Between the Managerial and the Democratic University: Governance Structure and Academic Freedom as Sites of Political Struggle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article we argue that the university cannot fully contribute to democratic life without being both an institution whose governance is collegial and based on principles of equality, equity, inclusion, transparency, and accountability, and a vector of critical thinking closely linked to academic freedom. Based on this understanding of the ‘democratic university,’ we seek to highlight some of the key tensions between the ‘managerial university’ and the democratic university, as reflected in institutional structures, regulations, legal frameworks, and principles. In order to achieve this objective, we identify two sites of political struggles from which it is possible to examine the interaction between a managerial and a democratic conception and practice of the university. The first of these sites is the bicameral governing structure, membership, rules, and regulations of the University of Ottawa. The second site is academic freedom in Canada, which we will discuss by comparing the Canadian Association of University Teachers’ (CAUT) Statement on Academic Freedom (CAUT, 2011) with the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada’s (AUCC) Statement on Academic Freedom (AUCC, 2011). By stressing the necessary link and positive relationship between democratic governance and academic freedom, the article offers a normative evaluation of the impact the managerial reengineering of Canadian universities has had on the possibility and practice of a more democratic university.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.136 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".