Policy Studies

ISSN: 0144-2872 (Print) 1470-1006 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpos20

The analysis of policy implementation models in

higher education: the case study of Indonesia

Nurdiana Gaus, Muhammad Yunus, Abdul Karim & Haleema Sadia

To cite this article: Nurdiana Gaus, Muhammad Yunus, Abdul Karim & Haleema Sadia (2019) The
analysis of policy implementation models in higher education: the case study of Indonesia, Policy
Studies, 40:1, 92-109, DOI: 10.1080/01442872.2018.1539224

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1539224

Published online: 13 Nov 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 350

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cpos20
POLICY STUDIES
2019, VOL. 40, NO. 1, 92–109
https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2018.1539224

The analysis of policy implementation models in higher

education: the case study of Indonesia
Nurdiana Gausa, Muhammad Yunusb, Abdul Karima and Haleema Sadiac
a
Department of Social Welfare Studies, STIKS Tamalanrea Makassar, Makassar, Indonesia; bDepartment of
Public Administration, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia; cSchool of Environment, Education and
Development, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper aims to analyse and understand the models of policy Received 19 January 2016
implementation in Indonesian state universities during the Accepted 18 October 2018
ongoing process of market-driven reforms and how academics
KEYWORDS
respond to these models. The research undertaken was in the Indonesia; policy
form of qualitative study using semi-structured interviews as implementation; higher
instruments to collect data. Interviews were conducted with 30 education; dialectical
academics in three state universities in Indonesia. The research approach; top-down model;
demonstrated that policy implementation in Indonesian state bottom-up model
universities takes largely a dialectical form which takes place both
at macro and micro levels, suggesting a blended application of
top-down and bottom-up approaches. The results of this study
also confirmed that the interaction between policy and local
systems plays an important role for the successful implementation
of the policy. Indonesian academics perceived that each of these
models has its strength and weaknesses particularly in relation to
the aspect of collegiality. It is anticipated that the study will both
contribute to a better understanding of the dynamics between
governments as policy makers and academics as street level
bureaucrats in the implementation of a policy, and offer guidance
for policy makers in the formulation and enactment of relevant
policies in higher education sectors both in Indonesia and other
contexts implementing policy implementation.

Introduction
Higher education around the world has increasingly been seen as a medium to enhance the
economic competitiveness of nations. This important economic function has resulted in
the growing interest of governments to manage and regulate higher education institutions
through policy formulation and enactment to reform higher education institutions. With
regard to this, the advent of economic rationalism embedded in New Public Management
has been considered as an effective model to put policies into effect. This is because this
model emphasizes the audit culture and the central role of governments to assess the
work and the productivity of academics. Such as policy implementation model has
gained much debate as it has been viewed to have contradicted the professionalism and
collegiality of higher education institutions.

CONTACT Nurdiana Gaus nurdiana.gaus@gmail.com

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 POLICY STUDIES 93

With regard to this, in the policy implementation literature development, there has
been a prolonged debate over which models are more effective and successful in putting
the policy into effect (Fullan 1994; Matland 1995). In the course of its evolvement, the
dichotomy of two contradicting models emerged out, that is to say Top-down and
Bottom-up approaches. The advocates of each of these approaches, for example, Sabatier
and Mazmanian (1980) for top-downers, and Hjern and Hull (1982) for bottom-uppers,
claimed that each has superiority over the other (cited in Sabatier 1986). In the midst of
these dichotomy and debate, a new emerging approach has been advocated by several
scholars of blending the application of these. A dialectical mode of framework or analysis
has become the ground to proffer the combined application of top-down and bottom-up
approaches(Cuban 1983; Hammond 1990; Fullan 1994; Matland 1995). In view of this, we
argue that a blended use of policy implementation in higher education can become an
alternative model to foster the process of interpretation and implementation policy at
macro and micro levels to achieve institutional goals.
The failure of top-down models in educational reform was reported by Collins (2014).
Collins (2014) argued that top-down models used in American educational reform has failed
to increase and improve the quality of graduates. On the contrary, Sai and Beverton (2007)
confirmed that top-down model in higher education reform in Taiwan has brought about
effective results. Fullan (1994) and Cuban (1983) reported that the combined use of top-
down and bottom-up approaches in schools can bring about effective results for schools
improvement. This premise was supported by Sizer (1987), and Peter (2000) in the
context of higher education arguing that a dialectical model of policy interpretation and
implementation at macro and micro levels can bring about succesful results. Although
research on policy implementation in higher education has largely highlighted international
literature, a few research has focused on the interaction and conflict with policy and the col-
legial nature of higher education, particularly towards the roles of leaderships to facilitate the
interpretation and implementation of policy via innovations at micro level. Furthermore,
there has been too less attention paid to the context of Southern global like Indonesia.
This research focuses on the policy implementation in higher education in which
aspects of leaderships at departmental level (micro level) can become a bridge to facilitate
potential conflict between professionalism and collegiality as they interact with the process
and model of policy implementation adopted. Taking the case of Indonesian universities,
this paper particularly aims to demonstrate how market-driven policy imperatives to
increase the productivities of academics’ research and publication in reputable inter-
national journals are implemented; and how academics give meanings to the implemen-
tation of these imperatives in Indonesian higher education sectors. The context of
Indonesia as a developing country residing at the southern hemisphere with its disctintive
characteristics of democratic system built upon a long-standing effect of patrimonial sys-
tem1(Gaus, Sultan, and Basri 2017) can become a lesson for other similar contexts related
to how government instruments formulated from the top can support the discretion of
bureaucrats (bottom levels) to make innovation on committing their own work for goal
accomplishments via the roles of faculty and departmental leaderships. To deeply
analyse this issue, several research questions were formulated as follows:

(1) How has the policy been implemented in Indonesian higher education?
(2) How do academics respond to the policy implementation in their institutions?
94 N. GAUS ET AL.

Literature review
Top-down approach/model
Top-down policy implementation is germane to the roles of central actors in the process of
formulation, implementation, and reformulation of policies, overlooking the fine-grained
context in terms of behaviour at local system (micro) to implement and interpret policies
(Sabatier 1986; Matland 1995; Trowler 1998). This approach views policy implementation
within a language of a Statute to valorize the execution of authoritative decisions. The
Statute becomes its starting point to valorize the action of central actors to design and
implement policies to target groups (Matland 1995). Because it uses the Statute as its
legal basis, this approach emphasizes the alignment of policy responsibility with the
goal of the policy. Therefore, indeed, a clear and consistent objective of policy has to be
provided.
To achieve this, this approach underscores the importance of establishing generalizable
advice from central actors. To enable the application of generalizable advice consistent and
recognizable, the patterns of behaviour across different policy contexts are needed
(Matland 1995). However, shirking behaviour of target groups can hamper the success
of policy goals. Therefore, their behaviour needs to be controlled, monitored, and evalu-
ated. This premise, subsequently may lead to the emergence of prescriptive practices regu-
lated in a hierarchy with which the behaviour of target groups has to comply and be
sympathetic.
To reduce resistance and increase compliance of target groups or implementing
agencies, top-down approach offers a legally-structured mechanism. To this extent, it is
expected to simultaneously promote compliance and reduce resistance via the employ-
ment of reward and sanction mechanisms. Reward and sanction mechanisms can also
function as a means to avoid and prevent policy implementation from resistance. There-
fore, in order to orderly execute the objective of the policy over time by the implementing
agencies and the target groups, there should be several conditions provided to allow the
success of the policy implementation (Matland 1995). This can be achieved via the con-
struction of a legal structure of the implementation process. The role of legally-mandated
objectives (Statutes) in top-down approach is to give clear foundation and guidance for the
implementing agencies and the target groups for “distinguishing the objectives contained
in the legal document from the rhetoric surrounding policy formulation and the tendency
of critics to evaluate a program on the basis of what they mistakenly perceived to be its
objectives” (Sabatier 1986, 28).
To effectuate the policy and to achieve its success, policy makers are required to be con-
versant with a good theory in examining what makes the policy successful and unsuccess-
ful. Drawing on the work of Jeffrey Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky, Sabatier (1986), it is
recommended to utilize a “causal theory” in the policy design. This is significant given that
in the stage of formulation and policy designs the nature of human nature of policy makers
in terms of their human cognition and limited knowledge towards problems can direct
them to design policy at the expense of other aspects of problems (Sabatier 1986). The
gap in the implementation policy can be identified based on this theory (Trowler 1998).
While this approach promises the success of policy implementation by managing and
controlling the behaviour of target groups to elicit compliance, alongside the legal respon-
sibility which endorses the right of central actors to effectuate policy, this approach has
 POLICY STUDIES 95

several weaknesses. The most frequently criticized component of this approach is the fact
that it denies the real condition in the field – that there are different multitude of actors
interacting and interpreting the policy at the level of implementation of the policy
(Berman 1978; Fullan 1994; Matland 1995). Berman (1978), further argued that the real
problem in the policy enactment lies at the interaction between policy and the implement-
ing institutions or at micro-institution level. Therefore, the behaviour and action of target
groups towards the intention of the policy need to be analysed at the level of policy for-
mulation, implementation, and reformulation – thus the intention of policy can be
applied and achieved (Berman 1978; Matland 1995). This is in contrast with bottom-up
approach which emphasizes the analysis of multitude of actors interacting at the stage
of implementation towards a particular problem or issue (Sabatier 1986; Trowler 1998).

Bottom-up approach (interpretive cultural approach)

Bottom-up approach in policy implementation holds an assumption about the importance
of understanding the behaviours of ground levels or street-level bureaucrats in interpreting
the policy at the point of its implementation (Sabatier 1986; Yanow 1987; Trowler 1998).
This approach does not go through the stages of policy formulation, implementation, and
reformulation as opposed to top-down approach (Sabatier 1986). Rather, bottom-up
approach deals with the analysis of multitude of actors interacting at the stage of
implementation towards a particular problem or issue (Sabatier 1986; Trowler 1998). In
this way, a policy making is focused on the identification of the reciprocal effects
between changes and individual behaviour which can affect the policy implementation,
and how the policy implementation is affected by these. Trowler (1998) called it mutual
adaptation. This aspect is lacking in the top-down approach in which governments play
a central role in the design and formulation of the policy.
The bottom-up approach in policy implementation works within the frame of
cultural lens (Yanow 1987). The cultural lens perceives the behaviours of implementing
agencies as non-rational, goal-oriented, and involves the conscious and deliberate adjust-
ment of agency means to achieve the realization of explicitly-stated policy ends. Thus,
behaviours sometimes are viewed as expressive acts. These expressive acts can only be
understood by using the interpretive logic surrounding the cultural approach in under-
standing the policy language. In this perspective, the problem in the policy implemen-
tation lies at the varied behaviours of target groups as implementing agencies in
interpreting the language of the policy and Act. Therefore, it would be immensely
useful to investigate these and analyse the effect of these interpretations and meanings
on the implementation attempts. Thus, the focus of the policy implementation abides
in the investigation of multiple meanings and interpretations of the implementers. To
find out these, interpretive logic as attached to in the cultural perspectives can be seen
as the appropriate means to analyse them.
Investigating and understanding the multiple meanings and interpretations of imple-
menters in policy implementation would be substantially important as these can create
an ambiguity in the interpreting the symbolic language and act of the policy.
Multiple stakeholders interpretations may hamper the implementation of the policy’s explicit
mandate. On the other hand, such interpretations may aid implementation of its tacitly
known, yet no less intended, mandate. (Yanow 1993, 42)
96 N. GAUS ET AL.

As with top-down approach, this approach has sparked a critique as well in terms of the
discretion or autonomy given to the grass-root levels to regulate and govern themselves.
This act, according to top-uppers, would deny the fact contained in the democratic
theory, “about the importance of power, mandate, and legitimacy held by policy makers
in effectuating the policy – a superior value” (Matland 1995, 154), granted by elected offi-
cials which legally enables elected policy makers to have power over others to control.
Referring to this, some scholars, such as Fullan (1994), Matland (1995), and Sabatier
(1986) put forward alternative modes of policy implementation. Fullan (1994) and Saba-
tier (1986) for example, proposed the combined use of these, tailored with the condition of
contexts under which policy is put into effect. With regard to this, it is important that
Matland (1995) provided the types of situation where each of these approaches may
well be suited. For example, under a clear policy without any ambiguity and low
conflicts, top-down approach is the suitable model to apply – while under a high ambigu-
ity with low conflicts, bottom-up approach may become the answer.
The power of the bottom is very much similar to the collegiality assumed by higher edu-
cation to self-govern themselves based on the flatter structures, relative lack of coordi-
nations, and the absence of regulation (McNay 1995). However, collegial governance is
not without a risk. McNay (1995) argued that such governance can potentially open “to
abuse through personal bias” (106). Following this, research by Hellawell and Hancock
(2001) carried out in Australian university settings found that there was power abuse
by senior academics to influence the decision making process enveloped in their own
agendas.

Top-down and bottom-up approaches in higher education: a dialectical

model
The above sections have elaborated how each of the approaches works and how each of
them has limitations and strengths in formulating, implementing, and interpreting the
policy contents. In view of this, some scholars in higher education policies have
brought forth evidence in relation to the effective models of combining top-down and
botom-up approaches in the implementation of policies to accelerate the accomplishment
of educational change programmes.
A study conducted by Goldfarb and Henrekson (2003) reported that the success of the
commercialization of research in the US universities has resulted from the top-down
approach via government instruments (Bayh-Dole Act), followed by the bottom-up
approach in its implementation. The latter has been associated with the discretion
given to universities to make innovations in research by which can be transferred to indus-
try and market, reflecting the model of “the triple helix of university-industry-govern-
ment” (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1999, 111). By contrast, such a programme has been
quite slow in its progress in Swedish universities whereby top-down approach has
become predominant (Goldfarb and Henrekson 2003, Rasmussen 2008). Another
success story of the combined model in the process of the commercialization of research
was put forward by Rasmussen (2008) and Brinkhurst et al. (2011). Taking the Canadian
university system as the case, Rasmussen (2008) demonstrated that the government’s role
at the centre as a facilitator through the provision of incentives and instruments is
strengthened with the implementation at the universities as street level bureaucrats to
 POLICY STUDIES 97

create and innovate their own business (Rasmussen 2008; Brinkhurst et al. 2011). The
effectiveness of the combined implementation of the two models is not only confined to
Western Universities but also to African universities. A research conducted by Czer-
niewics and Brown (2009) demonstrated that the mixed use of top-down and bottom-
up approaches has helped the universities to accelerate the application of ICT in teaching
and learning.
Strongly linked to the above, and following our argument earlier in the introduction
section, we contend that such a hybrid model of policy implementation can foster a
harmony between governments as policy makers and academics (street level bureaucrats)
in the process of implementation and interpretation of policy imperatives for the policy
implementation to be successful.

The role of the governement in the management of Indonesian higher

education
Indonesian higher education is a bureaucratic institution which is managed, regulated,
monitored, and evaluated under the Ministry of Education, Research, Technology, and
Higher Education. The central role of government in the management and provision of
higher education is embedded in the Higher Education Act 2012.
Higher education has been centrally operated and the academic issues become the
matters of government. There has always been the state that is present in the management
of higher education. Accordingly, there has not been any discretion for academic commu-
nities to define and determine their own boundaries to construct their identities. Under
this situation, higher education in Indonesia is enormously difficult to practice its missions
as a moral force coupled with the lack of accountability and innovation (Sulistyono 2007).
In the meantime, the authority to manage collective resources has been negated as they
are managed directly by the government. The funding of higher education institutions has
been heavily relied on the government’s subsidy at the expense of the community’s auton-
omy. This relationship has put the government as the sole financier of higher education
institutions-played out within the notion that sacrifices academic autonomy and
freedom and the notion which respects the exchange of expertise, skills, and profession-
alism of academics (Clarke and Newman 1997). Trust was scarcely found within this
sort of relationship by which linked higher education to its society in which it resides.
Trow (1996) asserted that trust is one of the three fundamental ways that connects
higher education to its supporting societies.
With the increased competition in the knowledge-economy society, Indonesian higher
education institutions are increasingly seen as pivotal sites that can provide human capi-
tals which can support the competitiveness of Indonesia by providing skills and research to
apply technology (Gaus and Hall 2015). With respect to this, the government of Indonesia
has seen the greater importance of higher education institutions and has made them as a
component of economic investment strategies to strengthen the competitive position of
Indonesia at international level (The Directorate General of Higher Education, the
DGHE 2012a). As a manifestation of this, the government, through the Minister of Edu-
cation has enacted the policy of Higher Education which arranges the practices, the pur-
poses, the goals, the legal status, the access, the qualities of higher education institutions
and the responsibilities of the government for providing higher education institutions
98 N. GAUS ET AL.

(DGHE 2012b). Arguably, this policy has been a market-oriented and can be seen as the
government’s endeavour to promote and advise market-like principles in Indonesian
higher education through the introduction of audit culture reflected in accountability to
measure lecturers’ productivity and quality assurance.
The evaluation and assessment of lecturers’ productivity and quality assurance are
applied in the three cores of academic roles and functions (teaching, reseearch, and com-
munity services). The productivity and quality of these are measured on the quantifiable
measurements. Research, for example, it is judged within a set of indicators such as the
number of research publication in reputable international journals, patents, and licences.
To push academics to comply with these, a set of pre-defined incentives and disincentives
are introduced. Those who are capable of demonstrating a high standard of achivement
towards these indicators will be granted beneficial incentives for their career advancement,
for example, to move up to the upper ladder in academic rankings, and to achieve profes-
sorial levels (DGHE 2012b).
To effectively implement and achieve these goals, the formulation and implementation
process of the policy have been seen to appropriately be implemented from a top-down
approach (Sabatier 1986; Yanow 1987). In this approach, policy making is focused on
the identification of reciprocal effects between change processes and individual behaviour
which can affect the policy implementation. Trowler (1998) called this mutual adaptation.
In this way, “the State has assumed its monopoly on power, force, and coercion on one
side, and its focus on the public good” (Dreschler 2009, 9). One manifestation of this has
been the engagement of schemes to punish and reward academics by which serving both
as the behavioural stimuli and the power imposed. These are one of the requirements to
have an effective application of a policy in order to gain compliance and avoid resistance
from academics (Sabatier 1986; Kickert 1995).

Methodology
The purpose of this study is to gain an in-depth understanding about the policy
implementation model in Indonesian universities and how the respondents give meanings
to this process within Indonesian university contexts. This process is considered as a social
construction of the members of Indonesian higher institutions through their day-to-day
interaction and these cannot be explored by using survey instruments (Merriam 1998).

Method
Sampling procedures
A criterion sampling as part of the purposive sampling was used to identify the site and the
samples of our research in order to obtain rich cases (Patton 2002). The site selection was
conducted based on the geographical location, and the types of universities based on their
research performance. To represent three different standard geographical regions in Indo-
nesia (Western, Central, and Eastern regions), one state university was chosen from each
of these regions. State universities in Indonesia are classified in terms of their research per-
formances which are classified in four clusters (Independent, Main, Middle, and Nurtured
clusters) (DGHE 2012a). Independent is the cluster name to group universities whose high
 POLICY STUDIES 99

rate of performance in terms of the amount of research undertaken, international publi-

cations, patents, and licences. Because of their good research performance, universities
under these clusters are categorized as research universities and granted a large amount
of research grant (100%). Meanwhile, Main and Middle clusters are associated with
non-research universities featured with a relatively low performance in research, publi-
cation, patents, and licences. As their names suggest, these kinds of universities are
granted moderate amount of research grant. The same applies with Nurtured clusters,
they are non-research universities whose research performances and development are at
their rudimentary level and they are under full assistance by the state. Three state univer-
sities from different parts or islands in Indonesia were selected to take part in this study
based on the classification of university types. These three state universities are classified
as Independent Public research university (The University of Mawar, Western region),
Public, Main non-research university (The University of Anggrek, Central region), and
Public, Middle non-research university (The University of Melati, Eastern region).
The Language and Literature Faculty and Cultural studies and Engineering Faculty were
chosen to recruit participants to represent hard and soft sciences which according to Becher
(1994) have significant differences in viewing their work as they reside in the different tribes
and territories. In view of this, we selected soft sciences represented by The Language and
Literature Faculty of University of Mawar and University of Anggrek, and the Faculty of
Engineering as the representative of hard science. The Language and Literature Faculty in
the University of Melati and The cultural study faculty in the University of Mawar and
Anggrek are the same disciplines, only universities under this study have used different
names. To denote these two disciplines, abbreviations were applied, namely “Eng” to
refer to Engineering Faculty, “Lit” and “Cult” to denote Language and Literature Faculty
and Cultural Studies faculty respectively. Respondents and universities pseudonyms were
used to protect the anonymity and confidentiality of respondents and universities.

Interview procedures
Since this research was informed by a social constructivist paradigm where social realities
are perceived as socially constructed, the experiences, activities, and the phenomenon by
each respondent are assumed to be the sources of social realities and could only be probed
deeply using interview instruments (Merriam 1998). Semi-structured with open-ended
questions interview lasted about 45 minutes to one hour. The interviews were recorded
using a tape recorder unless participants object to recording. The interviews were con-
ducted with 30 academics in the three universities. Thirty participants are considered
sufficient to obtain deep, strong, and rich data because they were drawn from heteroge-
nous backgrounds or characteristics. As Patton (1990) argue that “any common patterns
that emerge from great variation are of particular interest and value in capturing the core
experiences and central, shared aspects or impacts of a program” (172). The particpants
were females and males holding different roles from lecturers to deans.

Method of data analysis

The data were analysed using systematic qualitative data analysis proposed by Miles and
Huberman (1994). The interviews were analysed through coding process to generate
100 N. GAUS ET AL.

categories and themes. In producing codes, we were guided by the research questions. The
original interview transcripts (in Indonesian language) were translated into English. So the
English-translated interview transcript versions became the source for us to create code
schemes. After categorizing, the data were coded and themes were generated. The
themes were applied to each sorted data from the interviews utilized. These themes,
then, were tagged and to act to describe the whole sentences. Drawing on this procedure,
the themes under each category were compared to all interview transcripts for each faculty
and then put them in the same group.

Academics talk about the ways policy implemented in their institutions

The data from the interviews disclosed that the practice of effectuating policy has been
designed from the top to the down line in conjunction with an approach from the
bottom level up to the high level in the line of command. The indication of the implemen-
tation of the top-down approach was yielded from the words participants used to describe
their system of coordination inter alia top-down management, from central government to
universities, circulated letter from DGHE to communicate the policy, meeting to socialize the
policy, and posting new regulations via university website. While the characteristics of
bottom-up approach were framed within the phrases utilized such as, involvement of stu-
dents and academics in the making of curriculum, employment of visionary, collaborative,
and anti-criticism leadership styles, and personal approach in tackling dissenting opinion.

Policy implementation within cultural studies faculty

From the interview held with the head of cultural studies, Ali, in the University of Mawar,
revealed how he has applied top-down and bottom-up approaches in the absence of rel-
evant management background and knowledge when he was initially appointed to be a
dean.
From the beginning, I did not have a management background, but I can say that I have been
exercising a top-down management to inform new regulations from central authority to all
academics in forms of meetings, circulated letters, and websites. But, I have sometimes exer-
cised a bottom-up management too when I had to put the regulation into practice, for
example, the making up of the content of curriculum, where I involved all of students and
academics. (The University of Mawar)

The combined use of these approaches is elided within his leadership styles which are
future-oriented. As he confessed that:
My leadership characteristics are visionary, collaborative and not anti-criticism. I accommo-
date all critiques to me for the sake of the advancement of this faculty I am leading. (The
University of Mawar)

In the meantime, the dean of the University of Melati, Salim, also demonstrated the blended
use of approaches, particularly in circulating information from the central authority.
I have applied a top-down and bottom-up management in managing and communicating
information from the government in this faculty. For example, I have pushed academics
to collect their data in timely manner for evaluation and assessment. … ..I have held
several meetings with other heads of departments and the concerned lecturers in order to
 POLICY STUDIES 101

obtain more inputs pertinent to the fulfilment of instructions from DGHE. (TheUniversity of
Melati)

While these types of approaches indicate a characteristic of collegiality in the policy

implementation and decision making process, there has been sometimes no consensus
achieved. Hanafi, a male lecturer from the University of Melati, for instance, delineated
his experiences in several meetings held in the faculty. He described that:
In the meeting … , when we came to the end, we tended to say “yes” to any decision put forward
by a professor. Even though we had been encouraged to express our own view points, but the
decision was made on the basis of what our professor said. (The University of Melati)

The situation was quite different from academics in the University of Mawar. Budi, a male
lecturer, for example, enthusiastically admitted that there have not been any gaps between
junior and senior lecturers in the decision making process, as he pronounced:
Oh I think that does not happen here, if you are junior lecturers and you have very good ideas
towards issues being raised in the meeting, your ideas can be made as the final decision to
follow, even for professors too. (The University of Mawar)

The same situation appeared to happen in the University of Anggrek, as Sofyan, a male
lecturer said:
I am a lecturer with a doctoral degree. Although I graduated from one university in the UK, I
do not have any privilege in the decision making process in a meeting held in my faculty.
(The University of Anggrek)

Further evidence of the existence of the application of top-down and bottom-up

approaches was shown by Radi,the dean of the University of Anggrek. He explained:
… .instructions coming from the government (DGHE) are communicated and socialised
from the rector of this university down to each dean and head of departments. I usually
hold a meeting with the head of each department to discuss new regulations from the
DGHE and how to implement them. (The University of Anggrek)

It is interesting to find out that despite the collegial nature is embedded in the policy
implementation, commands and demands have remained to lie at the hand of deans.
This is exemplified by Ali, the dean of the University of Mawar, as he put it:
I am mostly known to my colleagues as a perfectionist person. I encourage lecturers to
improve their capacities and skills, to develop their teaching and most importantly to actively
conduct research and publish it in international journals. I support those who wish to con-
tinue their higher level of study. I like such people, and I will always support them. (The Uni-
versity of Mawar)

Ali continued to describe himself as a strong dean in pushing academics in his faculty to
follow new instructions from the DGHE. However, he did this in a collegial manner in a
sense that he did it as a reminder, he argued:
I sometimes reminded lecturers doing what the DGHE instruct to. For example, as you know,
we have to fill in our lecturers’ performance via online. The DGHE determine the deadline of
this filling, so to avoid the late, I have always pushed lecturers to actively fill it in before the
due date. It sounds like dictating and ordering, but this is for the good of our institution as
instructed by the rector. (The University of Anggrek)
102 N. GAUS ET AL.

Policy implementation within engineering faculty

Another form of a blended or a dialectical approach in the policy implementation was
reported by the dean of the University of Mawar, Santoso, as he pointed out:
… because we are under the Ministry of Education, all policies related to the provision of uni-
versities are formulated at the top, and the government through DGHE circulates these pol-
icies via circulated letters to each rector … .I have always socialised these policies through
meeting with my colleagues. (The University of Mawar)

The combination of the approach used was garnished with flatter relationships in mana-
ging his faculty. This was indicated in the ways he perceived other people as having an
equal position, as colleagues to him, solving dissenting opinion with a persuasive and
personal approach, as he described:
I am one of the heads of this faculty, but I have never seen myself as being higher in the position
than others. They are my colleagues. In a meeting, we usually discussed something and shared
opinions to find the solution towards the issue. And whenever there have been academics who
disagreed with the decision made in the meeting, I usually approach them in persuasive and
brotherhood ways to talk with them, for example, I asked them the reasons why they disagreed
and what they actually wanted. Then we discussed the problems and tried to convince them
that this decision is all what we need so that they can understand it. (The University of Mawar)

Channelling information from the top to the ground level was also demonstrated by the
deans of the Universities of Melati and Anggrek. Alimuddin, the dean from the university
of Melati reported that:
I get notification from the rector and circulated information, for example new instructions
from the government to all head of department in my faculty. (The University of Melati)

The same situation was reported by Satria, the dean from the university of Anggrek,
saying that:
I circulated and communicated new instructions from the top authority to all members of the
faculty in a meeting attended by all heads of departments. From them, all new instructions
were channeled to their departments’ staff. (The University of Anggrek)

Alimuddin, subsequently, informed us that he usually informs new instructions from the
DGHE informally through discussion in informal gathering with lecturers in the lecturers’
common room, as he portrayed:
Well … I am a very informal person. I mean I have sometimes joined with lecturers in their
common rooms, chatted with them and discussed new instructions from DGHE for example.
Sometimes, I asked for their opinions related to this as well. (The University of Melati)

Darma, a female lecturer from the universityof Melati believed that this way of communi-
cation is more effective than communication via website, as not many lecturers are fre-
quently open the university’s website, she convinced:
Do not expect lecturers to spend their time to browse the university’s website, they have been
very busy. So, the most effective way of communicating new regulations is by telling them
directly. (The University of Melati)

The effectiveness of the way policy imperatives was delivered within the University of
Melati was also confirmed by Indra from the University of Anggrek. To anticipate of
 POLICY STUDIES 103

missing any up-to date information from the central authority, he and his colleagues hold
a group of meeting every Wednesday, where they can discuss any issues, including new
regulations implemented from the top. They called their group meeting “Rabuan” or
“Wednesday”, he described:
In my faculty we hold a meeting every Wednesday to accommodate other lecturers with the
up-to date issues emerging in our faculty. We also use this meeting to talk about any new
regulations coming from the top, so we will be well-informed with changing instructions.
(The University of Anggrek)

However, one interesting point was raised by Ida, a female academic from the University
of Anggrek, a member of Internal Assessor in the University of Anggrek. She conveyed
that in interpreting the language of policy channelled to academics, there has sometimes
emerged confusing condition, where each member of assessors has different interpret-
ations and understandings of the content and meaning of the language of the policy.
She further gave an example of this, particularly in the process of interpreting the
meaning of “community services”, which activity must count as community services. In
the guidance of DGHE there is no detailed explanation about what activities must fall
under community services. Given this condition, each member just gave her own
interpretation, as she delineated:
… . For example, how to implement and interpret the regulation of DGHE regarding what
can count as community services. In DGHE’s regulation, Community services are in general
definition in that they constitute services conducted outside campus which involve commu-
nity. It is accordingly that it causes varied interpretation in our assessor team. For instance,
we held training for English language within campus – and the participants were community
outside the university. One member of our team interpreted this as not a community service
as it was held within University, while others interpreted it as a community service as it
involved outside community. This is funny I think. (The University of Anggrek)

Policy implementation in Indonesian universities: a top-down and a

bottom-up approach
The findings of this study revealed that in the formulation of policy at the top, Indonesian
government has seen itself as the responsible agent to control and allocate resources. This
practice has been carried out in binary strategies by combining the strengths of central
authority in terms of “giving perspective, directions, incentives, networking, and retro-
spective monitoring” (Fullan 1994, 11), and the strengths of local capacity of universities
in responding, learning, interpreting, and implementing the policy contents and goals
(Fullan 1994; Schofield and Sausman 2004). The participation of central authority as an
external stimulator and an impetus (Gornitzka 1999) to elicit change is important, consid-
ering that “organisations in general are not likely to initiate change in the absence of exter-
nal stimuli” (Fullan 1994, 11). In addition, the quality control will be hard to maintain and
control in the absence of external controllers (Fullan 1994). Fullan (1994) argued that
implementing top-down and bottom-up approaches separately can result in a failure of
the policy reform. Thus, in order to achieve a successful end of policy implementation,
he recommended the combination of these.
In regards to policy formulation, it has been palpable that the policy on higher education
reforms in Indonesia has been very much formulated or made at the centre or at the top,
104 N. GAUS ET AL.

followed this up by the execution of the policy by agents (universities) in compliance with
policy objectives. The process of this is carried out within “traditional structures of govern-
ance” (Barret 2004, 254), precisely in the Weberian rational bureaucracy (Matland 1995)
which has been regarded as the ideal model for effectuating policy (Barret 2004). This tra-
ditional model is characterized by “the separation of politics and administration, and coordi-
nation and control through authority and hierarchy” (Barret 2004, 254).
To effectively operate this model in putting policy into effect, policy makers do need a
strong legal status to guarantee the success of policy implementation (Sabatier 1986). In
the case of Indonesian universities as resulted from this study showed that the government,
represented by the DGHE posed as a single pre-eminent central actor which formulated pro-
grammes of changes, equipped with a strong legal status and an authority as mandated in
the Statute, in this case the Higher Education Act 2012. In this Statute, there is a clear
legal authority and responsibility of the government to arrange the provision of higher edu-
cation institution in Indonesia to allow the achievement of predetermined objectives of
being accountable and transparent to ensure quality assurance in the interests of stake-
holders through performance indicators. This “statutory language” (Matland 1995)
posited a point of departure for Indonesian government in order to develop their general-
izable policy advice, and to create clear and consistent legal objectives of the policy.
Further condition for a policy implementation to succeed as advocated by top-
downers, is the recruitment of skilful implementing agents to execute the policy contents
so as to achieve the policy objectives (Sabatier 1986; Yanow 1987). This matter has
coincided with the problem of policy interaction with micro level institutional settings
when it meets with the professionals or implementers in their contexts, combined
with their intellectual capacity, knowledge, and organizational learning (Matland
1995; Schofield and Sausman 2004). Referring to this, the case demonstrated by the
dean of faculty of Cultural studies, Ali, of The University of Mawar has adequately exem-
plified the process of policy interaction with the professionals as service deliverers. As an
example of a street level bureaucrat, Ali has been trying to adapt the legal objective of the
policy to his own strategy and context. By the time he was first assigned to manage his
faculty, he actually did not have any management and leadership backgrounds, though
he could tackle this deficiency with endeavours he made, such as via self-learning,
attended leadership seminars, and read management books. This situation denoted
that the capacity of learning, local will, and knowledge of implementing agents are
amongst other factors contribute to the successful implementation of policy (Fullan
1994; Schofield and Sausman 2004). Therefore, they are importantly laid in parallel
with the policy objectives (Matland 1995).
The role of Ali as a skilful and knowledgeable elected official in his institution is crucial
as he is required to have the ability to ensure the effectiveness of specific governmental
programmes, the ability to guide and constrain the behaviours of academics, the ability
to examine performance indicators, and the ability to analyse factors affecting such per-
formance (Sabatier 1986). The latter is closely related to the ability to execute veto point
and causal theory (Pressman and Wildavsky 1973, cited in Sabatier 1986).
It is interesting to find out that causal theory and veto points towards the implementation
and the evaluation of policy have apparently occurred at bottom sides of target groups carried
out by leaders of universities. This can be viewed from the way the deans have tackled the
problems arising from the decision making process. This has been exemplified by Santoso,
 POLICY STUDIES 105

the dean of Engineering faculty of the University of Mawar, where he applied persuasive ways
of executing the policy in light of the resistance, problems, and strategies in mitigating the
conflicts arising from conflicting opinions regarding the decision made pertinent to policy
imperatives from the government. He did this by persuasively approached dissenting
people to find out the problems on why they disagreed with the decision made.
Interestingly to note that albeit there has been uniformity or generalizable rules, and
clear objectives of instructions and regulations from the DGHE, and uniformity in the
extent to channelling these rules and objectives at local actors, there appeared to be vari-
ations in strategies of adapting these into each university context. For instance, each dean
has used his distinctive styles of leaderships to implement these rules and to achieve the
objectives of the policy. Here, it suggested that although rules and objectives are derived
from the same national sources, but it is the local context that will determine the interpret-
ation and implementation of the policy (Matland 1995).
This has suggested that local contexts or micro levels have provided important contexts to
allow implementation to arise. This notion has been very much in the practice of bottom-
uppers or interpretive approach. Bottom-up approach has been adopted by the deans of the
faculties in this study, particularly in the making of the content of curriculum, as exemplified
by Ali. In this practice, Ali has involved all the members of the faculty, ranging from students
to academics in order to accommodate their needs and problems as well. The symbolic
action taken by him implicitly conveys that he wished to understand what actually the exist-
ing problems laid in the ground that can affect the content of the curriculum and how
different groups responded to this curriculum making. By so doing, the implication and
the success of curriculum making can be identified in advance-thus, contributing to the
success of the curriculum practice in the field. This has indicated that academics as pro-
fessionals are still able to practice their academic freedom and autonomy, although they
are practised under coordination with the objective of the government-driven policy. This
has too, conveyed how the blended use of the two approaches can contribute to eliminate
the ambiguity and chaos in policy implementation.
The shared decision making process implemented in the curriculum making process as
exemplified by engineering faculty bears a meaning of one aspect of collegiality. Collegiality
is a concept which views the essential roles played by members of institutions towards the
success of the institutions per se (Hellawell and Hancock 2001). Collegial governance provides
the ground for academics to work together to find solutions for issues they are facing and to
stand together to combat the problems. In this way, the central values guiding this type of
collaboration are the respects for diversity, in this sense different opinions, advice, and
views towards issue being discussed. To allow the collegiality works in the academic insti-
tutions, the network of jointly interlinked undertakings is essential to be established.
In addition, what has been conducted by Ali in the making of curriculum process, has
symbolized the share of power among their colleagues. The decision making process was
implemented through discussion to gain consensus from academics who are considered to
have the same understanding about the objective of the institutions as Bush cited:
Collegiality assume(s) that organisations determine policy and make decisions through a
process of discussion leading to consensus. Power is shared among some or all members
of the organisation who are thought to have a mutual understanding about the objectives
of the institution. (cited in Hellawell and Hancock 2001, 184)
106 N. GAUS ET AL.

However, the story of collegiality in the decision making process has not always been per-
ceived as a perfect way of making decision in this faculty. Hanafi from the university of
Melati exposed the corrosive effects that collegiality entails which may cause the powerful,
senior and influential academics dominate the results of the decision making process.
Thus, this may lead to the use of personal interests and agendas in influencing the decision
making process.
What was seemingly interesting from the evidence from this study was the existence of
the ambiguity or multitude of interpretations of the content of regulations from the DGHE
at micro level of local actors. The statement of Ida from the University of Anggrek indi-
cated how multiple meanings and interpretations have co-existed in the process of inter-
preting the language of the policy. The symbolic language that seemed to become a
problem here was the meaning and interpretation of the “community services” as
written in the legal document. Since there has not been further explanation from the
policy makers concerning what count as community services, the multitude of behaviour
of interpreting these came to the surface and created confusion on devising the standards
and criteria applied in an assessment process. In this case, the target of the policy makers
to change the behaviour of target groups was hampered by the absence of a common
agreement towards the meanings of the policy.
This situation has been dealt with by Yanow (1987) as the process of persuasion in
the policy implementation. The persuasion process involved the interactive process
which means “we yield some control over the definition of success of implementation
activities to actors other than those conceived of traditionally as implementers” (Yanow
1987, 111). The process of persuasion in the context of this study failed to elicit the
agreement towards the interpretations and meanings of the policy symbolic language in
this case “community services”, so the process of the policy implementation can be said
was not successful.
Ida realized that the roles of leaders are important in order to get rid of this problem.
She proffered to the importance of the role of the university leader to give uniform
interpretation towards the meaning of “community services”, so the multiple interpret-
ations in assessing academics’ work which was germane to the community services can
be avoided.
The role of leadership in policy implementation, particularly in the efforts to change
values, beliefs, and behaviours of organizational members has been in the domain and
focus of the cultural lens. Leaders posit important actors in providing the grounds for
the instilment and institutionalization of new values, beliefs, and behaviour within insti-
tutions. It recognized as well the role of leaders in the change process, though it perceived
leader’s roles as a facilitator instead of a controller. Therefore, change is not managed from
top-down model, rather from bottom-up model. Here, leaders serve as facilitators by
encouraging people to develop a sense of “innovation, experimentation, and entrepreneur-
ship” through the creation of appropriate shared beliefs, values, and norms. This can be
implemented through the use of loose control and the empowerment of people (Peters
and Waterman 1982; Kanter 1989).
Irrespective of whether the deans and their colleagues have understood the “causal
theory” and the “veto points” developed by the proponents of top-down approach and
the inclusion of the understanding of ground levels multitude of behaviours in the
interpretation of the language of the policy proposed by the bottom-up liners, in fact,
 POLICY STUDIES 107

these two sorts of practices of the concepts have been implemented in the three univer-
sities under study. This is how policy intentions from the central government have
been interpreted, decoded, and effectuated by academics. This can further be seen from
the way each of the deans in three universities channelled and disseminated policy
imperatives.
It is evidently clear that mutual adaptation was absence in the policy implementation in
this study. This can be clearly traced from the behaviours of academics towards this policy
and how academics gave interpretation of it. The feelings of discomfort were the words
they chose to interpret and gave meaning towards the consequence of the lack of
mutual adaptation. Such a problem in the policy implementation has come to be
viewed as consequences of policy formulated from top authority or top-down approach
in policy implementation (Sabatier 1986; Trowler 1998; Yanow 1987).

Conclusion
Evidence gathered from the three universities under study demonstrated that a blended
use of top-down (centralized) and bottom-up (decentralized) approaches has become
the characteristics of the policy implementation in these universities. The synergy of
these approaches was seen from the interaction between the policy makers and the univer-
sities. This interaction was exhibited by the division of roles shared by policy makers and
universities, in which the framework for change has been coordinated at central authority
– in this case represented by the governing officials of DGHE – combined with the flexi-
bility at the bottom, at the street level bureaucrats (Universities and the academics) (Fullan
1994). Although this segmentation of roles played out between the two parties has created
a stringent rationality of policy implementation – and highly contained political inten-
tions, but, in fact, this can be a prospective good model proposed in Indonesian higher
education reforms and can be a potential model for other contexts implementing policy
reforms in higher education sectors, particularly when dealing with the structural shift
in order to change prevailing behaviours of academics.
While this study elaborates the combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches
and what is happening at bottom levels of policy delivery, this study only focuses on
how policy has been implemented in a dialectical model and how the roles of leaderships
at faculty and departmental level with their own approaches to come to term with the
policy imperatives to put the policy into effect without presenting the impacts of these
to the success and quality of higher education services. Future research would need to
focus on this through an evaluative research.

Note
1. It is a ruling system rooted in the traditional system of the ruling of Javanese Kingdoms
where the private interests of the then rulers were used to gain supports and loyalties
from the masses by consolidating the power of key sections of the ruling elites.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
108 N. GAUS ET AL.

Notes on contributors
Nurdiana Gaus is doctor of Higher education policy and management at STIKS Tamalanrea
Makassar. Her main research interests are the impacts of derivative theories and concepts of neo-
liberalism on the changing nature of professional identity during ongoing process of higher edu-
cation. She is also interested in the areas of research in organization, culture, academic culture,
and the politics of higher education. She can be contacted at nurdiana.gaus@gmail.com
Muhammad Yunus is doctor of public administration at Universitas Hasanuddin. He has research
interests in regional development and decentralization issues in Indonesia. He can be contacted at
myunus59@yahoo.com
Abdul Karim is a lecturer at STIKS Tamalnrea Makassar with the specific research interest in social
welfare studies. He can be contacted at abdulkarimp1260@gmail.com
Haleema Sadia is both doctor of Arabic and Islamic studies and education . She is currently teach-
ing at the Faculty of Education, University of Manchester. She is interested in the area of the chan-
ging identity of British female Pakistani students studying at the University of Manchester.
Haleema can be contacted at haleemas@gmail.com; haleema.mian@manchester.ac.uk

References
Barret, S. M. 2004. “Implementation Studies: Time for a Revival? Personal Reflections on 20 Years
of Implementation Studies.” Public Administration 82 (2): 249–262.
Becher, T. 1994. “The Significance of Disciplinary Differences.” Studies in Higher Education 19 (2):
151–161.
Berman, P. 1978. “The Study of Macro- and Micro-Implementation.” Public Policy 26: 157–184.
Brinkhurst, Marena, Peter Rose, Gillian Maurice, and Josef Daniel Ackerman. 2011. “Achieving
Campus Sustanaibility: Top-Down, Bottom-up, or Neither?” International Journal of
Sustainability in Higher Education 12 (4): 338–354.
Clarke, J., and J. Newman. 1997. The Managerial State: Power, Politics and Ideology in the Remaking
of Social Welfare. London: Sage.
Collins, W (2014). “The Fallacy of Top Down Education Reform.” Forbes, November 12.
Cuban, L. 1983. Transforming the Frog into the Prince: Effective School Research, Policy, and Practice
at the District Level. Washington, DC: Dingle Associates.
Czerniewics, L., and C. Brown. 2009. “A Study of the Relationship Between Institutional Policy,
Organizational Culture and e-Learning use in Four South African Universities.” Computers
and Education 53: 121–131.
DGHE (Directorate General of Higher Education). 2012a. Higher Education Act 2012of Higher
Education. Accessed January 6, 2012. http://www.dikti.go.id.
DGHE (Directorate General of Higher Education). 2012b. Indonesian Systems of Higher Education.
Accessed January 6, 2012. http://www.dikti.go.id.
Dreschler, W. 2009. “The Rise and Demise of the New Public Management: Lessons and
Opportunities for South East Europe.” Uprava, Letnik VII (3): 7–29.
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff. 1999. “The Future Location of Researchand Technology
Transfer.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 24: 111–123.
Fullan, M. G. 1994. “Coordinating Top-Down and Bottom-Up Strategies for Educational Reform.” In
Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education, edited by R. J. Anson. Washington, DC:
US Department of Education.
Gaus, N., and D. Hall. 2015. “Neoliberal Governance in Indonesian Universities: The Impact upon
Academic Identity.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 35 (9/10): 666–682.
Gaus, Nurdiana, Sultan Sultan, and Muhammad Basri. 2017. “State Bureaucracy in Indonesia and
its Reforms: An Overview.” International Journal of Public Administration 40 (8): 658–669.
Goldfarb, B., and M. Henrekson. 2003. “Bottom-up Versus top-Down Policies Towards the
Commercialization of University Intellectual Property.” Research Policy 32: 639–658.
 POLICY STUDIES 109

Gornitzka, A. 1999. “Governmental Policies and Organizational Change in Higher Education.”

Higher Education 38 (1): 5–31.
Hammond, L. D. 1990. “Instructional Policy into Practice: The Power of the Bottom Over the Top.”
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 12 (3): 339–347.
Hellawell, D., and N. Hancock. 2001. “A Case Study of the Changing Role of the Academic Middle
Manager in Higher Education: Between Hierarchical Control and Collegiality?” Research Papers
in Education 16 (2): 183–197.
Hjern, B., and C. Hull. 1982. “Implementation Research as Empirical Constitutionalism.” European
Journal of Political Research 10 (2): 105–115.
Kanter, R. M. 1989. When Giants Learn to Dance: Mastering the Challenges of Strategy,
Management, and Careers in the 1990s. London: Unwin.
Kickert, W. 1995. “Steering at a Distance: A new Paradigm of Public Governance in Dutch Higher
Education.” Governance 8 (1): 135–157.
Matland, R. E. 1995. “Synthesizing the Implementation Literature: The Ambiguity-Conflict Model
of Policy Implementation.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART 5 (2):
145–174.
McNay, I. (1995). “From Collegial Academy to Corporate Enterprise: The Changing Cultures of
Universities.” In The Changing University?, edited by T. Schuller, 105–115. London: Society
for Research into Higher Education.
Merriam, S. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study: Application in Education. San Fransisco:
Jossey-Bassey.
Miles, M., and A. Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Patton, M. Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Peter, L. 2000. “Setting Strategic Direction in Academic Institutions: The Case of Business School.”
Higher Education Policy 13 (4): 399–413.
Peters, T. J., and R. H. Waterman. 1982. In Search for Excellence: Lessons from Amersica’s Best-Run
Companies. New York: Harper & Row.
Rasmussen, E. 2008. “Government Instruments to Support the Commercialization of University
Research: Lessons from Canada.” Technovation 28: 506–517.
Sabatier, P. A. 1986. “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: A
Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis.” Journal of Public Policy 6 (7): 21–48.
Sabatier, P., and D. Mazmanian. 1980. “The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of
Analysis.” Policy Studies Journal 4: 538–560.
Sai, Y., and S. Beverton. 2007. “Top-Down Management: An Effective Tool in Higher Education?”
International Journal of Educational Management 21 (1): 6–16.
Schofield, J., and C. Sausman. 2004. “Symposium on Implementing Public Policy: Learning from
Theory and Practice.” Public Administration 82 (2): 235–248.
Sizer, J. 1987. “Universities in Hard Times: Some Policy Implications and Mangerial Guidelines.”
Higher Education Quarterly 41 (4): 354–372.
Sulistyono, S. R. 2007. “Higher Education Reform in Indonesia at Crossroad.” Paper Presented at
the Graduate School of Education and Human Development Conference, Nagoya University,
Japan, 26 July.
Trow, M. 1996. “Trust, Market, and Accountability in Higher Education: A Comparative
Perspective.” Higher Education Policy 9 (4): 309–324.
Trowler, P. R. 1998. Academics Responding to Change. New Higher Education Frameworks and
Academic Cultures. London: Society for Research into Higher Education.
Yanow, D. 1987. “A Criticism: What Implementation Research Has Not Taught Us: Toward a
Policy Culture Approach to Implementation.” Review of Policy Research 7 (1): 103–115.
Yanow, D. 1993. “The Communication of Policy Meanings: Implementation as Interpretation and
Text.” Policy Studies 9 (4): 309–324.