Group items tagged

Governance architectures are strategic and long-term institutional arrangements of international organizations exhibiting three features; namely, they address strategic and long-term problems in a holistic manner, they set substantive output-oriented goals, and they are implemented through combinations of old and new organizational structures within the international organization in question. The Lisbon Strategy is the most high-profile initiative of the European Union for economic governance of the last decade. Yet it is also one of the most neglected subjects of EU studies, probably because not being identified as an object of study on its own right. We define the Lisbon Strategy as a case of governance architecture, raising questions about its creation, evolution and impact at the national level. We tackle these questions by drawing on institutional theories about emergence and change of institutional arrangements and on the multiple streams model. We formulate a set of propositions and hypotheses to make sense of the creation, evolution and national impact of the Lisbon Strategy. We argue that institutional ambiguity is used strategically by coalitions at the EU and national level in (re-)defining its ideational and organizational elements.

"How prepared are you to teach a course on "corporate" literature? What would you say to someone who does not recognize the value of a liberal arts education? How would you argue for the value of reading contemporary fiction-to someone who aspires to be an accountant? The ongoing challenges facing the humanities are making these questions more common-and responses to them more significant. Many believe that the future of the humanities hinges in large part on the ability of people who share a passion for the liberal arts to be able to articulate that passion to others. Seeing and hearing people who are fully committed to their art is often believed the best way of supporting the arts. The poet who intensely and emphatically reads her poetry reveals her commitment to her art; the philosopher who cleverly turns every statement into a question and undermines beliefs demonstrates the perennial and complex nature of philosophy; the novelist who convinces others to believe in her characters and care for their well-being shows the power of mimesis."

Higher education (HE) in China has been transformed from elite to mass education over the last decade due to commercialisation and funding reform. Many questions have been raised regarding the impact of HE expansion on social justice: what are the implications of the distribution of HE resources on regional inequality? How does it influence different social groups in terms of access to HE? What are the financial implications on different regions and social groups as a result of the funding reform? Based on the official data by region in 1998 and 2006, this paper aims to address these questions and describe how HE has changed over time, both spatially and inter-temporally. Our research results suggest that HE reforms have disadvantaged poor people in impoverished regions despite the availability of HE opportunities for them.

Higher education (HE) in China has been transformed from elite to mass education over the last decade due to commercialisation and funding reform. Many questions have been raised regarding the impact of HE expansion on social justice: what are the implications of the distribution of HE resources on regional inequality? How does it influence different social groups in terms of access to HE? What are the financial implications on different regions and social groups as a result of the funding reform? Based on the official data by region in 1998 and 2006, this paper aims to address these questions and describe how HE has changed over time, both spatially and inter-temporally. Our research results suggest that HE reforms have disadvantaged poor people in impoverished regions despite the availability of HE opportunities for them.

"As the only state university that bears the name of the country, the Universitas Indonesia (UI) has played an important role in the history of the Indonesian nationalist movement for over half a century. Now located at two sites, one in the center of the city and the other on the outskirts, the history of this leading state university-its architecture and location, as well as its campus life and student movement-reflects the clashes of various forces and competing ideologies. This study looks at the relationship between public space and nationalism in Universitas Indonesia in an interdisciplinary perspective. It relates architecture and urban history with the operations of power and memory in a campus, which is seen both as an arena of struggle as well as containment. In that sense the campus is a reflection of public space in a broader sense. This paper raises a question about the kind of civic space emerging from the tension between the physical structure and environment of the campuses and the inner space of campus politics and students movement."

"The nano initiative in the US and elsewhere encourages and promotes various forms of multi-stakeholder activities, such as industrial collaborations. Forming part of the discourse of expectations around emerging technologies, collaboration is an important resource holding together different practices of knowledge production. In the conversations between policy and science, collaboration becomes a measurable entity and a measure in itself, figuring in the evaluations of the performance of individual faculty and research centres; however, the policy metaphor of 'collaboration' stands for a variety of different forms and shapes of interactions between university and industry. From a discourse analysis perspective, 'folk theories' of nano collaboration help to explore the dynamics of the university/industry boundary in the scientific organisational discourse as in a recent series of interactions with scientists, university officials and technology transfer officers in a number of US universities. What does the introduction of the new entity (nano) mean for scientists, and for university practices of technology transfer and commercialisation, in terms of trying to accommodate individual 'nano' cases into university regulations and procedures? How are these practices and experiences discussed in terms of collaboration? Assessments of value of collaboration ranged between polarised views, raising questions about occasions, audiences and communities of assessors invoked in the construction of acceptable accounts of nano collaboration. Metaphors and analogies were used to mobilise specific meanings in the discourses of the innovative potential of emerging fields. As such, assessments of the potential of terms pertinent to the emerging discourses, such as collaboration, would be better based on the assumption of shared meanings, not fixed and given, but actively achieved."

University governance reforms are very much a reflection of the broader New Public Management reforms that are focusing on increasing efficiency in public organizations. The article deals with how university reform ideas of a generic nature, emphasizing that universities should be treated and reformed like any other public organizations, are important and reflected in specific reform measures. The special empirical focus is on that universities through reforms are changing their formal affiliation to superior ministries in a more autonomous direction, implicating more autonomy in financial, management and decision-making matters. One the other hand, universities are also through reforms more exposed to more report, scrutiny and control systems, financial incentive systems, pressure to get resources from other sources than the government, cut-back management, etc. So a main question in the analysis is whether universities, as traditionally having quite a lot of real autonomy, through the reforms in fact are getting less autonomy, not more, like the reforms entrepreneurs often are promising.

It seems that everywhere one looks these days, the debate over the "crisis in the humanities" is raging unabated. The profession, as all our readers have undoubtedly noticed, is in a full-on identity crisis: Who are we as a discipline? What is our work? Who do we serve? What values undergird our practice? These perennial questions and others are more insistent than ever, especially as they intersect with the economic issues that dominate higher education today.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several researchers showed the importance, in the United States, of the number of times scholars' publications are cited for determining their bargaining power in academia. Not surprisingly, the question was soon raised whether citations are a good measure of scholarly merit. Are women at a disadvantage in male-dominated fields, such as economics? Studies had shown that authors tended to cite a larger proportion of publications by authors of the same gender. This paper examines whether women's disadvantage in garnering citations has been reduced by the increasing representation of women in economics and finds that this has been the case in both labor economics and economics in general, albeit not to the same degree.

This article tries to look into the question, to what extent have British universities become the new recruiting grounds of Islamism, if at all, making a shift from Mosques. It argues that both Islam (the religion itself) and Islamism (the political ideology) coexist at the university level. At universities both moderate thinkers and Islamists are invited to give their speeches, a small few of whom openly advocate terrorism or what Islamists would call "martyrdom." The article moves away from the traditional reactive explanations and tries to give both an active and reactive explanation as to what causes Islamism in Britain among British Muslim university students and analyzes the causes within the broader framework of identity issues and socioeconomic marginalization. It has been advised that social policy workers in Britain dealing with ethnic minorities collaborate with security officials while dealing with the problem of Islamism.

Concomitant with the rise of rationalizing accountability in higher education has been an increase in theoretical reflection about the forms accountability has taken and the ones it should take. The literature is now peppered by a wide array of distinctions (e.g. internal/external, inward/ outward, vertical/horizontal, upward/downward, professional/public, political/economic, soft/ hard, positive/negative), to the point that when people speak of 'accountability' they risk speaking past one another, having some of these distinctions in mind and not others. Furthermore, often these distinctions are vague and cross-cut each other in ways that are as yet unclear. The field could benefit from having a comprehensive framework in which to place these distinctions and to view their relations. My aim in this article is to provide an analytical tool by which to classify important debate about what accountability in higher education has been and ought to be. Beyond organizing such debate, this schema will serve the purposes of revealing ambiguities in terms, conflations of ideas, assumptions that warrant questioning, and gaps in present research agendas.

It is well known that most of the topical problems of our times cannot be addressed in clean disciplinary separations or total disciplinary make-up, but they are only successfully to be addressed in interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary or even superdisciplinary manner. For instance, ecological problems are not just natural science questions, but of course they are not only cultural or social humanities problem areas either. In the overriding and comprehensive problems of our society and age we encounter a complex of not only internal interaction and interconnection if not mashing of the prospective disciplinary areas. We need more abstract plus disciplinary methods, disciplines and technologies, so to speak generalized operational techniques in order to get a more formal or abstract or methodological perspective we will discuss below.

"This essay addresses the question of how to best teach interdisciplinarity through a detailed discussion of a common upper-division gateway course for multiple majors housed in an interdisciplinary studies unit. It argues for a shift in the problematic within which discussions of interdisciplinary pedagogy generally take place by emphasizing the practice of interdisciplinarity itself."

"This paper reflects critically on challenges and opportunities associated with developing a theoretical framework for an interdisciplinary Framework Programme 6 research project funded by the European Commission in the area of digital ecosystems. The paper first provides a description of the interdisciplinary structure of the research agenda of the project and the areas of digital ecosystem research prioritised by each discipline. Second, it discusses the challenging questions of epistemology that arose in the context of theorising interdisciplinary research and provides a summary of how these were dealt with in order to outline a theoretical framework for digital ecosystems research by the end of the project. Finally, it discusses the lessons that can be extrapolated from the project experience, arguing that it is impossible to develop a unified interdisciplinary theoretical framework due to irreconcilable epistemological differences, yet it is possible and very worthwhile for those adhering to various disciplinary perspectives to collaborate towards the achievement of a practical joint endeavour. These lessons, which are considered valuable to the broader research community, are summarised in a model of the (im)possibility of interdisciplinarity."

We report here on a series of interaction-intensive, interdisciplinary workshops to foster collaboration among those who teach, study, and engage with the public about scientific developments and social change-the New England Workshop on Science and Social Change. We include one line of thinking that fed into the workshops and present an analysis of how they contribute to participants developing their interest and skills in collaboration. Workshop evaluations suggest that people are moved to develop themselves as collaborators when they view an experience or training as transformative. Four R's-respect, risk, revelation, and re-engagement-point to the important conditions for interactions among researchers to be experienced as transformative. Three considerations lie behind the focus on the process side of the workshops, not the specific workshop topics: (1) how best to fill in for readers what they missed out on by not being there; (2) workshops and meetings are a ubiquitous part of the culture of science and technology studies (STS) so it is valuable to examine this aspect of our own culture with a view to promoting positive changes; and (3) in some scientific fields organized multi-person collaborative processes form a highly valorized aspect of the culture of science, so reflection on experiences of participation and collaboration in STS might inform our analyses of fields that emphasize collaboration and group processes. Indeed, the authors' own involvement in the workshops extends our own STS work on actor networks and 'heterogeneous engineering', that is, the mobilization of a variety of resources by diverse agents spanning different realms of social action.

We report here on a series of interaction-intensive, interdisciplinary workshops to foster collaboration among those who teach, study, and engage with the public about scientific developments and social change-the New England Workshop on Science and Social Change. We include one line of thinking that fed into the workshops and present an analysis of how they contribute to participants developing their interest and skills in collaboration. Workshop evaluations suggest that people are moved to develop themselves as collaborators when they view an experience or training as transformative. Four R's-respect, risk, revelation, and re-engagement-point to the important conditions for interactions among researchers to be experienced as transformative.