Open Access

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.

Higher education in both Germany and the UK has undergone numerous changes in the last two decades. It seems worthwhile to examine how varying forms of HE governance and pan-European influences have played out upon these two national systems. Of note in particular are Bologna, European Standards and Guidelines in Quality Assurance, and various accreditation regulations. In this article we postulate to what extent these two systems may or may not be able to move forward in the imminent future. Is German higher education, for example, becoming more autonomous if it can display its own systems of quality control are working well (system-accreditation)? Has British higher education relinquished autonomy, as both research and teaching domains are subject to external review (REF/TEF)? What can we learn about the transformational impact any of these mechanisms are having? This chapter adresses these issues and asks which benefits or disadvantages are to be gained by different systems in article.

Das Wissenschaftsmanagement wird in Wissenschaftsorganisationen zunehmend wichtiger. Gleichzeitig wissen wir bisher relativ wenig darüber. Deshalb werden wir zunächst die Entwicklung des Wissenschaftsmanagements einordnen und einige zentrale Entwicklungen nachzeichnen. Anhand der Vorstellung und Diskussion bisheriger Versuche zur Definition und Eingrenzung des Wissenschaftsmanagements wird dann herausgearbeitet, dass diese sich in unterschiedlichem Ausmaß als Grundlage für eine fundierte Diskussion von Qualifikationsanforderungen und für (zielgruppenspezifische) Maßnahmen wie zur Personalentwicklung eignen. Zudem wird aufgezeigt, dass das Wissenschaftsmanagement auch eine bisher möglicherweise unterschätzte Rolle bei der Organisationsentwicklung spielt.

.

Dr. Julia Rathke, Dr. Susan Harris-Huemmert und Prof. Dr. Michael Hölscher befassen sich nicht speziell mit der Lehre, sondern allgemein mit dem Wissenschaftsmanagement in der Corona-Krise. Dazu haben sie Studierende und Ehemalige ihres exekutiven Masterstudien-gangs Wissenschaftsmanagement an der Deutschen Universität für Verwaltungswissen-schaften Speyer online befragt und 95 Antworten ausgewertet. Die Befragten arbeiten an verschiedenen Stellen des Wissenschaftsmanagements, häufig an strategischen Positionen der Hochschulverwaltung. Die Mehrheit befand sich im Frühjahr vollständig im Homeoffice und viele weitere zumindest teilweise. Das war eine deutliche Steigerung gegenüber den Zeiten vor Corona, wobei es auch Unterschiede in der Art des Arbeitens von zu Hause gab. So war das Homeoffice nicht mehr freiwillig und waren häufiger auch andere Familienange-hörige gleichzeitig zu Hause, z.B. zu betreuende Kinder. Das Arbeitspensum änderte sich im Schnitt nicht, allerdings erhöhte es sich für einige krisenbedingt, während es für andere sank. Mangels persönlichen Kontakten im Büro stieg der Kommunikationsbedarf mittels Telefon und Internet stark an. Begrüßt wurde das Wegfallen von Arbeitswegen und mehrheitlich waren die Befragten mit dem Homeoffice zufrieden und wünschen sich mehr davon nach der Pandemie, jedoch kombiniert mit Präsenzphasen im Büro.