Search results

The application of blockchain, particularly through avenues in teaching and learning and academic administration, has created scope for a new business model in higher education. Although higher education institutions in many African countries including Botswana are yet to adopt blockchain in their institutional processes, the chapter points to seven unique areas of practice in which the technology could be infused. Distributed ledgers and smart contracts are among the blockchain functions that could assist in improving efficiency, security, and privacy in the way academic administration is executed especially in student identification, processing of student admission applications, degree certification, document authentication, and quality assurance. A distinct highpoint of the chapter is the attention it calls to student experience in the learning and teaching process, by highlighting that it stands to benefit from the collaborative learning model that blockchain enables. At a wider level, the conversation about blockchain-based pedagogy coalesces with the push by many African governments, in particular in Botswana, towards a digitally transformed society. Already, many colleges and universities have placed the focus on achieving ‘smart campuses’ as a strategic goal. Blockchain adoption is one such step towards a smart campus. The chapter theorises that higher education institutions cannot legitimately talk about smart campuses while still holding steadfast to manual systems and processes.

The basic structure of Korea's formal education system is 6-3-3-4. This school system, which was established soon after its independence from Japan after World War II, has not been changed very much until recently. Primary education covers grades 1–6. Kindergarten has not been a part of the official school system until now, although making it a part of the pubic school system has been under discussion for some years. In the secondary education sector, there are two levels of schools: middle schools covering grades 7–9, and high schools covering grades 10–12. After 12 years of formal education, students advance to higher education. Typically, undergraduate degree (B.A. or B.S.) takes four years.

Presents a selective review of the application of Operations Research (OR) in higher education administration. Identifies eight important types of operational management problems in higher education and discusses the use of OR methods to deal with these problems. Seeks to make administrators in higher education aware of the great potential of application of OR to assist them in making decisions, and to show the OR community that higher education is an area where plentiful opportunities exist for OR applications.

This paper aims to provide a critical perspective on emergent issues in the Trump era directly or indirectly relevant to academic archives. It describes current operational characteristics and trends in academic archives and considers the implications of the “Trump Effect” on academic archives in support of higher education.

The author examines archival studies literature pertaining to academic archives in combination with recent research and reporting on Trump Administration higher education policy to argue for increased professional awareness and vigilance.

The author asserts that Trump Administration rhetoric and policies aimed at remaking American higher education and undermining democratic norms pose a threat to academic archives as institutions that support learning, memory and historical accountability.

This paper adds to scholarly discussions in the library and information studies and archival studies fields about the merits of neutrality, the legacy of memory institutions and the obligation of information professionals to take a stance on difficult issues. Additionally, there are few (if any) sources that discuss the role of academic archives specifically in the contemporary political context.

A variety of problematic administrative, organisational and institutional behaviours exist in the internationalising higher education sector globally. These vexing behaviours need to be addressed to fully realise the desired outcomes of the internationalisation movement. Encapsulating these behaviours under the concept of maladministration, we describe problems with respect to administrative commitment and competence, institutional integrity, academic integrity, abuse of authority and financial control. We then outline a hypothetical educational administration curriculum that could be used to equip higher education administrators to identify and mitigate problems with maladministration in internationalisation processes and contexts. This proposed curriculum has two dimensions: educational governance and institutional, academic and administrative integrity; and human relations, organisational culture and dysfunctional behaviour.

The aim of this chapter is to shed light on the perspectives of organizational innovation in higher education in light of socio-economic transformations as articulated in Vision 2030 for Saudi Arabia. A case study evaluating strategic innovation at the Arabian Gulf University (AGU) in Bahrain was conducted using Balanced Score Cards. A questionnaire was designed to capture enablers and barriers in organizational innovation in higher education. The chapter concluded that institutional inertia, limited implementation and evaluation processes are the key impediments for organizational learning and knowledge management. The study recommends to incorporate organizational innovation to foster entrepreneurship, strategic innovation and learning at higher education institutions (HEI).

A threefold approach is taken to provide understanding about the experiences that women of color have faced in their entry and upward advancement into administration in higher education institutions. The three overarching frameworks are historical, sociological, and organizational or institutional. The historical approach divides the chapter into three parts: the past (1960–1989), the present (1990–2010), and the future (2010 and beyond). Within these three time periods, major societal forces at work (during the specific time frame) will be used to help explain the extent and type of access women of color had within society's formal institutions. Since specific focus of the book/volume is on women of color in higher education, the third major tread is to reveal what and how university and colleges did to provide greater access and upward mobility for women of color or how such institutional action helped to impede.

Part I: The past shows that since and due to the Civil Rights Movement, women of color were preoccupied with access into higher education as students, faculty, and administrators. The past could rightly be termed the age of Tokenism (1960–1989). During the start, there were too few qualified women of color to be competitive for entry into faculty roles, let alone administrative positions. However, scarcity in numbers does not provide a full picture as to the slow access and low numbers. Instead, society's view was faulty, overly simplistic, and its intervention strategies hurt more than helped the situation. Particularly, the general thinking was that institutions were fair and okay, the problem lay with persons of color; they were disadvantaged in many ways, so they could not compete adequately. However, this one-sided view was biased and placed many unnecessary barriers for women of color and maintained favoritism and control for white males.

Part II: The present (1990–2010) demonstrates that progress by institutions of higher education (IHEs) to include women of color into administration was better but still unnecessarily slow and remained inadequate. While the initial strategies of affirmative action and blaming the victim for their plight were insufficient in the past, dynamics in society changed drastically in the present stage. Primarily, business in the United States, because of world competition, looked inward and out of necessity fundamentally reengineered itself. This one sweeping social dynamic caused traditionally discriminated groups to call for higher education to examine itself. In so doing, institutional racism was exposed and emphasized. No longer were women of color having to fit the white male mode for acceptance, and the customary “rites of passage” were questioned and altered, along with other practices. With a larger qualified pool of women of color due to past efforts, and to a larger extent a more level playing field in higher education, women of color enhanced their status. More importantly, the stage is now set for a much brighter future.

Part III: The future promises to be better for all: women of color, higher education, future generation of students, and society. Even though the conditions higher education institutions are facing are more difficult and the negative trends likely to persist, women of color can make great advances provided they capitalize on the events and assume some different roles. Specifically, it is proposed that women of color should actualize their natural leadership styles of participatory and transformational; they act as agents of change; and make a concerted effort to mentor and network younger women of color. Underlining the promise of a better future is that women of color know how to overcome hardships and they are better able to redesign institutions, change outdated practices, and shape the future of IHEs to fit the new paradigms. To date, on a microlevel this is what they have done to be personally successful, surely they can work on the macrolevel to make for stronger and effective IHEs.

Obviously affirmative action has had a presence in presidential politics since the Kennedy Administration; however, the focus of this paper is not to chronicle the treatment of affirmative action policy in each presidency since the 1960s, but rather to take a different look at affirmative action from the context of contemporary times during the Obama Administration, with both Clinton and Bush Administrations as reference points.

In addition to noting how the Clinton and Bush Administrations responded to critics of the 50 +  year old policy framework of acting affirmatively, this paper explores how the Obama Administration has advanced access by supporting race-conscious admissions and principles of the diversity rationale.

This paper also argues that the Obama Administration has acted affirmatively by establishing and/or promoting economic policies that seek to address the legacy of poverty, thereby expanding access further.