The bureaucratisation of the university: The case of Denmark

Moutsios, Stavros

doi:10.1080/00131857.2022.2097069

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the University Act (Universitetsloven) in 2003, the governance of universities in Denmark has moved from a more democratic, faculty-driven, elective and distributed form of leadership to board-governed, hierarchical, top–down and form of leadership by appointment (Degn and Sørensen, 2015; Moutsios, 2022). For the PhD in Denmark the University Act also meant a standardization of the PhD curriculum with greater focus on transferable skills for a national job market, higher enrollment numbers of PhD students and implementation of incentives for faster completion rates (Andres et al , 2015).…”

Section: A Context Of Societal Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living with the impact agenda – humanities academics negotiating and resisting the impact agenda as researchers and doctoral supervisors

Skov,

Bengtsen

2024

SGPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise. Design/methodology/approach The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context. Findings The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context. Originality/value This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.

show abstract

Section: A Context Of Societal Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Living with the impact agenda – humanities academics negotiating and resisting the impact agenda as researchers and doctoral supervisors

Skov,

Bengtsen

2024

SGPE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, many campus stakeholders (i.e., academic staff, deans and mid-level managers) can behave in a divided manner when interacting with leadership figures. For example, academic staff typically exhibit greater loyalty to their respective departments than to senior management bodies, particularly with respect to issues of academic freedom and autonomy (Gibbs and Murphy, 2009;Murphy, 2009;Moutsios, 2023). In an organisational change context, the knowledge, skills and capabilities of senior management figures and their ability to enact their visions have increasingly become essential requirements within campus senior management structures (Boyett, 1996;Breakwell and Tytherleigh, 2008;Amaral et al, 2020;Rieg et al, 2021).…”

Section: Leadership and Management Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

The structural modelling of significant organisational and individual factors for promoting sustainable campus in Saudi Arabia

Alsharif

2024

Front. Sustain.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn recent years, campus sustainability has gained global prominence, with a focus on sustainability initiatives and environmental activities within university campuses. This study aims to explore the factors contributing to the expansion of sustainability initiatives in Saudi Arabian university campuses.MethodsThe research utilizes the Interpretive Structural Model (ISM) as a framework for public universities. A literature review incorporating rational choice theory (RCT) and organizational change theory (OCT) is conducted to identify variables relevant to campus sustainability. The hierarchical interrelationships among these variables are examined, and the Matrice d’Impacts Croises-Multiplication Appliqué and Classment Analysis (MICMAC) categorize the study variables. Associations between the variables are validated through expert consultations from selected case study institutions.ResultsThe findings highlight the significance of organizational structure and decision-making processes in determining the prevalence of other sustainability-related variables. Organizational structure and decision-making processes are recognized as key factors exerting significant influence over other variables. Additionally, leadership is categorized as a linkage variable, representing a strong relationship within the hierarchical model.DiscussionThe study acknowledges the challenges in implementing sustainability initiatives, including conflicts in strategic planning, absence of campus sustainability policies and regulations, financial barriers, and lack of support from leadership. The study offers valuable insights and recommendations for stakeholders involved in sustainability initiatives within higher education institutions, particularly university leaders and decision makers in facility and project management departments (F&PM). By addressing the organizational and decision-based factors, effective integration of sustainability practices into university planning and activities can be achieved. This research contributes to filling the knowledge gap regarding the factors influencing the implementation of sustainability in Saudi Arabian higher education institutions (HEIs). The study emphasizes the importance of addressing organizational structure, decision-making processes, and leadership in order to successfully implement sustainability practices on university campuses.

show abstract

Who is ‘society’ in the societal impact debate? – A critical discussion of policies of closure

Gibson,

Bengtsen

2024

Educational Philosophy and Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The bureaucratisation of the university: The case of Denmark

Cited by 5 publications

References 24 publications

Living with the impact agenda – humanities academics negotiating and resisting the impact agenda as researchers and doctoral supervisors

Living with the impact agenda – humanities academics negotiating and resisting the impact agenda as researchers and doctoral supervisors

The structural modelling of significant organisational and individual factors for promoting sustainable campus in Saudi Arabia

Who is ‘society’ in the societal impact debate? – A critical discussion of policies of closure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About