The gravity of the status quo: the response of research governance to system-level shocks.

IF 4.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Higher Education Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1007/s10734-024-01309-8
G E Derrick, J Robson, A Oancea, X Xu, M R Stan
{"title":"The gravity of the status quo: the response of research governance to system-level shocks.","authors":"G E Derrick, J Robson, A Oancea, X Xu, M R Stan","doi":"10.1007/s10734-024-01309-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Using interviews with global research stakeholders, this research explores how stakeholders within research-system-level research governance organisations conceptualised, responded to, and reasoned the realities of disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and how they positioned procedural changes to their governance mechanisms. Given that system shocks present critical challenges to established practices and embedded institutional norms, we use neo-institutional theory as a heuristic device to examine the relationship between the exogenous shock of COVID-19, trajectories of institutional norms and cultures, and the role institutional stakeholders play in managing responses. Across all the research systems studied (with particular focus on the UK, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Hong Kong SAR, and Italy), participants were concerned about how the shock provided by COVID-19 had both revealed and entrenched deep inequalities inherent in their research systems and globally. There were tensions in how participants centralised the concept of the 'normal' as part of a process of recovery permeating all system-level responses, often with a sense of <i>wistful affection</i> for pre-pandemic structures, modes of operation, and embedded norms. Aspirations for short-, medium,- and long-term plans for research change echoed a dependency on returning to 'normal' and an inevitable pull of the norms of the pre-pandemic status quo. Despite the desire to 'build back better', the pull of institutional norms and the gravitational force of the status quo appeared too strong for meaningful change in recovering research systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":48383,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education","volume":"90 1","pages":"89-108"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12317853/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01309-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Using interviews with global research stakeholders, this research explores how stakeholders within research-system-level research governance organisations conceptualised, responded to, and reasoned the realities of disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and how they positioned procedural changes to their governance mechanisms. Given that system shocks present critical challenges to established practices and embedded institutional norms, we use neo-institutional theory as a heuristic device to examine the relationship between the exogenous shock of COVID-19, trajectories of institutional norms and cultures, and the role institutional stakeholders play in managing responses. Across all the research systems studied (with particular focus on the UK, Australia, Norway, New Zealand, Hong Kong SAR, and Italy), participants were concerned about how the shock provided by COVID-19 had both revealed and entrenched deep inequalities inherent in their research systems and globally. There were tensions in how participants centralised the concept of the 'normal' as part of a process of recovery permeating all system-level responses, often with a sense of wistful affection for pre-pandemic structures, modes of operation, and embedded norms. Aspirations for short-, medium,- and long-term plans for research change echoed a dependency on returning to 'normal' and an inevitable pull of the norms of the pre-pandemic status quo. Despite the desire to 'build back better', the pull of institutional norms and the gravitational force of the status quo appeared too strong for meaningful change in recovering research systems.

现状的严重性:研究治理对系统级冲击的反应。
通过对全球研究利益相关者的访谈,本研究探讨了研究系统级研究治理组织中的利益相关者如何概念化、应对和推理COVID-19大流行造成的破坏现实,以及他们如何定位治理机制的程序性变化。鉴于制度冲击对既有实践和根深蒂固的制度规范构成了严峻挑战,我们将新制度理论作为启发式工具,研究COVID-19外源冲击、制度规范和文化轨迹以及制度利益相关者在管理应对措施中发挥的作用之间的关系。在所研究的所有研究系统中(特别关注英国、澳大利亚、挪威、新西兰、香港特别行政区和意大利),参与者都担心COVID-19带来的冲击如何揭示并巩固了其研究系统和全球固有的深度不平等。与会者如何将“正常”概念集中起来,将其作为贯穿所有系统级反应的恢复过程的一部分,往往对大流行前的结构、运作模式和固有规范抱有一种渴望之情,这方面存在紧张关系。对研究变化的短期、中期和长期计划的期望反映了对回归“正常”的依赖,以及对大流行前现状规范的不可避免的拉动。尽管有“重建得更好”的愿望,但是制度规范的拉力和现状的引力似乎太强大了,无法在恢复的研究系统中进行有意义的改变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Higher Education
Higher Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
12.00%
发文量
160
期刊介绍: Higher Education is recognised as the leading international journal of Higher Education studies, publishing twelve separate numbers each year. Since its establishment in 1972, Higher Education has followed educational developments throughout the world in universities, polytechnics, colleges, and vocational and education institutions. It has actively endeavoured to report on developments in both public and private Higher Education sectors. Contributions have come from leading scholars from different countries while articles have tackled the problems of teachers as well as students, and of planners as well as administrators. While each Higher Education system has its own distinctive features, common problems and issues are shared internationally by researchers, teachers and institutional leaders. Higher Education offers opportunities for exchange of research results, experience and insights, and provides a forum for ongoing discussion between experts. Higher Education publishes authoritative overview articles, comparative studies and analyses of particular problems or issues. All contributions are peer reviewed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信