How do we know if it works? a review of approaches to the evaluation of higher education regulation

Higher education is increasingly regulated. Yet concerns are frequently expressed about how effective that regulation is and about disproportionate regulatory burden. This paper considers these issues through the lens of evaluation. It takes the form of a scoping review of evaluations of national higher education regulation in Australia, England, France and the United States. It looks at when evaluations are carried out, the methods deployed and how the evaluations are then used. It focuses on the core regulatory priorities of access, quality, graduate outcomes and efficiency. The findings suggest that evaluations are not always commissioned in a consistent or strategic way, and there is limited evidence as to how the results are subsequently used. They are also hard to locate. The paper concludes by suggesting that evaluations should be commissioned, deployed and promoted more strategically and transparently to ensure more effective regulation and greater public accountability.