Search results

Places of Inquiry identifies basic conditions and trends in modern systems of higher education that link or dissociate research, teaching, and student learning (“study”). The book is structured in two major parts. Part I, “Distinctive National Configurations of Advanced Education and Research Organization”, in five chapters organized by country, contrasts the national arrangements of the basic elements in the five major nations of Germany, Britain, France, United States, and Japan. These chapters give play to historical determination of national peculiarities and unique arrangements. Chapter 1 particularly highlights the preeminent role played in the construction of the modern research university by nineteenthcentury developments in the German system. Emerging disciplinarians learned by trial and error to use the laboratory and the seminar in a framework of university institutes. In “the institute university”, the academic research group was born, with Humboldtian thought serving as a useful covering ideology.Chapter 2 portrays English universities, in contrast, to be focused historically on elite preparation of undergraduates—a “thin stream of excellence”—in the small worlds of Oxford and Cambridge colleges. Here, in this model, against the grain of the structure, research-centered academics learned to use the apprenticeship model for a very limited number of “research students” who were supported for advanced study toward a late-developing Ph.D. “The collegiate university” has been very different from the German configuration.Chapter 3 presents the highly unusual historical arrangements in the French setting where the universities became in effect the party of the third part, caught between the elite nature of the grandes ecoles and the domination in research of a nonuniversity research establishment. An outside set of research institutes has provided the main research base, and university research-oriented activities had to be brought into alignment with it. The genetic imprints of the system, in contrast to both the German and the British, have been one of subordination of the university, with much broad structural separation of research activity from university teaching and the university education of students. A picture of historic subordination is also found in the case of Japan (Chapter 5), where much displacement to industry has taken place. Students graduating from first-degree study have been snapped up by industry and offered better opportunity, including in research, than what the university could offer. Advanced education at universities became severely constrained. In Japanese terms, Japanese graduate schools, although formally modeled after the American structure, became “empty show windows.”The chapter on the United States traces the development of a highly competitive system of higher education in which a graduate level, separately organized within universities from undergraduate programs, provided a broad foundation for small-group laboratories and seminars in which research activity could be a means of teaching and a mode of study. Peculiar American conditions of weak secondary schooling and generous admission to higher education left much general or liberal education to be accomplished in the undergraduate years, preempting specialization. Emerging disciplinarians tried repeatedly in the mid- and late-nineteenth century to build their new research interests into the undergraduate realm. It did not work. The emergent solution was a vertical one, to add a formal graduate school on top, with its arms in the graduate programs of the departments making it “the home of science.”This major internal differentiation, in comparison to the other four major international models, made the American university a “graduate department university,” with extensive provision developing in the last half of the twentieth century for research-based teaching and learning. What the German system had been able to do on a small scale in the nineteenth century, in the context of elite higher education, the American system developed systematically the capacity to do on a much larger scale, in the context of mass higher education on the road to universal higher education.Part II of the volume, entitled “The Research-Teaching-Study Nexus,” offers a conceptual framework for understanding how modern systems of higher education do or do not effectively bring research into alignment with advanced university teaching and advanced student training. The concept of a research-teaching-study nexus serves as leitmotiv. In Chapter 6, devoted to “forces of fragmentation,” adverse conditions for this nexus are largely subsumed under the twin concepts of research drift and teaching drift, with certain interests of government and industry strengthening inherent tendencies, already stimulated by mass enrollments and great growth in knowledge, for research on the one side and teaching and learning on the other to drift apart.But the nexus survives, often with great resilience and strength, and, in Chapter 7, the central part of the conceptual analysis takes the form of an explanation of how a modern integration is most strongly effected. Supporting conditions and processes are identified at three levels: whole national system, where differentiation, decentralization, and competition serve as broad enabling elements; the individual university, where diversified funding and deliberate organization of advanced education play an increasingly large determining role; and the basic unit (departmental) level within universities, where the activities of research, teaching, and study are located. At the base, operational conditions are captured in the twin concepts of research group and teaching group, each dependent on the other and closely intertwined in a veritable double helix of linkage and interaction. These twin settings for professors and students permit the linked transmission of tacit and tangible knowledge.As both the tacit and the tangible components of specialized knowledge bulk ever larger, they cannot be suitably conveyed by undergraduate or first-degree teaching programs alone, or by historic mentor-apprentice relationships alone. The research-teaching-study nexus is increasingly enacted by operational units of universities that bring together an advanced teaching program and the learning-by-doing of research activity. In this organizational nexus we find the heart of the graduate school phenomenon.The concluding chapter (Chapter 8) goes beyond analysis of the research-teaching-study nexus by offering three broad conclusions for the understanding of modern higher education: first, that inquiry remains the central activity, the dynamic element, in the university complex; second, that complexity and contradiction in university activities are inevitable and will continue to grow, ruling out simple solutions to long-term problems and placing a premium on how individual universities go about organizing themselves; and third, that research and teaching have an “essential compatibility.” Research activity itself is a compelling and rich basis for teaching and learning, primarily in graduate education in the arts and sciences but also secondarily in both advanced professional education and undergraduate or pre-advanced education. The much-voiced view that research and teaching are incompatible is short-sighted and regressive. The incompatibility thesis should give way to a more fundamental understanding in which research activity is seen both as a compelling form of teaching and as a necessary method of learning.For all modern and modernizing systems of higher education, the book emphasizes the great importance of organizing master's and especially doctoral work so that the activities of specialized research groups interact with structured teaching programs.In sum: Places of Inquiry concentrates on graduate (advanced) education, a level of higher education that has been rarely studied. It depicts distinctive configurations of academic research and advanced training in the five major national systems of higher education of the late twentieth century. It highlights research activity as a basic for teaching and learning. And it identifies generic conditions that pull research, teaching, and study apart from each other, and conversely and most important, focuses attention on the structures and processes that work to keep these central university activities closely linked.

The circumstances for the emergence of new ideas in organizational theory have previously been explored from several viewpoints. Researchers trace the origins of new ideas to previous literature or compare ideas across continents and countries. The author takes another point of departure. Following Merton (1957, 1963), she focuses on “multiple discoveries” in science, studying the independent, simultaneous (re-)discovery of certain aspects of institutional theory in organizational theory. Specifically, she follows the circumstances under which two pairs of researchers proffered similar explanations for the phenomena they encountered (Jönsson & Lundin, 1977; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). Without ever having met, they suggested an analogous way of understanding the concept of organizing, though their research used different frames of reference and field material and was published in different outlets. The author’s analysis of the circumstances surrounding the two papers led her to explore elements in the emergence of new ideas: the Zeitgeist – the spirit of the times – international networks, and collegial work. When these factors are in play, physical meetings do not seem to be required, but scholars must be involved in networks in which their colleagues provide judgment and advice.

Collegiality is the modus operandi of universities. Collegiality is central to academic freedom and scientific quality. In this way, collegiality also contributes to the good functioning of universities’ contribution to society and democracy. In this concluding paper of the special issue on collegiality, we summarize the main findings and takeaways from our collective studies. We summarize the main challenges and contestations to collegiality and to universities, but also document lines of resistance, activation, and maintenance. We depict varieties of collegiality and conclude by emphasizing that future research needs to be based on an appreciation of this variation. We argue that it is essential to incorporate such a variation-sensitive perspective into discussions on academic freedom and scientific quality and highlight themes surfaced by the different studies that remain under-explored in extant literature: institutional trust, field-level studies of collegiality, and collegiality and communication. Finally, we offer some remarks on methodological and theoretical implications of this research and conclude by summarizing our research agenda in a list of themes.

This paper examines characteristics of three main education sub‐systems: the policy formation system, the management or control system and the implementation system. In the policy formation system the main features are: intangibility of some education goals; lack of means‐ends continuum; inconsistency of goals; external dominance; the role of management and of teachers in education policy formation; value judgements; lack of feedback; heuristic processes; and incrementalism. Characteristics of the management system include: internal and external constraints; flat hierarchy; bases of authority; conflicting role demands; lack of colleague control; bureaucratic rules; size of staff; feminization; and management self‐image. Implementation system features are: organization of small symmetric sub‐units; organizational implications of goal conflict; compulsory attendance of clients; cognitive vs. emotive functions; resulting tensions and conflicts; sub‐cultures; clients' vulnerability; differential treatment of clients; obstacles to output measurement; and implication of measurement difficulties. The last section points out some implications of the analysis which seem to indicate similar and increasingly important developments in other public service bureaucracies. These include: diffuse and intangible goals; value sensitivity; high cost and external dominance; client service and client dependence; obstacles to output measurements; professionalization and feminization.

American society has undergone many changes since World War II. Perhaps the most notable of these has been its transformation from an industrial to a post‐industrial society, a society that is no longer primarily goods‐producing but one that has increasingly been providing a greater variety of services.

Colleges and universities play a vital role in the creation and dissemination of the innovations that feed the knowledge economy. First, universities carryout a significant portion of the basic research that is conducted in the United States. In 2006, the National Science Foundation reported having awarded $30 B in research-based funding to colleges and universities (National Science Foundation, 2007). While this figure is not an indicator of innovation output, the number helps to demonstrate the scope of research activity that is occurring within the academy. Mansfield (1995) noted that government funding for university research is bent toward science that holds commercial potential and highlighted that such research is likely to produce a high amount of social benefits. Mansfield also concluded that measuring the social returns of university-born (and federally funded) innovations though difficult, is important. Second, universities are instrumental in the production of economically relevant human capital, including students trained in key science and technology disciplines (Leslie & Brinkman, 1988). Audretsch (2007) indicates a highly educated workforce that is capable of creating and moving innovative technologies into the marketplace is a critical component of the current entrepreneurial economy. Also, faculty who intersect industry through consulting and other commercial-related activities make valuable contributions to the economic growth and prosperity of communities, regions, and beyond. In short, colleges and universities are key contributors to the production and function of the innovations that largely drive the knowledge economy.

Hospital at Home (HAH) is a concept slowly expanding over time. At first this type of organization was used to accomplish low‐technical tasks. The main objective was to increase bed availability in hospitals for new patients. Nowadays, HAH structures are able to undertake more technical complex care such as (but not limited to) end‐of‐life care, chemotherapy and rehabilitation. The purpose of this paper is to propose a new methodology to make an unbiased economic comparison between HAH structures and traditional hospitalization.

This article accomplishes two main objectives: in the first part the authors propose a comprehensive literature review dealing with the comparison between traditional hospital and home care structures from an economic standpoint, showing that results are highly dependent on initial conditions of the study (patient health state, territory settings, bio‐medical parameters); in the second part the authors propose an unbiased economic comparison approach between health care provided in traditional hospital and home care network using formal modelling with Petri nets and discrete event simulation. As an example for the comparison a multi‐session treatment is proposed. Various scenarios are tested to ensure that results will be maintained even if initial conditions change. Relevant performance indicators used for comparison are economic costs from the point of view of the insurance and economic costs related to the consumption of resources.

It is found that HAHS can be used to control and improve patients flow on hospitals. Decisions about offering a multi‐session treatments at home must be taken, not only because of economic impacts on hospitals, but also because it follows strategic goals of the organization. This decision must be issued following a strategic analysis. Some important questions are: How should newly available beds be used in the hospital? Which territories will be covered? What is the best logistic strategy for delivering the medicines?

Comparing HAH with traditional hospitalization can provide useful information to healthcare authorities when deciding to create, or not, new HAH structures.