Search results

Universities claim to provide many benefits to their context. What remains less clear is what is meant by context. Whatever it is, context is fundamental to decision-making. Understanding what context means is crucial to understanding leadership in higher education.

Theoretically informed by Eacott's relational approach, this study is based on interview data from a purposive sample of ten English vice-chancellors and nine Canadian university presidents. Transcripts were analysed for the assumptions participants held regarding the work of universities and how that played out in practice.

Context is not an external variable engaged with or acted upon. It is not separate to leadership and the work of universities but is constitutive of and emergent from activities. There is no single definition of context, and this has major implications for university activities.

Context(s) is based on assumptions. Making explicit the assumptions of participants, without pre-defining them, is a key task of research on leadership in higher education.

Leaders need to explicitly articulate their assumptions regarding the work of universities. Assessment should be based on the coherence between the espoused position and activities undertaken.

Through the emerging resources of relational scholarship, this paper demonstrates how context is constitutive of and emergent from the activities of universities. More than novel vocabulary, the paper makes a fundamental point about the generative nature of context. De-centring entities (e.g. university, leader, context) and focusing on relations our approach provide a path forward by encouraging the articulation of intended purpose(s) and perspective on the work of universities.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the extent to which the critical relational variables of university reputation, student trust and student-university identification influence student behaviour towards transnational education partnerships.

Students undertaking British degrees at two transnational partnership locations (Hong Kong, n=203 and Sri Lanka, n=325) completed a quantitative survey questionnaire. A conceptual model was developed and tested using structural equation modelling.

University reputation and student trust were found to be significant predictors of student identification with each partner institution, and student-university identification was a significant predictor of student satisfaction, loyalty and extra-role behaviours towards both the local and foreign educational organisations.

The findings suggest that student relationship management strategies should focus on strengthening the higher education institution’s reputation, and increasing the students’ trust and identification with the institution. Moreover, universities should also assess potential partners for these qualities when entering into transnational education partnerships.

Drawing on theories of social and organisational identification, this is the first study to consider student-university identification as the linchpin between the exogenous constructs of reputation and trust, and the endogenous constructs of student satisfaction, loyalty and extra-role behaviours in both the international education and international business literatures.

This paper aims to examine a situation in which individual action requires collective approval – solar power adoption in strata properties – and offers a motivation-opportunity-ability theory-based model with which such a situation may be approached.

A Delphi methodology was undertaken for this study, with three iterative questionnaires administered online to a panel of strata property, renewable energy and sustainable housing experts.

The Delphi panel’s insights have informed a new conceptual model, the Strata Solar Champion Roadmap (SSCR), outlining the variables affecting strata-based solar power adoption.

Researchers and practitioners are encouraged to test and enhance the model’s generalisability. Further case studies or quantitative analysis measuring the strength of the relationships identified in the SSCR model is particularly necessary. The SSCR could also be applied when examining other common strata governance disputes.

Policymakers and social marketers are encouraged to apply the SSCR when planning interventions to facilitate strata scheme solar power adoption. Furthermore, the SSCR offers guidance to strata property owners and strata schemes seeking to adopt solar power, thus increasing renewable energy use in a major sector of the Australian energy market.

Within this context, the SSCR’s conceptualisation of strata-based solar PV adoption provides new insights into individual behaviour change requiring collective approval.

The purpose of this paper is to examine how upstream social marketing can benefit from using social media commentary to identify cognitive biases. Using reactions to leading media/news publications/articles related to climate and energy policy in Australia, this paper aims to understand underlying community cognitive biases and their reasonings.

Social listening was used to gather community commentary about climate and energy policy in Australia. This allowed the coding of natural language data to determine underlying cognitive biases inherent in the community. In all, 2,700 Facebook comments were collected from 27 news articles dated between January 2018 and March 2020 using exportcomments.com. Team coding was used to ensure consistency in interpretation.

Nine key cognitive bias were noted, including, pessimism, just-world, confirmation, optimum, curse of knowledge, Dunning–Kruger, self-serving, concision and converge biases. Additionally, the authors report on the interactive nature of these biases. Right-leaning audiences are perceived to be willfully uninformed and motivated by self-interest; centric audiences want solutions based on common-sense for the common good; and left-leaning supporters of progressive climate change policy are typically pessimistic about the future of climate and energy policy in Australia. Impacts of powerful media organization shaping biases are also explored.

Through a greater understanding of the types of cognitive biases, policy-makers are able to better design and execute influential upstream social marketing campaigns.

The study demonstrates that observing cognitive biases through social listening can assist upstream social marketing understand community biases and underlying reasonings towards climate and energy policy.

This paper addresses the current lack of solar photovoltaic (PV) adoption by Australian apartment dwellers by proposing a conceptual model that identifies and integrates the factors influencing owners' attitudes towards PV adoption.

The conceptual model, which this paper terms the apartment-based solar adoption (ASA) model, is developed by applying motivation–opportunity–ability (MOA) theory to relevant findings in property development, green energy and strata governance literature.

The ASA model demonstrates the process by which an apartment-owning consumer may progress from considering solar PV adoption to recommending the action to their strata property's Owners' Committee (OC). It incorporates three motivational drivers (pragmatic considerations, perceived values and perceived social norms), three conditional mediators (location accessibility, resource availability and decision-making conditions) and three requirements from the consumer (actual and perceived knowledge, the ability to participate in decision-making and social connections and status).

This article contributes originality to research on two counts. Firstly, it provides a conceptual framework of specific relevance to issues concerning solar PV adoption, and secondly, it offers a systematic means for research into strata governance decision-making. Further research is required to develop the means with which to utilise the model prescriptively and measure longitudinal effects, such as ongoing trends in apartment owners' motivations. Further research is also recommended into how the ASA model may be utilised to identify generalisable consumer typologies among apartment owners.

The ASA model may assist building maintenance providers in developing and marketing solar PV services tailored to apartment residents' requirements and enhance strata managers' ability to inform and guide apartment owners. In turn, property developers would be able to review apartment-based solar projects, measure their increased value and decreased energy costs and incorporate this information when planning future developments.

The ASA model may provide a template for apartment owners and owners' corporations considering solar PV for their property. Public policymakers could also refer to the model to incentivise apartment-based solar PV adoption, whether through designing local information campaigns, developing financial incentives or mitigating identified regulatory barriers. By facilitating solar PV adoption in Australian apartment housing, the model may ensure sustainable post-carbon energy consumption for Australia's housing stock and act as an example for high-density housing development internationally.

The ASA model addresses the many drivers and barriers known to affect solar PV adoption by apartment owners, presenting a framework on which to arrange these factors and outline their causal relationships. This framework may inform strata properties' future solar PV adoption initiatives by incorporating their specific physical characteristics, stakeholder dynamics and institutional structure. It also consolidates and provides generalisability to the concepts established in current literature.

The purpose of this chapter is to highlight how universities got into the predicament in which they currently find themselves in, or somewhat planned to be in, in the 2020s. The historical account outlines the purpose of higher education and who it was for throughout the last few centuries, before a more in-depth analysis of the last few decades will highlight how, and why, neoliberal and subsequently managerial aspects of leadership and performance metrics crept into universities before an analysis of the last 5–10 years, including the onset and consequences of COVID, will demonstrate that many ‘COVID recovery plans’ around staff cuts and course reforms were already in place before COVID, but it was COVID that allowed these plans in most cases to be escalated.

The final chapter examines Freire's numerous views on why people do not free themselves from the ruling majority, or at least, why they cannot free themselves. This chapter subsequently examines the problem with people taking stands and fighting for their rights, even when they are morally and ethically in the correct position. Freire knew no victory came without consequences and risks, and for many, the threat of these consequences is what prevents them from taking a stand. However, this chapter also examines how universities built their power over several decades, while at the same time making sure the opportunities to face consequences for these actions were also being diminished by placing the wider academy in difficult positions, they would be unlikely to ever get out of, without the academy knowing they were being maneuvered into an untenable position.

This chapter is focused on what we can learn from oppressive governance, in this case specifically relating to university governance in terms of vice chancellors and presidents, to the deputy vice chancellor and deputy president and down the ever-growing university hierarchy to deans and heads of schools and their deputies, from a Freirean perspective. Freire wrote at length about how leaders ‘controlled’ education and why they did so, but he also wrote at length about how governments control populations – himself being both a political prisoner and a person in exile to escape persecution. This chapter subsequently examines Freire's ideas around what techniques people employ to control populations and applies them to a higher education setting because the similarities are numerous and the tactics familiar.

During the latter-half of the twentieth century, researchers argued that the notion of universities being communities of scholars that were governed by scholars had been replaced by a mass-market higher education system. The new system is shaped by competition for students, a need to be budget conscious and, ultimately, a requirement for university leaders to be able to approach their work with a certain level of business acumen. This chapter examines what these pressures mean for those working at the middle level of university leadership, when they are increasingly appointed on managerial expertise but make decisions about academics and their work. Using Bourdieu's notions of fields to dissect these relationships, the chapter uses semi-structured interviews with faculty deans to examine how their work is guided by managerialist targets but impacts on their relationships with academics. The chapter highlights that, while the sector has acknowledged that successful leaders do not always need research profiles in the modern university, this often has a negative impact on leaders' relationships with academics.

This chapter analyses the other aspect of an oppressor/oppressed relationship by looking at what happens to the oppressed, in this case, the academics and staff not in leadership roles. This chapter looks at why the tactics leaders employ work, and why people do not retaliate, and what systems have been put in place to prevent the people from having any consequential power. This chapter thus looks at how the power of the majority in the academy has been slowly eroded by managerial promises of empowerment, self-governance or having an opinion on the institution's direction when in reality, they have no opinion, and the only decisions they can make are inconsequential. This is why time and time again, we see universities restructure, remove non-profitable courses and increase targets to unrealistic levels to maintain power over the majority.