Refine
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (7) (remove)
Language
- English (7) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7)
Keywords
- GfHf-Jahrestagung 2018 (4)
- Deutschland (1)
- GfHf-Jahrestagung2018 (1)
- International Conference (1)
- Parteienfinanzierung (1)
- Youth-Check (1)
Vortrag auf einer Konferenz des American Institute for Contemporary German Studies am 24.6.1996 in Washington, D.C.
Student Space Control
(2018)
The role of the city changed within the knowledge economy. Knowledge has become the most important resource of urban prosperity and universities are considered the hope of city development (Van Winden 2009). Previous research has elaborated various dimensions in which universities interact with their home cities (or regions). They refer to economic impacts (e.g. Behr 2004; Florida 2006; Van Winden 2007; Gabe 2012), differ between forms of the spatial and structural integration of the university into the area (e.g. Larkham 2000; Kunzmann 2004; Gerhard 2012) or focus on social impacts of universities in the urban environment (e.g. Chatterton 1999; Sage et al. 2011; Smith 2004; Smith/Hubbard 2014; Gerhard, Hoelscher & Wilson 2017). All of these rely on a specific concept of space. However, they are lacking the neutral consideration of a fundamental factor of city development in university towns: students as urban agents (Russo/Tatjer 2007). Students constitute a considerable part of the population in university cities. As such, they need to play a key role in the analysis of the urban space. Drawing on a systematic literature review (Machi & McEvoy 2016), it is shown within this presentation that whenever students are subject to urban studies, either their role is conceptualized with a negative connotation (‘Studentification’: most important Smith 2004, 2008) or mainly depicted as leading to urban devaluation. As a counter draft to the prevailing approaches, the concept of ‘Student Urbanity’ (Steinmueller 2015) is introduced as an unbiased approach to the analysis of students as a source of urban processes of change. Using official (urban) statistics as well as observations and maps, the presentation highlights the results of a comparative case study, which exploratively tested this model in the cities of Heidelberg (Germany) and Montpellier (France) (Steinmüller 2015). Starting with the identification of distribution patterns of students’ residences, urban areas with a significantly high share of them are analysed with regard to the following research questions: - Which (social-)structural and spatial characteristics can be observed in these areas? - How do the students shape the urban space and infrastructure within the detected areas? - Which tendencies of revaluation respectively devaluation emerge from this influence? The presentation makes an empirical case for ‘Student Urbanity’ showing the relations between urban space and university with regard to students as agents of the development. It concludes with the discussion of this new student role as potential sources of reurbanisation as well as urban inequalities.
After 25 years of transformations of higher education systems in Post-Soviet countries, the single Soviet model of higher education has evolved into fifteen unique national systems, shaped by economic, cultural, and political forces, both national and global (Johnstone and Bain 2002). International agencies such as the World Bank and the OECD have lobbied for certain policies, while the Bologna Process has created isomorphic pressures, many post-soviet countries have yielded to albeit with different motivations and unclear outcomes (Tomusk, 2011). Comparative research on these developments, however, is scarce and has primarily discussed them in terms of decentralization, marketization and institutional autonomy (Heyneman 2010; Silova, 2011). My PhD thesis conducted between 2014 and 2017 at the University of Leipzig and the Higher School of Economics (Moscow), has reconstructed the developments in terms of driving forces and path dependencies at national, regional and global level have promoted convergence and divergence in the governance of higher education in post-Soviet higher education space, studying in detail the three Post-Soviet, non-EU Bologna signatory states Russia, Moldova and Kazakhstan. Drawing on work by Becher & Kogan (1992), Clark (1983), Jongbloed (2003), Paradeise (2009); Hood (2004); Dill (2010) and Dobbins et al. (2011), the research has conceptualized and analyzed the governance of higher education systems by analyzing change actor roles, power, structures and processes in four areas: 1. Educational Standards, quality assessment, and information provision; 2. Regulation of admissions to higher education; 3. Institutional structures, decision-making and autonomy; 4. Higher education financing and incentive structures. Explanatory approaches draw upon perspectives of path dependence and models of institutional change drawing on work by North (1990), Steinmo (1992), Weick (1976), Pierson (2000) and Witte (2006). The study rests on the one hand on extensive literature analysis of previous academic publications, reports by international organizations such as the World Bank, OECD, and the EU, national strategy papers. Furthermore, over 60 semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with representatives of State organizations, HEIs and other stakeholder groups engaged in the governance of higher education. The outcomes of interviews were used to situate developments in the particular social-political and societal contexts and to triangulate policy documents with various stakeholder perspectives, in order to reconstruct how and why certain policy changes came about, were implemented or abandoned. The results show a differentiated picture: Powerful ministerial control over HEIs remains everywhere, but the means are changing. While in Moldova the political volatility and underfunding have all but made substantial reforms impossible, Russia and Kazakhstan have adopted governance and management practices from New Public Management in idiosyncratic ways. While Kazakhstan has embarked on an authoritarian-driven decentralization program, Russia has created a two-tier system of state steering through financial incentivization and evaluation on the one hand, and tight oversight, control and intervention on the other.
Learning from history?
(2018)
Hochschulen sind geschichtsbewusste Institutionen. Doch anders als noch im 19. Jahrhundert kann die akademische Erinnerungskultur heute keine ungebrochene Feier von Kontinuität, des Stolzes auf große Wissenschaftler oder der Idee einer selbstbewussten Korporation mehr sein. Diese Form der Erinnerung setzte primär auf Traditionspflege. Sie ist unter Druck geraten, zum einen durch die Desaster des 20. Jahrhunderts und die Verstrickung der Hochschulen darin, zum anderen durch eine erhebliche Professionalisierung der Hochschulgeschichtsschreibung. Infolgedessen ist die deutsche Hochschulgeschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts oft in besonders geringer Weise dazu geeignet, hochschulische Institutionengeschichte als Erzählung eines fortwährenden Aufstiegs der jeweiligen Einrichtung zu konstruieren. Damit müssen Hochschulen heute umgehen können, was ihnen jedoch recht uneinheitlich gelingt – erkennbar z.B. an der unterschiedlich ausgeprägten Souveränität, mit der auf zeitgeschichtsbezogene Skandalisierungen hochschulgeschichtlicher Tatbestände reagiert wird. Zugrunde liegt dem eine eher erratische Beschäftigung mit der je eigenen Zeitgeschichte. Für diese gibt es Gründe: • Hochschulen lassen zwar organisationspolitisch eine intensive Befassung mit ihrer Zeitgeschichte erwarten: Auf diesem Wege ist Legitimation zu gewinnen, können Jubiläen aufgewertet werden und kann Havarien in der Kommunikation mit der Öffentlichkeit vorgebeugt werden. • Doch organisationspraktisch überwiegen die Gründe dafür, dass intensivere Befassungen mit der eigenen Zeitgeschichte eher unerwartbar sinWissenschaftsfreiheit, individuelle Autonomie, mangelnde Durchgriffsmöglichkeiten von Hochschulleitungen, Konflikte um Ressourcen, Planungsresistenz und unsystematisches Entscheidungsverhalten – all das steht dem entgegen. Dies lässt sich auf Basis einer empirischen Untersuchung aller 54 ostdeutschen Hochschulen – eben jenen Hochschulen, die aufgrund ihrer DDR-Geschichte unter besonderer Beobachtung des Umgangs mit ihrer Zeitgeschichte stehen – nachvollziehbar machen. Dabei erfolgt hier eine Konzentration auf die Hochschulanlagen, also die Gebäude und Campusensembles, da in und auf diesen im alltäglichen Vollzug von Forschung und Lehre die Geschichte im wörtlichen Sinne präsent ist. Das betrifft zum einen die architektonischen Zeugnisse der DDR in Gestalt von Hochschulgebäuden und -anlagen, die zum großen Teil auch als Repräsentationsobjekte angelegt waren, sowie deren überkommene künstlerische Beschriftungen durch Wandbilder und -mosaike, Plastiken und Installationen. Zum anderen betrifft es nach 1989 errichtete oder angebrachte Denkmale und Gedenkzeichen als Zeugnisse der oder/und Aufforderungen zur historischen Reflexion. In der pflegenden Erhaltung überkommener Zeugnisse, der Abwahl von als unwürdig Bewertetem und der Errichtung neuer zeichenhafter Artefakte konstruieren die Hochschulen ihr Gedächtnis, indem sie aus den objektiven Abläufen der Vergangenheit Gedächtniswürdiges auswählen. Die vorzustellende Bestandsaufnahme zeigt, wie sich die ostdeutschen Hochschulen mit ihrer DDR-Geschichte im Raum auseinandersetzen, illustriert dies an diesbezüglichen exemplarischen Konflikten und setzt dies ins Verhältnis zum Umgang mit Zeugnissen aus der NS-Periode. Die empirischen Grundlagen ermöglichen hierbei sowohl quantitativ gestützte Begründungen als auch qualitative Deutungen. Sie führen zur Identifikation von drei Zugangsweisen, die Hochschulen im Umgang mit ihrer Zeitgeschichte wählen: • Geschichtsabstinenz • Geschichte als Tradition und Geschichtspolitik als Hochschulmarketing • Geschichte als Aufarbeitung und Selbstaufklärung Anhand dessen lassen sich zum einen die spezifische Vorstellung von der Institution Hochschule, die – gegen überwältigende empirische Befunde – spezifische demokratische Widerstandspotenziale in der akademischen Kultur und Organisation vermutet, und zum anderen der Topos vom „Lernen aus der Geschichte“ prüfen.
Research question For the past decades, significant changes have been observed in Higher Education policy across Europe affecting the role and organizational culture of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). This resulted in a change of relationships and responsibilities among academics and university managers. The purpose of the research is to study organizational transformation of universities, examine similarities and differences of organizational „archetypes“ of universities, describe and compare internal quality assessment at universities and determine its impact on organizational development. The research will also explore how current university governance models ensure university autonomy and academic freedom and put forward the interests of key stakeholders. The main research question is: What is the impact of internal quality assessment on organizational transformation of university? The study will provide a comparative analysis of cases studies at German and Georgian universities. Theoretical framework The research will look at the theoretical framework of constructing university as an organization and its implementation in practice describing the shift from state-centered governance to self-governance, autonomy and academic freedom. As part of the theoretical framework three main aspects regarding construction of organizations: identity, hierarchy and rationality will be taken into account. (Brunsson and Sahlin-Anderson, 2000, De Boer, Enders and Leisyte, 2007). While analyzing transformation in universities as in organizations, it is important to consider the concept of an ‘organizational saga,’ which is interpreted as „a collective understanding of unique accomplishment in a formally established group” (Clark, 1972, p. 178). The study will also take into account Clark’s triangle of coordination initiated in 1983 describing three modes of coordinating „or controlling behavior in academic institutions: state regulation; professional self-regulation, which Clark termed ‚the academic oligarchy;’ and market forces.” (Dill, 2007). The research will rely on EUA’s definition of “quality culture” as “referring to an organisational culture characterised by a cultural/psychological element on the one hand, and a structural/managerial element on the other.” (Loukkola & Zhang, 2010, p. 9). The literature offers wide interpretation of quality assurance, the project will mainly consider Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) that define standards and procedures for external and internal quality assurance. The study will also look to what extent quality culture as part of the organizational culture shares elements and values such as leadership, communication, participation and commitment. It will consider the extensive place of the role of communication in organizational transformation and in establishing effective organizational culture. Methods The study will offer a comparative analysis of university transformation in Germany and Georgia drawing on literature analysis on the topic, interviews with key actors in four selected case study higher education institutions as well as document analysis. Literature Review, theoretical framework and a first pilot case study results will be presented for the conference. Results In the study I will argue that there is a close interdependence between organizational transformation and quality assessment/quality culture. Internal quality assurance has a significant impact on development of conceptual framework and key aspects of a university as an organization.
The Competence Centre Youth-Check’s brought together different actors in the field of Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for young people in Berlin on 09 May 2022 in the International Conference “Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Young Generation”. In this documentation the ComYC presents the results of the conference.
Campus design and estate management: concepts and challenges from an international perspective
(2018)
The university is an ancient and successful concept which, until very recently, has usually been associated with a particular locus, e. g. at a single, fairly homogenous site, or as a collection of buildings in a town or city built over time. Some institutions have been planned in their entirety from predominantly one architectural drawing board (e.g. University of Lausanne at Dorigny), others have started out as a small idea (e.g. the first college quadrangle in Oxford) and have since grown to become something quite different from the original, e.g.in Oxford there are now over 40 colleges, Science Park, university hospitals etc. Architectural trends have also played their part in university construction e.g. neo-Gothic (19th century), Brutalist (20th century) or the German Marburg University building system of the 1960s, which was emulated by many other institutions. Irrespective of style, university buildings are loaded with meaning and yet we frequently take them for granted and do not consider how they might impact on our capacity to learn and teach. It is only when we are disturbed by construction work that we are irritated into taking any real notice of our physical environment. Yet subliminally we are undoubtedly affected by our surroundings, which are not fixed, but change to become objects of “(re)interpretation, narration and representation […]” (Gieryn, 2002, p.35). This is a sense-making process as we negotiate how to act within them (Weick, 1995). Buildings impact on our well-being and how we thrive, which should be of key importance to the academic world in which creativity and innovation are of such importance (Marmot, in Temple (ed.) 2014). When higher education estate fails, and there are many examples of this, it is as much “a failure of psychology as of design” (de Botton, 2006/2014, p. 248). However, we do not have much data on the processes and ideas behind the creation (or adaptation) of higher education estate (cf. Bligh, in Temple (ed.) 2014). This research therefore asks the following questions: How do those who make decisions about higher education buildings take psychological well-being, or learning capability into account? Do they make compromises on the quality of materials? How do different countries and their university leaders address and govern the processes behind the creation and management of higher education estate of various types and age? What are current trends and challenges to higher education estate? Employing a constructivist perspective, this ongoing international research examines notions of value, care and identity (Tse et al, 2015) and analyses how an institution’s strategic capacity and organisational capability impacts on how estate is managed (cf. Thoenig & Paradeise, 2016). It uses case studies (Yin, 6th ed., 2018) from different institutional types in Great Britain, Switzerland, Austria, Germany and China which have been selected according to a strategic capacity model. Alongside documentary research and online data-gathering, interviews onsite have been conducted with a range of stakeholders, including leaders, planners, faculty and students. The research aims to theorise how an important and costly part of university administration is being managed in the context of today’s teaching and learning needs.