Search results

This chapter bridges two theoretical concerns: making sense of emancipatory processes within institutional work on the one hand and providing a more nuanced understanding of actorhood on the other hand. The authors develop the notion of ‘institutional co-appropriation work’ to characterise an emancipatory process whereby an institutionalised actor in a subaltern position manages to emancipate by appropriating some founding features of the elites position. The authors build on a case study focussing on the ‘Everest brawl’, an altercation high up on the mountain that revealed a critical evolution of sherpa actorhood. The authors analyse the struggles in the Nepalese mountaineering industry and show how sherpa actorhood is currently being reconfigured by the action of a few individuals willing to be recognised for their climbing abilities, and not their role as porters. This case epitomises the emergence of two distinct phenomena, explaining the magnitude of the event: the emergence of an empowered ‘new sherpa’ revealing heterogeneity of sherpa actorhood, in contrast to the accepted representations and the institutional work blurring the underlying rules and institutionalised roles of the mountaineering industry in Nepal. The implications for institutional work literature are twofold. First, the study of emancipatory processes benefits from more nuanced cases, where the actor in the subaltern position does not simply try to remove the dominant actor. Second, the notion of ‘actor’ within this stream of literature should not be taken-for-granted as is often the case.

This chapter focuses on scientific and research networks. All six facets of knowledge networks are described. The importance of three facets is called out, including domain, knowledge, and nodes. The authors provide profiles of five networks, including an invisible college in chemistry, a professional association network in engineering, an editorial network, a national biological observation collaboration, and a national science museum.

The purpose of this chapter is to present a model to support a humanizing approach to international education that is sustainable and facilitates respectful service, scholarship and teaching. University faculty engage internationally through teaching, service and scholarship. All three require faculty to possess strong trusting connections to the international community in which they operate. Literature suggests that the impulse to initiate service learning and scholarship with communities foreign to the faculty too early can be detrimental. A deep relationship between the faculty and community built upon trust and mutual respect is the key to successful internationally situated service, teaching and scholarship. However, such relationships require time to develop and many universities cannot support faculty toward developing international relationships. The Deep Field School presents a way of blending teaching, service and scholarship in a way that supports the nurturing of long-term relationships. The Deep Field School is an internationally situated short-term faculty led study abroad that operates with a commitment toward the long term and closely adheres to the humanizing principle that learning is a process not an outcome. A deep field school operating in Peru is presented as a case study along with guidelines for development.

Recognizing the need to build global-minded citizens, higher education institutions are increasingly trying to find ways to leverage their international programs to develop students’ intercultural competence. The MA in global leadership at Royal Roads University, Canada, created an international partnership in Ecuador that serves to go beyond the traditional student study abroad or service learning focus and instead focuses on developing competencies of global mindedness and strategic relationships. In this chapter, we present an analysis of how an international student group engaged in building dynamic partnerships within a Global South country to create change for sustainable development initiatives of mutual concern. Through a case example, we describe how these partnerships evolved and adapted in ways that enhanced the learning needs of the students while simultaneously supporting the development of new educational opportunities for Ecuadorians. To illustrate, this chapter delineates the activities that members of the program undertook to connect and develop a mutuality of relationship across diverse stakeholders in Ecuador. The authors analyze this network-building process from the perspective of cultural context, building trust and influence, and responding to social development needs of host communities.