Interdependency management in universities: a case study

There remains uncertainty in scientific discussions regarding the governance of universities in new public management regimes in terms of who actually 'rules' in the university. Apparently, a strengthened management leadership is confronted with continuing elements of academic self-regulation and professional autonomy in knowledge production and diffusion. Organisational and academic rationales coexist in today's management of universities. This article endeavours to clarify some of the ambiguities pertaining to the coexistence of two authorities by demonstrating the working of 'interdependency management' that is taking place within universities. For this purpose, the authors have scrutinised research, teaching and recruitment policies in one Swiss university that is subject to such ambiguities. The study confirms existing research in that a command-and-control system is not applied. Policymaking in universities is instead based on a mix of negotiations in faculties that are taking place in the 'shadow of hierarchy', negotiated bargaining between faculties and leaders and occasional unilateral decisions of leaders. This mitigates latent conflicts between management and the academic community: strategic orientations of the university are generally accepted by the academic community while the academic community has influence on policy formulation and maintains defining powers over policy substance.

E-cigarette use in young Swiss men : is vaping an effective way of reducing or quitting smoking ?

QUESTION UNDER STUDY: To test longitudinally differences in conventional cigarette use (cigarettes smoked, cessation, quit attempts) between vapers and nonvapers. METHODS: Fifteen months follow-up of a sample of 5 128 20-year-old Swiss men. The onset of conventional cigarette (CC) use among nonsmokers, and smoking cessation, quit attempts, changes in the number of CCs smoked among smokers at baseline were compared between vapers and nonvapers at follow-up, adjusted for nicotine dependence. RESULTS: Among baseline nonsmokers, vapers were more likely to start smoking at follow-up than nonvapers (odds ratio [OR] 6.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.81, 12.88 for becoming occasional smokers, and OR = 12.69, 95% CI 4.00, 40.28 for becoming daily smokers). Vapers reported lower smoking cessation rates among occasional smokers at baseline (OR = 0.43 (0.19, 0.96); daily smokers: OR = 0.42 [0.15, 1.18]). Vapers compared with nonvapers were heavier CC users (62.53 vs 18.10 cigarettes per week, p <0.001) and had higher nicotine dependence levels (2.16 vs 0.75, p <0.001) at baseline. The number of CCs smoked increased between baseline and follow-up among occasional smokers (b = 6.06, 95% CI 4.44, 7.68) and decreased among daily smokers (b = -5.03, 95% CI -8.69, -1.38), but there were no differential changes between vapers and nonvapers. Vapers showed more quit attempts at follow-up compared with nonvapers for baseline occasional smokers (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.81, 95% CI 1.24, 2.64; daily smokers IRR 1.28, 95% CI 0.95, 1.73). CONCLUSIONS: We found no beneficial effects of vaping at follow-up for either smoking cessation or smoking reduction.