Search results

Understanding the interaction of turbulence and cavitation is an essential step towards better controlling the cavitation phenomenon. The purpose of this paper is to bring out the efficacy of different modelling approaches to predict turbulence and cavitation-induced phase changes.

This paper compares the dynamic cavitation (DCM) and Schnerr–Sauer models. Also, the effects of different modelling methods for turbulence, unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) and detached eddy simulations (DES) are also brought out. Numerical predictions of internal flow through a venturi are compared with experimental results from the literature.

The improved predictive capability of cavitating structures by DCM is brought out clearly. The temporal variation of the cavity size and velocity illustrates the involvement of re-entrant jet in cavity shedding. From the vapour fraction contours and the attached cavity length, it is found that the formation of the re-entrant jet is stronger in DES results compared with that by URANS. Variation of pressure, velocity, void fraction and the mass transfer rate at cavity shedding and collapse regions are presented. Wavelet analysis is used to capture the shedding frequency and also the corresponding occurrence of features of cavity collapse.

Based on the performance, computational time and resource requirements, this paper shows that the combination of DES and DCM is the most suitable option for predicting turbulent-cavitating flows.

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.

Collegiality is often discussed and analyzed as a challenged form of governance, a form of working that used to function well in universities prior to the emergence of contemporary and modern forms of governance. This seems to suggest that collegiality used to dominate, while other forms of governance are now taking over. The papers in volume 86 of this special issue support the notion of challenged collegiality, but also show that for the most part, nostalgic notions of “the good old days” are neither true nor helpful if we are to revitalize academic collegiality. After examining whether a golden age of collegiality ever existed, we discuss why collegiality matters. Exploring what are often described as limitations or “dark sides” of collegiality, we address four such “dark sides” related to slow decision-making, conflicts, parochialism, and diversity. This is followed by a discussion of how these limitations may be handled and what measures must be taken to maintain and develop collegiality. With a brief summary of the remaining papers under two headings, “Maintaining collegiality” and “Revitalizing collegiality,” we preview the rest of this volume.

Recent changes in university systems, debates on academic freedom, and changing roles of knowledge in society all point to questions regarding how higher education and research should be governed and the role of scientists and faculty in this. Rationalizations of systems of higher education and research have been accompanied by the questioning and erosion of faculty authority and challenges to academic collegiality. In light of these developments, we see a need for a more conceptually precise discussion about what academic collegiality is, how it is practiced, how collegial forms of governance may be supported or challenged by other forms of governance, and finally, why collegial governance of higher education and research is important.

We see collegiality as an institution of self-governance that includes formal rules and structures for decision-making, normative and cognitive underpinnings of identities and purposes, and specific practices. Studies of collegiality then, need to capture structures and rules as well as identities, norms, purposes and practices. Distinguishing between vertical and horizontal collegiality, we show how they balance and support each other.

Universities are subject to mixed modes of governance related to the many tasks and missions that higher education and research is expected to fulfill. Mixed modes of governance also stem from reforms based on widely held ideals of governance and organization. We examine university reforms and challenges to collegiality through the lenses of three ideal types of governance – collegiality, bureaucracy and enterprise – and combinations thereof.

Over the past few decades, university reforms in line with management and enterprise ideals have been well documented. Changes in the ideals underlying the missions of universities have led to changes in their modes of governing and organizing, which in turn drive further transformation of their missions. One set of reforms in Swedish higher education has been the dissolution of collegial bodies and procedures. At the same time, in recent years, we have witnessed an increased interest in collegiality and a reintroduction of collegial bodies and procedures. New translations of collegiality appear not only in how universities are organized, but also in other core aspects of research and higher education. We review examples of peer reviewing, research assessment, and direct recruitment of professors and ask: Can these new translations of collegiality be understood as a revitalization of collegiality, or is it – to draw a parallel with greenwashing – rather a matter of collegiality-washing?

Multisector growth (MSG) models have a special aura that is shared with computable general equilibrium (CGE) models. Both of them, with their many sectors (industries and goods), are known as trying to convert Walrasian general equilibrium systems from an abstract economy representation into workable models with industrial structures changing as actually observed. Yet, they are plagued by severe problems. First, they are difficult subjects involving systems of nonlinear equations. Second, their prevalent numerical (algorithmic) methodology offers little in the way of showing a clear overall picture and understanding the plethora of numbers pouring out from model simulations. The great wood is not seen for all the trees. Hence, the main objective is to set out comparative static and dynamic systems for succinctly stating and explicitly solving MSG models. The Walrasian general equilibrium is completely stated by one equation and the multisector dynamics by one differential equation. Benchmark solutions are shown for three Constant Elasticity of Substitution (CES) parameter regimes of a 10-sector general equilibrium model.

While the university as an institution is a great success story, one hears the constant chatter of the crises in higher education usually associated with the organizational transformation of universities. Regardless of one’s normative assessment of these observations, the institutional success of the university has been accompanied by the emergence of universities as organizational actors. I reflect on how these changes could alter the university as an institution, using the Australian higher education sector as an example. In doing so, I explore how universities as organizational actors, in responding to the demands of their external environment, set in motion a series of changes that redefine highly institutionalized categories, and, in doing so, radically remake the university as an institution.

In an era in which adapting to change means survival, it is important to study what successful organizations have done. While the airline industry in the USA has not made thriving financial headlines, one small company has been able to satisfy its customers completely and achieve a place among the Fortune 500 in a relatively short period of time. In three steps, this article examines what Southwest Airlines has done to reach this level of achievement and maintain its excellent employee and customer relations. First, the company is defined as “excellent” according to the criteria established by Peters and Waterman. Second, management‐employee relations, organizational training and strong leadership are identified as the sources of employee motivation. Third, loss of strong leadership and organizational structure are discussed as possible future problems influencing motivation and service. The article closes by pointing to Southwest Airline’s concept of service as the true source of motivation and excellence.

This paper investigates how academic teachers engage in identity work and make sense of entrepreneurship and academia in an entrepreneurship training programme.

By employing a sensemaking approach, the paper inductively analyses materials from a business idea development camp organised for academic teachers.

In collective sensemaking during the camp, non-academic facilitators strongly influenced the reflection-in-experience via normative ideas of entrepreneurship and their othering of entrepreneurship from academic work. In their post-camp individual essays, the academic teachers reflect-on-experience and draw parallels between entrepreneurship and academic work constructing sameness.

Longitudinal research is needed in identity work and sensemaking among academic teachers in relation to entrepreneurship.

Universities need to offer arenas for teachers and other faculty to support identity work and sensemaking.

This study generates new understanding of how academic teachers engage in identity work and make sense of entrepreneurship in training when interacting with others. It underscores the importance of time needed for reflection-on-action.

Reality breakdowns generate reflexivity and awareness of the constructed nature of social reality. These pivotal moments can motivate institutional inhabitants to either modify their social worlds or reaffirm the status quo. Thus, reality breakdowns are the initial points at which actors can conceive of new possibilities for institutional arrangements and initiate change processes to realize them. Studying reality breakdowns enables scholars to understand not just how institutional change occurs, but also why it does or does not do so. In this paper, we investigate how institutional inhabitants responded to a reality breakdown that occurred during our ethnography of collegial governance in a large North American university that was undergoing a strategic change initiative. Our findings suggest that there is a consequential process following reality breakdowns whereby institutional inhabitants construct the severity of these events. In our context, institutional inhabitants first attempted to restore order to their social world by reaffirming the status quo; when their efforts failed, they began to formulate alternative possibilities. Simultaneously, they engaged in a distributed sensemaking process whereby they diminished and reoriented necessary changes, ultimately inhibiting the formulation of these new possibilities. Our findings confirm reality breakdowns and institutional awareness as potential drivers of institutional change and complicate our understanding of antecedent microprocesses that may forestall the initiation of change efforts.