The Mythic Horizon of the University: Problems and Possibilities for Value‐Based Leadership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is presently a growing malaise in the university where more and more faculty are feeling disillusioned and increasingly disconnected from the institution. At one level the malaise is rooted in the university's financial crisis. Repeated budget cuts, downsizing, and restructuring exercises are leaving faculty tired, cynical, and fragmented. This paper examines how the dominant mythos of the university further exacerbates the malaise. It first considers why value‐based leadership must focus on the myths we work by if an organization is to become truly visionary. It then suggests that the dominant utilitarian‐instrumental myth contributes to the malaise by undermining the university's communal, educational, and ethical integrity. The final section proposes concrete avenues that could lead beyond the myth. Résumé L'université vit présentement un malaise grandissant. De plus en plus de professeurs(es) se sentent désillu‐sionnés et en marge de leur institution. Ce malaise est en parti relié à la crise financière des universités. Les coupures budgétaires à répétition ainsi que les exercices de restructuration qui n'en finissent plus engendrent l'épuisement, le cynisme, et l'éparpillement du travail. Le texte qui suit pose un regard sur le mythe utilitaire‐instrumental qui définit les valeurs de l'université et examine comment le malaise est profondément exacerbé par ce mythe. En premier lieu, le texte explique pourquoi le leadership doit porter une attention particulière aux mythes qui foment les valeurs d'une organisation aspirant à devenir vraiment visionnaire. En second lieu, le texte suggère que le mythe utilitaire‐instrumental con‐tibue au malaise en minant l'intégrité communautaire, éducationnelle et morale de l'université. La derniére section propose des pistes qui pourraient nous mener au delá du mythe.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.094 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".