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

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Higher Education Pub Date : 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1007/s10734-024-01209-x
Stefan de Jong, Wiebke Kantimm
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

传统上,大学代表着独立、高质量和好奇心驱动的研究与教育。然而,自 20 世纪 80 年代新自由主义改革以来,大学越来越多地受到外部压力的影响,变得更加注重效率和经济价值。为了管理与这些以市场为基础的价值观相适应的任务,出现了一个新的、快速增长的专业人员群体。一些作者认为,他们在挑战学术规范或学术专业逻辑的同时,通过以前在私营部门的工作和目前与私营部门的关系,引进了市场规范或市场逻辑。我们基于对荷兰大学及相关医疗中心三类专业人员(商业开发人员、拨款顾问和研究政策官员)的原始调查数据,对这一假设进行了实证检验。我们询问了他们对大学的看法,以了解他们的机构逻辑。受访者还说明了以前的工作情况及其专业关系的强度。通过多元线性回归模型,我们发现具有私营部门经验的专业人员确实具有更强的市场逻辑。我们还发现,与私营企业关系更密切的专业人员也是如此。然而,平均而言,专业人员的学术专业逻辑大大高于其市场逻辑。此外,私营企业经验和与私营企业关系更密切对市场逻辑的影响不大。因此,我们的数据表明,专业人员不会挑战学术规范。因此,似乎没有必要对他们在不需要的组织变革中的作用持怀疑态度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Higher Education
Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
12.00%
发文量
160
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.
期刊最新文献
“Writing for English-medium publication is a journey to nowhere — no route and no tools”: Russian academics’ perceptions of the existing publication support The enigma of collegiality: collegiality frames and institutional logics in US higher education Navigating public goods: Chilean public universities and their transformative role in Latin America Exploring perceptions of public good(s), government, and global contributions in Japanese higher education: a phenomenographic approach The importance of international and national publications for promotion and the impact of recruitment policies
×
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