Policy, Practice and Perception: The Love Triangle in Higher Education

Reflective Synthesis Paper 3

By: Michael B. Dodongan

Introduction: Defining Terms

This paper aims to navigate the complex relationship of policy, institutional practice, and the
perception of the people affected by the policy. I believe that it is imperative for educational leaders
to thin slice the complicated relationship of the policy and institution. To do such, therefore, it is a
good starting point to get familiar first with the fundamental concepts of the institution and revisited
the concept of policy.

More so, the author’s other objective in this paper is to provide reflections from the practice
of implementing policy in the context of the University of Southeastern Philippines and the
Commission on Higher Education.

Definitions of Institution.

Institutions are the ‘’humanly devised constraints that structure human interaction. They are
made up of formal constraints (rules, laws, and constitutions), informal constraints (norms,
behavior, conventions), and their enforcement characteristics. Together they define the incentive
structure of societies and specifically economies" (North, 1990).

Moreover, Schotter (1981) modify Lewis’ definition on a social institution as “regularities in

behavior which are agreed to by all members of a society and which specify behavior in specific
recurrent situation” to:

A regularity R in the behavior of members of a population P when they are agents

in a recurrent situation r is an institution if and only if it is true that and is common
knowledge in P that (1) everyone conforms to R; (2) everyone expects everyone
else to conform to R; and (3) either everyone prefers to conform to R on the
condition that the others do, if r is a coordination problem, in which case uniform
conformity to R is a coordination equilibrium; or (4) if anyone ever deviates from R it
is known that some or all of the others will also deviate and the payoffs associated
with the recurrent play of r using these deviating strategies are worse for all agents
than the payoff associated with R.
Lastly, Hodgson (2006), after reviewing definitions of institutions, settle with a simpler one.
To him, institutions “are systems of established and embedded social rules that structure social
interactions”. He added that institutions have the power to mold the capacities and behavior of
agents in fundamental ways by structuring, constraining, and enabling individual behaviors. Hence,
institutions involve reconstructive downward causation—this means that there can be significant
downward effects from the institution to its members. Further, because they confine and mold
aspirations of the individuals, the institution is being perpetuated.

Institutions can also be distinguished as Economic institutions (individual property rights,

contracts that can be written and enforced, patent laws, etc.), Political institutions (democracy vs
non-democracy, electoral rules, the extent of checks and balances, etc.), and Educational
institutions (learning environments and learning spaces for people of different ages).

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) as a government institution is constrained to

its mandated and functions such as (a) Promote relevantly and quality higher education, (b) ensure
that quality higher education is accessible to all who seek it particularly those who may not be able
to afford it; (c) guarantee and protect academic freedom for continuing intellectual growth, the
advancement of learning and research, development of responsible and effective leadership,
education of high-level professionals, and enrichment of historical and cultural heritages; and (d)
commit to moral ascendancy that eradicates corrupt practices, institutionalizes transparency and
accountability and encourages participatory governance in the Commission and the sub-sector
(Republic Act 7722, 1994). The Commission as institutions and as regulating body for higher
educational institutions provide prohibitions on how HEIs operate and behave hence, devising
human interaction.

The Univesity of Southeastern Philippines is a regional state university in Mindanao created

in 1978 through Batas Pambansa Bilang 12. UseP, as an educational institution, is mandated to (1)
provide programs of instruction and professional training primarily in the fields of science and
technology, especially medicine, fisheries, engineering and industrial fields; (2) develop courses at
the graduate level along with the fields of specialization and to respond to the needs of
development workers in the academic community; (3) promote advanced studies, research and
extension services and progressive leadership in science, agriculture, forestry, fisheries,
engineering and industrial fields and other courses needed in the socio-economic development of
Mindanao; and (4) provide non-formal education and undertake vigorous extension and research
programs in food production, nutrition, health, and sports development and offer scholarship and/or
part-time job opportunities to deserving students from low-income families (University of
Southeastern Philippines, 2020).

The Endogeneity and Exogeneity of Institution and Policy

 Endogenous means that the existence of an entity is caused by the factors or variables
within the system. In economics, when a variable is considered an endogenous variable if its value
is affected by the other variable in the system. While it is argued that institutions direct behavior of
individuals to shape social outcomes, institutions are products of political choices. Institution, in
effect, becomes endogenous when the institutional choices are determined by the social and
political processes that shape it [ CITATION Shv03 \l 1033 ] thus institutions in general are necessarily
preference induced [ CITATION Elg12 \l 1033 ].
The institutional effect, though does not automatically an endogenous as well. Institutional
effects became endogenous when they are determined by the same social processes that they
influence. Thus, as long as institutions are chosen, in some ways, by the polity composes it
[ CITATION Agh02 \l 1033 ] and all social processes are interconnected, some endogeneity of
institutional effects is always present [ CITATION Shv03 \l 1033 ].
In statistics, you have an endogeneity problem when there is a correlation between your X
variable and the error term in your model. This means that there is something that is related to your
Y variable that is also related to your X variable, and you do not have that something in your model
(Sorensen, 2012). Hence, in policy making, “if state policy making is purposeful action, responsive
to economic and political conditions within the state, then it may be necessary to identify and control
for the forces that lead policies to change if one wishes to obtain unbiased estimates of a policy’s
incidence” (Besley and Case 2000,EJ).
Further, endogenous policy models disregarded the fact that in the government, policies are
created in different levels of different group of people with certain degree of autonomy [ CITATION
Maz08 \l 1033 ]. More likely, to avoid endogeneity in the policy, all variables that may affect the
desired outcome of such policy should be taken into account. Interestingly, it is the common
dilemma of policy actors is their need to rely on information provided by the experts [ CITATION
Swa99 \l 1033 ].
While much of the institutional literature is based on the premise that political institutions
influence political outcomes, most scholars also recognize that formal institutions themselves are
socially determined, ‘‘are no more than rules and rules are themselves the product of social
decisions’’ (Riker, 1980 in Shvetsova, 2003) thus exogenous. However, while institutional choice
could either be purely exogenous or endogenous, in all likelihood it will be a mix of both [ CITATION
Elg12 \l 1033 ].
CHED as a regulating body of higher education in the country is political institution
mandated by its charter RA 7722 and later supplemented by RA 8292. CHED is an endogenous
institution in the sense that its creation is largely depended on the basic function of the state to
ensure that higher education is equitably accessible to all, “shall gear their programs to national,
regional or local development plans” and shall exemplify “…pride in intellectual and scholarly life”
(Sec. 2, RA 7722).
On the other hand, USeP is a learning institution operating to its mandate under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 12. USeP, in effect, was an endogenous institution but as a learning institution, it
evolved into exogenous one since its institutional choices are not just manifestations of its mandate
but also are reflections of regulating bodies, political institutions, stakeholders’ aspirations.

Definition of Public Policy.

In this section, I will quote my previous synthesis paper entitled “Policy Analysis: An Introduction”

Public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do (Dye, 2013).

Policy dictates the action of the government in regulating the conflict in the
society, organize society, regulate the behavior of its citizens, organizes its
offices and bureaucracies, distribute benefits and collect taxes and fees from its
citizens (Dye, 2013). Etymologically, the word "policy" is derived from the Greek
word polis, referring to city or citizen. The etymology of the word policy impacted
the manner we view and treat our current policies in our respective organizations.
It is, maybe, in this manner that its Roman usage led to the term polity, meaning
government, government organization, regime, or nation.

After perusing several definitions of public policy, I therefore surmised that:

 Public policy is created and implemented to ADDRESS a problem or to respond to an

issue thus in effect it is goal-oriented action that is to solve a problem or settle an issue;
 The public policy directs organizations' initiative and actions;
 The policy is created on behalf of the public esp. in a democratic country like the
Philippines,

In institutional level, policy creates a framework how it operates ensuring the consistency of
approach. Policy guides leaders in decision-making process while ensuring that governing
principles are well understood by the actors and religiously implemented.

The University of Otago defines policy as:

A Policy sets out the University’s position on a specific matter and requires a certain
line of action to be taken, although it does not necessarily detail that line of action. 
Policies, except Human Resource (HR) Policies, are formally documented and
approved by Council or operate under its delegated authority.  The Vice-Chancellor
establishes HR Policies pursuant to his or her authority under the State Sector Act. 
 Compliance is mandatory.  Examples: Research and Study Leave Policy, Purchasing
Policy, Email Policy.

In general sense, university policy is a written or official statement that reflects the principle
of the university and articulates its position on a particular matter. The definitions also point to the
role that university policy plays in institutional risk management, compliance and the regulation of
practice [ CITATION Fre12 \l 1033 ].

Policy in the University: A Love Story

“One cannot exist without the other” maybe the best adage that would best describe the
relationship between policy and the institution, in my context the University. Sound cliché especially
in love story movies but the relationship of policy and institutions is a love story to tell.

Institution set up procedures in writing policies. In institutional level, policies are reflections
of governing principles and embodies the institutional values. In general, policies codify and
regulate administrative, academic and governance functions, operations and actions thus providing
mechanism to ensure the consistent, transparent and predictable operations and decision-making
(Freeman, 2019). Policy, therefore, directs and instructs how institution operates by embodying its
principles in the pre-set decision-making process within an institution. Since the decision-making
process is made known to the stakeholders, in some degree, the institution is open for public
scrutiny. In that sense, policy sets quality institutional operations for external instrumentalities
(Freeman, 2019).

Institutional policy regulates behavior of the institution by conveying its direction, outcomes
and principles to its populace. This is so because the nature of a policy is it is mandatory and
generally applicable across the institutions (Freeman, 2019) which is different from procedure,
which is more specific to a situation and from guidelines which can be treated as suggestions
(Bruhn, 2003).

The University’s operations are guided by its policies. The University exists because of its
mandate as specified in Batas Pambansa Blg 12 otherwise known as an Act Establishing the
University of Southeastern Philippines in region XI to offer degree-granting course [programs]
(baccalaureate, graduate, post-graduate and special) necessary to support national objectives in
Mindanao (Batas Pambansa Blg. 12). To respond to this mandate, the University released its 15-
year strategic plan (2007-2021) I 2007 with foreword from then University President Dr. Julieta I.
Ortiz:

To bring about change, the University embarked on planned change—conscious,

deliberate and collaborative actions to change our self-system, social system or
cultural system utilizing an understanding and utilization of its human
resources….This Strategic Plan is an embodiment of the dreams and aspirations of
the University of Southeastern Philippines...set[ting] a course for this institution in a
complex environment.
The strategic plan is the policy of the University as it reflects the attainment of its vision and
mission. To continue this strategic plan, with the change of administration, a catch-up plan was
crafted for 2018 – 2021. Positioning the University as a research University in ASEAN, University
President Dr. Lourdes C. Generalao’s foreword said;

As state university, USeP …identified (our) core challenge in the coming years, and
that is to make USeP as a Premier Research University in the ASEAN…However, for
these needed change to happen, the critical mass must understand that change is
not an event, but a process; and that change is not a destination, but a journey.
She also added,

The Catch-Up Plan, 2018-2021, specifies the institutional objectives, strategies,

initiatives and targets of the University in the next four (4) years. It also outlines the
Plan implementation, monitoring and evaluation cycle – capacitating for change - to
carry out the aspiration of becoming a research university. This ambition does not
just imply the direction that the University is taking but is also an attempt to initiate a
branding process that hopefully creates differentiation in a more competitive industry
climate.
To direct the faculty members of their rights and duty, the University approved the Faculty
manual in 2011. The manual reflects the vision and mission of the University in providing the
academic units of the university a “handy companion” in their academic related functions. The
contents of the manual are sourced out from, thus congruent to, the University code, BOR approved
resolutions, executive orders, CHED manual of operations for SUCs including some conventional
academic practices and policies of the University [ CITATION USE11 \l 1033 ]. Similarly, the graduate
school manual of the University was crafted to serve as guide for graduate school faculty and
provide Deans, Department Chairs and Program Heads meaningful and effective implementation of
policies and standards that guide graduate students in their pursuit of knowledge and advanced
education [CITATION USe \l 1033 ].

There are other pertinent policies in the University that direct the behavior of its constituents
in carrying out important task while ensuring support from the university itself. For instance, (1) RDE
manual and some memoranda and BOR resolutions revising some of its contents to direct RDE-
related functions of the faculty and “to ensure that all RDE programs and projects are coordinated
and undertaken for efficiency, effectiveness and maximum utility by the University stakeholders”
[ CITATION USe06 \l 1033 ]; (2) quality policy that reflects the commitment of the university for
continual improvement; (3) freedom of information manual that directs the upholding of university in
protecting its constituents data and data gathering process; and (4) among others.

To sum it up, policy and institution cannot exist without the other. Institutional policy shapes
and influence how the constituents behave as it reflects the vision, mission and desired outcomes
of the institutions. It also directs and instructs how institution operates following its principles of the
institutions. The two are lovers in Higher Education.

Policy and Practice: A Case of Infidelity

The Policy Cycle. The policy cycle describes policymaking as a continuous process comprising
identifiable, discrete stages. These stages are broadly described in the research literature as
agenda setting, policy formulation and decision-making, implementation and evaluation (Freeman,
2018). However, there are also policy processes that involve seven or more stages adding level of
sophistications such as identification of evaluation criteria, policy options, selection of policies,
implementations, evaluation of outcomes and revision of policy [ CITATION Sco17 \l 1033 ]. Several
policy frameworks are utilized by the universities across the globe involving several stages such as
identification of the scope and problem, drafting, consultation and finalization, approval,
implementation and communication and review of the policy [ CITATION UNS19 \l 1033 ]. By
identifying the stages of policy cycle, policy makers are guided on how should specific stage be
done (Freeman, 2018).

The policy process was defined in every institution to ensure that policies are relevant and
responsive to the populace’s needs and address what needed to be addressed. However, as
effective as it may seems, gaps between policy and implementation/practices still exist, hence an
infidelity between lovers. Just like lovers, when one is not loyal to the other, problem arises. A
policy, no matter how it was perfect in going through the phases of the process, when practiced
differently on the ground will have a slim chance in achieving the outcome it desired. The big
question is why?

Policy making process, despite its sophistication, shared similar limitations that would resulting
to incoherent practice on the ground. Political processes minimize the role of politics, values and
ideology. Despite the practice of “evidence-based” policy making (commissioned researchers used
pre-determined criteria) and involving “stakeholders” (which are pre-selected) in policy selection
and policy evaluation stages, this does not mean that all options are on the table [ CITATION Sco17 \l
1033 ].

The formal and explicit stages of policy making process obscure key underlying process.
Consequently, policies may not adequately capture the turbulence, a characteristic of policy
implementation, and the resistances, silences and absences in the policy process [ CITATION
Sco17 \l 1033 ]. With these, the tendency for gap to exist between the policy and practice is always a
possibility with high probability.

I hypothesize that the practices of the people on the ground are shape by long history of
accepted norms, mores and values that form their criteria of acceptability. Scott (2017) posited that
policy process cycles least include the idea that the institution is constrained not only my
administrative structures and resources but also with the values, political and ideological
preferences of its individuals. Hence, failure to acknowledges these would create differences in
interpreting and valuing a certain policy leading to infidelity between policy and practice—a classic
gap between what is to achieve and what are they doing.

In the USeP, although not dubbed explicitly as policy framework policy, policy making process
are embedded in various documents. These processes are followed in formulating university
directions in addressing pressing issues. Institutional policies are implemented across all academic
units of the University. However, while it remains a challenge to formulate responsive and effective
policy, implementing it harmoniously across the institution is equally challenging.

Honestly, I cannot categorically deny or verify gaps between practice and institutional policies
here as I lack data. I reserve that in my policy analysis which I will be focusing to specific policy.
Instead, let me offer some literature on understanding gap between policy and practice.

In the University, there are policies that were formulated as product of research. As such, that
policy reflects social-political conditions, and that policy change precedes research. Given the slow
pace of research, the penchant of researchers for precision of design and rigor of analysis, and the
tendency of most researchers to be cautious in inference and generalization, it seems fair to say
that major progress in educational change would be impossible if the university waits for
comprehensive data sets to drive its decisions. [ CITATION Keo90 \l 1033 ]. And when data sets are
comprehensive already, after the decisions were translated to policies, it may not be relevant on the
ground anymore since time has lapse already that warrant changes in socio-political landscape.
 As internal to USeP, I came to encounter cases where local actors are caught in confusion on
how to implement the policy. In education, for policy to be successful it should be well
communicated to all actors to be understood and should not stop at giving directives [ CITATION
Tur13 \l 1033 ]. When this fails the issues and objectives of the policies became vague and unclear.
When policies deal with complex and ambiguous issues, an increasing gap may open up between
government-set objectives and the instruments used for policy implementation. The desired
outcomes of the policy are increasing breadth and ambiguity, while the implementation, which is too
focused to output, become progressively narrower in scope [ CITATION Ros14 \l 1033 ]. Taking note
that policy implementation focuses on the relationship between the expression of the government’s
intention to do something (or to stop doing something) and the actual result obtained (O’Toole,
2000).

When there is no participation of local actors in the formation of objectives, the policy becomes
more prescribing on what the local actors should behave and in reality this will lead to resistance,
disregard or proforma compliance on the part of local actors [ CITATION Ros14 \l 1033 ]. Similarly,
when the local actors have full autonomy, just like in bottom-up approach, this may lead them to
pursue individual goals that may deviate from the overall policy objective.

Policy, Practice and Perception: Ensuring Fidelity

The Policy Analysis. In the previous section, I have pointed out the glaring possibility that gap
will exists between the policy and practice or its implementation. From this point and forth, I will
attempt to explain the herculean task of policy analysis to ensure fidelity between the policy and
practice.

Policy analysis is a systematic evaluation of the technical and political implications of

alternatives proposed to solve public problems. Let us discuss this definition and attempt to cull out
the functions of a policy analyst in an institution.

Policy analysis is systematic evaluation. Systematic means using organized method that is often
detailed [ CITATION Cam20 \l 1033 ] to present or formulate as a coherent body of ideas or principles [
CITATION Mer20 \l 1033 ]. Doing things systematically is to do them according to the fixed pre-
determined plan, in thorough and efficient way [ CITATION Col20 \l 1033 ]. On the other hand,
evaluation ay refer to determining the value, nature, character, quality [ CITATION Mer201 \l 1033 ],
importance and amount [ CITATION Cam201 \l 1033 ] of something—in this case the policy.
 In policy analysis, the technical and political implications of alternatives are carefully
determined. In this sense, the political analyst carefully follows steps in determining technical and
political implications of alternatives. As such, the analyst, as a consultant (external or internal) is
expected to produce to stir debates and arguments on the technical and political implications which
will then produce evidence for decisions of the policy. In handling debates of the implication of the
policy, an analyst should ensure that the values and beliefs of the institution are reflected in the
policy and how these values and beliefs shape the decision-making process.

The policy analysis becomes a systematic exercise if it follows pre-determined process. Here, I
will offer the generally accepted “six-step policy analysis” which I believe shape the fundamentals of
other policy analysis frameworks adapted by other institutions. In the six-step policy analysis, one
has to (1) verify, define and detail the problem (which I believe the participation of the public is
highly significant), (2) establish evaluation criteria, (3) Identify alternative policies, (4) assess
alternative policies, (5) display and distinguish among alternatives, and (6) implement, monitor and
evaluate the policy.

An analyst should be free from bias and inclination. In order to address bias, a set of pre-
determine criteria should be used as framework for analysis to make the analysis replicable and
verifiable. Criteria are measurable dimensions of the policy objectives. Setting up criteria for policy
analysis is a little bit difficult. Economic criterion is usually included in policy analysis to examine the
economic impact of the policy which are generally express as cost (direct, indirect, monetizable,
operations, maintenance, opportunity, etc.) and benefits (tangible and intangible). In order to
examine the distribution of burden and benefits of a certain policy, an equity (horizontal, vertical,
inter-generational) criterion may be included. Technical criterion refers to the effectiveness and
technical feasibility. To include the technical criterion is to decide the framework for effectiveness
which will decide its measurement and examine if the policy is feasible under technical constraints.
More so, political criterion of a policy analysis talks about the acceptability, appropriateness and
responsiveness of the policy and iron out its possible legal conflict. A policy when poorly
implemented is rather a problem than a solution hence administrative criteria maybe included to
determine if the implementing mechanisms are given to the right office with right people and
sufficient support.

These criteria do not only serve as unit of analysis but also as point of reference in identifying
alternatives. When an analyst looks for alternatives, he has to examine the cost, reliability, stability,
invulnerability, flexibility, risks, communicability, merit, simplicity, reversibility and robustness of the
policy.
 The policy analysis as systematic evaluation, therefore, is judging or calculating importance,
potential and actual effect and value of a policy based on certain pre-determined criteria and
following an institutionally approved and in-placed processes. The policy analysis ensures the
fidelity of three lovers: the policy, practice and public perception by scrutiny of the policy-making
process to warrant the public participation in agenda setting, to gauge the potential impacts
(economic, political, social, etc.) of the policy and to assess the effectiveness of the chosen
alternatives.

In the University, it is a must that continual review of the existing policy becomes a way of life.
The assigned bodies (Academic Council, AdCo, UCRC, among others) conducts review of the
policies to gauge its effectiveness and implementation. The policies of the University are not perfect
and far from being one but continual improvement is what the University is trying to achieve. For
instance, the Memorandum Circular No. 2 (MC 2) dated April 27, 2020 or the USeP academic
regulations amidst the COVID – 19 Pandemic was released for guidance and compliance of the
faculty members and staff of the University in their academic dealings.

In MC 2’s context, it mentioned that the regulations were crafted with “consultation with the
college deans, director of the office of the university registrar, associate deans/graduate school
heads of the graduate programs and [some] program heads of the undergraduate programs”. There
is no mention of the participation of the student body in decision making. I would like to think that at
least context, demographics of the students and faculty members as well as their learning and
teaching needs were considered however the circular only mentioned its intention to “address the
needs of students and faculty [members]” while preserving the “standards and academic integrity”
of the University without “sacrificing the health and safety of the members of the USeP community”.
When there was misunderstanding between the studentry and the USeP administration to this
effect, dialogues were created between parties and communicating the policy through various
platforms was done to iron things out.

Moreover, I would like to point out some of my observations, as follows:

 The passage of the MC 2. I understand that MC 2 is a resolution of the University

Administrative Council and was released to the faculty and staff for their compliance.
Should the MC 2 be approved first by the Board since it suspends the existing academic
policies of the university which the Board approved on long time ago? I hope to
understand the hierarchy of policies in the university which I admit I am ignorant of.
  I believe that the MC 2 should be clear about on which provision are applicable for a
specific time frame. For instance, if the MC 2 was not lifted when the SY 2020-2021
opens sometime in August or September, should the provision for giving InP grade,
corresponding learning etc. are still in effect? Or they are just intended for the second
semester 2019-2020?
 The policy specifies that learning materials should be ready at the beginning of the SY
2020-2021 for students to pick up however, there is no clear provision on how to
conduct classes by then. More so, I believe that the policy should also specify the
support mechanism of the university to that effect to its faculty members. Hence, there
should be a policy that specifies measures for the university to adjust to the new normal.
 I would like to believe that it is clear to all mentioned offices (colleges, PMED, OVPAA,
OVPPQuA) the evaluation criteria and deliverables of all concerned to gauge the
effectiveness of MC 2 as a policy.

In relation to MC 2, I argue that,

 Student body should be included, directly SSG or indirectly through OSAS or student
demographics, in decision making like this as resource person at the very least.
 Include support mechanism to direct offices or the university in giving support to faculty
and staff in implementing the policy.
 It must be cleared as to what the policy is trying to address, the instructional problems
brought by COVID-19 specific for this 2nd semester SY 2019-2020 or the future of
instruction in the new normal.

Conclusion

The relationship between policy, practice and perception of the actors is complex to
understand as this can be affected by several factors common and unique to institutions. The socio-
political landscape prevailing in an institution shape its political choices which are reflected in its
policies. The kind of debate on issues, culture of discourse, political atmosphere and the leadership
style in an institution contributes to ensuring gap between the policy, practice and perception.

References
Aghion, P., Alesina, A., & Trebbi, F. (2002). Endogenous Political Institutions. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard Institute of Economic Research.
Cambridge Dictionary. (2020, May 20). evaluation. Retrieved from Cambridge Dictionary:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/evaluation
Cambridge Dictionary. (2020, May 20). Meaning of systematic in English. Retrieved from
Cambridge Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/systematic
Collins. (2020, May 20). Definition of 'systematic'. Retrieved from Collins Dictionary:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/systematic
Elgie, R. (2012). Exogenous Political Institutions? Constitutional Choice in Postindependence
Francophone Sub-Saharan Africa. Political Research Quarterly, 1-13.
Hodgson, G. (2006). What are Institutions? Journal of Economic Issues, 1-25.
Keogh, B. K. (1990). Narrowing the Gap between Policy and Practice. Exceptional Children.
Mazza, I., & van Winden, F. (2008). An endogenous policy model of hierarchical government.
European Economic Review, 133-149.
Merriam Webster. (2020, May 20). evaluation. Retrieved from Merriam Webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evaluation
Merriam Webster. (2020, May 20). Systematic. Retrieved from Merriam Webster:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/systematic
North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Rosli, A., & Rossi, F. (2014). Explaining the gap between policy aspirations and implementation:
The case of university knowledge transfer policy in the United Kingdom. Center for
Innovation Management Research, 1-37.
Schotter, A. (1981). The Economic Theory of Social Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity
Press.
Scott, P. (2017). Policy Process in Higher Education. UCL Institute of Education,.
Shvetsova, O. (2003). Endogenous Selection of Institutions and Their Exogenous Effects.
Constitutional Political Economy, 191-212.
Swank, O. H., Letterie, W., & van Dalen, H. P. (1999). A Theory of Policy Advice. JLEO, 602-616.
Turgeon, B. (2013). A District Wellness Policy: The Gap Between Policy and Practice. Journal of
Education and Learning, 26-38.
University of Southeastern Philippines. (2020, May 16). University Profile. Retrieved from University
of Southeastern Philippines: http://www.usep.edu.ph/usep-profile/
UNSW Sydney. (2019, September 3). Policy Framework Policy.
USEP Faculty Manual. (2011).
USeP Graduate School Manual. (2010).
USeP RDE Manual. (2006).