Understanding practices of UK college governing: Rethinking strategy and accountability

IF 2.7 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Educational Management Administration & Leadership Pub Date : 2021-11-02 DOI:10.1177/17411432211053691
D. James, S. Garner, Gary Husband
{"title":"Understanding practices of UK college governing: Rethinking strategy and accountability","authors":"D. James, S. Garner, Gary Husband","doi":"10.1177/17411432211053691","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"College governing boards are widely held to be the keystone of institutional strategy and the prime locus of support, challenge and accountability in respect of the actions of the senior Executive. Whilst there are many normative prescriptions about the conditions and arrangements required for effective college governance, relatively little is known about how and to what extent the practices of boards reflect or realise these prescriptions. This paper draws upon a unique research study of eight further education colleges across the four nations of the UK. Following Chia and MacKay and Hendry et al., our ‘strategy as practice’ approach gives primacy to emergence and immanence through board practices. Video and observational data, supplemented by some interview and documentary data are used to develop an understanding of governing practices. Our analysis suggests that current normative prescriptions lack the conceptual sophistication required to support governing as it really happens. We offer a reconceptualisation of both strategy and accountability suggesting that the latter includes lateral, inward- and outward-facing functions that make conflicting demands on governors. We argue that these distinctions are vital in enabling further positive development of governing in the college sector.","PeriodicalId":47885,"journal":{"name":"Educational Management Administration & Leadership","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Management Administration & Leadership","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211053691","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

College governing boards are widely held to be the keystone of institutional strategy and the prime locus of support, challenge and accountability in respect of the actions of the senior Executive. Whilst there are many normative prescriptions about the conditions and arrangements required for effective college governance, relatively little is known about how and to what extent the practices of boards reflect or realise these prescriptions. This paper draws upon a unique research study of eight further education colleges across the four nations of the UK. Following Chia and MacKay and Hendry et al., our ‘strategy as practice’ approach gives primacy to emergence and immanence through board practices. Video and observational data, supplemented by some interview and documentary data are used to develop an understanding of governing practices. Our analysis suggests that current normative prescriptions lack the conceptual sophistication required to support governing as it really happens. We offer a reconceptualisation of both strategy and accountability suggesting that the latter includes lateral, inward- and outward-facing functions that make conflicting demands on governors. We argue that these distinctions are vital in enabling further positive development of governing in the college sector.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
理解英国大学管理实践:反思策略和问责制
大学管治委员会被广泛认为是院校策略的基石,也是对高级行政人员的行动给予支持、挑战和问责的主要场所。虽然关于有效大学治理所需的条件和安排有许多规范性的规定,但对于董事会的做法如何以及在多大程度上反映或实现这些规定,人们知之甚少。本文借鉴了对英国四个国家的八所继续教育学院的独特研究。继Chia、MacKay和Hendry等人之后,我们的“战略即实践”方法通过董事会实践将涌现性和内在性置于首位。视频和观测数据,辅以一些访谈和文献数据,用于发展对管理实践的理解。我们的分析表明,目前的规范性处方缺乏支持实际治理所需的概念复杂性。我们对战略和问责制进行了重新定义,认为后者包括对管理者提出相互冲突要求的横向、内向和外向职能。我们认为,这些区别对于促进大学部门治理的进一步积极发展至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Educational Management Administration & Leadership
Educational Management Administration & Leadership EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
8.20
自引率
19.40%
发文量
63
期刊最新文献
Teachers’ professional learning: Do instructional leadership and teacher leadership make a difference in Turkiye? Approaching principalship in Sweden: Novice principals’ recollections of their career trajectories School leadership and student outcomes: What do we know? Gender differences in school leadership: Collaborative and task-oriented styles of principals in Andalusia, Spain ‘I have gained insight, direction, affirmation, and a network’. Examining the impact of the UK's first LGBTQ+ specific leadership development programme in higher education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1