Stakeholders' perceptions of their influence and that of others on the decision making processes in Ontario's CAATs and public universities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to ascertain stakeholders' perceptions of their influence and that of others on the decision making processes in Ontario's public postsecondary education institutions. The objectives are to contribute to the understanding of college and university decision making processes; to highlight the role of stakeholders in the processes of defining institutional policy and direction; to illuminate how substantive issues are managed and resolved in Ontario's publicly funded colleges and universities; and to add to the small amount of available literature addressing this area in the province of Ontario and in Canada. The literature reveals that influencing the decision making processes in postsecondary education institutions is predominantly a triangular exercise involving administrations, boards of governors, and faculty. However, in Ontario, according to the evidence produced in this study, influence and power overwhelmingly reside with senior administrations, academic senates, and faculty members in general. Faculty, though not an identified stakeholder in this study, were frequently referred to by respondents as being powerful influencers. Based on the findings of this study, a more comprehensive study is recommended using a wider cross section of the institutions' community, and multiple methods of inquiry. Four public postsecondary education institutions in the province of Ontario were selected for case studies. Key individuals from five stakeholder groups in each institution were interviewed. These groups were the governing board, senior administration, academic senate, academic/college council, student association, and faculty association/union. In addition, an official from the Ontario Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities was interviewed. The data were interpreted qualitatively within the theoretical frames of influence theory, stakeholder influence, and institutional decision making.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".