs, prolonged economic crisis and economic disruptions have resulted in altered patterns of funding. Stakeholders are demanding value for money, accountability, quality and efficiency. HEIs are responding by adopting neoliberal approaches and incorporating autonomy for meeting the criteria of stringent assessments (Hillman et al., 2014; Jayasuriya, 2015; Middlehurst, 1997).

Changing Role of Governing Bodies

Changing patterns of funding and adoption of market-based approaches have resulted in public–private partnership-driven approaches for shaping governing bodies of the HEIs (Muffo, 1992). These shifts are translating into institutional autonomies and process-based monitoring. HEIs are aligning their purposes with demands of the stakeholders (Hudson, 2006; Jayasuriya, 2015; Lo, 2016; Magalhães et al., 2013; Norris, 2014; Saito and Van Cappelle, 2010). However, the modified relationship between emerging governing bodies and the HEIs has led to the accountability paradox.

Internationalisation of Higher Education

HEIs are becoming more international and are operating in the global marketplace, which has resulted in massification of higher education (Tahar & Boutellier, 2013). Advances in technological know-how require creativity and innovation, which in turn requires more cross-border collaborations (Marginson & Rhoades, 2002). This raises many cross-cultural issues, which in turn require greater emphasis on accountability.

Accountability in the HEIs involves interactions among stakeholders at the individual level as well as the institutional level for delivery of knowledge as per the standards of the society (Cleven et al., 2017). In this sense, accountability steers stakeholders to bear the responsibility of their actions so as to raise the level of their work and bring a holistic improvement in the educational outcomes (Marginson, 2013; Sin & Amaral, 2017).

Shifting Role of Accountability

Accountability in the HEIs involves the interaction among various stakeholders at the individual level as well as the institutional level for delivery of knowledge (Simpson, 2002). Accountability steers various stakeholders towards achievement of educational outcomes and attainment of social goals (Huisman & Currie, 2004; Marginson, 2013). In order to be responsible and accountable, teachers should provide more information about their standards, work and decision-making (Cheng & Tsui, 1997). Accountability results in the dissemination of information and changes in attitude (Cleven et al., 2017; Frink & Ferris, 1998). Involvement of teachers in setting accountability norms results in effective learning and meeting student expectations (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002).

Students’ increasing expectations and evolution of digital platforms for delivery of education are changing the teacher-centred service delivery. Students are now considered as active participants and co-creators of knowledge (Hartley et al., 2016). Teachers’ role is changing from transferor of knowledge through effective transmission of information to a facilitator who is enabling students to construct knowledge (Muffo, 1992) and make learning possible (Goedegebuure & Hayden, 2007). Students use their initiative, skills and experience in solving real-life problems and to develop solutions with the help of peer-to-peer interactions and tutor support (Earl, 1995; Edwards, 1991). In the process, students become reflective, adaptable and develop employability-linked competencies.

Therefore accountability emerges as a complex concept involving different participants and various facets of interaction. Accountability presumably causes the participant in the educational act to sense the responsibility of their actions and to raise the level of their work so as finally to bring about an improvement in the learning outcomes of the student. This improvisation is regulated by the effectiveness of teacher’s performance (Hassanpoor et al., 2012), which is proportional to the level of accountability a teacher caters to his/her work. Hereby, this research predominantly focuses on teachers’ viewpoint to model the indicators of accountability in the higher education system.

Historical Perspectives of Accountability

The term “accountability” has been used extensively in education and government (Kogan, 1988; Maile, 2002). Accountability involves a complex array of relationships and requires effectiveness in accountability policies (Leithwood, 2005). Public and private actors are grappling with issues of legal and formal accountability measures (Kniola, 2013). Governments, markets and the HEIs are working together to set goals for enhancement of performance in terms of efficiency, service and professional standards (Hartley et al., 2016). The concept of accountability has its own evolutionary history and following are some of formative models of accountability.

Browder, Atkins and Kayo Model (1974): It uses 12 elements referred as critical elements which were divided into 4 phases. This model was easier to understand and encouraged community and staff involvement in the areas of need assessment and goalsetting.

Levin’s conceptual framework (1974): This model recognised the need of political reforms for instilling accountability. The components of accountability have been conceptualised in terms of establishment of constituencies, goals, political processes and outcomes; formulation and communication of objectives; production of educational services; evaluation of outputs of education; and provision of feedback to educational administrators and policymakers.

Demont and demont action model (1975): This model incorporated accountability into an organisational model to permit systematic scrutiny and revision of educational programmes. This model was intended to address the question of an improved educational product and problem-solving strategies appropriate for the developmental needs of the staff.

Kogan’s model of accountability (1988): Kogan’s model involves accountability modes of public or state control and professional control such as participatory democracy and market mechanisms. Accountability challenges require reflection and analysis through linkages of various accountability proposals to normative political theory and subsequent analysis of values, effect and structure of knowledge.

Lundgren’s model for governing education and accountability (1990): This model illustrates four models for the governance of education. Its purpose is to provide a way to analyse evaluation issues in a decentralised context. It highlights the interrelationship between political and professional power in education.

Simkins model of accountability (1994): This model envisages educational reforms that embody an attempt to improve education through changing power relationships within the system. This model divides reforms into four categories: professional, managerial, political and market-oriented. The model emphasises the extent to which all four models are legitimised by different ideologies and the degree to which they are competing for dominance.

Mawhinney’s monitoring framework (1995): This model was developed as a heuristic to frame the issues and questions identified in research and policymaking as critical components of accountability systems. This framework identified two dimensions of policy actions and outcomes as a way to analyse whether the systems of regulations initiate and sustain a process for improvement or whether they represent a minor revision of existing systems.

Maheu’s model (1995): The model provides an example of a simple and systematic input, process and output accountability model for organising indicators. Result indicators are the most important, although they are derived from predetermined objectives, as they are developed from existing data on graduation rates, access to higher education and entry into workforce.

Macperson’s community development model (1996): This model arose from research on teachers’ policy preferences concerning accountability. It outlines a six-step planning process and also includes a higher degree of teacher involvement. It is cyclical in nature and represents a form of responsive accountability in which professional educators make substantive decisions about the educational environment.

Leveille model of accountability (2005): This model is the most recent one and incorporates the modern contexts of accountability. It is based on cultural perspectives, trust issues and transparency-related issues. It encompasses all the stakeholders of the higher education.

Performance-based accountability systems (2010): Performance-based accountability systems (PBAS) arise when there is acknowledgment that there exists a problem or deficiency in services or outcomes. Due to deficiencies in services, stakeholders might demand for changes through PBAS.

Table 1.

Accountability Indicators.

Accountability Indicators	Authors
P1. Feedback and performance evaluation	Browder and Atkins (1974), Church (1995), Leithwood (2005), Hout and Eliott (2011), Sosibo (2013).
P2. Timely monetary requirements	Levin (1974), Cornwall (1999), Maile (2002), Lewin et al. (2011)
P3. Training opportunities and growth	Demont and Demont (1975), Macperson (1996), Koretz (2002), Marope (2005).
P4. Relevant planning of curriculum	Browder and Atkins (1974), Cornwall (1999), Maile (2002), Leithwood (2005)
P5.Provision of grants and sponsored projects	Edwards (1991), Earl (1995), Goertz et al. (2001), Jaafar and Earl (2008), Hout and Eliott (2011)
P6. Knowledgeable and urge to teach	Simkins (1994), Maheu (1995), Macperson (1996), Hendry and Dean (2002), Leithwood (2005), Stetcher and Camm (2010)
P7. Number of research publications	Cornwall (1999), Goertz (2001), Maile (2002), O’Day (2002), Leveille (2005), Ramirez and Tiplic (2014).
P8. Well defined goals and objectives	Browder and Atkins (1974), Levin (1974), Church (1995), Goertz et al. (2001)
P9. Participation in administrative decisions	Demont and Demont (1975), Simkins (1994), O’Day (2002), Jaafar and Earl (2008), Hout and Eliott (2011)
P10. Modern technology awareness	Macperson (1996), Cornwall (1999), Koertz (2002), Jaafar and Earl (2008), Hout and Eliott (2011)
P11. Communities of practice and sense of professionalism	Goertz et al. (2001), Cobb (2002), Wilensky et al. (2004), Leveille (2005).
P12. Fair recruitment procedures	Simkins (1994), Cornwall (1999), Maile (2002), Jafaar and Earl (2008), Hout and Eliott (2011)
P13. Incentives, recognition and collaborations	Maile (2002), Koertz (2002), Marope (2005), Stetcher and Camm (2010)
P14. Strict adherence to policies	Edwards (1991), Earl (1995), Goertz et al. (2001), Leveille (2005)
P15. Adequate availability of material and resources	Levin (1974), Simkins (1994), Church (1995), Maile (2002), Jaafar and Earl (2008).

Source: The authors.

Based on the ensuing discussion, the accountability in the HEIs depends on self-awareness (Kogan, 1988) and the way teaching resources are being operationalised. Overall accountability in the HEIs depends on a set of indicators which are described in Table 1.

Research Methodology

In line with Yin (2011), the HEIs are taken as a real-world setting to identify interrelationships among various indicators of accountability. Literature on accountability is used to identify indicators and in development of theoretical frames for subsequent analysis. Perceptions of the HEIs’ teachers and administrators are taken as units of analysis. The sample frame comprised of teachers working in the Indian HEIs such as the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), Indian Institutes of Information Technology (IIITs), National Institutes of Technology (NITs), Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs), State Universities, Central Universities, Private Universities and Medical Universities. Initially, 107 teachers and administrators have been contacted through e-mails, and 49 valid responses were received, of which 43 were usable. Purposive sampling approach was used and response rate was 40 per cent. Following (Neuman, 2003) the DEMATEL method has been used to identify interrelationships among indicators of accountability in real-world scenarios of the Indian HEIs. The analysis is from the perspectives of teachers. The adequate sample size for use of DEMATEL method has been in the range of 8–45 (Hu et al., 2015; Ranjan et al., 2016). The data have been collected from August 2018 to December 2018. Table 2 depicts respondent’s profile. MATLAB 13 has been used for data analysis.

Table 2.

Respondent Profile (N = 43).

Respondent Classification	Description
Gender-based responses	Male—25 (58%); female—18 (42%)
Age group	40–45 years—21 (49%); 45–50 years—10 (23%); >50 years—12 (28%)
Qualification of the respondents	All the respondents were doctorates
Experience	>15 years—24 (56%); 10–15 years—19 (44%)
Number of publications	10–30 Publications—24 (56%); 30–50 publications—10 (23%); >50 publications—09 (21%)
Types of education institutes	State universities—8 (19%); central universities—12 (28%); private universities—7 (17%); IITs/IIITs/NITs/IIMs—15 (36%)
Stream-based responses	Engineering—12 (28%); medical—4 (11%); law—3 (6%); architecture—(2%) Science—5 (14%); arts—7 (17%); management—9 (22%)
Region-based response	North—14 (33%); South—12 (28%); East—3 (8%); West—3 (8%); Central—9 (22%)

Source: The authors.

DEMATEL results have been juxtaposed with insights derived through qualitative interviews. The purpose of qualitative interviews has been to supplement the results of the DEMATEL visual map. These interviews have been performed during November and December 2018. Respondents of these interviews have been directors, deans and professors of the top-ranking Indian HEIs. The issues of discussion have been accountability, governance, competition, fund generation, emerging technologies, employability of students, industry-oriented curriculum, stakeholder satisfaction, globalisation of education, etc.

In the literature, DEMATEL method is used to derive interrelationship among indicators through a visual representation—an individual map of the mind by which the respondent organises the priorities (Lin & Lin, 2008). The causal diagram uses digraphs to portray relationships and the strengths of influence among indicators (Tzeng et al., 2007). The steps of the DEMATEL analysis are as follows:

Step 1: Calculation of average matrix

Each expert was asked to view the degree of direct influence between two factors based on pair-wise comparison. Measurements have been taken on a 5-point scale, where 0 indicates no influence and 4 indicates very high influence. Data resulted in 36 matrices from which direct influence matrix was calculated. Average matrix (A) is calculated (Sumrit & Anuntavoranich, 2013) as follows and results are depicted in Table 3.

z_{i j =} \frac{1}{m} \sum_{i = 1}^{m} x_{i j}^{k}

Step 2: Normalise the average matrix (Z)

Average matrix is normalised to obtain the direct relation matrix (D). The calculation of D matrix is as follows and results are depicted in Table 4.

_{D = \frac{A}{m}}^{m = \min \frac{1}{max \sum_{j = 1}^{n} d_{i j},}, \frac{1}{max \sum_{j = 1}^{n} d_{i j}} m = [\frac{1}{36.1944}, \frac{1}{37.0000}] m = \frac{1}{37.0000}}

Step 3: Total relation matrix (T)

The total relation matrix (T) is calculated in the following manner and the results are depicted in Table 5.

T = D {(I - D)}^{- 1}

Step 4: Calculate the threshold value (α)

The threshold value of 1.3334 is obtained by computing the average of elements in matrix T. If values in matrix T are greater than threshold value, then those indicators have cause-and-effect relationship and if the values are somewhere equal, then those indicators have a mutual interaction with each other (Wu, 2012).

Step 5: Row and column sum and difference (r, c, r + c, r − c)

In the total relation matrix, the sum of rows and the sum of columns are calculated and represented by values r and c after which r + c and r − c are calculated. These r + c and r − c values are used for interpretation of results. The values r + c represent the total effects both given and received by the corresponding indicators, whereas r − c values indicate the net contribution of the corresponding indicator on the whole system (Sumrit & Anuntavoranich, 2013). Table 6 depicts row and column sum and difference values.

Step 6: Impact-diagraph map

The impact-diagraph map is plotted on the basis of r + c and r − c values, but the direction of arrows is determined from the total relation matrix (Yang et al., 2008). Figure 1 shows the impact-diagraph map, which depicts the cause–effect relation of indicators.

Results and Discussion

The impact diagraph showing cause-and-effect relationship among indicators of accountability suggests that indicators operate in an interactive manner. The values of r + c and r − c have been used for assessing impact of indicators on each other. The higher value of r + c indicates greater impact of associated indicator. The indicators in decreasing order of impact are knowledgeable and urge to teach (P6); participation in administrative decisions (P9); incentives, recognitions and collaborations (P13); communities of practice and sense of professionalism (P11); modern technology awareness (P10); fair recruitment procedures (P12); feedback and performance evaluation (P1); number of research publications (P7); training opportunities and growth (P3); strict adherence to policies (P14); provision of grants and sponsored projects (P5); relevant planning of curriculum (P4); timely monetary requirements (P2); well-defined goals and objectives (P8); and adequate availability of material and resources (P15). “Knowledgeable and urge” to teach is the most important indicator and “adequate availability of material and resources” is the least important indicator. The indicator “knowledgeable and urge to teach” reflects teachers’ initiatives and commitment. Similar results are reported by Church (1995), Cornwall (1999), Huisman and Currie (2004) and Jayasuriya (2015). Teachers are the central actors of the HEIs, and their involvement in planning and delivery helps in leveraging given resources and addressing contextual challenges (Hassanpoor et al., 2012). Indicators “incentive,” “recognition” and “collaborations” are determinants for accountability (Hudson, 2006; Huisman & Currie, 2004), which result in a sense of responsibility and satisfaction. The positive r − c value represents cause group indicators, whereas the negative r − c values represent the effect group indicators. Table 7 depicts the summary of r − c values.

Table 3.

Average Matrix (Z).

Indicators of Accountability	P1.	P2.	P3.	P4.	P5.	P6.	P7.	P8	P9.	P10.	P11	P12.	P13.	P14.	P15.
P1.	0	2.8056	2.4444	2.1111	2.3889	2.7778	2.5556	2.4444	2.6944	2.6389	2.5000	2.7222	2.4167	2.3839	2.4167
P2.	2.2500	0	2.6944	2.6111	2.7222	2.7778	2.3611	2.1111	2.8333	2.4722	2.5556	2.5556	2.7222	2.2500	2.1667
P3.	2.3056	2.5833	0	2.4167	2.6389	2.7778	2.7222	2.3383	2.4722	2.5556	2.7500	2.6111	2.5000	2.7222	2.3611
P4.	2.6667	2.4167	2.6389	0	2.5000	2.3333	2.5278	2.0558	2.8611	2.3611	2.5556	2.2778	2.7500	2.7500	2.7222
P5.	2.2778	2.7778	2.5556	2.4444	0	2.3333	2.2778	2.3889	2.6111	2.6389	2.5556	2.8611	2.4167	2.2778	2.3056
P6.	2.6389	2.3889	2.5833	2.7222	2.6389	0	2.8333	2.5833	2.8611	2.6944	2.6667	2.7500	2.5833	2.6389	2.4167
P7.	2.4722	2.5556	2.3056	2.9444	2.2778	2.2500	0	2.2778	2.8333	2.4722	2.7778	2.4167	2.7222	2.5833	2.5278
P8.	2.6111	2.5000	2.2222	2.4722	2.6667	2.5556	2.5556	0	2.2500	2.2500	2.7778	2.3611	2.8611	2.3889	2.2500
P9.	2.9167	2.6389	2.5000	2.5000	2.3611	2.8611	2.4167	2.4167	0	2.1111	2.4722	2.5556	2.8333	2.4444	2.5556
P10.	2.6389	2.4167	2.3333	2.5556	2.1944	2.6667	2.4722	2.5278	2.8333	0	2.6111	2.3611	2.2500	2.7222	2.3333
P11.	2.5000	2.7222	2.2778	2.3333	2.6111	2.5000	2.4444	2.3333	2.7222	2.5278	0	2.3333	2.6944	2.5833	2.4444
P12.	2.2500	2.2500	2.7222	2.5000	2.6389	2.2778	2.4444	2.6944	2.4722	2.4167	2.6667	0	2.8056	2.3889	2.5000
P13.	2.5000	2.3056	2.3889	2.6111	2.8611	2.6667	2.6389	2.4722	2.7222	2.1667	2.6667	2.6389	0	2.5278	2.3333
P14.	2.7222	2.1944	2.5833	2.6389	2.7500	2.6944	2.8333	2.4722	2.4444	2.6944	2.2778	2.7222	2.0556	0	2.4444
P15.	2.7222	2.4167	2.5000	2.5556	2.4167	2.5000	2.2778	2.2500	2.0833	2.4722	2.3889	2.7222	2.4722	2.1944	0

Source: The authors.

Table 4.

Direct Relation Matrix (D).

Indicators of Accountability	P1.	P2.	P3.	P4.	P5.	P6.	P7.	P8	P9.	P10.	P11	P12.	P13.	P14.	P15.
P1.	0	0.0758	0.0661	0.0571	0.0646	0.0751	0.0691	0.0661	0.0728	0.0713	0.0676	0.0736	0.0653	0.0646	0.0653
P2.	0.0608	0	0.0728	0.0706	0.0736	0.0751	0.0638	0.0571	0.0766	0.0668	0.0691	0.0691	0.0736	0.0608	0.0586
P3.	0.0623	0.0698	0	0.0653	0.0713	0.0751	0.0736	0.0631	0.0668	0.0691	0.0743	0.0706	0.0676	0.0736	0.0638
P4.	0.0721	0.0653	0.0713	0	0.0676	0.0631	0.0683	0.0556	0.0638	0.0638	0.0691	0.0616	0.0743	0.0743	0.0736
P5.	0.0616	0.0751	0.0691	0.0661	0	0.0631	0.0616	0.0646	0.0706	0.0713	0.0691	0.0773	0.0653	0.0616	0.0623
P6.	0.0713	0.0646	0.0698	0.0736	0.0713	0	0.0766	0.0698	0.0773	0.0728	0.0721	0.0743	0.0698	0.0713	0.0653
P7.	0.0668	0.0691	0.0623	0.0796	0.0616	0.0608	0	0.0615	0.0766	0.0668	0.0751	0.0653	0.0736	0.0698	0.0683
P8.	0.0706	0.0676	0.0601	0.0668	0.0721	0.0691	0.0691	0	0.0608	0.0608	0.0751	0.0638	0.0773	0.0646	0.0608
P9.	0.0788	0.0713	0.0676	0.0676	0.0638	0.0773	0.0653	0.0653	0	0.0571	0.0668	0.0691	0.0766	0.0661	0.0691
P10.	0.0713	0.0653	0.0631	0.0691	0.0593	0.0721	0.0668	0.0683	0.0766	0	0.0706	0.0638	0.0608	0.0736	0.0631
P11.	0.0676	0.0736	0.0616	0.0631	0.0706	0.0676	0.0661	0.0631	0.0736	0.0683	0	0.0631	0.0728	0.0698	0.0661
P12.	0.0609	0.0608	0.0736	0.0676	0.0713	0.0616	0.0661	0.0728	0.0668	0.0653	0.0721	0	0.0758	0.0646	0.0676
P13.	0.0676	0.0623	0.0646	0.0706	0.0773	0.0721	0.0713	0.0668	0.0736	0.0586	0.0721	0.0713	0	0.0683	0.0631
P14.	0.0736	0.0593	0.0698	0.0713	0.0743	0.0728	0.0766	0.0668	0.0661	0.0728	0.0616	0.0736	0.0556	0	0.0661
P15.	0.0736	0.0653	0.0676	0.0691	0.0653	0.0676	0.0616	0.0608	0.0563	0.0668	0.0646	0.0736	0.0668	0.0593	0

Source: The authors.

Table 5.

Total Relation Matrix (T).

Indicators of Accountability	P1.	P2.	P3.	P4.	P5.	P6.	P7.	P8	P9.	P10.	P11	P12.	P13.	P14.	P15.
P1.	1.2845	1.3387	1.3227	1.3370	1.3522	1.3715	1.3457	1.2755	1.3787	1.3174	1.3735	1.3677	1.3673	1.3250	1.2889
P2.	1.3347	1.2611	1.3216	1.3146	1.3530	1.3642	1.3340	1.2607	1.3747	1.3064	1.3675	1.3665	1.3673	103148	1.2763
P3.	1.3583	1.3483	1.2756	1.3594	1.3735	1.3867	1.3649	1.2871	1.3889	1.3302	1.3948	1.3804	1.3846	1.3480	1.3022
P4.	1.3379	1.3157	1.3137	1.2689	1.3410	1.3469	1.3313	1.2529	1.3564	1.2973	1.3605	1.3432	1.3608	1.3200	1.2830
P5.	1.3218	1.3176	13051	1.3242	1.2706	1.3400	1.3185	1.2546	1.3555	1.2972	1.3538	1.3500	1.3464	1.3021	1.2666
P6.	1.4084	1.3853	1.3821	1.4086	1.4156	1.3595	1.4094	1.3327	1.4409	1.3744	1.4358	1.4262	1.4294	1.3874	1.3438
P7.	1.3503	1.3356	1.3222	1.3596	1.3526	1.3619	1.2840	1.2740	1.3848	1.3161	1.3829	1.3633	1.3775	1.3326	1.2946
P8.	1.3301	1.3115	1.2974	1.3252	1.3386	1.3456	1.3256	1.1942	1.3475	1.2884	1.3594	1.3387	1.3572	1.3051	1.2657
P9.	1.3673	1.3442	1.3335	1.3557	1.3614	1.3833	1.3522	1.2838	1.3205	1.3142	1.3826	1.3736	1.3870	1.3358	1.3015
P10.	1.3381	1.3164	1.3070	1.3342	1.3343	1.3555	1.3307	1.2649	1.3683	1.2379	1.3625	1.3457	1.3499	1.3200	1.2745
P11.	1.3380	1.3270	1.3090	1.3323	1.3476	1.3550	1.332	1.2634	1.3692	1.3051	1.3000	1.3486	1.3637	1.3199	1.2802
P12.	1.3315	1.3153	1.3189	1.3357	1.3478	1.3490	1.3327	1.2715	1.3625	1.3019	1.3669	1.2886	1.3659	1.3149	1.2810
P13.	1.3542	1.3332	1.3277	1.3552	1.3699	1.3752	1.3541	1.2821	1.3857	1.3124	1.3839	1.3723	1.3125	1.3347	1.2932
P14.	1.3603	1.3313	1.3330	1.3566	1.3678	1.3766	1.3595	1.2829	1.3799	1.3258	1.3756	1.3750	1.3659	1.2716	1.2966
P15.	1.3069	1.2839	1.2788	1.3013	1.3066	1.2932	1.2932	1.2272	1.3170	1.2686	1.3238	1.3211	1.3217	1.2751	1.1836

Source: The authors.

Table 6.

Values of Row and Column Sum and Difference.

Indicators of Accountability	Sum of rows (r)	Sum of Columns (c)	(r + c)	(r − c)
P1. Feedback and performance evaluation	20.0465	20.1222	40.1687	−0.0758	6
P2. Timely monetary requirements	19.9342	19.8653	39.7995	0.0689	12
P3. Training opportunities and growth	20.2828	19.7484	40.0312	0.5345	8
P4. Relevant planning of curriculum	19.8296	20.0955	39.9251	−0.2659	11
P5.Provision of grants and sponsored projects	19.7243	20.2327	39.9571	−0.5084	10
P6. Knowledgeable and Urge to teach	20.9395	20.3889	41.3284	0.5507	1
P7. Number of research publications	20.0921	20.0690	40.1611	0.0231	7
P8. Well-defined goals and objectives	19.7304	19.0073	38.7377	0.7230	13
P9. Participation in administrative decisions	20.1968	20.5305	40.7273	−0.3337	2
P10. Modern technology awareness	19.8399	19.5933	39.4332	0.2466	14
P11. Communities of practice and sense of professionalism	19.8922	20.5237	40.4158	−0.6315	4
P12. Fair recruitment procedures	19.8841	20.3509	40.2350	−0.4667	5
P13. Incentives, recognition and collaborations	20.1463	20.4572	40.6035	−0.3109	3
P14. Strict adherence to policies	20.1583	19.8071	39.9654	0.3512	9
P15. Adequate availability of material and resources	19.3268	19.2319	38.5587	0.0949	15

Source: The authors.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

Table 7.

Summary of r – c Values.

r – c Values	Associated Indicators
Indicator with highest degree of impact	Number of research publications (P7)
Indicator with lowest degree of impact	Communities of practice and sense of professionalism (P11)
Indicators in the cause group	Timely monetary requirements (P2); training opportunities and growth (P3); knowledgeable and urge to teach (P6); number of research publications (P7); well-defined goals and objectives(P8); modern technology awareness (P10); strict adherence to policies (P14); adequate availability of material and resources (P15)
Indicators in the effect group	Feedback and performance evaluation (P1); relevant planning of curriculum (P4); provision of grants and sponsored projects (P5); participation in administrative decisions (P9); communities and practice and sense of professionalism (P11); fair recruitment procedures (P12); incentive, recognitions and collaborations (P13)

Source: The authors.

Indicators P2, P3, P6, P7, P8, P10, P14 and P15 fall under the cause group, whereas P1, P4, P5, P9, P11, P12 and P13 fall under the effect group. The highest r − c value (0.0231) corresponding to indicator “number of research publications” has the highest degree of impact on each other. “Number of research publications” could be an effective measure of teacher’s performance. The research orientation nurtures quest towards exploration, creativity and innovation. The policymakers could focus on the cause group indicators to enhance the effectiveness of the HEIs. Interrelationships among indicators may facilitate framing of PBAS. It aims enhancing stakeholder involvement, developing set of goals, developing mechanisms for continuous improvement and achievement of goals (Anderson, 2005; Hendry & Dean, 2002; Stetcher & Camm, 2010; Wilensky et al., 2004). PBAS in the HEIs involves setting educational goals, developing programmes, defining roles and responsibilities (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002), delivering service and providing incentives (Stetcher & Camm, 2010). The primary goal of HEIs may be to attain improved student learning, improved graduation rates and enhanced employability (Dobbins et al., 2011; Kai, 2009).

Based on these results, thus it is inferred that teachers’ accountability in the HEIs requires a holistic orientation (Levin, 1974). A systematic approach needs to be followed wherein all stakeholders are considered to be part of a living system where accountability-driven roles and responsibilities nurture and facilitate effective knowledge creation and dissemination (Alexander, 2000). Enhanced teachers’ accountability through various performance measure indicators helps in creating enhanced learning outcomes in terms of higher enrolment rate and graduation rate and large number of research papers and patents (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002), thereby resulting in overall effectiveness (Milken, 2000; Seema et al., 2017). Teachers’ contribution to the HEIs gets enhanced when it is supported by input-level accountability indicators such as meeting timely monetary requirements, gaining access to training opportunities and growth, setting well-defined goals and objectives, being a part of communities and developing a sense of professionalism, following fair recruitment procedures and having adequate availability of material and resources (Broucker & Wit, 2013; Church, 1995; Cornwall, 1999; Jayasuriya, 2015).

Process-level indicators such as feedback and performance evaluation, relevant planning of curriculum, knowledgeable and urge to teach, participation in administrative decisions, modern technology awareness and adherence to policies contribute towards delivery of quality education, meeting student’s needs and providing satisfactory educational experience (Hillman et al., 2014; Pavicic et al., 2009; Trow, 1996).

Output-level indicators such as grants and sponsored projects, number of research publications, feedback and performance evaluation, incentives, recognition and collaborations contribute to the development of performance-based accountability among teachers (Schater, 2005; Stetcher & Camm, 2010).

Some indicators such as participating in administrative decisions, setting well-defined goals and objectives, and providing feedback and performance evaluation are all encompassing and operate across all levels due to interlinked effects and result in enhanced effectiveness (Banta, 2005; Dobbins et al., 2011; Huisman & Currie, 2004; Kniola, 2013; Milken, 2000). The results reflect that in the Indian HEI context, accountability operates as a systemic construct where all stakeholders are responsible towards each other (Leithwood, 2005). Overall, teacher’s role is expanding and changing to meet the demands of various stakeholders. Teachers of the HEIs need to not only develop competence in the interdisciplinary context of their chosen disciplines but also perform the role of leaning facilitators. In doing so, teachers may set standards of quality and develop themselves as subject experts with high-tech and high-touch skills.

Based on the input-process-output framework, the researcher had tried to devise a framework, which encompasses all the stakeholders of education, by defining their attributes and also by describing how they are inter-related with each other. This framework defines the role of accountability in performance evaluation with special focus on the indicators. Figure 2 depicts the devised framework based on this study.

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

Implications

Thus, with this study, accountability can be defined as “the allocation of goal along with the responsibility of attaining the same with utmost sincerity, efficiency & effectiveness.” However, for the successful implementation of accountability in HEI, it is imperative to follow the principles of goal setting (McGrath and Whitty, 2018). The theory states that well-defined, challenging yet attainable goals accepted by employees form the building block for accountability. The policymakers could use the findings of the research in setting performance standards for the faculty. The standards set can be utilised to assess and evaluate the teachers. They can also be used by the teachers for a self-analysis (Rosenblaht & Shimoni, 2001). Enhanced teachers’ accountability through various performance measures help in creating superior learning outcomes, leading to a higher enrolment and graduation rate (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002). Faculty evaluation also results in publishing good quality research papers and in obtaining large number of patents and grants (Milken, 2000). Thus, the measures result in an overall improvement in teacher effectiveness (Banta, 2005; Dobbins et al., 2011; Huisman & Currie, 2004; Kniola, 2013; Seema et al., 2017). Improved faculty effectiveness leads to a superior delivery of quality education, meeting student’s needs and providing an exceptional educational experience (Hillman et al., 2014; Pavicic et al., 2009; Trow, 1996).

Conclusions

The reviewed literature reflects that emerging economies are facing challenges in designing a policy framework that merges the forces of government, market, academic profession and society to assure academic standards in the HEIs (Sahlberg, 2010). Teachers’ accountability-driven policies may be a catalyst for better academic outcomes. They will help in emerging economies to foster creativity and innovation, which will lead to holistic growth. The result demonstrates that knowledge of teachers and their urge to teach is the most impactful accountability indicator. Other indicators have been classified as cause-and-effect indicators. PBAS is still in an evolving phase in an emerging economy like India. In education, PBAS can be used to enhance measurable outputs of the HEIs in terms of number of patents, number of publications, number of start-ups, employment rate, graduation rate, etc.

Accountability leads to teacher effectiveness (Milken, 2000); therefore, it could serve as a benchmarking and performance measurement tool. Policymakers could use findings to formulate an accountability system to assess and evaluate teachers’ performance. Teachers could use accountability indicators for self-analysis (Rosenblaht & Shimoni, 2001). Students could use accountability indicators to understand dynamics of the HEIs and setting realistic expectations. Thus, accountability-driven system would foster knowledge, skills, abilities and enhance overall educational service delivery. Accountability will act as a catalyst in enhancing the quality of the HEIs and therefore may help in strengthening overall well-being of societies.

One possible limitation of this work is that it is limited to India and the analysis and the limited sample size affect the generalisability of the results. Future researchers could replicate the study across various economies to achieve greater generalisability. Future academicians can also include students’ perceptions to judge how accountability of a teacher affects their knowledge-gaining experience. Accountability systems not only create the opportunity for supervisory evaluation but also provide for peer and self-monitoring. HEIs operate as a network of teachers, students, industries, governments and societies. In such a system, cause-and-effect relationships evolve and vary and could be another theme of future exploration. Conceptualisation of accountability construct itself could be another theme of work. As explained earlier, this study can be useful for all the stakeholders of the education system, and it could be a tool for policymakers to assess and evaluate teachers’ performance to formulate an accountability system. For teachers, it could be useful in self-analysing themselves and could help them perform effectively and give better results; for students, it would be the most beneficial aspect as they are the major customers of the education service. Therefore, they will be able to obtain better services in terms of knowledge, skills and abilities. Their learning outcomes can also be improved. Thus, this study has holistic benefits. The societal implications of this study are positive in nature. This study will act as a catalyst in enhancing both qualitative and quantitative perspectives of education system and therefore may lead to help in building a better economy.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Shefali Srivastava

Ritika Gauba

References

Alexander

F. K.

(2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education , 71(4), 411–431.

Anderson

J. A.

(2005). Accountability in education. UNESCO.

Avalos

(2004). Teacher regulatory forces and accountability policies in Chile: From public servants to accountable professionals. Research Papers in Education , 19(1), 67–81.

Banta

T. W.

(2005). Quality and accountability in higher education: Improving policy, enhancing performance. The Journal of Higher Education , 76(1), 112–114.

Broucker

De Wit

(2013). Liberalisation and privatisation of higher education in Flanders: Passing the point of no return? A case study. European Educational Research Journal , 12(4), 514–525.

Browder

Atkins

(1974). Introduction: Emerging pattern of administrative accountability (pp. 1–25). McCutchan.

Carnoy

Loeb

(2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24(4), 305–331.

Cheng

Y. C.

Tsui

K. T.

(1997). Multi models of teacher effectiveness: Implications for research. The Journal of Educational Research , 9, 141–150.

Church

R. E.

(1995). Accountability in public education. Canadian Journal of Education , 20(1), 77–79.

10.

Cleven

S. T.

Reitz

Maess

Angermuller

(2017). The new political economy of higher education: Between distributional conflicts and discursive stratification. Higher Education , 73, 795–812.

11.

Cobb

D. C.

(2002). Performance-based accountability systems for public education. https://www.nhpolicy.org/caseyreport.pdf

12.

Conway

F. P.

Murphy

(2013). A rising tide meets a perfect storm: New accountabilities and teacher education in Ireland. Irish Educational Studies , 32(1), 11–36.

13.

Cornwall

(1999). From users and choosers to shakers and makers: Repositioning participation in social policy of accountability in education. https://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/particip/research/citizen/socpol.pdf

14.

de Boer

Enders

Jongbloed

(2009). Market governance in higher education. In Kehm

B. M.

Huisman

Stensaker

(Eds.), The European higher education area: Perspectives on a moving target (pp. 61–78). Sense Publishers.

15.

Demont

(1975). Accountability: An action model for public schools. ETC Publications.

16.

Dobbins

Knill

Vogtle

E. M.

(2011). An analytical framework for the cross-country comparison of higher education governance. Higher Education , 62(5), 665–683.

17.

Earl

L. M.

(1995). Moving from political to practical: A hard look at assessment and accountability. Orbit , 26(2), 61–63.

18.

Edwards

W. L.

(1991). Accountability and autonomy: Dual stands for the administrator. In Walker

Farquhar

Hughes

(Eds.), Advancing education: School leadership in action (pp. 29–50). Falmer Press.

19.

Epstein

(1993). Defining accountability in education. British Educational Research Journal , 19(3), 243–257.

20.

Frink

D. D.

Ferris

G. R.

(1998). Accountability: Impression management and goal setting in the performance evaluation process. Human Relations , 51(10), 1259–1283.

21.

Gay

L. R.

Mills

G. E.

Airasian

(2009). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River.

22.

Goedegebuure

Hayden

(2007). Overview: Governance in higher education—Concepts and issues. Higher Education Research and Development , 26(1), 1–11.

23.

Goertz

Duffy

Le Floch

(2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states: 1999–2000. https://www.cpre.org/images/cpre-pdf

24.

Hartley

Gopaul

Sagintaveya

Apergenova

(2016). Learning autonomy: Higher education reform in Kazakhstan. Higher Education , 72(3), 277–289.

25.

Hassanpoor

Nezhad

N. S.

Alavi

M. G.

Hajimirza

(2012). Identification and evaluation of the most important criteria in performance evaluation of Kish institute of science and technology teachers. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research , 2(11), 11153–11158.

26.

Hendry

G. D.

Dean

S. J.

(2002). Accountability, evaluation of teaching and expertise in higher education. International Journal of Academic Development , 7(2), 75–82.

27.

Hillman

N. W.

Tandberg

D. A.

Gross

J. P. K.

(2014). Performance funding in higher education: Do financial incentives impact college completions. The Journal of Higher Education , 85(6), 826–857.

28.

Hout

Elliot

(2011). Incentives and test based accountability in education. The American National Academies Press.

29.

Y. S.

Chiu

S. I.

Yen

T. M.

Cheng

C. C.

(2015). Assessment of supplier quality performance of computer manufacturing industry by using ANP and DEMATEL. The TQM Journal , 27(1), 122–134.

30.

Hudson

(2006). Regional development partnerships in Sweden: A way for higher education institutions to develop their role in the processes of regional governance? Higher Education , 51(3), 387–410.

31.

Huisman

Currie

(2004). Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled water? Higher Education , 48, 529–551.

32.

Jaafar

B. S.

Earl

(2008). Comparing performance-based accountability models: A Canadian example. Canadian Journal of Education , 31(3), 697–726.

33.

Jansen

J. D.

(2004). Autonomy and accountability in the regulation of teaching profession: A South African case study. Research Papers in Education , 19(1), 51–66.

34.

Jayasuriya

(2015). Constituting market citizenship: Regulatory state, market making and higher education. Higher Education, 70(6), 973–985.

35.

Kai

(2009). A critical analysis of accountability in higher education: Its relevance to evaluation of higher education. Chinese Education and Society , 42(2), 39–51.

36.

Kalfa

Taksa

(2016). Employability, managerialism, and performativity in higher education: A relational perspective. Higher Education, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-016-0072-2

37.

Kleinhenz

Ingvarson

(2004). Teacher accountability in Australia: Current policies and practices and their relation to improvement of teaching and learning. Research Papers in Education , 19(1), 31–49.

38.

Kniola

J. D.

(2013). Accountability through assessments of administrative organizations in higher education. European Journal of Higher Education , 3(1), 89–101.

39.

Kogan

(1988). Education accountability: An analytic overview (2nd ed.). Century Hutchinson.

40.

Koretz

D. M.

(2002). Limitations in the use of achievement tests as measures of educators’ productivity. Journal of Human Resources , 37(4), 752–777.

41.

Leithwood

(2005). Educational accountability: Issues and alternatives. Journal of Research Report , 5(1), 1–70.

42.

Leveille

D. E.

(2005). An emerging views on accountability in American higher education (Center for Studies in Higher Education Research and Occasional Paper Series No. CSHE.8.05). University of California, Berkeley.

43.

Leveille

D. E.

(2005). An emerging views on accountability in American higher education. Center for studies in higher education research & occasional (Paper Series No. CSHE.8.05). University of California.

44.

Levin

(1974). A conceptual framework for accountability. School Review , 82(3), 363–391.

45.

Lewin

Wasanga

Wanderi

Somerset

(2011). Participation and performance in education in Sub Saharan Africa with special reference to Kenya: Improving policy and practice. https://www.create.rpc.org/pdf_documents/PTA74.pdf

46.

Lin

(2008). Cognition map of experiential marketing strategy for hot spring hotels in Taiwan using the DEMATEL method. Paper presented at IEEE: Fourth International Conference on Natural Computation.

47.

W. Y. W.

(2016). The recalibration of neo-liberalization: Re-politicizing higher education policy in Hong Kong. Higher Education , 73(5), 759–773.

48.

Locke

E. A.

Latham

G. P.

(1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. PrenticeHall.

49.

Lundgren

U. P.

(1990). Education evaluation as policymaking: Introducing evaluation, into the national decentralized education system (pp. 23–41). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

50.

Macperson

R. J. S.

(1996). Educative accountability policy research and epistemological implications. International Journal of Educational Research , 23(6), 545–559.

51.

Magalhães

A. M.

Veiga

Amaral

Sousa

Ribeiro

(2013). Governance of governance in higher education: Practices and lessons drawn from the Portuguese case. Higher Education Quarterly , 67(3), 295–311.

52.

Maheu

(1995). Education indicators in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Education , 20(1), 56–64.

53.

Maile

(2002). Accountability: An essential aspect of school governance. South African Journal of Education , 22(4), 326–333.

54.

Marginson

(2013). The impossibility of capitalist markets in higher education. Journal of Education Policy , 28(3), 353–370.

55.

Marginson

Rhoades

(2002). Beyond national states, markets, and systems of higher education: A glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education , 43(3), 281–309.

56.

Marope

M. T.

(2005). Namibia human capital and knowledge development for economic growth with equity. The World Bank.

57.

McGrath

S. K.

Whitty

S. J.

(2018). Accountability and responsibility defined. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , 11(3), 687-707.

58.

Milken

(2000). Teaching as the opportunity: The teacher advancement program. Paper presented at National Education Conference President’s Presentation Santa Monica, CA, Milken Family Foundation.

59.

Middlehurst

(1997). Quality enhancement for accountability and transformation: A framework for the future. Tertiary Education and Management , 3(1), 15–24.

60.

Morris

(2004). Teaching in Hong Kong: Professionalization accountability and the state. Research Papers in Education , 19(1), 105–121.

61.

Muffo

J. A.

(1992). The status of students’ outcomes assessments at NASULGC member institutions. Research in Higher Education , 33, 765–774.

62.

Neuman

W. L.

(2003). Social research, methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (5th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.

63.

Norris

J. J.

(2014). Rethinking accountability in new governance. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 27(3), 199–219.

64.

O’Day

(2002). Complexity, accountability and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review Journal , 72(3), 1–37.

65.

Olssen

(2016). Neoliberal competition in higher education today: Research, accountability and impact. British Journal of Sociology of Education , 37(1), 129–148.

66.

Pavicic

Alfirevic

Mihanovic

(2009). Market orientation in managing relationships with multiple constituencies of Croatian higher education. Higher Education , 57, 191–207.

67.

Ramirez

Tiplic

(2014). In pursuit of excellence? Discursive patterns in European higher education research. Higher Education , 67(4), 439–455.

68.

Ranjan

Chatterjee

Chakraborty

(2016). Performance evaluation of Indian Railway zones using DEMATEL and VIKOR methods. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 23(1), 78–95.

69.

Romzek

B. S.

(2000). Dynamics of public sector accountability in an era of reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences , 66(1), 21–44.

70.

Rosenblaht

Shimoni

(2001). Teacher accountability: An experimental field study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education , 15(4), 309–328.

71.

Sahlberg

(2010). Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change , 11, 45–61.

72.

Saito

Van Cappelle

(2010). Monitoring the quality of education: Exploration of concept, methodology, and the link between research and policy. International Perspectives on Education and Society , 13, 3–34.

73.

Schater

(2005). Teacher performance-based accountability: When, what and how? https://www.montana.edu/ttt/pdf-files/pdf

74.

Seema

Udam

Mattisen

Lauri

(2017). The perceived impact of external evaluation: The system organization and individual level: The Estonian case. Higher Education, 73: 79–95.

75.

Simkins

(1994). Policy accountability and management: Perspectives on the implementation of the reform (pp. 3–13). Longman and BEMAS.

76.

Simpson

R. D.

(2002). How higher education differs from corporate. Innovative Higher Education , 27, 1–3.

77.

Sin

Amaral

(2017). Academics’ and employers’ perception about responsibilities for employability and their initiatives towards its development. Higher Education , 73, 97–111.

78.

Slaughter

Cantwell

(2012). Transatlantic moves to the market: The United States and the European Union. Higher Education , 63(5), 583–606.

79.

Sosibo

(2013). Accountability in teacher education: Positioning pre service teachers as evaluators of their performance. African Education Review , 10(1), 5159–5182.

80.

Stetcher

Camm

(2010). Toward a culture of consequences: Performance based accountability systems for public services. RAND Corporation.

81.

Stetcher

Camm

(2010). Toward a culture of consequences: Performance based accountability systems for public services. RAND Corporation.

82.

Sumrit

Anuntavoranich

(2013). Using DEMATEL method to analyze the causal relations on technological innovation capability evaluation factors in Thai technology-based firms. International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management and Applied Sciences , 4(2), 81–103.

83.

Suspitsyana

(2010). Accountability in American education as a rhetoric and a technology for governmentality. Journal of Education Policy , 25(5), 567–586.

84.

Tahar

Boutellier

(2013). Resource allocation in higher education in the context of NPM. Public Management Review , 15(5), 687–711.

85.

Trow

(1996). Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy , 9(4), 391–408.

86.

Tzeng

G. H.

Chiang

C. H.

C. W.

(2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications , 32(4), 1028–1044.

87.

Vidovich

Yang

Currie

(2007). Changing accountabilities in higher education as China opens up to globalization. Globalization, Societies and Education , 5(1), 89–107.

88.

Warfield

J. N.

(1976). Societal systems, planning, policy and complexity. John Wiley and Sons.

89.

Wilensky

J. O.

Galvin

C. K.

Pascoe

D. J.

(2004). Educational accountability systems: Motivation or discrimination? A survey of the legal theories used to challenge and defend educational accountability systems. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg,PDF/events.pdf

90.

W-W.

(2012). Segmenting critical factors for successful knowledge management implementation using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Applied Soft Computing , 12, 527–535.

91.

Yang

Y. P.

Shieh

H. M.

Leu

J. D.

Tzeng

G. H.

(2008). A novel hybrid MCDM model combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. International Journal of Operational Research , 5(3), 160–168.

92.

Yin

R. K.

(2011). Qualitative research: From start to finish. Guildford Press.