Search results

In Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise.

The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context.

The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context.

This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.

The purpose of this chapter is to shed light on the interrelationships that exist between politicians' Twitter agendas, news websites agendas and public agendas at the first level during the 2019 Greek Parliamentary elections for the two front-runners of the elections, Kyriakos Mitsotakis and Alexis Tsipras. Three researches were conducted to assess the issues agendas of candidates' tweets, news websites coverage as well as the issue importance of the public for an 18-day period prior to the elections. At the issue level, although Twitter and media agendas align more, they are distinct from public agenda. Overall, Twitter proved to be an ineffective tool for influencing the news websites and public agendas during the 2019 Greek Parliamentary elections with online media agendas being slightly more powerful. Moreover, the public agenda did play a role in shaping Twitter as well as media content but in a counterbalancing manner. In addition, this study confirmed that agenda building and setting dynamics at both levels vary based on the issue and candidate being analysed.

This chapter will examine the interplay among actors who took part in the process of consensus building towards a post-2015 education agenda via different channels of global governance, including both formal and informal channels.

Most of the forums and entities established as part of the global governance structure are composed of representatives from UN or UNESCO member states, civil society organizations (CSOs) and UN agencies. However, each of these categories has diverse constituent groups; representing these groups is not as straightforward a task as the governance structure seems to assume. Therefore, based on interviews and qualitative text analysis, this chapter will introduce major groups of actors and their major issues of concern, decision-making structure, mode of communication and relationship with other actors. Then, based on an understanding of the characteristics of the various channels and actors, it will present the structural issues that arose during the analysis of post-2015 discourse and the educational issues that emerged as the shared concerns of the ‘education community’. While most of the analysis to untangle the nature of discourse relies on qualitative analysis of texts and interviews, the end of this chapter will also demonstrate the trends of discourse in quantitative terms.

What was the post-2015 discourse for the so-called education community, which in itself has an ambiguous and virtual existence? The keywords post-2015 and post-EFA provide us with an opportunity to untangle how shared norms and codes of conduct were shaped at the global scale.

This chapter identifies, defines and explores four news media roles of conduit, facilitator, mediator and political actor through which the media participate with corporate, social and political actors in agenda-building processes. The framework of the media’s four agenda-building roles sheds light on how the news media perform their various roles as well as how other actors, such as organizations and media audiences, are able to mobilize the media performing these roles. This framework helps explain how and why media roles affect the way actors are able to influence the media agenda with the intention of shaping the public agenda.

An issue and event were tracked for 90 days on Twitter, cable television, and large newspapers. The mortgage and housing crisis was an ongoing issue, and the BP oil spill was an ongoing event. As expected, the results suggest media as a predictor of Twitter for the two issue agendas studied. However, this study shows that the agenda-setting effects on Twitter are not equal in regard to issues and events. The agenda-setting effect of the media appeared to be stronger for the issue observed here. Moreover, initial evidence is provided that agendas for the ongoing events were more volatile than ongoing issues. For ongoing events, it appears that agendas are most reflective of the real-world cues that initiate them. This suggests that when real-world cues are largely absent, the media are less salient, and the agenda is more stable and ongoing. Finally, increased temporality appears to better reveal agenda-setting effects for events. Relaxed temporal measures appear to reveal the agenda-setting effect of ongoing issues more effectively. Events are not all equal; neither are issues. As such, the media and Twitter behave differently. This distinction has not yet been made in the literature.

While morality is ever-present in elections, scholars have yet to merge political public relations and Moral Foundations Theory. It is crucial to assess the complex morality present not only in social deduction, but also in political strategic communication. The current work aims to analyze the issue agendas and their relationships in the 2020 presidential campaign and assesses their moral strategy.

This study used a computer-assisted content analysis (N = 7,888) with each moral intuition coded from the Moral Foundations Dictionary. Datapoints included campaign tweets, Facebook posts, debate performances, remarks, news releases and nomination acceptance speeches. Coverage included articles from including The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN and Fox News to assess both liberal and conservative media.

Candidates' issue and moral agendas were correlated with each other and with the media's agenda. Comparatively, the Biden campaign has stronger correlations when it came to connecting with issues, stakeholders and moral intuitions in the media agenda than the Trump campaign. For issues, the Biden campaign prioritized COVID-19 and the economy, while the Trump campaign prioritized the economy and crime. The candidates also had similar moral strategies.

This study suggests effectively leveraging organizational communications in democracies can support the transfer of object salience, moral attributes and networks to media coverage, public discourse and opponent messaging. It can also help achieve organizational goals by managing public image, reputation and expectations.

This work expands the literature by taking a pluralist moral psychology approach in assessing the salience and correlation of five moral intuitions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity. This study serves as a springboard for examining morality's impact on political public relations.

This paper aims to ask how the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has orchestrated a sustainable development (SD) agenda in its international policy since 2020.

By drawing on theoretical ideas around policy orchestration as a key UN governing strategy and applying them to the analysis of the progression of the SD agenda in the EHEA, the paper conducts a thematic analysis of six recent key EHEA international policy documents and 19 interviews with key Bologna stakeholders in France, Germany and Italy.

The resultant analysis uncovers three overarching key themes that show the EHEA has the capacity to mitigate pitfalls in the UN’s SD agenda; some weaknesses of the UN’s orchestration of SD are translated into weaknesses in the EHEA’s formulation of its SD agenda; and the further development of an SD agenda as an essential direction of EHEA’s work. The paper then goes on to discuss how EHEA policies only mention SD discourse, omit concrete plans for its implementation and keep the very meaning of SD ambiguous throughout international policy documents.

The authors offer three original recommendations that the EHEA should adopt in an attempt to mitigate the issues raised in the run-up to its 2030 deadline for implementing its policies: the EHEA should develop an explicit definition of SD; recognise the Euro-centredness of EHEA policies and open them up to other voices; and cite academic research when developing policy documents.

The purpose of this study is to contrast the capacity of tourism-specialized and non-tourism-specialized systems in small developing insular societies to achieve a well-being model aligned with the Agenda 2030.

The empirical method of this work consists of a panel-corrected standard errors analysis for a total of seven Caribbean Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to measure the contribution of both economic diversification and tourism specialization to well-being in the Agenda 2030 framework. Time period considered in the analysis include 2005–2019.

Linear and nonlinear relationships reveal the need to conjugate both tourism specialization and economic diversification in the 2030-development agendas of small developing insular societies as both represent a means to achieve a well-being model aligned with the Agenda 2030.

One of the main novelties of this work is that development is analyzed from a multidimensional point of view (standard of living, access to education and health services), as an integrated thinking that considers any tourism development model that defines a route with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and Agenda 2030 as main destination in SIDS. Specifically, practical implications are given combining recommendations to foster development and face poverty (SDG-1), while inequalities situations are reduced (SDG-10) and decent jobs are generated (SDG-8). These implications also focus on strengthening local suppliers of goods and services from other sectors to be integrated into the destination value chain (SDG-2), ensuring access to education (SDG-4) and contributing to gender equality (SDG-5).

这项工作的实证方法包括对7个加勒比海小岛屿发展中国家进行面板校正标准误差（PCSE）分析, 以衡量经济多样化和旅游专业化对2030年议程框架中的福祉的贡献。分析中考虑的时间段包括2005–2019年。

这项工作的目的是对比小型发展中岛国社会的旅游专业系统和非旅游专业系统的能力, 以实现与2030年议程相一致的福祉模式。

线性和非线性关系表明, 在发展中小岛国社会的2030年发展议程中, 需要将旅游专业化和经济多样化结合起来, 因为两者都是实现与2030年议程一致的福祉模式的手段。

这项工作的主要创新点之一是, 从多维的角度（生活水平、受教育机会和健康服务）来分析发展, 作为一种综合思维, 考虑任何旅游发展模式, 确定了一条以可持续发展目标和2030年议程为主要目的地的小岛屿发展中国家路线。具体来说, 在减少不平等状况（SDG-10）和创造体面工作（SDG-8）的同时, 结合促进发展和面对贫困（SDG-1）的建议, 给出了实际意义。此外, 要加强其他部门的货物和服务的当地供应商, 以融入目的地价值链（SDG-2）, 保证受教育的机会（SDG-4）和促进性别平等（SDG-5）。

El método empírico de este trabajo consiste en un análisis de errores estándar corregidos por panel (PCSE) para 7 Pequeños Estados Insulares en Desarrollo para medir la contribución al bienestar a través de la especialización turística y la diversificación económica en el marco de la Agenda 2030. El horizonte contemplado en el análisis incluye 2005–2019.

El objetivo de este trabajo es contrastar la capacidad de los sistemas especializados y no especializados en turismo dentro de las pequeñas sociedades insulares en desarrollo para lograr un modelo de bienestar alineado con la Agenda 2030.

Las relaciones lineales y no lineales revelan la necesidad de conjugar tanto la especialización turística como la diversificación económica en las agendas de desarrollo 2030 de las pequeñas sociedades insulares en desarrollo, ya que ambas representan un medio para alcanzar un modelo de bienestar alineado con la Agenda 2030.

Una de las principales novedades de este trabajo es que se analiza el desarrollo desde un punto de vista multidimensional (nivel de vida, acceso a la educación y servicios de salud), como un pensamiento integrado que considera cualquier modelo de desarrollo turístico que defina una ruta con los ODS y la Agenda 2030 como destino principal en los PEID. En concreto, se ofrecen implicaciones prácticas que combinan recomendaciones para fomentar el desarrollo y hacer frente a la pobreza (ODS-1), al tiempo que se reducen las situaciones de desigualdad (ODS-10) y se generan empleos decentes (ODS-8). Asimismo, fortalecer a los proveedores locales de bienes y servicios de otros sectores para que se integren en la cadena de valor del destino (ODS-2), garantizar el acceso a la educación (ODS-4) y contribuir a la igualdad de género (ODS-5).