Change in Higher Education and a Core Value: Academic Freedom
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Institutes of higher education face many profound challenges and problems, which create a strong pressure for change in higher education. In higher education administration, planning, implementing and evaluating change or dealing with unplanned changes in an effective way, has been accepted as a crucial responsibility. Regardless of whether they are planned or unplanned, current changes have some negative side effects on core university values. Academic freedom is one of these values and it can be easily compromised. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to assess current changes in higher education institutions in an effort to determine their effects to academic freedom. Method. A literature review of the problem is presented along with several arguments which examine the changes as they relate to change theories. Findings. Commercialization, which may be seen as the most important trend in higher education, has huge potential to undermine academic freedom. Religious or political intolerance, diversity, multiculturalism and national security issues may also create threats to academic freedom. Integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) into education are some other changes that may lead to problems with academic freedom. Each organizational change theory has some power to enlighten various facets of the academic freedom issue and we can benefit from multiple theories to understand, protect and develop academic freedom. Practical Implications. This article brings this issue to the forefront in an effort to engage university administrators and educators. Social Implications. In addition to the environmental pressure for change, the loosely coupled structure of universities is also a problem when protecting some core values such as academic freedom. These basic values of university culture may be lost, department by department, college by college, or institution by institution without people in these institutions noticing it. Academicians should always be aware and have an understanding of this issue. It is hoped that this paper will contribute to the development and/or the persistence of this awareness and understanding.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it