Power perceptions and modes of complaining in higher education

This study examines the relationship between student perceptions of different types of educator power and different modes of student complaining behaviour in the case of university education. A large sample of marketing students in the business school responded to the study from a state university in Northeastern United States. Factor analysis and canonical correlation analysis are used to explore the relationships between five bases of power perceptions (referent, expert, reward, legitimate, and punishment) and four modes of complaining behaviour (voice, negative word of mouth, third party, and exit). The results indicate that students engage in different modes of complaining as they perceive different types of educator power. The predominant complaining mode is found to be voice under referent or expert power, third party under legitimate power, and exit under reward or punishment power. Our findings offer important implications for student satisfaction, retention, and completion rates in higher education.

Investigating the supply and demand relationship in a profession: the English and Welsh schools of librarianship and information Studies and the Higher Education Library and Information Services employment sector in England and Wales.

Concern has been expressed in the professional literature - borne out by professional experience and observation - that the supply and demand relationship existing between the 13 English and Welsh Library and Information Studies (LIS) Schools (as providers of `First Professional' staff) and the Higher Education Library and Information Services (HE LIS) sector of England and Wales (as one group of employers of such staff) is unsatisfactory and needs attention. An appropriate methodology to investigate this problem was devised. A basic content analysis of Schools' curricular and recruitment material intended for public consumption was undertaken to establish an overview of the LIS initial professional education system in England and Wales, and to identify and analyse any covert messages imparted to readers. This was followed by a mix of Main Questionnaires and Semi-Structured Interviews with appropriate populations. The investigation revealed some serious areas of dissatisfaction by the HE LIS Chiefs with the role and function of the Schools. Considerable divergence of views emerged on the state of the working relationships between the two sectors and on the Schools' successes in meeting the needs of the HE LIS sector and on CPD provision. There were, however, areas of substantial and consistent agreement between the two sectors. The main implications of the findings were that those areas encompassing divergence of views were worrying and needed addressing by both sides. Possible ways forward included recommendations on improving the image of the profession purveyed by the Schools; the forming of closer and more effective inter-sectoral relationships; recognising fully the importance of `practicum' and increasing and sustaining the network of `practicum' providers.

What can higher education contribute to improving social mobility in the UK?

At a time when the UK may slowly be emerging out of what, for many in higher education, has been a period of ‘unprecedented change’ (Universities UK, 2012) in which institutions have found themselves having to balance increases in student expectations and demands against decreases in funding and resources, this special edition focuses on an issue that is becoming ever-more important – that of the relationship between social mobility and higher education. Drawing upon the findings of the Higher Education Academy’s March 2013 Conference: What can higher education contribute to improving social mobility in the UK?, the six papers gathered here give between them a clear indication of the proactive and synergetic manner in which the sector is responding to the resource and funding challenges which it currently faces.

Technology enhanced learning in Higher Education

Technology-Enhanced Learning in Higher Education is an anthology produced by the international association, Learning in Higher Education (LiHE). LiHE, whose scope includes the activities of colleges, universities and other institutions of higher education, has been one of the leading organisations supporting a shift in the education process from a transmission-based philosophy to a student-centred, learning-based approach. Traditionally education has been envisaged as a process in which the teacher disseminates knowledge and information to the student, and directs them to perform – instructing, cajoling, encouraging them as appropriate – despite different students’ abilities. Yet higher education is currently experiencing rapid transformation, with the introduction of a broad range of technologies which have the potential to enhance student learning. This anthology draws upon the experiences of those practitioners who have been pioneering new applications of technology in higher education, highlighting not only the technologies themselves but also the impact which they have had on student learning. The anthology illustrates how new technologies – which are increasingly well-known and accepted by today’s ‘digital natives’ undertaking higher education – can be adopted and incorporated. One key conclusion is that learning remains a social process even in technology-enhanced learning contexts. So the technology-based proxies we construct need to retain and reflect the agency of the teacher. Technology-Enhanced Learning in Higher Education showcases some of the latest pedagogical technologies and their most creative, state-of-the-art applications to learning in higher education from around the world. Each of the chapters explores technology-enhanced learning in higher education in terms of either policy or practice. They contain detailed descriptions of approaches taken in very different curriculum areas, and demonstrate clearly that technology may and can enhance learning only if it is designed with the learning process of students at its core. So the use of technology in education is more linked to pedagogy than it is to bits and bytes.

Education 2.0: Exploring the challenges of Corvinus University in the long tail economy of global higher education

Our basic storyline is how the business and economics higher education landscape has changed with the introduction of the Bologna programs. We borrowed the fashionable long tail concept from e-business, and used it for modeling the new landscape of internationalization of universities. Internationalization, mobility, and the appearance of the internet generation at the gates of our universities in our opinion has brought us to a new e-era which, appropriately to our web analogies we might as well call Education 2.0.In our paper first we show the characteristics of the long tail model of the Bologna-based European higher education and potential messages for strategy making in this environment. We illustrate that benchmarking university strategies situated in the head of the long tail model will not always provide strategic guidance for universities sitting in the tail. For underlining some key concerns in the Hungarian niche, we used Corvinus University as a case study to illustrate some untapped challenges of the Hungarian Bologna reform. We explored three areas which are crucial elements of the “tail” strategy in our opinion: a) the influence of state regulation, b) social situations and impacts and c) internal university capabilities.

The European Patterns of "Homo Academicus“ and The Chances of Its Evolution In Current Hungarian Higher Education

In the recent four or five years, there have been abrupt and radical changes in the governance of Hungarian higher education. It can then be interesting to assess the state of “homo academicus“ as it looks currently in Hungary. The notion of “homo academicus“ is obvious: it concerns participants in the system of a country’s higher education. The paper as follows still comes back to the definition of “homo academicus“ by referring first to it as occupation, or rather as a profession that can be interpreted in terms of sociology. Secondly, some historic patterns can also be mobilised, based on the assumption that university is a very European institutions that is even rooted in the tradition of the Middle Ages. The elbow-room of seeking for identity and the role to be filled by academics are limited by the effective system of the governance of higher education. It is a key to the chances of academics of meeting the historically corroborated professional standards that they exercise academic freedom. As it cannot be done individually, but in cooperation (through a collegial system), academic freedom is always combined with collective action. The field where this freedom can be exercised can be specified through university autonomy, the lack of which makes a serious barrier to the full development of a character of “homo academicus“. This is now the case in Hungary, the paper suggests. The paper seeks to gain deeper understanding of the character of academics, their vocation and professional roles, and the governance of higher education, serving as the environment for academic activity, by creating a conceptual framework. The paper is established on the results of sociological research and the experience of legal management, although it remains to be of theoretical nature. It criticises the current Hungarian situation of the governance of higher education, arguing for the reconstruction of university autonomy and financial stability. It also emphasises the importance of predictable regulations.

Recent Developments in the Autonomy and Governance of Higher Education Institutions in Hungary: the Introduction of the Chancellor System

After the change of regime in 1989, Hungarian higher education started to return to its Humboldtian tradition. It was widely accepted that academic freedom could be guaranteed by high degree of institutional autonomy manifested especially in structures of self-governance and avoidance of direct state supervision/interventions. Attempts to introduce boards and other supervising bodies were successfully resisted until 2011. The new government coming into power in 2010, however, introduced new mechanisms of supervision and changed institutional governance and reduced institutional autonomy considerably. Changes in the selection of rectors, the appearance of state-appointed financial inspectors and the newly appointed Chancellors responsible for the finance, maintenance and administration of institutions are important milestones in this process. In the paper I review these developments focusing especially on the analysis of the Chancellor system.

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida: 1989--1994

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, a unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991).^ The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey.^ The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education. ^

Private higher education policy in Ohio, 1980--2006: A case study demonstrating the usefulness of Zumeta's public policy posture model

This study describes the case of private higher education in Ohio between 1980 and 2006 using Zumeta's (1996) model of state policy and private higher education. More specifically, this study used case study methodology and multiple sources to demonstrate the usefulness of Zumeta's model and illustrate its limitations. Ohio served as the subject state and data for 67 private, 4-year, degree-granting, Higher Learning Commission-accredited institutions were collected. Data sources for this study included the National Center for Education Statistics Integrated Postsecondary Data System as well as database information and documents from various state agencies in Ohio, including the Ohio Board of Regents. ^ The findings of this study indicated that the general state context for higher education in Ohio during the study time period was shaped by deteriorating economic factors, stagnating population growth coupled with a rapidly aging society, fluctuating state income and increasing expenditures in areas such as corrections, transportation and social services. However, private higher education experienced consistent enrollment growth, an increase in the number of institutions, widening involvement in state-wide planning for higher education, and greater fiscal support from the state in a variety of forms such as the Ohio Choice Grant. This study also demonstrated that private higher education in Ohio benefited because of its inclusion in state-wide planning and the state's decision to grant state aid directly to students. ^ Taken together, this study supported Zumeta's (1996) classification of Ohio as having a hybrid market-competitive/central-planning policy posture toward private higher education. Furthermore, this study demonstrated that Zumeta's model is a useful tool for both policy makers and researchers for understanding a state's relationship to its private higher education sector. However, this study also demonstrated that Zumeta's model is less useful when applied over an extended time period. Additionally, this study identifies a further limitation of Zumeta's model resulting from his failure to define "state mandate" and the "level of state mandates" that allows for inconsistent analysis of this component. ^

Comparative Analysis of State and Non-State Higher Educational Institutions in Terms of their Adaptation to New Societal Conditions in Post-Soviet Russia

The present paper investigates post-Soviet non-state and state higher educational institutions in terms of students’ perceptions of school curriculum, quality of teaching, available educational resources and overall organization in their higher educational institutions.

The Corporatization of Higher Education

This essay reviews recent books and articles that examine the politics and economics of the restructuring of public universities in the United States. The author weaves the arguments together to point to several prominent trends: increased corporatization of university governance and increased dependence on the market for resources previously provided by the state, reduction of full-time faculty in favor of instructors and adjuncts, dramatic growth of administrative personnel, and mounting student debt. The history of these developments is explored by examining the roots of the political attacks on the public university.

Influence, policy formation, and higher education in Florida : 1989-94

This study examined the perceptions of state governmental officials and administrators from the state university system, community college system, and independent institutions concerning the ability of various groups to influence state-level higher education policy formation. The study was conducted in Florida for the period 1989-94. Florida has a history of legislative involvement in higher education, an unique system of state universities and community colleges, and a limited number of private institutions of higher education. This study was grounded in the works of Mortimer and McConnell (1978), Millett (1987), Marshall, Mitchell, and Wirt (1989) and Finitfer, Baldwin, and Thelin (1991). The study represented the application of an embedded, single-case design. A survey was the primary collection instrument. Respondents were asked questions concerning: (a) personal involvement in higher education, (b) perceptions of the ability of various groups to influence higher education policy, (c) the names of particular individuals considered key players in higher education policy formation, (d) important state-level documents, (e) personal knowledge of key areas of policy formation, and (f) emerging higher education issues in Florida. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze the different sections of the survey. The findings indicated that a power and influence hierarchy exists among the various groups that attempt to influence higher education policy and that this hierarchy is recognized by state government officials and higher education administrators. While an analysis of variance of the various groups revealed a few differences between state government officials and higher education personnel, the high overall agreement was an important finding. Leading members of the legislature, especially the Chair of the Senate Higher Education Committee, and key staff members, especially from the Senate Ways & Means Committee, were considered the most influential. Representatives from higher education institutions and research organizations were considered among the least influential. Emerging issues identified by the respondents included: (a) the political nature of state-level policy formation, (b) the role of legislative staff, (c) the competition for state moneys, (d) legislative concern for state-wide budgetary efficiency, and (e) legislative attempts to define quality and supervise academic program development for higher education.

The 2016 Condition of Higher Education in Iowa Report

Investigating trends and current issues affecting degree and certificate attainment in the State of Iowa. The report considers workforce demands for educated workers, population and demographic trends and projections, educational preparation for college, financial preparation for college, enrollment trends at Iowa colleges and universities, entering the Iowa workforce, and meeting the needs of the Iowa workforce. Data compares Iowa against national trends.

Widening participation in higher education: the role of professional and social class identities and commitments

Since the neoliberal reforms to British education in the 1980s, education debates have been saturated with claims to the efficacy of the market as a mechanism for improving the content and delivery of state education. In recent decades with the expansion and ‘massification’ of higher education, widening participation (WP) has acquired an increasingly important role in redressing the under-representation of certain social groups in universities. Taken together, these trends neatly capture the twin goals of New Labour’s programme for education reform: economic competitiveness and social justice. But how do WP professionals negotiate competing demands of social equity and economic incentive? In this paper we explore how the hegemony of neoliberal discourse – of which the student as consumer is possibly the most pervasive – can be usefully disentangled from socially progressive, professional discourses exemplified through the speech and actions of WP practitioners and managers working in British higher education institutions.

Higher Education - Border or Boundary? Can Theatre in Education Help Promote a University Education?

With the expansion and increased availability of Higher Education the progression to study for an undergraduate degree has been viewed as a simple stepping stone with examination success a straight - forward border pass. Changes in the funding of degree courses has established a series of more challenging boundaries to entry which demand a rigorous assessment of the benefits of Higher Education. The Widening Participation Unit at The University of Worcester has sought to ease this border crossing for pupils whose parents have not been to university. Their experience from previous projects was that school pupils more easily relate to undergraduate students whose experience of Higher Education is recent and relevant. With this in mind they commissioned the Drama and Performance Department to create a Theatre in Education programme that introduced an awareness of post sixteen options and future choices to challenge Higher Education stereotypes. As a result of this collaboration Why Bother? was created, directed by myself and devised and researched with four students who were studying drama. Their own experiences were used to inform the character development and dealt with worrying as a mature student about integration into full – time education, loss of income after working, the pressures of emotional commitments to partners and being away from home. The programme toured to two thousand year 9 – 11 pupils in Worcestershire and Herefordshire schools in January and May 2011. Devising and touring Why Bother provided students with an opportunity to work as a professional paid TIE team that it is not possible for them to do as part of their undergraduate degree course. My initial research looks at the effectiveness and limitations of this project based on pupil questionnaires and the experiences of the team which are explored within the broader context of TIE and its potential for affecting attitudinal change. This has given rise to a number of questions that need consideration in the development of a new TIE programme aimed at raising the awareness of sixth form students who are about to make the decision whether to apply to university or not. Collaboration with university students in exploring the value of an education that they have subscribed to raises issues of bias and whether their powers of persuasion actually prevent pupils from making their own individual decision. The ethics of promoting a “free” university education seem much less complex than the decision required now which involves balancing the real value against the high financial cost suggested in the working title of Is it Worth it? This paper will present my first attempts to develop research methods and methodologies that will enable me to evaluate the success of this and future TIE.