{"title":"大学中的专业人员真的会挑战学术规范吗?来自荷兰的视角","authors":"Stefan de Jong, Wiebke Kantimm","doi":"10.1007/s10734-024-01209-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Traditionally, universities stand for independent, high-quality, and curiosity-driven research and education. Yet, since neoliberal reforms in the 1980s, they have been increasingly exposed to external pressures towards more efficiency and economic value orientation. To manage the tasks corresponding to these market-based values, a new and fast-growing group of professional staff has emerged. Some authors argue that they challenge academic norms, or academic professional logics, while importing market norms, or market logics, through previous employment in and current relationships with the private sector. We empirically test this assumption based on original survey data of three groups of professional staff of universities and associated medical centers in the Netherlands: business developers, grant advisers, and research policy officers. We asked them about their ideas about universities to capture their institutional logics. Respondents also indicated previous employment and the strength of their professional relationships. Using multiple linear regression models, we find that professional staff with private sector experience indeed have stronger market logics. We find the same for those with stronger relationships with private sector companies. Yet, on average, the academic professional logic of professional staff is considerably higher than their market logic. Additionally, the effect of private sector experience and stronger relationships with private sector companies on the market logic is moderate. Thus, our data suggests that professional staff do not challenge academic norms. Therefore, there seems to be little need for meeting them with skepticism regarding their role in unwanted organizational change.</p>","PeriodicalId":48383,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do professional staff in universities really challenge academic norms? A perspective from the Netherlands\",\"authors\":\"Stefan de Jong, Wiebke Kantimm\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10734-024-01209-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Traditionally, universities stand for independent, high-quality, and curiosity-driven research and education. Yet, since neoliberal reforms in the 1980s, they have been increasingly exposed to external pressures towards more efficiency and economic value orientation. To manage the tasks corresponding to these market-based values, a new and fast-growing group of professional staff has emerged. Some authors argue that they challenge academic norms, or academic professional logics, while importing market norms, or market logics, through previous employment in and current relationships with the private sector. We empirically test this assumption based on original survey data of three groups of professional staff of universities and associated medical centers in the Netherlands: business developers, grant advisers, and research policy officers. We asked them about their ideas about universities to capture their institutional logics. Respondents also indicated previous employment and the strength of their professional relationships. Using multiple linear regression models, we find that professional staff with private sector experience indeed have stronger market logics. We find the same for those with stronger relationships with private sector companies. Yet, on average, the academic professional logic of professional staff is considerably higher than their market logic. Additionally, the effect of private sector experience and stronger relationships with private sector companies on the market logic is moderate. Thus, our data suggests that professional staff do not challenge academic norms. Therefore, there seems to be little need for meeting them with skepticism regarding their role in unwanted organizational change.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48383,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Higher Education\",\"volume\":\"78 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01209-x\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01209-x","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Do professional staff in universities really challenge academic norms? A perspective from the Netherlands
Traditionally, universities stand for independent, high-quality, and curiosity-driven research and education. Yet, since neoliberal reforms in the 1980s, they have been increasingly exposed to external pressures towards more efficiency and economic value orientation. To manage the tasks corresponding to these market-based values, a new and fast-growing group of professional staff has emerged. Some authors argue that they challenge academic norms, or academic professional logics, while importing market norms, or market logics, through previous employment in and current relationships with the private sector. We empirically test this assumption based on original survey data of three groups of professional staff of universities and associated medical centers in the Netherlands: business developers, grant advisers, and research policy officers. We asked them about their ideas about universities to capture their institutional logics. Respondents also indicated previous employment and the strength of their professional relationships. Using multiple linear regression models, we find that professional staff with private sector experience indeed have stronger market logics. We find the same for those with stronger relationships with private sector companies. Yet, on average, the academic professional logic of professional staff is considerably higher than their market logic. Additionally, the effect of private sector experience and stronger relationships with private sector companies on the market logic is moderate. Thus, our data suggests that professional staff do not challenge academic norms. Therefore, there seems to be little need for meeting them with skepticism regarding their role in unwanted organizational change.
期刊介绍:
Higher Education is recognised as the leading international journal of Higher Education studies, publishing twelve separate numbers each year. Since its establishment in 1972, Higher Education has followed educational developments throughout the world in universities, polytechnics, colleges, and vocational and education institutions. It has actively endeavoured to report on developments in both public and private Higher Education sectors. Contributions have come from leading scholars from different countries while articles have tackled the problems of teachers as well as students, and of planners as well as administrators.
While each Higher Education system has its own distinctive features, common problems and issues are shared internationally by researchers, teachers and institutional leaders. Higher Education offers opportunities for exchange of research results, experience and insights, and provides a forum for ongoing discussion between experts.
Higher Education publishes authoritative overview articles, comparative studies and analyses of particular problems or issues. All contributions are peer reviewed.