Search results

Black women faculty are experiencing multiple marginalities within their intersectional identities (Thomas & Hollenshead, 2001). The overwhelming obstacles that they face in academia regarding racism, lack of mentorship, and its impact on productivity are well documented (Allen, Huggins-Hoyt, Holosko, & Briggs, 2018). However, through a raced and gendered intersection centering Black women, these workplace obstacles can transform into something far more insidious (Young & Hines, 2018). Black women academics do not enter academic environments that have been liberated from racism, sexism, or misogynoir; instead, the environment itself is a microcosm of the world in which they reside (Thompson, 2020). Black women academics are double minorities and face issues such as isolation from collegial networks; lack of institutional/departmental support; forced positionality into the role of mentorship for students of color; and increased visibility and bodily presentation concerns (Allen et al., 2018; Pittman, 2010). Further still, the workplace dynamics and needs of students of color can collide within the work of Black women academics, increasing the prevalence of othermothering and a racialized and gendered racial uplift (Griffin, 2013; Mawhinney, 2011). Though previous studies have demonstrated positive effects of university diversification, women, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and religious minorities continue to face antagonistic environments (Cunningham, 2009; Hughes & Howard-Hamilton, 2003). Rooted within Black Feminist Thought and Critical Race Theory, this chapter aims to highlight the intersectional identities of Black women academics and identifies mechanisms to address how Black women are experiencing multiple marginalities within their intersectional identities (Hirshfield & Joseph, 2012).

As universities grapple with the question of how to prepare students for increasingly uncertain futures, the development of evidence-based frameworks to guide academic program¹ design is critical. Here, we propose a strategic framework with a high impact on program design, implementation, and evaluation as well as mentoring and support for academic program leaders. High impact can be achieved when program leaders are enabled to embed key future-focused capabilities and skills across the curriculum in a program. In order to ensure that these capabilities are systematically and cohesively embedded in students’ learning journeys, we suggest that academic program leaders (e.g., Directors of Studies, Subject Area Coordinators, etc.) require strategic approaches to program design, implementation, and evaluation, as well as mentoring and support. Such approaches would ensure that high impact practices are consistently employed, rather than being the exception in isolated courses.² At Queensland University of Technology, we have developed a holistic model to support “whole-of-program” design for award programs across faculties and disciplines, in a coherent and strategic way. The model we use is based on a framework for curriculum design called the Future Focused Curriculum Design Framework (FFCF), and is an iterative model that places learners at the center of their learning to enable meaningful change to the design of programs. The adoption of the framework is supported by curriculum design studios situated within each discipline-specific faculty,³ which are made up of curriculum and learning designers, working closely with academics in different faculties. A key element of the process is that curriculum design studios enable relationships and communities to develop (Wenger et al., 2002), which in turn allows for contextualized practice. This holistic model supports whole-of-program design for award programs, in a coherent and strategic way and enables communities of practice to emerge in an iterative manner. In this chapter, we share our experiences with using this model and the impacts it has achieved, and we reflect on ways it be adapted for future use and in other contexts.

In the present discourse of university politics, collegiality has come to be viewed as a slow force – seemingly inefficient and conservative compared to popular management models. Concerns have thus been raised regarding the future prospects of such a form of governance in a society marked by haste and acceleration. One way to bring perspectives on this contentious issue is to perceive it in the light of the long history of the university. In this article, I derive insights about the shifting state of collegial governance through a survey of an intense period of reforms in Sweden c. 1850–1920 when higher education was allegedly engaged in a process of modernization and professionalization. Drawing on recent work in historical theory and science and technology studies (STS), I revisit contests and debates on collegiality in connection to a number of governmental commissions. Focusing on the co-existence – and collisions – of multiple temporalities reveals that overcoming potential problems associated with heterogeneous rhythms required an active work of synchronization by universities in order to make them appear timely, as higher education expanded along with the mounting ambitions of national politics, focused on centralization, efficiency, and rationalization. The analysis is structured around three focal issues for which collegial ideals and practices, including their temporal characteristics, were particularly questioned: (a) the composition of the university board, (b) the employment status of professors, and (c) hiring or promotion practices. Pointing at more structural challenges, this study highlights how collegiality requires a constant maintenance paired with an awareness of its longer and complex history.

We are long overdue for a conversation about ethical treatment of student researchers. Ethical treatment of research participants has been carefully defined through decades of public conversation, and ethical practices have been institutionalized through mechanisms like mandatory ethics trainings and Institutional Review Boards. Student researchers deserve the same level of consideration. While there are many types of ethical violations of student labor in research projects, there are two that are of particular concern to social movements researchers: use of volunteer labor without clear academic or professional benefits, and failure to ensure the safety of student researchers. The first of these ethical violations is especially common in social movements research because of the emergent nature of protests: new rounds of protests begin and researchers seek to rapidly collect data on a tight timeframe, making grant funding to pay student researchers challenging. The second situation emerges when faculty researchers do not consider the ways students' race, gender identity, or other characteristics, or the nature of the protests themselves might create potential risks for students.

In this paper, I propose using the Belmont Report principles to create guidelines for ethical treatment of student researchers. While these principles were developed for the purposes of protecting research participants, the principles of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice help us to clarify the risks and benefits for student researchers, to find ways to maximize the benefits of student research participation, and to understand and address the inequalities that plague graduate student training.

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.

Although universities have been decentralized for academic freedom and autonomy, resources are being increasingly centralized, and the role of central administration is growing for efficiency and excellence reasons. At the same time, a division of labor is progressing by assigning specific tasks to professionals. The professionals are also centrally managed. Educational development was introduced by central administration to cope with the massification and quality assurance of higher education. Although it played a great part in promoting educational reform, it also suffered from the rejection of academics and the lack of methodology. Unlike ITC service and student service, educational development touches the autonomy of academics and is always torn between the central administration and academics. This chapter analyzes the structural and cultural difficulty of educational development in Japan by tracing its historical development and by comparing to other countries.

Purpose: This study analyses how investments and specific financial factors affect the financial performance of businesses in Kosovo. Exploring the relationship between investments and financial performance and their impact on performance volatility, performance is assessed using return on assets (ROA) and return on equity (ROE) investments.

Methodology: Quantitative methods using secondary data from audited financial statements of Kosova manufacturing and commercial enterprises cover a 3-year period (2019–2021), involving 40 enterprises with 120 observations. Statistical tests such as descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, linear regression, Hausman–Taylor regression, fixed effects, random effects, and generalised estimating equations (GEE) model are applied. The study also utilises ARCH–GARCH analysis to assess the relationship between investments and performance volatility.

Findings: Investments positively impact the financial performance of Kosova businesses and significantly reduce performance volatility. Long-term liabilities, retained earnings, and short-term liabilities also play a role in reducing asset return volatility, while cash flow from financial activities increases it. Investments, cash flows from financial activities, long-term liabilities, short-term liabilities, retained earnings, and solvency affect equity return volatility.

Practical Implications: The study sheds light on how investments and financial factors influence the financial performance and volatility of Kosova businesses. Policymakers can use these insights to create policies that foster the development of commercial and manufacturing enterprises, given their importance in Kosovo’s economy.

Significance: This research provides valuable insights for business managers to enhance investment strategies and improve financial performance. Policymakers can rely on this academic study to enhance the economic environment and promote the growth of businesses in Kosovo.

While there is research that has explored how institutions have responded to various crises, these are usually locally or regionally situated. However, no event has impacted higher education globally like COVID-19 and it will certainly alter the way top administrators lead and how institutions move forward. Thus, this chapter will explore how to better understand how presidents and top administrators navigate the (inter)national geopolitics as they move the institution forward. In addition, clear and up-to-date communication has proven to be important in battling this crisis. Thus, how presidents at national universities have communicated with students, faculty, staff, and various off-campus communities members regarding COVID-19 and how they have achieved is important to explore. Our findings suggest that presidents and top administrators need to build support to help them navigate the political roadblocks they may encounter. Findings also suggest that communication is the main role they play as leaders on their campus. On/off-campus community members see the presidents as the face of the university and key communicator as relates to communicating what the institutions is doing and how they are addressing the crisis. This chapter helps in better understanding the roles presidents and top administrators play during a global crisis.