MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2300191588 · doi:10.14288/1.0089760

Social responsibility in higher education : conducting a social audit of a community college

2009· article· en· W2300191588 sur OpenAlexaff
J Holden

Notice bibliographique

RevuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueService-Learning and Community Engagement
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSocial responsibilityPublic relationsAuditHigher educationSociologyPolitical scienceBusinessAccountingLaw

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Social and ethical accounting, auditing and reporting (SEAAR) is a process with a range of tools and techniques that enables an organization to measure, account for, understand, report on and improve its social performance over time. Before 1993, British Columbia's post secondary education institutions implemented public policy and operated with a level of autonomy that enabled them to meet the needs of their students, employees and distinct communities. After 1993, public policy aimed at increased efficiency, effectiveness and accountability centralized major aspects of human resource and labour relations policy in British Columbia's public sector. This thesis describes the process, the results and the implications of conducting a social audit to assess the social performance of one particular community college. During the years 1991 - 2000, the College grew; diligently balanced its budgets through significant entrepreneurial efforts and employees remained committed to their students and the purpose of the College. However, as entrepreneurial efforts increased, it was apparent that the increased productivity had stretched the capacity of employees to deliver services and the consequences were evident. The use of sick leave increased with a concomitant increase in the incidence of short and long-term disability leaves. More employees reported feeling stressed and expressed less satisfaction about their work at the College. Social auditing is about accountability. Its stakeholder process complements traditional strategic planning processes. Within the context of a public sector organization, a process of social auditing, previously used in the private sector, was adapted to evaluate a broad range of organizational issues related to human resource policies and managerial practices. The College had a foundation of human resource policies, practices and programs that had achieved some of their purposes over time, and the social audit clearly identified where improvements where required. Key findings included the need to attend to workload and work design issues that were creating stress, the need to refocus performance evaluation, professional development and to enhance programs that recognized the contribution of employees. Training, particularly in the area of technological skills was recognized as critical for ensuring that employees were prepared for workplace changes. In particular, the social audit provided feedback on communication processes and identified improvements necessary to enhance open and transparent decision-making. Health and wellness programs were recognized as key to restoring balance to employees' work lives and reducing stress. A number of recommendations from the social audit were integrated into the College's Strategic Plan 2000 - 2003, and funds were allocated during the College's 2000 - 2001 budget process. In June 2000, the Board of Governors allocated additional funding to manage issues related to workload and stress that arose from the strategic plan and the social audit. Through a reflective process, the research enabled a human resource practitioner to develop and implement a process of social auditing, examine and understand the effects of centralized public policy on human resource management and labour relations policy in British Columbia's public sector and make recommendations for improvement to human resource policy in one of British Columbia's community colleges.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,805
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,072
Tête enseignante GPT0,287
Écart entre enseignants0,215 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2009
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Même sujetService-Learning and Community EngagementTravaux en français237 207