Search results

Academic literature and news media on young people’s activism predominantly champions young people who align with liberal or progressive values, evident most recently in the youth-led climate strikes around the world. Research is often undertaken by scholars who see their work as advocacy for children and young people, countering deficit-based depictions of politically disengaged or ill-informed youth. Yet, this scholarship rarely includes young people whose forms of political activism align with conservative, right-wing, or even alt-right politics. Such ‘selective advocacy’ reinforces a limited picture of the who and what of young people’s political participation. In this chapter, I explore what it might mean for the field of youth studies to provide a more complex picture of young people’s activism and the necessary discomfort that emerges when the desire to advocate for young research participants conflicts with a researcher’s own political and moral concerns. Through a feminist post-structural frame, I examine media and public discourses surrounding instances of young people’s activism in conservative, right-wing, and alt-right spaces. I present the case of a conservative protest organised by a group of university students and targeting a drag queen hosted children’s story time at a library in Brisbane, Australia. This case highlights the importance of maintaining ‘epistemic uncertainty’ when it comes to the complexity of youth and activism. If we are to provide a fuller picture of youth activism, I argue that it is important not to overlook less ‘comfortable’ forms that do not neatly align with the progressive advocacy that dominates the field of youth studies.

Based on a review of professional staff (PS), which includes research managers and administrators, in 54 academic publications, I propose a novel definition for this category of staff: ‘degree holding university employees who are primarily responsible for developing, maintaining and changing the social, digital and physical infrastructures that enable education, research and knowledge exchange’. The proposed definition facilitates the development of new research questions that target the level of the organisational fields of higher education and science, to complement research on the university and individual levels. This view supports the study of the contributions of PS to higher education and science. I anticipate that such a broader focus will help to counter and nuance accounts of ‘administrative bloat’ by focusing on how PS as a group shape and are shaped by the organisational fields of higher education and science, rather than dismissing them as superfluous or parasitic.

This chapter provides an in-depth examination of the quality assurance process in the higher education system of Iraq and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) in terms of standards, processes, and procedures. More specifically, the chapter aims to examine the impact of the quality assurance process on the quality development of education in Iraq and Kurdistan Region, as well as identify the challenges that staff (top management and faculty members) face at various higher education institutions therein. For this purpose, a qualitative/quantitative analysis was conducted, which involved reviewing existing official policies, reports, and forms; interviewing top officials (presidents, vice-presidents, quality assurance directors) at a few higher education institutions (public and private); and developing a survey questionnaire that detected the perspective of top officials and faculty members regarding the level of impact quality assurance has had on the development of higher education. A total of 284 university staff members were surveyed from different universities in Iraq and Kurdistan. A total of 29 universities from Iraq and Kurdistan were represented in the survey. The respondents came from a variety of colleges and departments at public and private universities, with 79% of respondents coming from public universities. Study results demonstrate that quality assurance has contributed significantly to the improvement of university staff performance. There are a number of recommendations made within this chapter for educational leaders, which could lead to the further development of quality practices and the upgrading of the higher education system.

The rapid evolution of curation practices today is a response to expanded access to information and knowledge and the dynamic development of intelligent technologies well suited to curatorial practices. This chapter provides an overview of traditional curation theory and practice. It identifies its historical origins of anthropology, ethnography, museum work, and archival practices. The authors note that traditional curatorial practices have been a subset of preservation practices. Today it draws heavily from traditional practices but expands the goal and purpose beyond simple preservation to storytelling, learning, creating new perspectives, interpreting the past and present, and creating new business knowledge. The chapter lays out the emerging spectrum of curation purposes and practices. The widespread access to curatorial tools now opens curatorial work to the general public. More comprehensive access argues for a broader dialog around the new competencies and capabilities these new practices require.

Research excellency has long been the dominant paradigm in assessing academic quality and hence a prime determinant of academic careers. Lately, this approach to academic performance has come under higher scrutiny for its narrow focus on the individual, promoted an exclusive, performance-oriented talent management and inhibiting collaboration, transparency and societal involvement.

As a response to the limitations of the excellency policy, this chapter examines the emergence of open science as a transformative force in the academic world. Open science represents a paradigm shift, emphasizing the importance of transparency, and increased societal engagement in the academic process. It opens up the possibility to include the context dimension, multiple stakeholders and a more diverse set of development and performance indicators.

This chapter stresses the urgent need to realign our system of recognition and rewards with the premise of open science and with talent management. By highlighting the disconnect between current recognition mechanisms and the values of universities, this chapter emphasizes the necessity of transformative changes at institutional and systemic levels.

To provide concrete insights into the implementation of these changes, this chapter explores a case study of Utrecht University. This specific example showcases how strategic decisions at an institute level allow navigation of the complexities of recognizing and rewarding open science practices. The Utrecht University case study serves as an inspiration for other institutions seeking to embrace open science and adapt their policies and practices accordingly.

Both authors have been involved as lay members in research and other activities for a number of years, ensuring they represent the views of members of the public. This chapter identifies what is, and what is not, patient and public involvement as well as highlighting the importance of involving members of the public in all aspects of the research process. Best practice is explored as identified in the UK Standards for Public Involvement 2019 and the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research 2020. The implications of the Mental Capacity Act and its wording on research matters are also considered. Case studies have been incorporated to highlight the impact of involving patients and members of the public in all aspects of the research process. These include the lessons learnt by researchers and lay members of the team. The aspiration is to move towards more collaboration between members of the public and researchers; therefore, we discuss co-production of research or community-based participatory research (CBPR). We highlight the need for a better partnership between researchers and members of the public. The benefits of this are explored along with the consequences for all involved.

This final chapter of this book highlights and critically discusses some specific issues concerning talent management in the context of higher education raised in the chapters of this book. It recapitulates the transition higher education is going through. This transition started decades ago but was boosted by the movements of Open Science and Recognition and Rewards. It leads to a reorientation on the conceptualization of academic performance and subsequently also on the meaning of talent and talent management in academia. It points to a shift from an exclusive and performance orientation on talent, to an inclusive, developmental approach to talent management or a hybrid form. Yet, Thunnissen and Boselie state that there is a talent crisis in academia, and this crisis urges the need for more innovative ways of developing and implementing talent management practices. This chapter ends with some recommendations for further talent management research and practice.