MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2599004596

Foreign Faculty Hiring Program - FFHP: The Brain-Gain Drive of the Higher Education Commission in Pakistan

2013· dissertation· en· W2599004596 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
A. Mughul

Notice bibliographique

RevueTrepo - Institutional Repository of Tampere University · 2013
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHigher Education Governance and Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesDivision of Human Resource DevelopmentGhulam Ishaq Khan Institute of Engineering Sciences and TechnologyDepartment for International DevelopmentUniversity Grants CommissionMinistry of Education, IndiaEuropean CommissionTimes Higher EducationUniversitetet i OsloTampereen YliopistoInternational Development Research Centre
Mots-clésCommissionBrain drainPolitical scienceMedical educationPsychologyBusinessMedicineLabour economicsEconomicsLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

This thesis explores the strengths and weaknesses of the Foreign Faculty Hiring Program (FFHP) in Pakistan from the ‘participant’s perspective’. The purpose of this research was to disclose the prime interest of foreign faculty members in joining the FFHP in order to gain a deeper knowledge and understanding about their experiences during their current tenure. In addition, the aim was to determine how important role FFHP has played so far in reversing the brain-drain into brain-gain. Apart from this, the argument of this study was to reveal the fact that foreign faculty hiring does not appear to represent something unique. To support this argument the researcher presented a contextual framework based on Indian Muslim education system during the British rule in the 19th century India and described the pre-partition situation of higher education. Similarly, the post-partition history of higher education in Pakistan was also discussed to highlight the efforts of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in Pakistan since 2000. The researcher has described the reform and expansion movement of HEC especially in the era of globalization and internationalization. To investigate issues related to this work, the researcher adopted a qualitative case study methodology incorporating some quantitative techniques. The data collection methods used in this research included documents (such as: historical texts, publications, government documents, official reports, online papers, etc.) and web self-administered questionnaire.\n\nThe Web-SAQ, consisting of 30 questions, was sent to foreign faculty members who joined the FFHP since 2004 onwards. From a total of 145 recipients, 43 male and female returned the online-questionnaire making an average of 30% response rate. The mean age of the participants, who represented 12 different countries and 5 continents of the world, was 53.20 years. The researcher examined and analyzed the data utilizing the “mixed methods approach” by using two different techniques: (1) basic descriptive statistics through reporting of percentages and mean responses of foreign faculty via SurveyGizmo, and (2) qualitative content analysis of open-ended responses. Data from this research confirms that almost 100% of respondents wanted to contribute in reversing the brain-drain and their overall satisfaction level towards FFHP was high. However, findings also indicate that foreign faculty members have experienced a variety of challenges and problems in terms of university politics and bureaucratic regulatory structure and as such have a great deal to cope with from an emotional point of view. Finally, the study reveals that foreign faculty members are not highly valued in Pakistan by their local counterparts. To address all such issues, the researcher has made some recommendations and well grounded suggestions which may be of interest to general readers as well as Higher Education researchers for further study.\n\nKey words: Higher Education, Foreign Faculty, Internationalization, Brain-Drain/Gain

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)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,724
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,994

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
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 Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,323
Écart entre enseignants0,305 · 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.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
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
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTrepo - Institutional Repository of Tampere UniversityMême sujetHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207