臺灣為求在全球高度競爭的教育市場脫穎而出，同時卻又面臨政府財政緊縮的困境，績效導向的競爭型計畫獎助制度成為主要的高等教育政策工具之一。過去10多來年在高等教育場域實施的主要競爭型計畫包含頂大計畫、教卓計畫與典範科大計畫等三項目，而本研究聚焦於教卓計畫做為研究主軸，以了解教卓計畫的推動對高等教育機構內部產生哪些作用、高等教育機構如何實踐與因應挑戰，並進而檢視競爭型計畫做為政策工具的成效表現。簡言之，本研究希望以高等教育機構的觀點視角，了解競爭型計畫對大學實踐之影響。

本研究採用個案研究中的多重個案研究法，藉由訪談及文件分析等方式蒐集資料，進而深入探究當前高等教育機構爭取及執行教卓計畫的真實現況。訪談對象為大學實際執行教卓計畫的業務主管、系所主管、行政或資料分析人員。透過立意與滾雪球取樣方法，本研究共計訪談6種類型、11所大學、25位不同層級之教卓計畫執行人員。

本研究結果發現：（一）教卓計畫之目標與內容規劃有其侷限性，其目標設定應以特色發展為或獎優汰劣面向為主，並同時修正未設定定期檢視或退場機制、管考機制未能充份反映執行者之表現、缺乏數據支持概念等侷限；（二）競爭型計畫做為政策工具有其內生性限制，例如制度規劃導致過於競爭之情形，加上執行計畫與成果可近性之侷限，導致典範與模式無法有效擴散；（三）教卓計畫做為政策工具確實會對大學校務經營產生影響，特別是計畫中的評選、補助、與成效檢核機制對於大學的影響層面較大。為解決機構面臨之挑戰，大學主要聚焦於執行計畫之內在困難與因應策略，並形塑不同之目標設計與計畫建構策略。依據本研究之研究成果，針對政策主導機關與大學提出具體建議。

Many efforts have been made to promote and sustain higher education excellence in Taiwan as higher education has become increasingly competitive across the nations. Given there are limited funding resources, one of the most effective policy strategies is to use competitive grants. The aim of this dissertation is to analyze the effectiveness of using a competitive grant strategy, The Program for Promoting Excellence in Teaching in Higher Education (hereafter the Teaching Excellence), as a policy tool for higher education in Taiwan. Specifically, this dissertation examines (1) the impacts of the Teaching Excellence on higher education institutions and (2) reactions of the institutions in addressing the Teaching Excellence competitive project. The goal is to understand how a competitive grant was received and implemented from the perspective of higher education institutions.

This study adopted a multiple-case research approach. Interviews and documentary analysis were used for data collection. These methods were used to gain insights into different strategies that higher education institutions used when applying for the Teaching Excellence, and the process and the experience of program implementation after they received funding. Purposive sampling and snowball sampling were both used to invite interviewees, including administrators, faculty and staff in higher education institutions, with a total of 25 interviewees from 11 universities.

There are three main findings. First, the goal and some substance of the Teaching Excellence need changes. Because teaching is one of the core missions of universities, it is not a proper goal of the competitive grant. Therefore, a higher education institute that is awared with the Teaching Excellence grant should be acknowledged as a distinctive educational insititute. Moreover, the Teaching Excellence should include an ongoing and evidence-based evaluation system that examines the fidelity and outcome of the program implementation. Having a systemic guideline is necessary to increase the effectiveness of the Teaching Excellence project. Second, due to the comeptietive nature of this type of the grant, there are a limitations. The competitive grant is awarded through a contest, which implies a form of exclusion. In order to win the grant constantly over other institutions, universities were hesitant about sharing successful experiences with the public. This phenomenon has led to the limited dissemination of a successful model. Lastly, the findings of Teaching Excellence show an impact on the governance and development of higher education institutions, especially in the aspect of accreditation, funding calendars, and evaluation. Although universities experience some internal and external challenges as they seek out the funding, they strive to find solutions, which most solutions pertain to making internal changes, and create effective strategic plans to win the grant. This study also provides recommendations for policymakers and higher education institutions based on findings.

中文文獻
王文科、王智弘（2009）。教育研究法（增定第17版）。臺北市：五南。
王秀之（2011）。台灣高等教育卓越政策積累性與正當性之探討（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學教育研究所，新竹市。
王保進、周祝瑛、王輝煌（2011）。獎勵大學教學卓越計畫成效評估。行政院研究發展考核委員會委託研究報告（RDEC-RES-099-023），未出版。
王政傑（2009）。教育部94至97學年度獎勵大學教學卓越計畫競賽理論之應用（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學產業經濟研究所，桃園市。
王珽（2014）。提升大學生參與教學卓越計畫意願之推廣策略研究-以A學校為例（未出版之碩士論文）。銘傳大學業管理學系碩士在職專班，臺北市。
王麗雲（2013）。教育行政的政治面向。載於謝文全（主編），教育行政學—理論與案例，頁129-158。臺北市：五南。
丘昌泰（2013）。公共政策：基礎篇。臺北市：巨流圖書。
朱麗文（2015）。從國家、學術圈與市場互動模式探討我國私立大專校院之退場機制。學校行政，99，249-265。
江宜靜（2013）。台灣地區大學院校的綜合效率之評析─採三階段資料包絡分析法（未出本之碩士論文）。國立臺灣科技大學企業管理系，臺北市。
江明修（1997）。公共行政學 : 理論與社會實踐。臺北市：五南。
江芳盛、李懿芳（2013）。分析單位改變對跨國比較研究的影響—以TIMSS數學學習心理特質與學習成就之關聯性探究為例。教育學刊，41，123-154。
行政院主計處（2017）。各級政府歲入歲出淨額。取自http://statdb.dgbas.gov.tw/pxweb/Dialog/Saveshow.asp
行政院研究發展考核委員會（2012）。「獎勵大學教學卓越計畫（第二期）」查證報告（101管查字第02號），取自https://ws.ndc.gov.tw/Download.ashx?u=LzAwMS9hZG1pbmlzdHJhdG9yLzEwL3JlbGZpbGUvNTY4Ny80NzQyLzAwMjc2MzVfMS5wZGY%3D&n=MTAxLTAwMueNjuWLteWkp%2BWtuOaVmeWtuOWNk%2Bi2iuioiOeVq%2BafpeitieWgseWRii5wZGY%3D&icon=..pdf。
何卓飛（2009）。我國「國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」之策略管理與績效評估研究（未出版之博士論文）。淡江大學管理科學研究所博士班，臺北市。
何瑋琳（2011）。我國技職校院辦學績效之研究-以獲獎勵大學教學卓越計畫補助款學校為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立高雄應用科技大學企業管理系，高雄市。
吳定（1984）。組織發展 : 理論與技術。臺北市 ：天一。
吳定（2013）。公共政策辭典（4版）。臺北市 : 五南圖書。
吳明清（1991）。教育研究：基本觀念與方法分析。臺北市：五南。
吳芝儀、李奉儒（譯）（1995）。Patton, M. Q. 著。質的評鑑與研究（1990）. （ Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage）。臺北市︰桂冠。
吳芝儀、廖梅花（譯）（2001）。Anselm, S. & Juliet, C. 著。質性研究入門：紮根理論研究法. （Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage）。嘉義市：濤石文化。
吳柏毅（2006）。我國大學經營績效與教學卓越計畫補助款關聯性之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。東吳大學會計學系，臺北市。
吳軒億（2010）。大學教學卓越計畫與教學品質之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學教育政策與行政研究所，臺北市。
吳得源（2006）。政策工具：分類與使用。T&D飛訊，48，1-10。
吳清基（2009）。高等教育現況檢討及追求卓越之發展策略專案報告。中華民國立法院教育及文化委員會第 7 屆第 4 會期第 6 次全體委員會專案報告。
吳慧君（2010）。大學行政人員知覺組織支持、組織創新、工作活力與工作績效關係之研究-以獲教學卓越計畫大學為例（未出版之博士論文）。國立高雄師範大學成人教育研究所，高雄市。
李偉誠（2008）。我國大學卓越政策之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士班，臺北市。
李國義、李宜軒、魏妤珊（2008，12月）。中部六所科技大學教學卓越計畫課程品質滿意度之研究。論文發表於勤益科技大學舉辦之「第二屆海峽兩岸科技與人文教育暨產學合作研討會」，臺中市。
周祝瑛（2008）。台灣臺灣教育怎麼辦？。臺北：心理。
周祝瑛（2010 ，5 月20 日）。五年五百億的功與過。中國時報，A15版。
周曼琳（2011）。政策工具選擇之權變設計－臺北市停車管理政策工具個案研究（未出版之博士論文）。中國文化大學政治學系，臺北市。
林天祐（2005）。教育研究倫理準則。教育研究月刊，132，70-86。
林水波（1999）。政府再造 = Reinventing government。臺北市 : 智勝文化。
林水波（2006）。政策變遷的三面向分析。政策研究學報，6，1-18。
林佩璇（2000）。個案研究及其在教育研究上的應用。載於中正大學教育學研究所（主編），質的研究方法（頁239-262）。高雄市：麗文。
林思伶、王如哲（2014）。台灣臺灣高等教育再出發：高等教育改革：回顧與展望。教育研究月刊，245，61-75。
社團法人台灣臺灣評鑑協會（2007）。大學校院教學卓越滿意度調查　師生多肯定。評鑑雙月刊，8，42-42。
侯永琪（2008）。2005年及2006年美國新版卡內基高等教育機構分類表對我國大學分類發展影響之調查研究。高教評鑑，2(1)，107-141。
侯永琪（2008，3月）。我國大學排名之研究－以淡江大學2003 年及2007 年大學排名分析。論文發表於淡江大學舉辦之「高等教育國際化與卓越化國際學術研討會」，臺北市。
施能傑（1999）。政策執行的要素分析。研考雙月刊，23(4)，6-15。
洪月照（2014）。大學教學卓越計畫實施經驗之研究-以國立彰化師範大學為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立彰化師範大學公共事務與公民教育學系，彰化縣。
洪如玉（2010）。全球化時代教育改革與發展的另類思考：地方本位教育。幼兒教保研究，5，73-82。
范麗雪（2012）。檢視競爭型計畫對大學發展的影響。教育理論與實踐學刊，26，103-123。
計智豪、孫志麟（2009）。大學教學卓越計畫執行之研究。教育行政與評鑑學刊，8，1-22。
孫志麟（2013，11月）。教師專業發展評鑑之執行--政策工具的觀點。論文發表於嘉義大學舉辦之「2013年海峽兩岸中小學教育學術研討會」，嘉義市。
徐嘉琪（2009）。教學卓越計畫審核指標信度與效度之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立勤益科技大學工業工程與管理系，臺中市。
翁興利（2004）。政策規劃與行銷。臺北市：華泰文化。
國立臺灣大學研究發展處研究倫理中心（2015）。新案審查需用申請表單。取自http://rec.ord.ntu.edu.tw/files/forms/新案審查需用申請表單.zip
張家宜（1990）。全面品質管理應用於高等教育之實證研究-以淡江大學為例。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究成果報告（NSC89-2413-H-032-008-S），未出版。
張源泉（2012）。德國高等教育治理之改革動向。教育研究集刊，58(4)，91-137。
張詩晨（2013）。大學生對課程學程化滿意度之研究-以東華大學為例（未出版之碩士論文）。國立東華大學教育行政與管理學系，花蓮縣。
教育部（1999）。學術資本主義下我國頂尖大學計畫之省思。取自http://npl.ly.gov.tw/npl/report/880104/1.pdf
教育部（2006）。獎勵大學教學卓越計畫95年度計畫作業手冊。臺北市，教育部。
教育部（2009）。獎勵大學教學卓越計畫（核定版）。臺北市，教育部。
教育部（2013）。第3期「教育部獎勵大學教學卓越計畫」核定名單。取自https://depart.moe.edu.tw/ED2200/News_Content.aspx?n=90774906111B0527&sms=F0EAFEB716DE7FFA&s=C2686C7F11F9FCAA
教育部（2013）。發展典範科技大學延續計畫。取自https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=D33B55D537402BAA&s=A834155AB23A3E7D
教育部（2013）。邁向頂尖大學計畫（102年9月修訂版）。取自https://www.edu.tw/News_Plan_Content.aspx?n=D33B55D537402BAA&sms=954974C68391B710&s=CBE2AF4E776CBCD5
教育部（2014）。104-105年獎勵大學教學卓越計畫申請。取自http://ws.moe.edu.tw/Download/104-105年獎勵大學教學卓越計畫申請.pdf
教育部（2015）。高等教育發展藍圖方案。取自http://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=0217161130F0B192&s=0108A124A2175C5C
教育部（2016）。高教司施政績效。取自http://ws.moe.edu.tw/Download.ashx?u=高教司施政績效.pdf
教育部（2016）。教育施政成效。取自http://ws.moe.edu.tw/Download.ashx?u=教育施政成效.pdf
教育部（2016）。教育統計指標之國際比較（2016年版）。取自http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/ebook/International_Comparison/2016/i2016.pdf
教育部（2016）。教育經費編列與管理法。取自https://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?pcode=T0020018
教育部（2016）。第三期獎勵大學教學卓越計畫。取自https://www.edu.tw/News_Plan_Content.aspx?n=D33B55D537402BAA&sms=954974C68391B710&s=DFF571C475F3768F
教育部（2017）。立法教育文化委員會第9屆第3會期報告。取自http://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/3/relfile/6397/52809/23da32e0-2217-4257-82b3-236bd60ab147.pdf
教育部（2017）。高等教育重要業務報告。取自http://www.tsu.edu.tw/~activity/president2017/files/0113_share01.pdf
教育部（2017）。高等教育深耕計畫正式啟動新聞稿。取自https://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=C85106C3E60F68F5
教育部（2017）。高等教育深耕計畫行政院院會說明稿。取自http://www.ey.gov.tw/高等教育深耕計畫行政院院會說明稿.pdf
教育部（2017）。高等教育深耕計畫績效指標。取自http://ws.moe.edu.tw/Download.ashx?u=高等教育深耕計畫績效指標、衡量標準及目標值.pdf
教育部（2017）。高等教育競爭型計畫延續計畫（106年作業計畫）。取自http://117.56.91.94/KMPublic/readdocument.aspx?documentId=267990
教育部（2017）。教育統計指標之國際比較（2017年版）。取自http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/ebook/International_Comparison/2017/i2017.pdf
教育部（2017）。教育部106年度施政計畫。取自http://ws.moe.edu.tw/001/Upload/3/relfile/6312/49637/9753b7ac-359d-42d3-aac7-d3b4daff8abb.pdf
教育部（2017）。教育部106年高等教育競爭型計畫延續計畫（修正版）。取自https://ws.moe.edu.tw/Download.ashx?u=教育部106年高等教育競爭型計畫延續計畫（修正版）.pdf
教育部（2017）。教育部補助獎勵大學教學卓越計畫及區域教學資源中心計畫實施要點。取自https://edu.law.moe.gov.tw/LawContent.aspx?id=FL048409
教育部（2017）。第三期獎勵大學教學卓越計畫第1階段（102年至103年）申請說明會簡報。取自http://www.cttlrc.fcu.edu.tw/edu/download/第三期獎勵大學教學卓越計畫第1階段（102年至103年）申請說明會簡報.ppt
教育部（2017）。第三期獎勵大學教學卓越計畫第2階段（104年至105年）申請說明會簡報。取自http://www.cttlrc.fcu.edu.tw/edu/download/104-105第三期獎勵大學教學卓越計畫第2階段（104年至105年）申請說明會簡報.pptx
教育部（2017）。新世代高教藍圖與發展方案推動相關說明（澄清稿）。取自http://www.edu.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=9E7AC85F1954DDA8&s=6FD51C2AC96EA9FA
教育部（2018）。教育統計指標之國際比較（2018年版）。取自http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/ebook/International_Comparison/2018/i2018.pdf
教育部（無日期）。我國教育經費概況（104學年度）。取自http://stats.moe.gov.tw/files/chart/104學年我國教育經費概況.html
教育部（無日期）。政府教育經費佔政府歲出比率。取自http://stats.moe.gov.tw/chartweb/Default.aspx?rptvalue=f4
教育部（無日期）。重大教育政策發展歷程。取自http://history.moe.gov.tw/policy.asp?id=6
許筱君、黃彥融（2017）。全球化下我國大學圖像之轉變－以教改20年高等教育政策為例。教育理論與實踐學刊，35，123-142。
許筱君、詹郁萱（2014）。學術資本主義下我國頂尖大學計畫之省思。教育政策論壇，17(3)，95-116。
郭千瑜（2014）。臺灣大專院校經營績效與教學卓越計畫獎助款相關性研究-三階段資料包絡分析法之應用（未出版之碩士論文）。東吳大學企業管理學系，臺北市。
郭紋綺（2014）。我國與主要國家高等教育概況。統計通訊， 25(7)，19-20。
陳向明（2002）。社會科學質的硏究。臺北市：五南。
陳振明（2002）。公共政策分析。北京市 : 中國人民大學出版社。
陳振遠、樊國恕、蘇國偉、何希慧、侯永祺、陳振宇、許文瑞（2011）。發展國 際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫之評估研析。研考雙月刊，35(3)，84-95。
陳鈺方（2014）。我國獎勵大學教學卓越計畫北二區教學資源中心之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士班，臺北市。
陳麗珠（2000）。我國教育財政改革之研究（Ⅲ）高等教育財政改革。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（NSC89-2413-H017-009）。高雄市：高雄師範大學教育系。
曾珮京（2014）。教學卓越計畫下大學教學發展中心運作之個案研究（未出版之碩士論文）。淡江大學教育政策與領導研究所碩士班，臺北市。
湯堯、成群豪（2005）。校務基金與大學發展。載於陳伯璋、蓋浙生（主編），新世紀高等教育政策與行政（頁283-323）。臺北市：高等教育。
黃怡倫（2015）。政府專案補助對於大學入學成績的影響 以教學卓越計畫為例（未出版之碩士論文）。逢甲大學財稅學系，臺中市。
黃婉婷（2010）。大學教學資源中心支援卓越教學之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺灣大學圖書資訊學研究所，臺北市。
黃瑞琴（1991）。質的教育研究方法。臺北市：心理。
楊舒伃（2013）。大學教學卓越計畫的影響－制度、資源與組織之觀點（未出版之碩士論文）。世新大學行政管理學研究所，臺北市。
楊穎琪（2011）。我國大學生核心能力指標現況調查與建構之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。中原大學教育研究所，桃園市。
葉兆祺（2009）。獎勵大學教學卓越計畫成效評估—師生觀點之分析（未出版之博士論文）。國立暨南國際大學教育政策與行政學系，南投縣。
葉明珠（2011）。我國高等技職院校經營效率與教育部獎補助關聯性之探討（未出版之碩士論文）。中原大學會計研究所，桃園市。
詹文碧（2007）。我國大專院校辦學績效與教育部獎助款之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。東吳大學會計學系，臺北市。
詹孟芬（2015）。台灣大專院校競爭型計畫資源配置研究： 競賽理論之應用與實證（未出版之碩士論文）。國立中央大學產業經濟研究所，桃園市。
監察院（2016）。教育部「教學卓越計畫」獲獎勵大學教學相關制度建制、預算執行、校際教學資源共享之協調、整合成效落實現況之檢討案調查報告。取自https://www.cy.gov.tw/CYBSBoxSSL/edoc/download/20099
蓋浙生（2002）。教育經營與管理。臺北市：師大書苑。
劉世閔（2005）。淺談研究倫理。教育研究月刊，139，126-128。
劉秀曦（2009）。我國大學品質保證與競爭經費關連性之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學教育學系，臺北市。
劉秀曦（2013）。西歐高等教育治理政策之變革：英國與法國經驗之探究。比較教育，75，49-74。
劉秀曦（2015）。國家轉型過程中大學財政與學費政策之變革與爭論—歐洲經驗對台灣臺灣的啟示。高等教育，10(1)，37-71。
劉育慈（2006）。獎勵大學教學卓越計劃經費使用效率之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。大葉大學會計資訊學系碩士班，彰化縣。
劉阿榮（2009，11月）。競爭型計畫對高等教育發展的影響。論文發表於元智大學舉辦之「第五屆兩岸高等教育論壇人文、管理與高等教育學術研討會」，桃園市。
審計部（無日期）。中華民國103年度中央政府總決算審核報告（含附屬單位決算及綜計表）。取自https://www.audit.gov.tw/ezfiles/0/1000/attach/73/pta_2407_7623602_63771.pdf
潘慧玲（2005）。美國大學認可制中的自我評鑑。教育研究月刊，135，136-145。
蔡宜瑾（2012）。我國大學提升教師教學專業發展策略之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立交通大學教育研究所，新竹市。
蕭玉真（2010）。高等技職校院教學卓越評估指標建構之研究（未出版之博士論文）。國立臺灣師範大學工業教育學系，臺北市。
戴曉霞（2007，9月）。台灣臺灣追求學術卓越的內憂與外患。論文發表於台灣大學舉辦之「我國高等教育論壇：發展國際一流大學及頂尖研究中心計畫」，臺北市。
戴曉霞（2014）。法國大學治理改革之探究-國家與市場的辯證。高等教育，9(2)，1-29。
謝宇程（2009，3月）。政策工具種類及適用策略淺析。取自http://www.npf.org.tw/3/5523
謝卓君（2017）。從政策工具選擇省思臺灣高等教育治理。教育研究集刊，63(3)，41-75。
鍾昌蘊（2009）。「獎勵大學教學卓越計畫」政策分析之研究（未出版之碩士論文）。國立臺中教育大學教育學系，臺中市。

西文文獻
Abramo, G., Cicero, T. & D’Angelo, C. A. (2011). The dangers of performance-based research funding in non-competitive higher education systems. Scientometrics, 87(3), 1-15.
Alves, H., Mainardes, E. W. & Raposo, M. (2010). A relationship approach to higher education institution stakeholder management. Tertiary Education and Management, 16(3), 159-181.
American Psychological Association (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code Of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/
Anderson, C. W. (1977). Statecraft: introduction to political choice and judgment. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Anderson, J. E. (2003). Public policymaking: an introduction. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Anna Maria, L. & Ewa, R. (2015). Evaluation of Selected Innovation Policy Instruments on the Example of Poland. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 1028-1033.
Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research (6th. Ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Baldwin, D. A. (1985). Economic statecraft. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bardach, E. (1979). The Implementation Game. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bargh, C., Scott, P. & Smith, D. (1996). Governing University: Changing the Culture? Bristol, UK: SRHE & Open University Press.
Bayraktar, E., Tatoglu, E. & Zaim, S. (2008). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of TQM in Turkish higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19(6), 551-574.
Beck, U. (2000). What is globalization? Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Beerkens, M. & Udam, M. (2017). Stakeholders in Higher Education Quality Assurance: Richness in Diversity? Higher Education Policy, 30(3), 341-359.
Bégin-Caouette, O., Schmidt, E. K. & Field, C. C. (2017). The perceived impact of four funding streams on academic research production in Nordic countries: the perspectives of system actors. Science and Public Policy, 44(6), 789-801.
Bemelmans-Videc, M. & Vedung, E. (1998). Conclusion: Instruments Types, Packages, Choices, and Evaluation. In: Bemelmans-Videc, M.L., et al. (Eds.), Carrots, Sticks & Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation (pp. 249-273). New Brunswick, Canada: Transaction Publishers.
Bemelmans-Videc, M., Rist, R. C. & Vedung, E. (1998). Carrots, sticks & sermons: policy instruments & their evaluation. New Brunswick, Canada: Transaction Publishers.
Berg, B., & Lune, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8th. ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Bhuiyan, N., & Baghel, A. (2005). An overview of continuous improvement: From the past to the present. Management Decision, 43(5), 761-771.
Bickman, L. (1987). “The Functions of Program Theory.” In L. Bickman (ed.), Using Program Theory in Evaluation (pp. 5-18). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Birkland, T. A. (2011). An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bressers, H. & Huitema, D. (1999). Economic instruments for environmental protection: can we trust the ‘magic carpet’? International Political Science Review, 20 (2), 175-196.
Bressers, H. T. A. & O’Toole, L. J. (2005). Instrument selection and implementation in a networked context. In Eliadis, P., Hill, M. & Howlett, M. (eds.). Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance (pp. 132-153). Montreal, CA: McGill-Queen’s University Press,.
Brown, R. (2004). Quality Assurance in Higher Education: The UK Experience since 1992. London, UK: Routlege Falmer.
Burke, J. C. & Minassians, H. (2002). Reporting indicators: What do they indicate? New Directions for Institutional Research, 116, 33-58.
Chalmers, D., Lee, K., & Walker, B. (2008). International and national quality teaching and learning performance models currently in use. Restrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Denise_Chalmers/publication/228622724_International_and_national_quality_teaching_and_learning_performance_models_currently_in_use/links/54ab7f7c0cf25c4c472f7830/International-and-national-quality-teaching-and-learning-performance-models-currently-in-use.pdf
Chen, R. S. (1975). Social and financial stewardship. The Accounting Review, 50, 533-543.
Chubb, J. E. & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.
Clark, B. R. (1983). The higher education system. Berkeley, CA: University of California.
Coate, L. E. (1991). Implementing Total Quality Management in a University Setting. In Total quality management in higher education (pp. 27-38). Sherr, L. A. & Teeter, D. J (ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Collin, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY: Harper Business.
Coy, D. & Dixon, K. (2004). The public accountability index: crafting a parametric disclosure index for annual reports. The British Accounting Review, 36(1), 79-106.
Coy, D., Fischer, M. & Gordon, T. (2001). Public accountability: a new paradigm for college and university annual reports. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 12, 1-31.
Crabbé, A., & Leroy, P. (2008). The handbook of environmental policy evaluation. Sterling: Earthscan.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Cronbach, L. J., Ambron, S. R., Dornbusch, S. M., Hess, R. D., Hornik, R. C., Phillips, D. C., Walker, D. F. & Weiner, S. S. (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dahl, R. A. & Lindblom, C. E. (1953). Politics, economics and welfare planning and politico-economics systems resolved into basic social processes. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
Datnow, A & Park, V. (2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In Handbook on Education Policy Research (pp. 348-361). London, UK: Routledge.
Davidson, E. J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics. The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Diamond, R.M. (2008). Designing and assessing courses and curricula: a practical guide (3rd ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Doelen, F.C.J. van der (1998) The ‘‘give-and-take’’ packaging of policy instruments: optimising legitimacy and effectiveness. In: Bemelmans-Videc, M.L., et al. (Eds.), Carrots, Sticks & Sermons: Policy Instruments and their Evaluation (pp. 129-146). New Brunswick, Canada: Transaction Publishers.
Doern, G. B. & Phidd, R. W. (1992). Canadian Public Policy: Ideas, Structure, Process. (2nd ed.). Toronto, Canada: Nelson Thomson Learning.
Doern, G. B., & Wilson, V. S. (1974). Issues in Canadian Public Policy. Toronto, Canada: Macmillan.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Eliadis, P., Hill, M. M., & Howlett, M. Le Galès, (2005). Designing government: from instruments to governance. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Enzensberger, N., Wietschel, M. & Rentz, O. (2002). Policy instruments fostering wind energy projects—a multi-perspective evaluation approach. Energy Policy, 30(9), 793-801.
Ewell, P. T. (1993). Total quality and academic practice: the idea we’ve been waiting for? Change, 25(3), 49-55.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Figureau, A. G., Montginoul, M. & Rinaudo, J. D. (2015). Policy instruments for decentralized management of agricultural groundwater abstraction: A participatory evaluation. Ecological Economics, 119, 147-157.
Franziska, W., & Norma, S. (2011). The Impact Evaluation of Sustainable Consumption Policy Instruments. Journal of Consumer Policy, 34(1), 43-66.
Gerhard, W. (2000). Evaluation of policy instruments for protective forest management in Austria. Forest Policy and Economics, 1(3), 243-255.
Gordon, T., Fischer, M., Malone, D. & Tower, G. (2002). A comparative empirical examination of extent of disclosure by private and public colleges and universities in the United States. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 21(3), 235-275.
Gormley, W. T. J. (1987). Bureau-Bashing: A Framework for Analysis. Presented at the 1987 meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL.
Greiner, R., Young, M. D., Macdonald, A.D., & Brooks, M. (2000). Incentive instruments for the sustainable use of marine resources. Ocean & Coastal Management, 43, 29-50.
Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. (1999). Regulatory pluralism: designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law & Policy, 21 (1), 49-76.
Hall, P. (1993). Policy Paradigm, Social Learning and the State. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275-96.
Harari, O. (1997). Ten reasons why TQM doesn’t work. Management Review, 86(1), 38-44.
Hicks, D. (2010). Overview of models of performance-based research funding systems. Paris, France: OECD.
Hogwood, B. W. & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy analysis for the real world. Oxfordshire, UK: Oxford University Press.
Hood, C. (1986). The Tools of Government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Pub.
Hopbach, A. (2014). Recent trends in quality assurance? Observations from the agencies’ perspectives. in M.J. Rosa and A. Amaral (eds.) Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Contemporary Debates (pp. 216-230), Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
Hora, M. T., Bouwma-Gearhart, J. & Park, H. J. (2017). Data driven decision-making in the era of accountability: Fostering faculty data cultures for learning. The Review of Higher Education, 40(3), 391-426.
Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Howlett, M. & Rayner, J. (2007). Design Principles for Policy Mixes: Cohesion and Coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1-18。
Howlett, M. (2000). Managing the "hollow state": procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Canadian Public Administration, 43(4), 412-431.
Howlett, M. (2005). What is a Policy Instrument? Tools, Mixes, and Implementation Styles. In Eliadis, P., Hill, M. & Howlett, M. (eds.). Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance (pp. 31-50). Montreal, Cacada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Howlett, M. (2009). Governance Modes, Policy Regimes and Operational Plans: A Multi-Level Nested Model of Policy Instrument Choice and Policy Design. Policy Science, 42(1), 73-89.
Howlett, M. (2011). Designing public policies: principles and instruments (1st ed.). London, UK: Routledge.
Huppes, G. & Simonis, U. E. (2009). Environmental policy instruments. In: Boersema J.J., & Reijnders, L. (eds) Principles of Environmental Sciences (pp. 239-280). Dordrecht, Netherland: Springer.
Ivana Logar. (2010). Sustainable tourism management in Crikvenica, Croatia: An assessment of policy instruments. Tourism Management, 31(1), 125-135.
Jongbloed, B. (2004). Funding higher education: options, trade-offs and dilemmas. Paper presented at the Fulbright Brainstorms 2004 - New Trends in Higher Education. Lisbon, Portugal.
Jongbloed, B. (2010). Funding higher education: A view across Europe. Enschede: University of Twente. Retrieved from http://www.utwente.nl/mb/cheps/publications/Publications%202010/MODERN_Funding_Report.pdf
Kassim, H. & Le Galès, P. (2010). Exploring Governance in a Multi-Level Polity: A Policy Instruments Approach. West European Politics, 33(1), 1-21.
Kettl, D. F. (2000). The transformation of governance: Globalization, devolution, and the role of government. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 488. Retrieved from http://ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/docview/1683827655?accountid=13158
Kettl, D. F. (2002). Managing Indirect Goverment. in Salamon, M. L. (ed.). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Koch, J. V. & Fisher, J. L. (1998). Higher education and total quality management. Total Quality Management, 9(8), 659-668.
Koeppel, S., Ürge-Vorsatz, D. & Mirasgedis, S. (2007). Is there a silver bullet? - A comparative assessment of twenty policy instruments applied worldwide for enhancing energy efficiency in buildings. In proceedings of the ECEEE.
Lascoumes, P. & Le Galès, P. (2007). From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy Instrumentation. Governance, Understanding Public Policy through Its Instruments, 20(1), 1-21.
Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: who gets what, when, how. New York, NY: P. Smith.
Lasswell, H. D. (1945). World politics faces economics: with special reference to the future relations of the United States and Russia. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: seven categories of functional analysis. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G., & Vespignani, A. (2014). The parable of Google flu: Traps in big data analysis. Science, 343, 1203-1205.
Le Galès, P. (2011). Policy Instruments and Governance. In Mark, B. (ed.), The SAGE handbook of governance (pp. 142-160). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Leffel, L. G., Robinson, J. F., Harshberger, R. F., Krallman, J. D. & Frary, R. B. (1991). Assessing the Leadership Culture at Virginia Tech. In Sherr, L. A. & Teeter, D. J (ed.). Total quality management in higher education (pp. 63-72), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Levine, C. H., Peters, B. G. & Thompson, F. J. (1990). Public administration: challenges, choices, consequences. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1984). From Social Theory to Policy Design. Journal of Public Policy, 4(3), 237-259.
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1989). Instruments of Government: Perceptions and Contexts. Journal of Public Policy, 9(1), 35-58.
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1990). The Designs of Instruments for Public policy. In S. Nagel (ed.), Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation. Westport, (CT): Greenwood Press.
Linder, S. H. & Peters, B. G. (1998). The study of policy instruments: four schools of thought. In Peters, B. G. & Nispen, F. K. M. (ed.), Public policy instruments: evaluating the tools of public administration. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Lorraine, M., Frits, M. & Henk, V. (2012). A qualitative evaluation of policy instruments used to improve energy performance of existing private dwellings in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 45, 459-468.
Lowi, T. J. (1964). American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory. World Politics, 16, 677-715.
Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298-310.
Marijk van der Wende. (2007). Internationalization of higher education in the OECD countries: Challenges and ppportunities for the coming decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3-4), 274-289.
Mayntz, R. (1993). Government Failures and the Problem of Governability: Some Comments on a Theoretical Paradigm. In Kooiman, J. (ed.), Modern Governance. London, UK: Sage.
Mayntz, R. (2006). From Government to Governance: Political Steering in Modern Societies. In Scheer, D. & Rubik, F. (ed.), Governance of Integrated Product Policy: In Search of Sustainable Production and Consumption. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing.
McCaffery, P. (2010). The higher education manager's handbook: effective leadership and management in universities and colleges. New York, NY: Routledge.
McDonnell, L. & Elmore, R. (1987). Getting the Job Done: Alternative Policy Instruments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 133-152.
McDonnell, L. M. (1994). Assessment Policy as Persuasion and Regulation. American Journal of Education, 102(4), 394-420.
Mertova, P., Webster, L. & Nair, S. (2010). Growth of the quality movement in higher education. In Nair, C. S. et al. (eds) Leadership and Management of Quality in Higher Education (pp. 3-17), Oxford, UK: Chandos Publishing.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. W. & Lampel, J. (2005). Strategy Bites Back: It Is Far More, and Less, than You Ever Imagined. New York, NY: Prentice Hall Financial Times.
Mirjam, H., Lars, N. & Robert, H. (2008). Theory-based policy evaluation of 20 energy efficiency instruments. Energy Efficiency, 1(2), 131-148.
Nelson, M., Banks, W. & Fisher, J. (2003). Improved accountability disclosures by Canadian universities. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 2(1), 77-107.
Noaman, A. Y., Ragab, A. M., Madbouly, A. I., Khedra, A. M., & Fayoumi, A. G. (2017). Higher education quality assessment model: towards achieving educational quality standard. Studies in Higher Education, 42(1), 23-46.
Ntim, C. G., Soobaroyen T. & Broad, M. J. (2017). Governance structures, voluntary disclosures and public accountability. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(1), 65-118.
OECD. (1995). Higher Education Finance: Current Patterns. Paris, France: OECD.
OECD. (1997). Evaluating economic instruments for environmental policy. Paris, France: OECD.
OECD. (2002). Responding to student expectations. Paris, France: OECD.
Oikonomou, V. & Jepma, C. J. (2008). A framework on interactions of climate and energy policy instruments. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13(2), 131-156.
Orr, D.(2005). Can Performance-Based Funding and Quality Assurance Solve the State vs Market Conundrum? Higher Education Policy, 18(1), 31-50.
Parker, L. D. (2012). From privatised to hybrid corporatised higher education: a global financial management discourse. Financial Accountability & Management, 28(3), 247-268.
Per, M. (2003). A Framework for Evaluating Environmental Policy Instruments: Context and Key Concepts. Evaluation, 9(4), 415-436.
Peters, B. G. (1989). The politics of bureaucracy. New York, NY: Longman.
Peters, B. G. (2002). The Politics of Tool Choice. In Salamon, M. L. (ed.). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Peterson, M. W. (1995). Image of University Structure, Governance, and Leadership: Adaptive Strategies for the New Environment. In Dill, D. D. & Sporn, B. (1995). Emerging patterns of social demand and university reform: through a glass darkly (pp. 140-158). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon.
Petrus, K. & Jukka, S. (2005). Recently Introduced Policy Instruments and Intervention Theories. Evaluation, 11(1), 55-68.
Philipp Friedrich, HB. & Kalim U, S. (2011). A multi-criteria evaluation of policy instruments for climate change mitigation in the power generation sector of Trinidad and Tobago. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6331-6343.
Poister, T. H. (2015). Performance Measurement. In Newcomer, K.E., Hatry, H.P. & Wholey, J.S. (Eds). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 108-136). Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Popi, K., & Dimitrios, M. (2007). A multi-criteria evaluation method for climate change mitigation policy instruments. Energy Policy, 35(2), 6235-6257.
Psomas, E. & Antony, J. (2017). Total quality management elements and results in higher education institutions. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(2), 206-223.
Ringeling, A. B. (2002). European Experience with Tools of Government. In Salamon, M. L. (ed.). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (pp. 585-599). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Ringeling, A. B. (2005). Instruments in Four: The Elements of Policy Design. In Eliadis, P., Hill, M. & Howlett, M. (eds.). Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance (pp. 186-202). Montreal, CA: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Robson, C. (1993). Real World Research︰A resource for social scientists and practitioner-researchers. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Rowlands, J. (2013). Academic boards: less intellectual and more academic capital in higher education governance? Studies in Higher Education, 38(9), 1274-1289.
Salamon, M. L. (2002). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Salamon, M. L., & Lund, M.S. (1989). Beyond privatization: the tools of government action. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.
Salmi, J. & Hauptman, A. (2006). Higher Education in the World 2006: The Financing of Universities. Guni Series on the Social Commitment of Universities, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, New York.
Salmi, J. (2015). Is big brother watching you? The evolving role of the State in regulating and conducting quality assurance. Washington, D.C.: Council of Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA).
Satterlee, B. (1996). Continuous improvement and quality implications for higher education. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED399845
Schneider, A. L. & Ingram, H. M. (1990). Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510-529.
Schneider, A. L. & Ingram, H. M. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
Scott, P. (1994). Recent Development in Quality Assessment in Great British. In Westerheijden, D. F. et al. (eds), Changing Contexts of Quality Assessment: Recent Trends in West European Higher Education (pp. 51-73), Utrecht, Netherland: Uitgeverij Lemma B. V.
Seymour, D. (1991). Total Quality Management in Higher Education: Clearing the Hurdles. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED388191
Seymour, D. (1992). On Q. causing quality in higher education. New York, NY: ACE MacMillian.
Sherr, L. A. & Teeter, D. J. (1991). Total quality management in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sims, R. R. & Sims, S. J. (1995). Toward and Understanding of Total Quality Management: Its Relevance and Contribution to Higher education. In Sims, R. R. et al. (eds) Total Quality Management in Higher Education: Is it Working? Why or Why not? (pp. 1-21). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Smith, S. R. & Ingram, H. M. (2002). Policy Tools and Democracy. In Salamon, M. L. (ed). The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance (pp. 565-584). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sörlin, S. (2007). Funding diversity: Performance-based funding regimes as drivers of differentiation in higher education systems. Higher education policy, 20(4), 413-440.
Spillane, J. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decisionmaking phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 113-141.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J. & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy Implementation and Cognition: Reframing and Refocusing Implementation Research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.
Starbuck, W. H. & Milliken, F. J. (1988). Executives’ Perceptual Filters: What They Notice and How They Make Sense. In Hambrick D. (ed.) The Executive Effect: Concepts and Methods For Studying Top Managers (pp. 35-65). Greenwich, RI: JAI Press,.
Stensaker, B. & Vabø, A. (2013). Re-inventing Shared Governance: Implications for Organisational Culture and Institutional Leadership. Higher Education Quarterly, 67(3), 256-274.
Sunder M, V. (2016). Constructs of quality in higher education services. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(8), 1091-1111.
Susana, B. & Charles, E. (2013). The choice of innovation policy instruments. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80(8), 1513-1522.
Sverdrup, S. (2003). Towards an Evaluation of the Effects of Laws. Utilising Time-series Data of Complaints. Evaluation, 9(3), 325-339.
Sykes, G. & Elmore, R. F. (1989). Making schools manageable: policy and administration for tomorrow’s schools. In Haneway, J. & Crowson, R. (ed.), The Politics of Reforming School Administration (pp. 77-94). New York, NY: Falmer Press.
Tannock, J. D. (1991). Industrial quality standards and total quality management in higher education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 16(4), 353-360.
Teixeira, P. N. & Koryakina, T. (2016). Political Instability, Austerity and Wishful Thinking: Analysing Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Higher Education’s Funding Reforms in Portugal. European journal of education, 51(1), 126-139.
Teixeira, P., Jongbloed, B., Dill, D. & Amaral, A. (Eds.) (2004). Markets in higher education: Rhetoric or reality? Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
Toma, J. D. (2010). Building organizational capacity: strategic management in higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Toma, J.D. (2007). Expanding peripheral activities, increasing accountability demands and reconsidering governance in US higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 26(1), 57-72.
Tricker, R. I. (1984). Corporate Governance: Practices, Procedures and Powers in British Companies and Their Boards of Directors. Aldershot, UK: Gower Pub. Co.
Trinczek, R. & West, A. (1999). Using Statistics and Indicators to Evaluate Universities in Europe: aims, fields, problems and recommendations. European Journal of Education, 34(3), 343-356.
Vedung, E. (1998). Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Vedung, E. (2004). Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Verhoest, K., Roness, P. G., Verschuere, B., Rubecksen, K., & MacCarthaigh, M. (2010). Autonomy and control of state agencies. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Vesna, B. & Zeljko, T. (2017). Design and Evaluation of Policy Instruments for Energy Efficiency Market. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy, 8(1), 354-362.
Vidovich, L. & Currie, J. (2011). Governance and trust in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 43-56.
Vieira, J., Moura, F., & Viegas, J. M. (2007). Transport policy and environmental impacts: The importance of multi-instrumentality in policy integration. Transport Policy, 14, 421-432.
Watson, D. (1995). Quality assessment and “Self-regulation”: the English experience, 1992-94, Higher Education Quality, 49(4), 326-340.
Webb, K. (2005). Sustainable Governance in the Twenty-First Century: Moving beyond Instrument Choice. In Eliadis, P., Hill, M. & Howlett, M. (eds.). Designing Government: From Instruments to Governance (pp. 242-280). Montreal, CA: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
Weimer, D. L. & Vining, A. R. (2017). Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (6th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Wholey, J. S. (1987). Evaluability Assessment: Developing Program Theory. In L. Bickman (ed.), Using Program Theory in Evaluation (pp. 77-92). New Directions for Evaluation, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wildavsky, A. (1987). Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation. American Political Science Review, 81(1), 3-22.
Winter, R. S. (1991). Overcoming Barriers to Total Quality Management in College and Universities. In Sherr, L. A. & Teeter, D. J (ed.). Total quality management in higher education (pp. 53-62), San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Yin, R. (1994). Case Study Research Design and Methods (2nd. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yin, R. (2014). Case Study Research Design and Methods (5th. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.