As stated in Chapter One, this study is designed as a policy analysis study. It is partly interested in understanding the genesis of QA policy in the Maldives and partly how this policy is implemented in the national higher education system. It is, therefore, pertinent to state how policy is understood in this study before presenting the conceptual framework of the study.
'Policy' in this study refers to public policy "meaning government generated policies which are developed and implemented through state bureaucracies" (Taylor et aI ., 1 997, p. 22). Acknowledging that there are variations between nations, Bell and Stevenson (2006) contend that "the state has a key role in the provision and/or regulation of education services" (p. 8). Government policy, therefore, has considerable impact on shaping what happens in educational institutions, and the experiences of those who study and work in those institutions.
Defining the term 'policy' does not appear to be an easy task. Several scholars have
attempted this. Ozga (2002) says that there is "no fixed single definition of policy" (p.
2). Referring to the vast literature on the subject, Taylor et aI., ( 1 997) contend that
"the one thing all of these attempts have in common is their recognition that achieving
such a definition is not an easy task"
(p.
23). However, it is useful and "necessary todevelop an understanding of policy that reflects the breadth and complexity that the
reality of policy analysis entails" (Bell & Stevenson, 2006, p. 1 4).
One traditional conceptualisation of policy is to recognise that policy is systematic and not random. Such a view is offered by Harman (as cited in Taylor et aI., 1 997) who argues that policy is:
. . . the implicit or explicit specification of courses of purposive action being followed, or to be followed in dealing with a recognised problem or matter of concern, and directed towards the accomplishment of some intended or desired set of goals. Policy also can be thought of as a position or stance developed in response to a problem or issue of conflict, and directed towards a particular objective. (Harman, as cited in Taylor et aI., 1 997, p. 24).
For Hannan, therefore, policy is goal-oriented and it is complex. It is also about the coordination of many courses of action. Others have conceptualised policy as a programme of action or set of guidelines that determine how one should proceed. Blackmore (as cited in Bell & Stevenson, 2006) presents such a definition as " . . . aims or goals, or statements of what ought to happen" (p. 1 4). These two definitions (Hannan's and Blackmore' s) emphasise policy as a product or an outcome. In this conceptualisation policy making is seen as a straightforward, technical and rational process. It presents a linear view of policy development where problems are identified and solutions developed, followed by implementation of strategies and interventions.
This linear, and apparently, logical view of policy process has several strengths. It can
reflect the key influences of the principal actors in the policy making process (Bell &
Stevenson, 2006). It can also provide an important spotlight on the internal workings
of public administration due to its emphasis on the internal workings of policy making bureaucracies. Such an approach focuses on the identification of an ordered sequence
of stages, or steps in the life of a particular policy (Heck, 2004; Williams &
Cummings, 2005). The stages invariably include agenda setting, policy formulation,
implementation, and evaluation (Heck, 2004) or origins, adoption, implementation
and outcomes (Levin, 200 1 ) .
Such a notion, however, provides an inadequate model of what constitutes policy, and how policy is both shaped and experienced by those involved at all stages in the policy process (Bell & Stevenson, 2006). This linear view as reflected in Harman's definition gives the impression that there is general agreement during the generation of the policy. It also gives the impression that policy implementation is straightforward and unproblematic (Taylor et aI. , 1 997, p. 24). This linear view may also imply that there is broad political consensus. In such an approach to policy making, the competing demands and expectations of different interest groups are reconciled. Furthermore, Bell and Stevenson (2006) state:
Conflict is acknowledged, but exists within tightly defined parameters. Power, is acknowledged, but it is rarely problematised. Sources of power are rarely discussed and little attention is paid to the (unequal) distribution of power. Similarly, the pluralist emphasis on institutional policy processes tends to privilege the generation of policy, but has less to say about implementation. (p. 1 6)
Such a conceptualisation lends itself to examine policy activity in terms of a policy stages typology.
Many scholars reject such an oversimplified way of viewing policy and recognise
policy as both a product and a process (Taylor et al. , 1 997). For Taylor et al policy is a
compromise which is struggled over at all stages by competing views. Policies are
ongoing and modifications occur at various stages. The process is a continuous one. In
such a conceptualisation, "policy involves the production of the policy text, the text itself, ongoing modifications to the text and process of implementation into practice"
(Taylor et al., 1 997, p. 25). Bowe et al., ( 1 992) argue that policy making in its linear
configuration, "fails to reflect the complexity and 'messiness' of policy fonnation and
implementation" (p. 7). Accordingly, to Bowe et al. , ( 1 992) policy is both product and
process and it is continuous and it is still made, and re-made, as it is being implemented. They state:
In a very real sense generation and implementation are continuous features of the policy process, with generation of policy . . . still taking place after the legislation has been effected; both within the central state and within the [LEA and the schools] . (Bowe et al., 1 992, p. 1 4)
Further, Bowe et al., ( 1 992) contend that as policy is 'made' it is constantly being
recontextualised and therefore rather than policy development as a linear process it should be seen as a cycle. Within this cycle, Bowe et al., refer to three inter related 'policy contexts' , namely context of influence, context of policy text production and context of practice. Each of these three contexts has multiple arenas of action (both
public and private) and each involves struggles. Ball ( 1 994) has later added two
additional contexts to the cycle. The first is context of outcomes and context of
political strategy. In consideration of all these, Ball ( 1 994) emphasises that:
Policy is both text and action, words and deeds, it is what is enacted as well as what is intended. Policies are always incomplete insofar as they
relate to or map on to the 'wild profusion' of local practice. (p. 1 0)
Ball ( 1 993) further draws an explicit distinction between 'policy as text' and 'policy as discourse' . The conceptualisation of 'policy as text' is based on literary theory which sees policies as representations which are coded in quite complex ways. Thus Ball ( 1 993) reiterates what Codd ( 1 988) says; "for any text a plurality of readers must necessarily produce a plurality of readings" (p. 239). With texts viewed as products of struggle, contestation and compromises, policy effects cannot be easily predicted and solutions will be localised. In this conception of policy there is a strong element of agency.
The policy cycle conceptualisation appears to be appropriate for the study of the complex nature of policy fonnation. This model has also been known as policy
trajectory analysis whereby policy i s traced from its inception, through implementation and to its practice. The policy cycle approach is seen to recognise the complexity involved in policy making and the contested nature of policy making. To understand policy it is necessary to examine the different contexts which define meanmgs.