MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7062788469

Understanding Academic Prominence and Influence Through the Concept of Academic Charisma: The Voices of Canadian and Chinese Professors

2023· dissertation· en· W7062788469 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria) · 2023
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCharismaReputationContext (archaeology)Promotion (chess)BureaucracyVariety (cybernetics)Learning development
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Academic ranks or professorial appointments are considered the primary form of formal recognition in the academic profession, and the criteria for appointment and promotion are used to make suggestions for career development (Teichleret al., 2013). However, academic ranks alone are insufficient to explain the fact that some academics are able to gain prominence over colleagues, lead the development of an academic field, or exert influence beyond that entailed in their formal positions. I believe the concept of academic charisma developed by Clark (2006), based on Weber’s (1947) idea of charismatic authority, can shed light on the explanation of variations in academic reputation and influence. In the context of academia, charismatic authority takes on a special form, conceptualized in this research as academic charisma. This study’s primary aim is to better understand why the prominence and level of influence exercised by professors vary beyond what can be accounted for by differences in formal academic recognition, such as academic ranks and research productivity. The study seeks to explore whether the concept of charismatic authority can work alongside the other forms of authority Weber identified—namely, traditional and bureaucratic authority—in explaining the observed variances of academic reputation and influence. The study will contribute to the existing literature in its area of research by examining and illustrating how the concept of academic charisma can be used to capture the working of academic prominence and influence in a variety of contexts. Using a qualitative research framework, drawing as well on elements of comparative research to reveal contextual influences, this research focused on the experience of 22 professors working in the engineering discipline at four universities: specifically, a World-Class University (WCU) in Canada, a non-World-Class University (non-WCU) in Canada, a WCU in China, and a non-WCU in China. The study shows that the concept of academic charisma can work alongside traditional and bureaucratic authority to explain the working of academic prominence and influence. Participants believed that social capital significantly contributes to academic prominence and influence. As social capital is closely connected to charismatic authority (Weber, 1947), it seems reasonable to contend that promoting social capital can effectively encourage academic charisma. Comparisons between WCU and non-WCU professors interviewed show that prestigious university status contributes to personal prominence and influence by amplifying the social capital of WCU professors. Similarly, comparisons between interviewed professors working in the higher education systems of Canada and China show that, although the routinization of academic charisma provides insights into contexts determined variations- professors interviewed in Canada rely primarily on traditional authority to routinize their prominence and influence, while professors interviewed in China rely primarily on bureaucratic authority. The concept of academic charisma serves useful analytical purposes: it helps us understand the divergent paths of academic career development, as well as the strategies used by professors in establishing and maintaining their prominence and influence. Moreover, the concept of academic charisma can extend to the interpretation of the shaping and reshaping of institutions and entire systems of higher education, since these processes are very often affected by the influence—and sometimes the direct personal intervention—of prominent professors.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Incitatifs · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,994
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,300

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0040,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0170,010
Communication savante0,0080,004
Science ouverte0,0010,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0040,000

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 Opus0,060
Tête enseignante GPT0,312
Écart entre enseignants0,252 · 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
DomaineIncitatifs
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

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUVic’s Research and Learning Repository (University of Victoria)Même sujetAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingTravaux en français237 207