Search results

The purpose of this paper is to redefine quality in the context of “access” providing higher education institutions (HEIs), through a theoretical lens, in order to find solutions to the wicked problem of access vs quality and “inclusiveness vs excellence” debate in higher education (HE).

This theoretical paper builds upon institutional theory and resource dependency theory to, first, analyse access vs quality debate and, second, provide answers to the undesirable and at times conflicting “trilemma” of scale, cost and quality in HEIs. To achieve the second objective, the paper offers a different perspective to address trilemma by proposing a synergistic coexistence between inclusiveness and excellence through “transformative” quality and learning theory.

“Transformative” quality uses reframing the problem, appraising culture and quality concepts, and eventually develops transformative interventions in access providing HEIs to improve their quality and enhance inclusiveness. Inclusiveness in HEIs needs to be addressed through the investigation of specific hypotheses, for which a closer examination of factors impacting the quality of access providing HEIs has been conducted. The goal is to facilitate a perfect mélange of inclusiveness and excellence in HE and, thus, create a new learning environment.

This paper contributes towards the access vs quality debate through transformative quality by developing transformative interventions and investigating factors affecting quality in HE.

The contribution has several policy, managerial and governance implications. Addressing these implications will enable the promotion of the third mission of HE, that is, to develop graduates who meaningfully engage with the society and their profession.

Quality and inclusiveness is a serious global problem requiring immediate attention and rigorous theory-informed frameworks. Through the investigation of specific factors and proposing meaningful interventions, this paper identifies the need to study a critical issue having global implications and investigates how it can be resolved.

Canada is a country that has a democratized higher education system, based on solid principles of access, quality and accountability. Brazil, on the other hand, is a country that seeks to advance its higher education system. For this reason, this paper aims to understand with the main stakeholders of the systems, the perceptions in relation to higher education in terms of access, quality and accountability, confronting two educational systems, the Brazilian and the Canadian.

The author applied an exploratory and qualitative method through categorical content analysis in a multicase study. Data were collected through 10 interviews with government managers, 18 unstructured (open) questionnaires, where 13 were applied to professors and experts in higher education and four to student leaders.

The results demonstrate that, for Canadian participants, these principles should guide any nation, as it is something demanded by society itself: democratic access to the system, that the available system has quality and that the resources allocated to the system are being well applied. In addition, Brazilian participants understand that it is necessary to deepen this debate, including a new principle: permanence, as it is a country of traditional social inequality.

This study presented the perceptions of an educational system based on the principles of access, quality and accountability, the Canadian system and the perspectives for a system that intends to develop in this context in Brazil.

Few issues in recent times have so provoked debate and dissention within the library field as has the concept of fees for user services. The issue has aroused the passions of our profession precisely because its roots and implications extend far beyond the confines of just one service discipline. Its reflection is mirrored in national debates about the proper spheres of the public and private sectors—in matters of information generation and distribution, certainly, but in a host of other social ramifications as well, amounting virtually to a debate about the most basic values which we have long assumed to constitute the very framework of our democratic and humanistic society.

This study compares the strategies and impact of six British activist groups, as documented in 1997, with data gathered on the same groups in 2000. These groups, Voice of the Listener and Viewer, Campaign for Quality Television, Deaf Broadcasting Council, Consumers Association, National Consumers Council and National Listeners and Viewers Association, attempted to build a public sphere for generating debate around and catalysing changes to broadcasting policies and programming. They were tracked in 2000 in order to identify those issues, relationships and groups that had endured. The research design provided a telescopic look at their interactions with their targets and with each other during a period of rapid technological and industry change. In a multichannel broadcasting environment where convergence and globalisation are buzzwords, activists used public relations to create a broader public forum for a wide range of significant issues with which to engage demographically, psychographically and geographically diverse publics. The ensuing media education, media advocacy and relationship building, although elite in origins, strengthened democratic discourse, thus reaffirming broadcasting’s invaluable role in civil society.

The paper aims to examine disputed interpretations of “key meanings” between the audit regulator and Big 4 firms during a highly contentious regulatory debate, showcasing their use of “strategies of resistance” to achieve their intended outcomes.

A qualitative analysis is performed of the discourse in a South African audit regulatory debate, set within the country's unique political and historical context. The analysis is informed by the theoretical construct of a “regulatory space” and an established typology of strategic responses to institutional pressures.

The study’s findings show how resistance to regulatory intentions from influential actors, notably the Big 4 firms, was dispelled. This was achieved by the regulator securing oversight independence, co-opting political support, shortening the debate timeline and unilaterally revising the interpretation of its statutory mandate. The regulator successfully incorporated race equality into its interpretation of how the public interest is advanced (in addition to audit quality). The social legitimacy of the Big 4 was then further undermined. The debate was highly contentious and unproductive and likely contributed to overall societal concerns regarding the legitimacy of, and the value ascribed to, the audit function.

A deeper appreciation of vested interests and differing interpretations of key concepts and regulatory logic could help to promote a less combative regulatory environment, in the interest of enhanced audit quality and the sustainability and legitimacy of the audit profession.

The context provides an example, contrary to that observed in many jurisdictions, where the Big 4 fail to actively resist or even dilute significant regulatory reform. Furthermore, the findings indicate that traditional conceptions of what it means to serve “the public interest” may be evolving in favour of a more liberal social democratic interpretation.

Research has already uncovered a great deal of evidence about the individual and organizational qualities that enhance effective teaching and the kinds of qualifications (attributes) that are associated with effective teaching and learning. From a research perspective, increased precision and specificity in the definition and refinement of specific concepts (e.g., pedagogical content knowledge) will increase academic knowledge about the relationship between teacher characteristics, working conditions, and the quality of instruction that takes place. This knowledge may have little effect on policy formation. From a policy perspective, a holistic or organic conception of teacher quality will be critical for effective policy formation and implementation. At some point, academic knowledge about different aspects of effective or “quality” teaching need to be connected to a general concept of a quality teacher in order to be effectively inserted into policy debates and the general media. Systematic use of academic knowledge is often hindered by either the narrow focus of the research, or by its limited application to actual teacher practice. In spite of these limitations in academic research, there are areas where academics, policymakers, and practitioners have achieved consensus or are converging on shared constructs of promise. In other areas, both academic and political debates seem locked into conflict over constructs related to teacher quality. Identifying these three broad categories of consensus, convergence, and conflict provides a broad framework to assess the kinds of research and the kinds of reform that need to be carried out in order to promote and sustain teachers’ development and implementation of their professional skills in the classroom.

Looks at the 2000 Employment Research Unit Annual Conference held at the University of Cardiff in Wales on 6/7 September 2000. Spotlights the 76 or so presentations within and shows that these are in many, differing, areas across management research from: retail finance; precarious jobs and decisions; methodological lessons from feminism; call centre experience and disability discrimination. These and all points east and west are covered and laid out in a simple, abstract style, including, where applicable, references, endnotes and bibliography in an easy‐to‐follow manner. Summarizes each paper and also gives conclusions where needed, in a comfortable modern format.