78 research outputs found
Inclusive universities in a globalised world
This thematic issue of Social Inclusion focuses on universities as inclusive organisations in a variety of different countries and higher education (HE) systems. It explores how these institutions aim, succeed or fail to become inclusive organisations, what policies and processes help achieve these goals and how academics and students can become agents of change through inclusive teaching and research cultures. The contributions in this thematic issue point to the multiâlevel as well as multiâfaceted challenges and characteristics of inclusion in HE in general and in universities in particular, based on both student and academic points of view. They offer innovative conceptual ways of thinking as well as measuring inclusion. Further, they point out the importance of context in understanding the challenges of achieving equality and inclusion in universities through countryâspecific as well as crossâcountry comparisons of various aspects of diversity and inclusivity.
We hope this thematic issue will inspire theoretical thinking, support practitioners and encourage policyâmaking about more responsible ways of defining and fostering inclusive universities in a globalised world
Managing Contemporary UK Universities â Manager-academics and New Managerialism
A multi-disciplinary project entitled âNew Managerialism and the Management of UK Universitiesâ was conducted by a team of researchers based at Lancaster University between October 1998 and November 2000. The study was funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council (grant no R000237661). The project was designed to examine the extent to which âNew Managerialismâ, a set of reforms of the management of publicly-funded services popular with many western governments, was perceived to have permeated the management of UK universities. The study also explored the roles, practices, selection, learning and support of manager-academics. The first phase of the study comprised focus group discussions with learned societies from several disciplines where respondents considered what was currently happening to the management of universities. The second phase involved interviews with 135 manager-academics (from Head of Department to Vice Chancellor) and 29 senior administrators in 12 pre-1992 and post-1992 universities. The interviews explored the backgrounds, current management practices and perceptions of respondents. In phase 3, case studies of the cultures and management of four universities enabled comparison of the views of manager-academics with those of academics and support staff
'Excellence' and exclusion:the individual costs of institutional competitiveness
A performance-based funding system like the United Kingdomâs âResearch Excellence Frameworkâ (REF) symbolizes the re-rationalization of higher education according to neoliberal ideology and New Public Management technologies. The REF is also significant for disclosing the kinds of behaviour that characterize universitiesâ response to government demands for research auditability. In this paper, we consider the casualties of what Henry Giroux (2014) calls âneoliberalismâs war on higher educationâ or more precisely the deleterious consequences of non-participation in the REF. We also discuss the ways with which higher educationâs competition fetish, embodied within the REF, affects the instrumentalization of academic research and the diminution of academic freedom, autonomy and criticality
What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach
Ambiguity surrounding the effect of external engagement on academic research has raised questions about what motivates researchers to collaborate with third parties. We argue that what matters for society is research that can be absorbed by users. We define openness as a willingness by researchers to make research more usable by external partners by responding to external influences in their own research practices. We ask what kinds of characteristics define those researchers who are more open to creating usable knowledge. Our empirical study analyses a sample of 1583 researchers working at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC). Results demonstrate that it is personal factors (academic identity and past experience) that determine which researchers have open behaviours. The paper concludes that policies to encourage external engagement should focus on experiences which legitimate and validate knowledge produced through user encounters, both at the academic formation career stage as well as through providing ongoing opportunities to engage with third parties.The data used for this study comes from the IMPACTO project funded by the Spanish Council for Scientific Research - CSIC (Ref. 200410E639). The work also benefited from a mobility grant awarded by Eu-Spri Forum to Julia Olmos Penuela & Paul Benneworth for her visiting research to the Center of Higher Education Policy Studies. Finally, Julia Olmos Penuela also benefited from a post-doctoral grant funded by the Generalitat Valenciana (APOSTD-2014-A-006).Olmos-Peñuela, J.; Benneworth, P.; Castro-MartĂnez, E. (2015). What Stimulates Researchers to Make Their Research Usable? Towards an Openness Approach. Minerva. 53(4):381-410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-015-9283-4S381410534Abreu, Maria, Vadim Grinevich, Alan Hughes, and Michael Kitson. 2009. Knowledge exchange between academics and the business, public and third sectors. Cambridge: Centre for Business Research and UK-IRC.Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2008. Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics 39: 617â635.Ajzen, Icek. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 27â58.AlrĂže, Hugo Fjelsted, and Erik Steen Kristensen. 2002. Towards a systemic research methodology in agriculture: Rethinking the role of values in science. Agriculture and Human Values 19(1): 3â23.Audretsch, David B., Werner Bönte, and Stefan Krabel. 2010. Why do scientists in public research institutions cooperate with private firms. In DRUID Working Paper, 10â27.Baldini, Nicola, Rosa Grimaldi, and Maurizio Sobrero. 2007. To patent or not to patent? A survey of Italian inventors on motivations, incentives, and obstacles to university patenting. Scientometrics 70(2): 333â354.Bandura, Albert. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barnett, R. 2009. Knowing and becoming in the higher education curriculum. Studies in Higher Education 34(4): 429â440.Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151â161.Becher, Tony, and Paul Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. McGraw-Hill International.Bekkers, Rudi, and Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas. 2008. Analysing knowledge transfer channels between universities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter? Research Policy 37(10): 1837â1853.Belderbos, RenĂ©, Martin Carree, Bert Diederen, Boris Lokshin, and Reinhilde Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22(8): 1237â1263.Benner, Mats, and Ulf Sandström. 2000. Institutionalizing the triple helix: Research funding and norms in the academic system. Research Policy 29(2): 291â301.Bercovitz, Janet, and Maryann Feldman. 2008. Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science 19(1): 69â89.Berman, Elizabeth Popp. 2011. Creating the market university: How academic science became an economic engine. Princeton University Press.Bleiklie, Ivar, and Roar HĂžstaker. 2004. Modernizing research training-education and science policy between profession, discipline and academic institution. Higher Education Policy 17(2): 221â236.Bozeman, Barry, Daniel Fay, and Catherine P. Slade. 2013. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer 38(1): 1â67.Collini, Stefan. 2009. Impact on humanities: Researchers must take a stand now or be judged and rewarded as salesmen. The Times Literary Supplement 5563: 18â19.DâEste, Pablo, and Markus Perkmann. 2011. Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. The Journal of Technology Transfer 36(3): 316â339.DâEste, Pablo, Oscar Llopis, and Alfredo Yegros. 2013. Conducting pro-social research: Cognitive diversity, research excellence and awareness about the social impact of research: INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series.Deem, Rosemary, and Lisa Lucas. 2007. Research and teaching cultures in two contrasting UK policy contexts: Academic life in education departments in five English and Scottish universities. Higher Education 54(1): 115â133.DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147â160.Downing, David B. 2005. The knowledge contract: Politics and paradigms in the academic workplace. Lincoln: Nebraska University of Nebraska Press.Donovan, Claire. 2007. The qualitative future of research evaluation. Science and Public Policy 34(8): 585â597.Durning, Bridget. 2004. Planning academics and planning practitioners: Two tribes or a community of practice? Planning Practice and Research 19(4): 435â446.Edquist, Charles. 1997. System of innovation approaches: Their emergence and characteristics. In Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, ed. C. Edquist, 1â35. London: Pinter.Etzkowitz, Henry, and Loet Leydesdorff. 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and âMode 2â to a Triple Helix of universityâindustryâgovernment relations. Research Policy 29(2): 109â123.Fromhold-Eisebith, Martina, Claudia Werker, and Marcel Vojnic. 2014. Tracing the social dimension in innovation networks. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Geuna, Aldo, and Alessandro Muscio. 2009. The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva 47(1): 93â114.Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nowotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.GlĂ€ser, Jochen. 2012. How does Governance change research content? On the possibility of a sociological middle-range theory linking science policy studies to the sociology of scientific knowledge. Technical University Berlin. Technology Studies Working Papers. http://www.ts.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg226/TUTS/TUTS-WP-1-2012.pdf . Accessed 16 Feb 2015.Goethner, Maximilian, Martin Obschonka, Rainer K. Silbereisen, and Uwe Cantner. 2012. Scientistsâ transition to academic entrepreneurship: Economic and psychological determinants. Journal of Economic Psychology 33(3): 628â641.Gulbrandsen, Magnus, and Jens-Christian Smeby. 2005. Industry funding and university professorsâ research performance. Research Policy 34(6): 932â950.Haeussler, Carolin, and Jeannette Colyvas. 2011. Breaking the ivory tower: Academic entrepreneurship in the life sciences in UK and Germany. Research Policy 40(1): 41â54.Hessels, Laurens K., Harro van Lente, John Grin, and Ruud E.H.M. Smits. 2011. Changing struggles for relevance in eight fields of natural science. Industry and Higher Education 25(5): 347â357.Hessels, Laurens K., and Harro Van Lente. 2008. Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy 37(4): 740â760.Hoye, Kate, and Fred Pries. 2009. âRepeat commercializersâ, the âhabitual entrepreneursâ of universityâindustry technology transfer. Technovation 29(10): 682â689.Jacobson, Nora, Dale Butterill, and Paula Goering. 2004. Organizational factors that influence university-based researchersâ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication 25(3): 246â259.Jain, Sanjay, Gerard George, and Mark Maltarich. 2009. Academics or entrepreneurs? Investigating role identity modification of university scientists involved in commercialization activity. Research Policy 38(6): 922â935.Jasanoff, Sheila, and Sang-Hyun Kim. 2013. Sociotechnical imaginaries and national energy policies. Science as Culture 22(2): 189â196.Jensen, Pablo. 2011. A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science 20(1): 26â36.Kitcher, Philip. 2001. Science, truth, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1981. The manufacture of knowledge: An essay on the constructivist and contextual nature of science. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Kronenberg, Kristin, and Marjolein CaniĂ«ls. 2014. Professional proximity in research collaborations. In The social dynamics of innovation networks, eds. Roel Rutten, Paul Benneworth, Frans Boekema, and Dessy Irawati. London: Routledge (in press).Krueger, Rob, and David Gibbs. 2010. Competitive global city regions and sustainable developmentâ: An interpretive institutionalist account in the South East of England. Environment and planning A 42: 821â837.Lam, Alice. 2011. What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: âGoldâ, âribbonâ or âpuzzleâ? Research Policy 40(10): 1354â1368.Landry, RĂ©jean, Malek SaĂŻhi, Nabil Amara, and Mathieu Ouimet. 2010. Evidence on how academics manage their portfolio of knowledge transfer activities. Research Policy 39(10): 1387â1403.Lee, Alison, and David Boud. 2003. Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 187â200.Lee, Yong S. 1996. âTechnology transferâ and the research university: A search for the boundaries of universityâindustry collaboration. Research Policy 25(6): 843â863.Lee, Yong S. 2000. The sustainability of universityâindustry research collaboration: An empirical assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer 25(2): 111â133.Leisyte, Liudvika, JĂŒrgen Enders, and Harry De Boer. 2008. The freedom to set research agendasâillusion and reality of the research units in the Dutch Universities. Higher Education Policy 21(3): 377â391.Louis, Karen Seashore, David Blumenthal, Michael E. Gluck, and Michael A. Stoto. 1989. Entrepreneurs in academe: An exploration of behaviors among life scientists. Administrative Science Quarterly 34(1): 110â131.Lowe, Philip, Jeremy Phillipson, and Katy Wilkinson. 2013. Why social scientists should engage with natural scientists. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 207â222.MartĂn-Sempere, MarĂa JosĂ©, BelĂ©n GarzĂłn-GarcĂa, and JesĂșs Rey-Rocha. 2008. Scientistsâ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science 17(3): 349â367.Martin, Ben. 2003. The changing social contract for science and the evolution of the university. In Science and innovation: Rethinking the rationales for funding and governance, eds. A. Geuna, A.J. Salter, and W.E. Steinmueller, 7â29. Cheltenhan: Edward Elgar.Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Miller, Thaddeus R., and Mark W. Neff. 2013. De-facto science policy in the making: how scientists shape science policy and why it matters (or, why STS and STP scholars should socialize). Minerva 51(3): 295â315.MuthĂ©n, Bengt O. 1998â2004. Mplus Technical Appendices. MuthĂ©n & MuthĂ©n. Los Angeles, CA.: MuthĂ©n & MuthĂ©n.Nedeva, Maria. 2013. Between the global and the national: Organising European science. Research Policy 42(1): 220â230.Neff, Mark William. 2014. Research prioritization and the potential pitfall of path dependencies in coral reef science. Minerva 52(2): 213â235.Nelson, Richard R. 2001. Observations on the post-Bayh-Dole rise of patenting at American universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer 26(1): 13â19.Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking science: Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Paul Benneworth, and Elena Castro-MartĂnez. 2014a. Are âSTEM from Mars and SSH from Venusâ? Challenging disciplinary stereotypes of researchâs social value. Science and Public Policy 41: 384â400.Olmos-Peñuela, Julia, Elena Castro-MartĂnez, and Manuel FernĂĄndez-Esquinas. 2014b. Diferencias entre ĂĄreas cientĂficas en las prĂĄcticas de divulgaciĂłn de la investigaciĂłn: un estudio empĂrico en el CSIC. Revista Española de DocumentaciĂłn CientĂfica. doi: 10.3989/redc.2014.2.1096 .Ouimet, Mathieu, Nabil Amara, RĂ©jean Landry, and John Lavis. 2007. Direct interactions medical school faculty members have with professionals and managers working in public and private sector organizations: A cross-sectional study. Scientometrics 72(2): 307â323.Perkmann, Markus, Valentina Tartari, Maureen McKelvey, Erkko Autio, Anders Brostrom, Pablo DâEste, Riccardo Fini, et al. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy 42(2): 423â442.Philpott, Kevin, Lawrence Dooley, Caroline OâReilly, and Gary Lupton. 2011. The entrepreneurial university: Examining the underlying academic tensions. Technovation 31(4): 161â170.Rutten, Roel, and Frans Boekema. 2012. From learning region to learning in a socio-spatial context. Regional Studies 46(8): 981â992.Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger A. Pielke. 2007. The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science. Environmental Science & Policy 10(1): 5â16.Sauermann, Henry, and Paula Stephan. 2013. Conflicting logics? A multidimensional view of industrial and academic science. Organization Science 24(3): 889â909.Schein, Edgar H. 1985. Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic view. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Shane, Scott. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science 11(4): 448â469.Spaapen, Jack, and Leonie van Drooge. 2011. Introducing âproductive interactionsâ in social impact assessment. Research Evaluation 20(3): 211â218.Stokes, Donald E. 1997. Pasteurâs quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Tartari, Valentina, and Stefano Breschi. 2012. Set them free: scientistsâ evaluations of the benefits and costs of universityâindustry research collaboration. Industrial and Corporate Change 21(5): 1117â1147.Tinker, Tony, and Rob Gray. 2003. Beyond a critique of pure reason: From policy to politics to praxis in environmental and social research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 16(5): 727â761.van Rijnsoever, Frank J., Laurens K. Hessels, and Rens L.J. Vandeberg. 2008. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy 37(8): 1255â1266.Venkataraman, Sankaran. 1997. The distinctive domain of entrepreneurship research: An editorâs perspective. Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence, and Growth 3: 119â138.Verspagen, Bart. 2006. University research, intellectual property rights and European innovation systems. Journal of Economic Surveys 20(4): 607â632.Villanueva-Felez, Africa, Jordi Molas-Gallart, and Alejandro EscribĂĄ-Esteve. 2013. Measuring personal networks and their relationship with scientific production. Minerva 51(4): 465â483.Watermeyer, Richard. 2015. Lost in the âthird spaceâ: the impact of public engagement in higher education on academic identity, research practice and career progression. European Journal of Higher Education (online first, doi: 10.1080/21568235.2015.1044546 ).Weingart, Peter. 2009. Editorial for Issue 47/3. Minerva 47(3): 237â239.Ziman, John. 1996. âPostacademic scienceâ: Constructing knowledge with networks and norms. Science Studies 1: 67â80.Zomer, Arend H., Ben W.A. Jongbloed, and JĂŒrgen Enders. 2010. Do spin-offs make the academicsâ heads spin? The impacts of spin-off companies on their parent research organisation. Minerva 48(3): 331â353
New Managerialism and Higher Education: The Management of Performances and Cultures
ABSTRACT The paper examines the applicability of recent theories positing the existence of new approaches to the management of public sector institutions, to current organisational forms and management strategies in universities in the United Kingdom. The term 'new managerialism' is generally used to refer to the adoption by public sector organisations of organisational forms, technologies, management practices and values more commonly found in the private business sector. Particular attention is paid to the writings of John Clarke and Janet Newman. Their discussion of organisational forms (including Newman's attention to the gendering of such forms), technologies and narratives under 'new managerialist' regimes and of the tensions between managing cultures and performances in organisations operating under 'new managerial' regimes, are then drawn upon to analyse two different instances of organisational regimes and management practices in universities. The first of these is based on an exploratory study of a small group of feminist academic managers in higher education, where questions are raised about the possible links between feminist values and what Trow has termed 'soft' approaches to management, as opposed to the 'hard' management practices of 'new managerialism'. The second example is an insider account of changes to organisational forms and technologies resulting from a severe financial crisis at Lancaster University, where a shortage of resources seems to have precipitated at least some moves in the direction of 'new managerialism', even if the attempt to change organisational cultures has so far been uneven
What is the Nature of the Relationship between Changes in European Higher Education and Social Science Research on Higher Education and (Why) Does It Matter?
Producing and Re/producing the European University in the 21st century: research perspectives on the shifting purposes of higher education
This paper examines some aspects of current debates about what constitutes the global university in the 21st century, focusing particularly on concepts and perspectives about how the idea of a university is being produced and reproduced. As well as exploring the theoretical and empirical content of eight different analyses ranging from the relationship between the university and the welfare state to the effects of the financialization of academic publishing, this paper considers the relevance of the arguments presented to universities themselves and the extent to which the contributions analyzed might also appeal to policy makers and university leaders. The eight analyses selected are among those presented at two recent international seminar series on universities, ideas, and globalization processes for which the author was a co-organizer
Herding the academic cats: the challenges of âmanagingâ academic research in the contemporary UK university
- âŠ