Background: Many countries use market forces to drive reform across disability supports and services. Over the last few decades, many countries have individualised budgets and devolved these to people with disability, so that they can purchase their own choice of supports from an available market of services.Key points for discussion: Such individualised, market-based schemes aim to extend choice and control to people with disability, but this is only achievable if the market operates effectively. Market stewardship has therefore become an important function of government in guiding markets and ensuring they operate effectively.The type of evidence that governments tend to draw on in market stewardship is typically limited to inputs and outputs and has less insight into the outcomes services do or do not achieve. While this is a typical approach to market stewardship, we argue it is problematic and that a greater focus on outcomes is necessary.Conclusions and implications: To include a focus on outcomes, we argue that market stewards need to take account of the lived experience of people with disability. We present a framework for doing this, drawing on precedents where people with disability have contributed lived experience evidence within other policy, research, knowledge production and advocacy contexts.With the lived experience evidence of people with disability included, market stewardship will be better able to take account of outcomes as they play out in the lives of those using the market and, ultimately, achieve greater choice and control for people with disability.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Market stewardship is key to guiding quasi-markets, including in the disability sector;</li><br /><li>Evidence guiding market stewardship is often about inputs and outputs only;</li><br /><li>It would be beneficial to also include lived experience evidence from people with disability;</li><br /><li>We propose a framework for the inclusion of lived experience evidence in market stewardship.</li></ul>
Higher Degree Committee Members’ Perceptions of Quality Assurance of Doctoral Education: A South African Perspective
