Cambodian higher education in transition: an institutional governance perspective

Purpose: The paper aims to ascertain the governance arrangements of higher education providers in Cambodia and to seek insights into institutional governance while its higher education sector is in a significant transition towards the market model. Design/methodology/approach: The empirical research underpinning this paper applies a qualitative method, based on an interpretivist approach to inquiry. The study uses semi-structured interviews with 38 key research participants from relevant institutions. The data analysis follows a thematic coding approach. Findings: The study has found that despite their divergent governance arrangements, three forms of higher education providers – public institution, public administrative institution and private institution – have become increasingly similar because of their convergent trend towards commercialization and politicization. These two critical issues are considered threats to institutional development in Cambodia. Research limitations/implications: The interviews were conducted with the key actors at leadership and management levels. This leaves room for future research to investigate the institutional governance issue at faculty and student levels to develop a deeper understanding about the on-the-ground implementation. This paper is a useful information source for policymakers, institutional leaders and educational practitioners. Originality/value: This paper addresses the under-researched issue of institutional governance in Cambodia and critically examines the assumption that devolution and privatization of higher education in Cambodia will help advance the sector for economic development. The paper contributes to the ongoing academic debate in the higher education domain while higher education institutions are struggling to sustain their place in the competitive marketplace

Entrepreneurial Universities and Knowledge Circulation: Challenges to University-Industry Interaction

Knowledge circulation and the entrepreneurial university have become essential to the functioning of regional innovation systems. What does this mean for the three core tasks of universities – teaching, doing scientific research, and making a societal contribution? How can the changing of these tasks be analyzed in the context of the role of the entrepreneurial university in knowledge circulation? Which challenges does a sharpened focus on knowledge circulation entail for the entrepreneurial university and which issues should be on the top of the agenda of the boards of universities and policy makers to stimulate knowledge circulation? This chapter discusses the role of entrepreneurial universities in processes of knowledge circulation and sketches the contours of an agenda to actively stimulate processes of knowledge circulation at entrepreneurial universities

Understanding the governance of the engaged and entrepreneurial university in the twenty-first century: Towards a new research and policy agenda

This paper develops insight into the way in which twenty-first century universities worldwide have performed in the changing world and challenges that they have undergone, in order to address the ever-changing demands of the global knowledge-based economy within the innovative ecosystem. It firstly reviews current theory and practice on entrepreneurial universities. It also analyses the current dispersion of science outside academia, via laws, policies and processes of marketization more broadly. It addresses governance issues which are relevant for both researchers and policy makers, and lastly, sketches the contours of a new research and policy agenda for entrepreneurial universities via reformulating their “third task”. The issues and questions on this agenda provide focal points in discussions and policy debates on the current state and governance of the ‘entrepreneurial’ university. They reflect the importance of (1) rethinking the relation between publicly funded universities cooperating with private parties, (2) the kind of professionals delivered to society by universities, (3) the role of universities as entrepreneurs in innovation ecosystems, (4) the relation between societal relevance and commercial relevance of research, (5) implications of increased dispersion of research activities outside academia, and (6) the independence of academics cooperating with private partners in research projects

Preface, Neo-Liberalism and the Architecture of the Post-Professional Era

Architecture is an integral part of human activities and affects everyday experiences and actions. Today architects must face and respond to the challenge of creating built environments that support, nurture, enrich, and celebrate human activities. The creation of cities, towns, and buildings has always been the result of a combination of cultural, social, environmental, and economic factors and needs. New demands require architects to take pro-active responsibility for these factors, and promote designs that support a responsive environment. In addition, social and ethical approaches to the profession, which are amenable to invigorate such a responsibility, need to be considered and acted upon. In response to the continuous transformations of the profession and the changing role of the architect three concepts have emerged in the last three decades: these are programming or pre-designing, post-occupancy evaluation-POE or building performance evaluation-BPE, and community design or user participation (Salama, 2015). Due to client/user dissatisfaction with the built environment and the continuous lack of public awareness of what architects do and how they do it, these concepts must continue to evolve in a responsible manner. While they have not long been part of architectural professional practice, they are now seen as a valid and important part of practice and research in architecture, although not, in practice, fully integrated as a triad. They must be viewed as the basis for social and ethical approaches to architecture since they are characterised by generic qualities that cover a wide range of factors architects must respond to in their practices. Such qualities include the following: • Identifying human and social needs within the context of the environment in which socio-behavioural, geo-cultural, climatic, political, and economic aspects are employed. • Evaluating the built environment toward making appropriate adaptations and adjustments. • Involving people affected by the built environment in the process of decision-making

Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models

Over the last few decades, globalization and ever-increasing demands of the knowledge-based economy have caused higher education in most countries around the world to undergo significant transformation. Notwithstanding the dramatic changes in higher education, it is clearly noticed that the influence of the European higher education models is still present despite the fact that the American model has then become dominant on higher education in Europe or even worldwide. The changes have been seen in the evolutionary roles of universities, which share the common trend from traditional missions of teaching and research to the third mission for economic development. Despite various viewpoints about the third mission, the common one concerns the entrepreneurial role of university for socio-economic development, underlying the concept of entrepreneurial university in which the collaboration between university and external stakeholders is emphasized. This paper is aimed to present a review of the taxonomy of the three European higher education models, namely the Humboldtian, Napoleonic, and Anglo-Saxon model, which is followed by a discussion on the emergence of the Anglo-American model of higher education. The paper then presents the third mission in relation to the roles of a university in developed countries, which is followed by the elaboration on the transformation from mode 1 to mode 2 in knowledge production, and a pathway toward entrepreneurial universities. © 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht