冲突或共存的逻辑——在大学项目框架内进行行动研究

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2022-09-22 DOI:10.1108/ijmpb-08-2021-0213
Beata Jałocha, Ewa Bogacz-Wojtanowska, Anna Góral, Piotr Jedynak, G. Prawelska-Skrzypek
{"title":"冲突或共存的逻辑——在大学项目框架内进行行动研究","authors":"Beata Jałocha, Ewa Bogacz-Wojtanowska, Anna Góral, Piotr Jedynak, G. Prawelska-Skrzypek","doi":"10.1108/ijmpb-08-2021-0213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe aim of the study was to illustrate how three different institutional logics, present in the implementation of action research, interact in a formalised project, in a traditional university setting.Design/methodology/approachThe article is empirical in nature and the research method used is an instrumental case study. The case was the implementation of action research within the framework of an educational project co-financed by EU funds, conducted in a Polish public university. The research process was conducted from September 2017 to November 2019. The following techniques were used: document analysis, in-depth interviews, participatory observation during the project. Constant comparative analysis was used as an analytical approach.FindingsThe study indicates that action research, project management and university management follow different “logics”. The dominant logic of action research is problem-solving, of project management is efficiency and of university management is compliance. These different logics and the relationship between them is explained in the paper.Originality/valueThe research enriches the ongoing discussion on logic multiplicity and project management in a new context – that of the university environment and combines the issue of the implementation of action research with broader conversations on institutional logics.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conflicting or co-existing logics – doing action research within the framework of a project in a university\",\"authors\":\"Beata Jałocha, Ewa Bogacz-Wojtanowska, Anna Góral, Piotr Jedynak, G. Prawelska-Skrzypek\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/ijmpb-08-2021-0213\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThe aim of the study was to illustrate how three different institutional logics, present in the implementation of action research, interact in a formalised project, in a traditional university setting.Design/methodology/approachThe article is empirical in nature and the research method used is an instrumental case study. The case was the implementation of action research within the framework of an educational project co-financed by EU funds, conducted in a Polish public university. The research process was conducted from September 2017 to November 2019. The following techniques were used: document analysis, in-depth interviews, participatory observation during the project. Constant comparative analysis was used as an analytical approach.FindingsThe study indicates that action research, project management and university management follow different “logics”. The dominant logic of action research is problem-solving, of project management is efficiency and of university management is compliance. These different logics and the relationship between them is explained in the paper.Originality/valueThe research enriches the ongoing discussion on logic multiplicity and project management in a new context – that of the university environment and combines the issue of the implementation of action research with broader conversations on institutional logics.\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-08-2021-0213\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-08-2021-0213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的本研究的目的是说明在传统的大学环境中,行动研究实施中存在的三种不同的制度逻辑如何在正式的项目中相互作用。设计/方法论/方法这篇文章本质上是实证的,所使用的研究方法是一个工具性的案例研究。案例是在一个由欧盟基金共同资助的教育项目框架内,在一所波兰公立大学进行的行动研究。研究过程于2017年9月至2019年11月进行。使用了以下技术:文件分析、深入访谈、项目期间的参与式观察。经常比较分析被用作一种分析方法。研究结果表明,行动研究、项目管理和高校管理遵循不同的“逻辑”。行动研究的主导逻辑是解决问题,项目管理的主导逻辑为效率,大学管理的主导思维为合规。本文阐述了这些不同的逻辑及其相互关系。原创性/价值本研究丰富了在大学环境这一新背景下对逻辑多样性和项目管理的讨论,并将行动研究的实施问题与更广泛的制度逻辑对话相结合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Conflicting or co-existing logics – doing action research within the framework of a project in a university
PurposeThe aim of the study was to illustrate how three different institutional logics, present in the implementation of action research, interact in a formalised project, in a traditional university setting.Design/methodology/approachThe article is empirical in nature and the research method used is an instrumental case study. The case was the implementation of action research within the framework of an educational project co-financed by EU funds, conducted in a Polish public university. The research process was conducted from September 2017 to November 2019. The following techniques were used: document analysis, in-depth interviews, participatory observation during the project. Constant comparative analysis was used as an analytical approach.FindingsThe study indicates that action research, project management and university management follow different “logics”. The dominant logic of action research is problem-solving, of project management is efficiency and of university management is compliance. These different logics and the relationship between them is explained in the paper.Originality/valueThe research enriches the ongoing discussion on logic multiplicity and project management in a new context – that of the university environment and combines the issue of the implementation of action research with broader conversations on institutional logics.
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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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