Analysing Cybernetic Governance at Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia: How is Co- Production Linked to the Transformation of Higher Education Institutions via Governance?

Marhaini   Mohd Noor

doi:10.32890/jgd2020.16.2.1

Authors

Marhaini Mohd Noor Faculty of Maritime Studies, Universiti Malaysia Terengganu , Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.32890/jgd2020.16.2.1

Keywords:

Co-production strategy, cybernetic governance, empowerment, multi-stakeholders, policy-making

Abstract

This paper attempts to analyse how important the cybernetic governance is to higher education institutions in Malaysia. Cybernetic governance is a structure, process of a system to empower greater decision making, autonomy, leadership, and greater accountability. Thus, cybernetic approach is heavily depending on information, utilise information for decision making, policy making and feedback to respond effectively. The concept also relevant with co-production strategy, whereby public services offered at the institution would focus on making use of resources through community building, collaboration, and resource sharing. In this context, “governance” refers to the role of multi-stakeholders involved in decision making, autonomy, leadership, and accountability. The effectiveness and success of this cybernetic governance depends on the institution community; the board, Vice-Chancellor, university management committee, Deans and Directors involved. The main idea is to analyse cybernetic governance as a model for processing information and a platform for co-production on governance empowerment at higher education institutions in Malaysia. Hence literatures are reviewed to apply the concepts to this research. An expected outcome of this research would be the evidence to improve policy performance in governance arrangements. Therefore, cybernetic governance contribution is the practice of good governance for intelligent institutions.

References

Aschhoff, N. & Vogel, R. (2018). Value conflicts in co-production: governing public values in multi-actor settings. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Vol. 31 No. 7, 2018 pp. 775-793. Emerald Publishing Limited. DOI 10.1108/IJPSM-08-2017-0222.

Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: a conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, v. 76, n. 3, p. 427-435, 2016.

Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review, v. 67, n. 5, p. 846-860, 2007. Campbell, S., Gazard, B., Woodhead, C., Harber-Aschan, L., Beards, S., HarberAschan, J., Gazzard, M., Yaman, E., Murugesu, A. and Hatch,

S.L. (2019) ‘Involving young people through co-production and widening participation approaches: Reflections from a school-based engagement initiative’. Research for All, 3 (1): 42–58. DOI https://doi.org/10.18546/RFA.03.1.

Chaebo, G & Medeiros, J.J. (2017). Conceptual reflections on co-production of public policies and directions for future research. Cad. EBAPE. BR, v. 14, nº 3, Article 4, Rio de Janeiro, Jul. /Sept. 2017.

Clift S (2008) Governance, community participation and urban regeneration: a new role for third sector partners? Middlesex: Middlesex University.

Communities Evidence Programme (2015) Voice of the User report. What Works Centre for Wellbeing: London.

Deleon, P. & Deleon, L. (2002). What ever happened to policy implementation? An alternative approach. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, v. 12, n. 4, p. 467-492, 2002.

Dickinson, H. (2016) From New Public Management to New Public Governance: The implications for a ‘new public service’. This text is taken from The Three Sector Solution: Delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business, edited by John

Butcher and David Gilchrist, published 2016 by ANU Press, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Durose, C., & Richardson, L. (2016). Governance for co-productive policy designs. In Designing public policy for co-production: Theory, practice and change (pp. 199-202). Bristol: Bristol University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1t896qg.24

Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T. & Honingh, M. E. (2015). User co-production of public service delivery: an uncertainty approach. Public Policy and Administration, v. 30, n. 2, p. 145-164, 2015.

Howell, M., & Wilkinson, M. (2016). Policy design as co-design. In Durose C. & Richardson L. (Authors), Designing public policy for co-production: Theory, practice and change (pp. 157-166). Bristol: Bristol University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1t896qg.21

Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems. 2. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. IIAS (International Institute of Administrative Sciences). (2017). IIAS Study Group on Coproduction of Public Services. Syracuse University – Greenberg House Washington, DC.

Jakobsen, M. & Andersen, S. C. (2013). Coproduction and equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review, v. 73, n. 5, p. 704713, 2013.

KPM (2016). Pekeliling pengurusan data Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi bilangan 1 tahun 2016. Laporan Kementerian Pendidikan Tinggi.

Lueg, R., & Radlach, R. (2015). Managing sustainable development with management control systems: A literature review, European Management Journal (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. emj.2015.11.005.

McCabe, P. (2016). Challenges in policy redesign. In Durose C. & Richardson L. (Authors), Designing public policy for co-production: Theory, practice and change (pp. 63-70). Bristol: Bristol University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1t896qg.

Medina, E. (2011). Cybernetic Revolutionaries. The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts London, England.

OECD (2011). Governance and quality guidelines in Higher Education. A review of governance arrangements and quality assurance guidelines. www.oecd.org

Orton L, Halliday E, Collins M, Egan M, Lewis S, Ponsford R, et al. (2017) Putting context centre stage: evidence from a systems evaluation of an area based empowerment initiative in England. Critical Public Health, 27(4), 477-489.

Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance. Public Management Review, 8(3), 377–387.

Osborne, S. P. (Ed.). (2009). The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. London: Routledge.

Osborne, S. P., & McLaughlin, K. (2004). The cross-cutting review of the voluntary sector. What next for local government voluntary sector relationships. Regional Studies, 38(5), 573–582.

Osborne, S. (2010). The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge.

Osborne, S., Radnor, Z. & Strokosch, K. (2016) Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment, Public Management Review, 18 (5), 639-653. Pennington A, Pilkington G, Bache I, Watkins M, Bagnall A, South R,

Corcoran R (2017) A scoping review of review-level evidence on coproduction in local decision-making and its relationship to community wellbeing. University of Liverpool: Liverpool.

Pennington A, Watkins M, Bagnall A-M, South J, Corcoran R (2018) A systematic review of evidence on the impacts of joint decision-making on community wellbeing. London: What Works Centre for Wellbeing.

Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production and third sector social services in Europe— some crucial conceptual issues, Ch. 2. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.). New public governance, the third sector and co-production. London: Routledge.

Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., & Verschuere, B. (Eds.). (2012). New public governance, the third sector and co-production. London: Routledge.

Porter, D. (2012). Co-production and network structures in public education, Ch. 8. In V. Pestoff, T. Brandsen, & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. London: Routledge.

Schwaninger, M. (2019). Governance for intelligent organizations: a cybernetic contribution. Kybernetes Vol. 48 No. 1, 2019. pp. 35-57. Emerald Publishing Limited. DOI 10.1108/K-01-2018-0019.

Schwaninger, M. (2018). Governance for intelligent organizations: a cybernetic contribution. Kybernetes, https://doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2018-0019.

Sicilia, M. Guarini, E. Sancino, A. Andreani, M. and Ruffini, R. (2016). Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences 2016, Vol. 82(1) 8–27. sagepub.co.uk/journals Permissions. Nav DOI: 10.1177/0020852314566008

Sorrentino, M. Sicilia, M. & Howlett, M. (2018). Understanding coproduction as a new public governance tool, Policy and Society, 37:3, 277-293, DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2018.1521676 Tracey McConnell1, Tristan Sturm, Mabel Stevenson, Noleen McCorry,

Michael Donnelly, Brian J. Taylor and Paul Best (2019). Co-producing a shared understanding and definition of empowerment with people with dementia. Research Involvement and Engagement. School of Natural and Built Environment, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-019-0154-2.

Wilkinson, K. (2016). Can crisis ever be good for policy design? In Durose C. & Richardson L. (Authors), Designing public policy for coproduction: Theory, practice and change (pp. 53-62). Bristol: Bristol University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctt1t896qg.