机构分析的伦理:家长制与加拿大 15 岁以下大学教师的专有使用权

Taylor F. Ellis, Sandra Kouritzin, Satoru Nakagawa, Jason Edgerton, Merli Tamtik
{"title":"机构分析的伦理:家长制与加拿大 15 岁以下大学教师的专有使用权","authors":"Taylor F. Ellis, Sandra Kouritzin, Satoru Nakagawa, Jason Edgerton, Merli Tamtik","doi":"10.33423/jlae.v21i1.6912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Through an investigation of Canadian U15 faculty experiences with workload a common concern emerged regarding expansions to the bureaucratic and managerial functions of the university that negatively affect faculty members. These functions overlap with concerns about research ethics when Offices of Institutional Analysis (OIA) evaluate research projects, often justified as limiting faculty and student survey fatigue. Yet, secondary reviews by OIAs frequently manifest as additional ethical reviews, seeming to arise from a notion of paternalism whereby universities treat constituencies as property to be managed and controlled. Students, staff and faculty are constructed as being protected by this review process, framed as the University’s moral imperative. These bureaucratic add-ons negatively affect faculty, adding stress to initiating already complex research programs, thereby alienating research faculty. OIAs are normally established and governed by administrators and non-academic staff; they are, therefore, immune from direct faculty input and oversight. We raise concerns about institutional isomorphism, suggesting that discussion and possibly intervention are needed to prevent universal adoption of these processes throughout higher education.","PeriodicalId":337569,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics","volume":"13 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Ethics of Institutional Analysis: Paternalism and Proprietary Access to Canadian U15 Faculty\",\"authors\":\"Taylor F. Ellis, Sandra Kouritzin, Satoru Nakagawa, Jason Edgerton, Merli Tamtik\",\"doi\":\"10.33423/jlae.v21i1.6912\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Through an investigation of Canadian U15 faculty experiences with workload a common concern emerged regarding expansions to the bureaucratic and managerial functions of the university that negatively affect faculty members. These functions overlap with concerns about research ethics when Offices of Institutional Analysis (OIA) evaluate research projects, often justified as limiting faculty and student survey fatigue. Yet, secondary reviews by OIAs frequently manifest as additional ethical reviews, seeming to arise from a notion of paternalism whereby universities treat constituencies as property to be managed and controlled. Students, staff and faculty are constructed as being protected by this review process, framed as the University’s moral imperative. These bureaucratic add-ons negatively affect faculty, adding stress to initiating already complex research programs, thereby alienating research faculty. OIAs are normally established and governed by administrators and non-academic staff; they are, therefore, immune from direct faculty input and oversight. We raise concerns about institutional isomorphism, suggesting that discussion and possibly intervention are needed to prevent universal adoption of these processes throughout higher education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":337569,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics\",\"volume\":\"13 21\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v21i1.6912\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Leadership, Accountability and Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33423/jlae.v21i1.6912","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过对加拿大十五大教职员工工作量经历的调查,发现了一个共同的问题,即大学官僚和管理职能的扩大对教职员工产生了负面影响。当机构分析办公室(OIA)评估研究项目时,这些职能与对研究伦理的担忧相重叠,其理由通常是限制教师和学生的调查疲劳。然而,机构分析办公室的二次审查经常表现为额外的伦理审查,这似乎源于一种家长式的观念,即大学将服务对象视为需要管理和控制的财产。学生、教职员工和教师被构建为受到这种审查程序的保护,并被视为大学的道德义务。这些官僚主义的附加条件对教职员工产生了负面影响,给本已复杂的研究项目的启动增加了压力,从而疏远了研究型教职员工。内审办公室通常由行政人员和非学术人员建立和管理,因此无法直接听取教师的意见和监督。我们对机构同构现象表示担忧,并建议需要进行讨论和可能的干预,以防止这些程序在整个高等教育中被普遍采用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Ethics of Institutional Analysis: Paternalism and Proprietary Access to Canadian U15 Faculty
Through an investigation of Canadian U15 faculty experiences with workload a common concern emerged regarding expansions to the bureaucratic and managerial functions of the university that negatively affect faculty members. These functions overlap with concerns about research ethics when Offices of Institutional Analysis (OIA) evaluate research projects, often justified as limiting faculty and student survey fatigue. Yet, secondary reviews by OIAs frequently manifest as additional ethical reviews, seeming to arise from a notion of paternalism whereby universities treat constituencies as property to be managed and controlled. Students, staff and faculty are constructed as being protected by this review process, framed as the University’s moral imperative. These bureaucratic add-ons negatively affect faculty, adding stress to initiating already complex research programs, thereby alienating research faculty. OIAs are normally established and governed by administrators and non-academic staff; they are, therefore, immune from direct faculty input and oversight. We raise concerns about institutional isomorphism, suggesting that discussion and possibly intervention are needed to prevent universal adoption of these processes throughout higher education.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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