Author(s): |
Hrotic, Steven |
Source: |
Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, v51 n1 p93-122 Mar 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Philosophy; Departments; Higher Education; Surveys; Change; Tenure; Financial Support; Grants; Interdisciplinary Approach; Foreign Countries
Abstract:
The academy is widely reported to be going through a period of transformation: not just changes to what is taught, but threats to tenure and internal funding, perhaps balanced by new possibilities for external funding and interdisciplinary projects. This article discusses a recently conducted survey of US and Canadian Philosophy departments, in an effort to understand one discipline's perspective on and reaction to these changes. The survey found that, for the majority of departments, Philosophy has largely not changed over the last decade in terms of shifts in subfields, tenure and tenure criteria, internal funding and external grant awards. However, a minority of departments are demonstrating potentially transformative possibilities, especially as related to interdisciplinarity.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-03-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Public Agencies; State Government; Financial Support; State Aid; Smoking; Health Promotion; Health Programs; Program Evaluation; Training; Role; Evaluators; Technical Writing; Reports; Information Utilization; Attitudes; Stakeholders; Accountability; Program Effectiveness; Test Construction; Scoring
Abstract:
Nearly all private, government and non-governmental organizations that receive government funding to run social or health promotion programs in the United States are required to conduct program evaluations and to report findings to the funding agency. Reports are usually due at the end of a funding cycle and they may or may not have an influence on the continuation of program funding. The final evaluation report (FER), as the end-of-funding-cycle report is often called, generally relates the intervention and evaluation results of the funding period and has a dual purpose. It is considered an element of accountability and should give the program and its stakeholders direction for the future. All too often though, this is not the case. Evaluators have voiced myriad concerns about the many issues related to reports and their usage. In their study of a random sample of American Evaluation Association members, Torres et al. (1997) found that evaluators are generally discontent about reporting and about the fact that their reports are often misused or not used at all. Evaluation reports could be a valuable instrument for moving projects forward if stakeholders and project staff would make good use of evaluation findings. The Tobacco Control Evaluation Center (TCEC) (2006) at the University of California at Davis developed scoring measures for final report writing for over 100 local tobacco control projects in California but found 2007 reports lacking in quality. In 2010, it conducted a training campaign in the hope that the projects themselves, the funding government agency and TCEC may make better use of the reports. The response to the training call was overwhelming, and comparing scores from 2007 and 2010, participating agencies made statistically significant improvements but non-participants did not. Results relating to the mode of training were inconclusive. The pre- and post-score comparison proved to be a valuable measuring tool, and the 1-day face-to-face training was a useful training mode. (Contains 1 table.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Palfreyman, David |
Source: |
Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher Education, v17 n1 p9-10 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Opinion Papers; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Foreign Countries; Financial Exigency; Financial Problems; Higher Education; Financial Support; Undergraduate Students; Colleges; Income; Economic Development; Educational Finance
Abstract:
The accountants Grant Thornton (GT) do a welcome and nice piece of pro bono work by analysing the annual accounts of the UK's 160 (sic) HEIs and compiling a report on "The Financial Health of the Higher Education Sector"--this year entitled "The calm before the storm"! GT duly note that, if the US Department of Education's "ratio-based methodology" were applied to the UK HEIs, 104 of them would "fare well" under this way of assessing "the financial condition" of universities and colleges, while a not insignificant thirty-four would require "careful monitoring" and a worrying twenty-two "would be barred from Federal funding programmes". However, GT warn of the gathering storm clouds: notably the uncertainty over the recruitment of Home/EU undergraduates as the higher fees kick in, the impact on overseas student numbers of the UK Border Agency's increasingly stringent policy on (not) awarding immigration visas, and the massive cost of eventually having to catch up with a long-term backlog of infrastructure maintenance and ageing buildings. Thus, GT sees UK HE as "entering a period of uncertainty" in which Government HE policy will have "potentially devastating consequences" and in which some HEIs "may find it difficult to survive as autonomous bodies".
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Evaluative |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
School Choice; Rural Areas; Rural Education; Foreign Countries; Rural Schools; Educational Policy; Public Policy; Case Studies; Financial Support; Federal Aid; Marketing; Parent Attitudes
Abstract:
Market principles now dominate the education and social policies of many Anglophone countries, including Australia, but articulate differentially within specific contexts. Existing historical legacies, local economic and social conditions, and geographical settings interact with federal and state funding and transport policies to shape the nature of regional education markets and the choices families make in a rural school market in Australia. Through two school case studies, this article explores the effects of policy shifts on parental choice and student movement within a regional Victorian community. Informed by policy sociology, the article views the policy as a dynamic, often "ad hoc" process with contradictory effects. It indicates how an ensemble of federal and state funding and conveyancing policies enable some schools to develop marketing practices that reconstruct the local education market to their advantage through the introduction of transport and flexi-boarding policies. It demonstrates that education markets are not confined to urban settings and that while choice is not a new phenomenon in this rural area, federal and state funding and transport policies have reconfigured local markets and intensified the market work undertaken by schools and parents with, in this instance, unequal effects on the provision of schooling in a rural region. (Contains 78 footnotes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Roberts, Peter |
Source: |
Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, v35 n1 p27-43 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Opinion Papers |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Postsecondary Education; Postmodernism; Competition; Commercialization; Computers; Neoliberalism; Performance; Research; Financial Support; Foreign Countries
Abstract:
Jean-Francois Lyotard's classic work, "The Postmodern Condition," was first published in 1979 and has been available in English translation since 1984 (Lyotard 1984). Intended as a "report on knowledge," "The Postmodern Condition" has gained a wide readership among critical policy analysts with an interest in universities and research. Lyotard identifies fundamental shifts in conceptions of the nature, function, and status of knowledge that would become clearly evident both within and beyond the confines of the academy. Lyotard did not frame his work in terms of the organizing themes of utopia or dystopia, but "The Postmodern Condition" lends itself readily to analysis from such a perspective. With so much having been written about Lyotard, and "The Postmodern Condition" in particular, it can be helpful to focus on a quite specific context as a means for making some broader theoretical observations. In this article, the author examines developments in tertiary education and research policy in New Zealand, paying particular attention to the Performance-Based Research Fund (PBRF) as an example of performativity, competition, and the commodification of knowledge in action. He argues that the trends evident in changes under the PBRF constitute a form of academic dystopia. The article begins with an overview of Lyotard's position on knowledge, competition, and research in a computerized, postmodern world. He then assesses the PBRF in the light of Lyotard's ideas. He comments on the limiting language of outputs, discusses links between information, interpretation, and the unknown, and considers the impact of research assessment regimes on intellectual life.
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Olson, Gary A. |
Source: |
Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, v35 n1 p44-50 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Opinion Papers |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Productivity; English Departments; Costs; Humanities; Federal Government; Cost Indexes; Citation Analysis; Funding Formulas; Research Needs; Research Opportunities; Research Administration; Financial Support; Agenda Setting; Experimenter Characteristics; Robustness (Statistics); Investment; Value Judgment; Statistical Bias; Intellectual Disciplines
Abstract:
Over the last decade, and in the context of the fiscal crisis in the nation in general and in higher education in particular, a debate has raged over the value of humanities research. Various commentators have argued that unlike nonhumanities disciplines, fields such as English studies and other humanistic disciplines bring very little into their universities. The federal government simply does not fund the National Endowment for the Humanities--the major federal funding agency for humanities research--at a level comparable to that of the National Science Foundation or the National Institutes for Health. This funding inequity in and of itself is an illustration of the society's value system vis-a'-vis the humanities. In this article, the author focuses on a report published at the end of 2011: "Literary Research: Costs and Impact," authored by Emory University English professor Mark Bauerlein for the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. The report presents the results of an empirical analysis of faculty productivity: Bauerlein examines the costs of research in four English departments and then juxtaposes those costs to the numbers of citations of works published by faculty in those departments. The author aims to show first how this is a critically flawed study because it is representative of many attacks on the humanities and especially English studies, and because it thus illustrates a set of common assumptions about educators' work as humanists. Then he discusses how educators might better respond to these types of misunderstandings of and attacks on their work. (Contains 4 notes.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Miksza, Peter |
Source: |
Arts Education Policy Review, v114 n1 p25-32 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-00-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Art Education; Advocacy; Educational Resources; Influences; Elementary Secondary Education; School Surveys; Principals; Regression (Statistics); Community Support; Educational Environment; Leadership; Financial Support; Time on Task; Art Teachers; Art Activities; Student Interests; Predictor Variables
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to investigate advocacy influences that may impact school arts programs using data from the 2009-10 National Center for Education Statistics elementary and secondary school surveys on arts education. Regression models were employed to assess the relative effectiveness of variables representing community support, administrators' support, having arts educators in leadership roles, and school climate more generally as predictors of principals' reports of the adequacy of funding, instructional time, and number of arts specialists for arts education. Additional models were examined to determine whether these effects would remain after controlling for minority status, poverty status, and school community type. Parent/community support, including the presence of arts specialists in school leadership roles and having an arts curriculum specialist/program coordinator, had the most pronounced effects on the reported adequacy of resources. Student interest in and demand for arts education, the inclusion of arts course grades in secondary students' GPA, and the number of arts events elementary school principals attended also showed significant effects. (Contains 5 tables.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
Author(s): |
Hamilton, Laura T. |
Source: |
American Sociological Review, v78 n1 p70-95 Feb 2013 |
|
Pub Date: |
2013-02-00 |
Pub Type(s): |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
Peer Reviewed: |
Yes |
|
|
|
Descriptors:
Academic Achievement; Grade Point Average; College Attendance; Student Attitudes; Paying for College; Parent Financial Contribution; Graduation Rate; Probability; Student Characteristics; Financial Support; College Students; Family Income; Socioeconomic Status; Educational Attainment; Family Structure; Racial Differences
Abstract:
Evidence shows that parental financial investments increase college attendance, but we know little about how these investments shape postsecondary achievement. Two theoretical frameworks suggest diametric conclusions. Some studies operate from a more-is-more perspective in which children use calculated parental allocations to make academic progress. In contrast, a "more-is-less" perspective, rooted in a different model of rational behavior, suggests that parental investments create a disincentive for student achievement. I adjudicate between these frameworks, using data from nationally representative postsecondary datasets to determine what effect financial parental investments have on student GPA and degree completion. The findings suggest seemingly contradictory processes. Parental aid decreases student GPA, but it increases the odds of graduating--net of explanatory variables and accounting for alternative funding. Rather than strategically using resources in accordance with parental goals, or maximizing on their ability to avoid academic work, students are satisficing: they meet the criteria for adequacy on multiple fronts, rather than optimizing their chances for a particular outcome. As a result, students with parental funding often perform well enough to stay in school but dial down their academic efforts. I conclude by highlighting the importance of life stage and institutional context for parental investment. (Contains 26 notes, 6 tables and 2 figures.)
Note:The following two links
are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software.
Show
Hide
Full Abstract
Related Items: Show Related Items
Full-Text Availability Options:
More Info:
Help |
Tutorial
Help Finding Full Text
|
More Info:
Help
Find in a Library
|
Publisher's website
|
|