Rethinking Higher Education: Participation, Research & Differentiation by George Fallis (review)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Rethinking Higher Education: Participation, Research & Differentiationby George Fallis Roger Pizarro Milian George Fallis. Rethinking Higher Education: Participation, Research & Differentiation. McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2013. 250pp. Paperback: $39.95. ISBN: 9781553393337. Over the last five years, the higher education policy community in Ontario, Canada has been grappling over what the future of their public higher education system should look like. The directive from the top has been very clear: the provincial government can no longer afford to increase expenditures, meaning that future improvements to the public higher education system will have to come through qualitative changes in how ‘things are done’ at the institutional level. Within such context, ‘institutional differentiation’ has been embraced by the provincial government as a primary tool through which to improve the system. The provincial government has ordered each institution to carefully identify which particular ‘areas’ they possess considerable strength in. It has done so in order to kick-start a process through which it will encourage such institutions to further specialize in such areas of strength, while at the same time, driving them to move away from other areas in which they are currently providing largely ‘average’ service. Through this process, the provincial government expects to improve the overall quality of the system. This ongoing process of differentiation has occurred under conditions whereby each individual public institution has been granted a substantial degree of autonomy by the provincial government. Public institutions have been allowed to negotiate their futures through strategic mandate agreements (SMA) which outline the directions in which they will develop, whether it be disciplinary specialization, greater community engagement, increased research intensiveness, or a host of other important factors. Given the decentralized nature of this process, it remains somewhat unclear what Ontario higher education will look like in coming decades. In light of such events, several commentators (Clark, Moran, Skolnick, & Trick, 2009; Clark, Van Loon, & Trick, 2011; Weingarten & Deller, 2010) have stepped forward to provide distinct visions of how the Ontario higher education system should develop in order for it to best meet the needs of the province. George Fallis’ book, Rethinking Higher Education, follows in this tradition, constituting one of the most sophisticated attempts to inform how Ontario higher education should be transformed in coming decades. Central to Fallis’ understanding of Ontario higher education is the point that, if higher education institutions (HEIs) are left to their own devices, there will be a strong tendency towards ‘isomorphism’ within the higher education system. Drawing inspiration from new institutionalist (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) theorizing within the sociology of organizations, Fallis indicates that HEIs are becoming increasingly similar to each other over time. This process is driven by three distinct mechanisms labelled by organizational sociologists (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) as normative, mimetic, and coercive. For example, Fallis suggests that HEIs tend to “model themselves on similar organizations that they perceive to be more legitimate and successful” (p. 87). Within the case of Ontario higher education, this entails mimicking elite research-intensive universities (mimetic isomorphism), including Canadian institutions such as Toronto or UBC, or international counterparts like the “Berkleys, Harvards, and Oxfords” (Fallis, 2013, p. 87). Universities are also staffed by professionals who espouse similar world views, and thus, come to structure their organizational surroundings in very similar ways ( normative isomorphism). Existing financial incentive structures ( coercive isomorphism)have also not facilitated the natural development of differentiation within the system, given that they have placed public institutions under uniform pressures, rewarding them for performing many of the same tasks (i.e., teaching large groups of students across many of the same disciplines). Based on such an understanding of organizational behaviour within higher education, Fallis argues that the differentiation of Ontario higher education must be driven primarily and decisively by the provincial government. To him, it is “clear that universities will not become significantly more differentiated, operating as they have been, making institutional decisions as they have been, within the current government framework. Change will require a changed framework, a more intrusive government” (Fallis, 2013, p. 88). According to Fallis, HEIs cannot be given too much latitude in deciding their own futures given that, by default, they will select pathways that are remarkably similar. Beyond emphasizing the...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».