Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (23) (remove)
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (16)
- Article (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- GfHf-Jahrestagung 2018 (14)
- Hochschule (2)
- Blended-Learning (1)
- E-Learning (1)
- GfHf-Jahrestagung2018 (1)
- Hochschulforschung (1)
- Hochschulmanagement (1)
- Wissenschaftsmanagement (1)
Institute
- Lehrstuhl für Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsmanagement (Univ.-Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher) (23) (remove)
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.
Die Lernende Stadt
(2018)
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.
From today's viewpoint it seems almost inconceivable that there once was a time where academia functioned without peer review processes, which are now so much part and parcel of the academic environment. Peer review is mainly taken for granted and we assume that it generally works well in estimating the worth of academic outputs of differents kinds (publications, grant proposals etc.) However, the process itself is not free of criticism and much can still be done to improve review quality. In this paper I explore and question the purpose and function of peer review, engage with various problems that can occur in the process, and make suggestions for ways in which peer review might be improved. It is based on empirical research, participation in various peer review forms and observation of accreditation practice.
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.