No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Comparing guidance documents issued by the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Office for Students (OfS) over the course of 15 years, I argue that the introduction of a new higher education regulator in 2018 caused a shift in the positioning of widening participation evaluation in HE policy. I suggest that the resulting changes have significant implications for the configuration of key evaluation stakeholder groups and that these reconfigurations, in turn, have implications for the epistemic relationships at play in the evaluation process. In particular, the way in which a mode of evaluation is framed by policy can determine who has the power to shape dominant definitions of meaningful evidence and whose situated forms of knowledge are considered to constitute robust evidence. The ongoing tension between positivist and post-positivist approaches can be eased, I argue, by focusing on the role of delivery practitioners as producers of evidence about 'what works' in their own contexts. I conclude by drawing on other practice-based disciplines such as social work and nursing to suggest that we might learn from work that is already advanced in these areas, which appears to have found a balance between evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

We present an analysis of two current policy options to improve evaluation of access and participation work: independent external evaluation vs. in-house evaluation. Evaluation of access and participation work needs to be well-conducted, objective and widely disseminated, regardless of the outcome. Independent external evaluation is likely to provide objectivity and the right skills, but providing effective and timely feedback may be prohibitively expensive. Without support, in-house practitioner teams risk lack of objectivity and skills. Neither external nor in-house evaluation is likely to solve issues of publication bias; usage of open science principles could help. Working with academics and other experts internal to the institution could provide the skills to work well under the open science framework. Working as a sector to avoid duplication of effort is likely to get us further, faster.