Rectors and university-societal engagement: Representing the ‘reality’ of ‘their’ university
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, the past 10–15 years has seen universities experiencing increasing governmental reforms, including expectations for greater societal engagement. This places demands on the most senior university leaders to address and be seen to address these expectations. How do they situate themselves and negotiate their demanding role both inwardly and outwardly? We addressed this question in a case study of four rektors in four (of the eight) universities in Denmark. Using in-depth multi-mode data collection and analysis processes, we documented their lived experience negotiating the societal expectations of universities within the affordances and constraints of their roles in particular universities. Each was deeply committed to enhancing ‘their’ university’s societal engagement, externally representing the reality of ‘their’ university’s past, current and future visions of U-SE – against societal perception of the lack of such engagement. This involved outward, tête-à-tête, relationships with a range of societal actors, alongside downward, ‘leader-of-leaders’ distanced interaction throughout the institution. As the portal between the university and society, they were tracking, filtering, shaping the movement of knowledge between the two. The study contributes a richer conceptualisation of university leadership and university-societal engagement, alongside demonstrating the value of an analytic approach focused on examining individual and structural interactions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".