Lex imperfecta, governance and persuasion: the case of quality assurance in Roman Catholic ecclesiastical higher education

References

• Ädel, A. & Mauranen, A., 2010, ‘Metadiscourse: diverse and divided perspectives’, Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9, pp. 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Anthony, L., 2022, AntConc. 4.1.2 (Tokyo, Japan, Waseda University).
   Google Scholar
• Aristotle  & Garner, E., 2005, Poetics and Rhetoric (New York, Barnes & Noble).
   Google Scholar
• Agency for the Evaluation and Promotion of Quality in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (AVEPRO), 2019a, The Ecclesiastical Higher Education System in the Global World: The rationale of AVEPRO’s evaluation system. Available at: www.avepro.glauco.it/avepro/allegati/1133/E_AVEPRO-Rationale_2019.pdf (accessed 15 September 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Agency for the Evaluation and Promotion of Quality in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (AVEPRO), 2019b, Guidelines for Self-Evaluation. Available at: www.avepro.glauco.it/avepro/allegati/1133/B_Guidelines%20for%20SELF-EVALUATION%202019.pdf (accessed 15 September 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Agency for the Evaluation and Promotion of Quality in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (AVEPRO), 2019c, Guidelines on Strategic Planning. Available at: www.avepro.glauco.it/avepro/allegati/1133/D_Guidelines%20on%20STRATEGIC%20PLANNING%202019.pdf (accessed 15 September 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Agency for the Evaluation and Promotion of Quality in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (AVEPRO), 2019d, Guidelines: Nature, context, purpose, standards and procedures of quality evaluation and promotion. Available at: www.avepro.glauco.it/avepro/allegati/1133/A_Guidelines%20AVEPRO%202019.pdf (accessed 15 September 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Barbato, M., 2013, ‘A state, a diplomat, and a transnational church: the multi-layered actorness of the Holy See’, Perspectives: Review of International Affairs, 21(2), pp. 27–48.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, S., Hindmoor, A.M. & Mols, F., 2010, ‘Persuasion as governance: a state-centric relational perspective’, Public Administration, 88, pp. 851–70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catholic Church, 1983, Code of Canon Law (Vatican). Available at: www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/cic_index_en.html (accessed 17 September 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Congregation for Catholic Education (CCE), 2012, Quality Culture. A handbook for ecclesiastical faculties (Vatican, Vatican Press).
   Google Scholar
• Dafouz-Milne, E., 2003, ‘Metadiscourse revisited: a contrastive study of persuasive writing in professional discourse’, Estudios Ingleses De La Universidad Complutense, 11, pp. 29–52.
   Google Scholar
• De Wit, H., Bernasconi, A., Car, V., Hunter, F., James, M. & Véliz, D. (Eds.), 2018, Identity and Internationalization in Catholic Universities: Exploring institutional pathways in context (Leiden, The Netherlands, Brill).
   Google Scholar
• Durnova, A. & Zittoun, P., 2013, ‘Les approches discursives des politiques publiques’ [Discursive approaches to public policy], Revue française de science politique, 63, pp. 569–77.
   Google Scholar
• Flyvberg, B., 2001, Making Social Science Matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
   Google Scholar
• Francis, 2018, Veritatis Gaudium Apostolic Constitution on Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (Vatican, LEV Libreria Editrice Vaticana).
   Google Scholar
• Gottweis, H., 2006a, ‘Argumentative policy analysis’, in Handbook of Public Policy, Chapter 27 (London, Sage).
   Google Scholar
• Gottweis, H., 2006b, ‘Rhetoric in policy making: between logos, ethos, and pathos’, in Frank, F. & Miller, G.J. (Eds.), 2006, Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods (New York, Routledge).
   Google Scholar
• Héritier, A. & Eckert, S., 2008, ‘New modes of governance in the shadow of hierarchy: self-regulation by industry in Europe’, Journal of Public Policy, 28, pp. 113–38.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, V., 2016, ‘Discourse of persuasion: a preliminary study of the use of metadiscourse in policy documents’, Text & Talk, 36, pp. 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter, F. & Sparnon, N., 2017, ‘Quality assurance in ecclesiastical institutions of higher education: “Did we pass?”’, Educatio Catholica, 3, pp. 169–74.
   Google Scholar
• Hyland, K., 1998, ‘Persuasion and context: the pragmatics of academic metadiscourse’, Journal of Pragmatics, 30, pp. 437–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K., 2017, ‘Metadiscourse: what is it and where is it going?’, Journal of Pragmatics, 113, pp. 16–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K., 2018, Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing (London, Bloomsbury Publishing).
   Google Scholar
• Hysing, E., 2009, ‘Governing without government? The private governance of forest certification in Sweden’, Public Administration, 87, pp. 312–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jucker, A.H., 1997, ‘Persuasion by inference: analysis of a party political broadcast’, Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11, pp. 121–37.
   Google Scholar
• Majone, G., 1997, ‘The new European agencies: regulation by information’, Journal of European Public Policy, 4, pp. 262–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicoll, K. & Edwards, R., 2004, ‘Lifelong learning and the sultans of spin: policy as persuasion?’, Journal of Education Policy, 19, pp. 43–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paltridge, B., 2012, Discourse Analysis: An introduction (London, Continuum).
   Google Scholar
• Pelclová, J. & Lu, W.-L., 2018, ‘Persuasion across times, domains and modalities: theoretical considerations and emerging themes’, in Pelclová, J. & Lu, W.-L. (Eds.), 2018, Persuasion in Public Discourse (Amsterdam & Philadelphia, John Benjamins).
   Google Scholar
• Powell, W., 1990, ‘Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization’, Research in Organizational Behaviour, 12, pp. 295–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stensaker, B., 2018, ‘Quality assurance and the battle for legitimacy—discourses, disputes and dependencies’, Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 12, pp. 54–62.
   Google Scholar
• Steurer, R., 2011, ‘Soft instruments, few networks: how ‘new governance’ materializes in public policies on corporate social responsibility across Europe’, Environmental Policy & Governance, 21, pp. 270–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vasheghani Farahani, M., 2020, ‘Metadiscourse in academic written and spoken English: a comparative corpus-based inquiry’, Research in Language, 18, pp. 319–41.
   Google Scholar
• Vedung, E., 1998, ‘Policy instruments: typologies and theories’, in Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R.C. & Vedung, E. (Eds.), 1998, Carrots, Sticks, and Sermons: Policy instruments and their evaluation (Piscataway, NJ & London, Transaction Publishers).
   Google Scholar
• Vettori, O., Heintze, R., Niemi, H. & Kitching, M., 2019, ENQA Agency Review: Holy See’s Agency for the Evaluation and Promotion of Quality in Ecclesiastical Universities and Faculties (AVEPRO). Available at: www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/AVEPRO-external-review-report.pdf (accessed 17 September 2022).
   Google Scholar