Strategic planning in higher education: lessons learned from the leaders at one Canadian Institution
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
AbstractHigher education institutions around the world play a critical role in shaping our very way of life, building the intellectual capacity, knowledge utilization, scientific and technological skills that nations need to strive in today's highly competitive and interconnected global economy. Most of these institutions rely on strategic planning at their primary management tool to drive targeted change across their campuses in areas such as policy development, teaching and learning, student success, instructional resources, faculty professional development, and even facility improvements. And yet, many of them continue to report how it remains a major challenge to employ this important planning approach to its full potential. The purpose of this study was to conduct an in-depth qualitative examination of the views of the strategic planning leaders at one Canadian College for further insight into how these institutions could make better use of the process to help them survive, and even thrive in this context, to the benefit of not only their own constituents, but also the whole of society. This study analyzed the leaders' views in comparison to the existing strategic planning models, the prevalent challenges with strategic planning in higher education, and relevant theoretical frameworks on leadership to explore new insights on this issue. The study findings led to a series of practical, evidence-based lessons learned on where these institutions should focus their efforts to optimize their use of strategic planning. Key insights include that the institutions should start by ensuring that the entire community is on the same page in terms of not only its strategic vision and targeted priorities, but also its chosen strategic planning model. A structured, yet collaborative approach should be employed, with a focus on inclusive, equitable, transparent and accountable practices to engage everyone, especially the front-line faculty members, in the process. Furthermore, those who lead the strategic planning process should be highly committed to the strategic vision, well equipped to facilitate the process, and ensure that the process remains highly responsive to the volatile planning environments often encountered by these institutions.
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.
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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
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 découle