Search results

This paper aims to explore how researchers in general, and field researchers in particular, might respond to systems of governance of the researchers' activity in ways that can support rather than distort the quality of the research.

We draw upon literature on serendipity to develop a framework for engaging with the positive and negative potentials of systems of governance. We ground our analysis in discussion of participation in the field comprising two parts: first, the examination of our own activities and second, the accounts of participation found in two career-autobiographical interviews with emeritus professors of management accounting from Japan.

We highlight the potential for a productive tension between two contrasting perspectives that researchers might take on governance of their activity. A contractual perspective sees the value of targets and detailed pre-planning. A reflexive perspective sees the value of exploring the unexpected and considering many alternatives. We offer a framework for considering serendipity and the conditions that facilitate serendipity to help researchers maintain a productive tension between these perspectives.

We build upon retrospective accounts of two successful individuals whose careers evolved in a specific context. The intention is not to set out what might be generally achievable in a research career, nor to propose specific lines of action or planning in relation to specific systems of governance, since these vary across countries and over time. Rather, the paper draws on these materials to illuminate the more general challenge of preparing for serendipity in a way that goes beyond simple opportunism.

We analyse how researchers' mindfulness of serendipity and the nature of contexts that facilitate serendipity can encourage a productive tension between contractual and reflexive perspectives on governance of academic activity.

This study aims to explore barriers and pathways to a whole-institution governance of sustainability within the working structures of universities.

This paper draws on multi-year interviews and hierarchical structure analysis of ten universities in Canada, the USA, Australia, Hong Kong, South Africa, Brazil, the UK and The Netherlands. The paper addresses existing literature that championed further integration between the two organizational sides of universities (academic and operations) and suggests approaches for better embedding sustainability into four primary domains of activity (education, research, campus operations and community engagement).

This research found that effective sustainability governance needs to recognise and reconcile distinct cultures, diverging accountability structures and contrasting manifestations of central-coordination and distributed-agency approaches characteristic of the university’s operational and academic activities. The positionality of actors appointed to lead institution-wide embedding influenced which domain received most attention. The paper concludes that a whole-institution approach would require significant tailoring and adjustments on both the operational and academic sides to be successful.

Based on a review of sustainability activities at ten universities around the world, this paper provides a detailed analysis of the governance implications of integrating sustainability into the four domains of university activity. It discusses how best to work across the operational/academic divide and suggests principles for adopting a whole institution approach to sustainability.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the current literature on data governance in scientific and practice-oriented publications, and to provide a comparative analysis of the activities reported for data governance. Data have become a key organisational asset and data governance both a necessary and critical activity.

A comprehensive literature review is conducted in order to identify the published material that reflects the current state of knowledge. A systematic procedure was followed that identified 61 publications that explicitly mention data governance activities. Open coding techniques were applied to conduct content analysis, resulting in the identification of 591 concepts. A critical analysis also identified gaps in the literature.

The analysis identified 120 data governance activities which are understood as: “action” plus “area of governance” plus “decision domain” (e.g. define data policies for data quality). The authors define and present a data governance activities model based on the analysis. The analysis also shows a higher volume of data governance activities reported by practice-oriented publications that are associated with the “implement” and “monitor” actions of the areas of governance across the decision domains compared with scientific publications, whereas The authors found that the scientific publications focus more on defining activities. The results contribute to identifying research gaps and concerns on which ongoing and future research efforts can be focused.

This paper is of interest to both academics and practitioners, as it helps them understand the activities associated with a data governance programme. Current literature fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of the data governance activities that are required when considering a data governance programme. Therefore, the proposed model for data governance activities can be used to give insights into these activities.

To the knowledge of the authors, this study is the first to explicitly consider data governance activities from both an academic and practice-oriented perspective.

This paper aims to use intellectual thinking to solve the problem of how to carry out collaborative governance of the academic ecological environment.

This paper selected academic ecosystem, academic ecological environment and academic ecological governance as three keywords to collect literature data. The hot issues on the academic ecological environment and its governance system in China are analyzed, with visualization software such as Citespace, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and other literature metrology tools.

The previous research literature cannot fully explain the governance mechanism of the academic ecological environment. In this paper, the authors use the way of group cooperation thinking in the crowd science category, to build a collaborative governance framework of the academic ecological environment from the national level, the institutional level and the individual level, taking full advantage of the in-depth analysis on crowd intellectual thinking.

The authors use the way of group cooperation thinking in the crowd science category, to build a collaborative governance framework of academic.

Recent reforms to higher education systems in many OECD countries have focused on making universities more effective organisations in competing for resources and reputations. This has often involved increasing their internal cohesion and external autonomy from the state to make them more similar to private companies. However, pre-reform universities differed so greatly in their governance and capabilities that the impact of institutional changes has varied considerably between three ideal types: Hollow, State-chartered, and Autarkic. Furthermore, the combination of: (a) the inherent uncertainty of scientific research undertaken for publication, (b) limited managerial control over work processes and reputations, and (c) the contradictory effects of some funding and governance changes has greatly restricted the ability of universities to function as authoritatively integrated organisations capable of developing distinctive competitive competences.

Aim of the present monograph is the economic analysis of the role of MNEs regarding globalisation and digital economy and in parallel there is a reference and examination of some legal aspects concerning MNEs, cyberspace and e‐commerce as the means of expression of the digital economy. The whole effort of the author is focused on the examination of various aspects of MNEs and their impact upon globalisation and vice versa and how and if we are moving towards a global digital economy.

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.

To understand whether the public value approach will improve the performance and legitimacy of Italian universities.

The public value approach is used to identify the factors limiting the improvement of the performance of Italian universities over the period 2007–2009. Four cases are analyzed in order to reveal how universities measure and communicate the public value delivered. The evolution of the whole system is analysed in the light of the three paradigms on public administration: traditional public administration, new public management and public value management.

Recent reforms introduced by the Italian government do not facilitate the overcoming of political and organizational constraints, with the exception of a few noteworthy elements. The dominant role of the Ministry of Education in the definition of universities’ strategic goals combined with the great autonomy traditionally granted to the departments and to single academics leave little room for manoeuvre.

The case of the Italian higher education system highlights the importance of the rules of governance for public value production. The analysis shows that the actual governance of the higher education institutions does not favour the construction of a public value proposition by the universities’ managers. This aspect raises the more general question of identifying the necessary conditions for realizing the public value proposition and determining its presence in all public administrations.

This article contributes to the understanding of mechanisms that hinder the capability of public institutions’ to develop their own public value proposition.

Conceptualizations of university governance have varied over time, with some scholars focused on the structure of stakeholder groups such as faculty, staff, and students in relation to how institutions make decisions, others focus on the competing spheres of political influence guiding institutional development, and most recently that higher education has adopted business management structures or academic capitalism. Each of these conceptualizations offered new insights into how universities make decisions and evolve. The interactions between the non-profit aspects of higher education institutions and their effects on the internal governance structures have been underdeveloped. In this chapter, the authors propose an urban governance approach to understanding how actors and their institutions make decisions.

In this chapter, the authors dissect these models and propose a shift in perspective described as academic municipalities. Prior models on university decision-making and its impact on institutional constituents all make certain sacrifices when attempting to conceptualize the complex organizational functions of the university. Birnbaum and Tierney in their arguments do not provide enough value to the structure imposed on higher education institutions by virtue of their non-profit status. The corporate concept does not account for the political ramifications to university functions that reach beyond corporate models. Academic capitalism explains the shift of the university to account for changes in the global marketplace but it does not explain the latent functions of the university, such as contributing to the public good, housing, libraries, public services, and other non-market-based activities. What is needed is an explanation that accounts for both market and political forces at play in the university.