与影响议程共存--人文学科学者作为研究人员和博士生导师谈判和抵制影响议程

IF 1.8 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Signe Skov, Søren Smedegaard Bengtsen
{"title":"与影响议程共存--人文学科学者作为研究人员和博士生导师谈判和抵制影响议程","authors":"Signe Skov, Søren Smedegaard Bengtsen","doi":"10.1108/sgpe-02-2023-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>In Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":42038,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","volume":"126 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Living with the impact agenda – humanities academics negotiating and resisting the impact agenda as researchers and doctoral supervisors\",\"authors\":\"Signe Skov, Søren Smedegaard Bengtsen\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/sgpe-02-2023-0016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3>Purpose</h3>\\n<p>In Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\\n<p>The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Findings</h3>\\n<p>The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\\n<p>This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\",\"PeriodicalId\":42038,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education\",\"volume\":\"126 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-02-2023-0016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/sgpe-02-2023-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的在丹麦,几十年来,人文科学研究和博士生教育如何为社会做出贡献一直是政治关注的焦点。在此背景下,影响力的概念已成为学术语言的核心部分,通常与新自由主义意识形态产生的使用、效果和产出等术语联系在一起。本文旨在探讨在这个后流行时代,人文学科学者作为经验丰富的研究人员和教育下一代研究人员的博士生导师,是如何与影响力议程共存的。具体来说,作者感兴趣的是导师与研究人员之间的关系,即导师作为研究人员如何驾驭影响力议程,以及他们告诉博士生也要这样做之间的关系。作者通过对人文学科研究人员和人文学科博士生导师进行一系列定性访谈,研究了人文学科学者是如何适应影响力议程的,访谈内容包括他们是如何面对对影响力的期望的,以及这种期望是如何融入他们所在的大学和院系的。在他们自己的研究空间内,导师们以最低限度的服从、拒绝或辞职等方式对影响议程进行抵制,而在督导空间内,影响议程被重新定义,以体现其他理解。督导希望保护他们的学生免受这一议程的影响,尤其是考虑到由于研究人员职业发展的可能性有限,他们中的很多人都不会留在学术界。此外,本文还从两个方面揭示了对影响议程的新理解,即影响议程具有关系性。其一是通过大学(或学术界)与社会(或国家与市场)之间的地位之争、权力关系的重塑;其二是学术界自身的一种现象,包括机构背景下导师与博士生之间的关系。对于关注影响力的学者来说,这项研究正在绘制和追踪影响力的各种不同含义和变化。在当前的后流行病时代,人们对研究和博士教育抱有多方面的期望,因此有必要更多地了解这些期望是如何影响那些被期望对其做出承诺的人的,以及他们是如何应对这些期望的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Living with the impact agenda – humanities academics negotiating and resisting the impact agenda as researchers and doctoral supervisors

Purpose

In Denmark, there has been, over decades, an intensified political focus on how humanities research and doctoral education contribute to society. In this vein, the notion of impact has become a central part of the academic language, often associated with terms like use, effects and outputs, stemming from neoliberal ideologies. The purpose of this paper is to explore how humanities academics are living with the impact agenda, as both experienced researchers and as doctoral supervisors educating the next generation of researchers in this post-pandemic era. Specifically, the authors are interested in the supervisor-researcher relationship, that is, the relationship between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda as researchers and then the way they tell their doctoral students to do likewise.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors have studied how the impact agenda is accommodated by humanities academics through a series of qualitative interviews with humanities researchers and humanities PhD supervisors, encompassing questions of how they are living with the expectation of impact and how it is embedded in their university and departmental context.

Findings

The study shows that there is no link between how the supervisors navigate the impact agenda in relation to their own research work and then the way they tell their doctoral students to approach it. Within the space of their own research, the supervisors engage in resistance practices towards the impact agenda in terms of minimal compliance, rejection or resignation, whereas in the space of supervision, the impact agenda is re-inscribed to embody other understandings. The supervisors want to protect their students from this agenda, especially in the knowledge that many of them are not going to stay in academia due to limited researcher career possibilities. Furthermore, the paper reveals a new understanding of the impact agenda as having a relational quality, and in two ways. One is through a positional struggle, the reshaping of power relations, between universities (or academics) and society (or the state and the market); the other is as a phenomenon very much lived among academics themselves, including between supervisors and their doctoral students within the institutional context.

Originality/value

This study opens up the impact agenda, showing what it means to be a humanities academic living with the effects of the impact agenda and trying to navigate this. The study is mapping and tracking out the many different meanings and variations of impact in all its volatility for academics concerned about it. In current, post-pandemic times, when manifold expectations are directed towards research and doctoral education, it is important to know more about how these expectations affect and are dealt with by those who are expected to commit to them.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education
Studies in Graduate and Postdoctoral Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
17
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信