The Empirical Research of Three Types of University Power Structure Difference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
University governance refers to structure and process of internal and external stakeholders making decisions on important matters,whose core is the decision-making power structure or the allocation model of the decision-making power among different stakeholders.The organizational characteristics of universities decide that they have academic power and administrative power.Externally,universities are under the influence of political power and stakeholders' power,but the students 'power derives from the power of the internal group.University decision-making can be categorized at three levels:the strategic level,the administrative level and the operational level.The first includes the decision-making of organizational governance;the second includes the financial and HR decisionmaking;the third includes the decision-making concerning teaching personnel,curriculum and student services.This research gives a questionnaire survey of research universities,teaching-research universities and teaching universities,and adopts the method of analytic hierarchy to assess the weights of the five powers in six types of decision-making because these weights can reflect the organizational power structures while the organizational power structures can reflect the governance structures.The findings of this research indicate that the leading power in research universities is the academic power, that in teaching-research universities is the administrative power,and that in teaching universities is the political power.The paper finally analyzes the governance structures of the three types of universities with the social capital theory,the honor-administrative regulation theory and the self-organizing system theory.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".