合议之谜:美国高等教育中的合议框架和制度逻辑

IF 3.6 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Ryoko Yamamoto
{"title":"合议之谜:美国高等教育中的合议框架和制度逻辑","authors":"Ryoko Yamamoto","doi":"10.1007/s10734-024-01290-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The principle of collegiality is one of the philosophical backbones of academic tradition. However, in the USA, institutional policies that aim to enforce collegiality have met strong opposition. This paper examines the framings of collegiality in American higher education and underlying institutional logics through qualitative content analysis of the <i>Chronicle of Higher Education</i> articles published between 2013 and 2022. The analysis identified six collegiality frames: <i>Communal Ties</i>, <i>Collective Responsibilities</i>, <i>Likability/Interpersonal Skills</i>, <i>Cultural Fit</i>, <i>Willingness to Serve</i>, and <i>Coerced Conformity</i>. Most typically, collegiality is portrayed as a characteristic of the faculty community marked by collaborative interactions. The framing of collegiality as communal ties is often accompanied by a “narrative of loss” (Kligyte &amp; Barrie, 2014). Career advice articles targeting academic job seekers and faculty review candidates frame collegiality as a desirable individual quality and an implicit yet crucial criterion in peer evaluation. In contrast, articles discussing institutional policies and employment disputes offer a more critical framing, presenting a view of collegiality as an euphemism for coerced conformity and an instrument for managerial control. This paper contends that the divergent collegiality framings reflect the interplay of competing institutional logics and logic casting within the higher education landscape.</p>","PeriodicalId":48383,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education","volume":"265 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The enigma of collegiality: collegiality frames and institutional logics in US higher education\",\"authors\":\"Ryoko Yamamoto\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10734-024-01290-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The principle of collegiality is one of the philosophical backbones of academic tradition. However, in the USA, institutional policies that aim to enforce collegiality have met strong opposition. This paper examines the framings of collegiality in American higher education and underlying institutional logics through qualitative content analysis of the <i>Chronicle of Higher Education</i> articles published between 2013 and 2022. The analysis identified six collegiality frames: <i>Communal Ties</i>, <i>Collective Responsibilities</i>, <i>Likability/Interpersonal Skills</i>, <i>Cultural Fit</i>, <i>Willingness to Serve</i>, and <i>Coerced Conformity</i>. Most typically, collegiality is portrayed as a characteristic of the faculty community marked by collaborative interactions. The framing of collegiality as communal ties is often accompanied by a “narrative of loss” (Kligyte &amp; Barrie, 2014). Career advice articles targeting academic job seekers and faculty review candidates frame collegiality as a desirable individual quality and an implicit yet crucial criterion in peer evaluation. In contrast, articles discussing institutional policies and employment disputes offer a more critical framing, presenting a view of collegiality as an euphemism for coerced conformity and an instrument for managerial control. This paper contends that the divergent collegiality framings reflect the interplay of competing institutional logics and logic casting within the higher education landscape.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48383,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Higher Education\",\"volume\":\"265 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01290-2\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-024-01290-2","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

合议原则是学术传统的哲学基石之一。然而,在美国,旨在推行合议制的机构政策却遭到了强烈反对。本文通过对《高等教育纪事报》在 2013 年至 2022 年间发表的文章进行定性内容分析,研究了美国高等教育中的合议制框架及其背后的制度逻辑。分析确定了六种合议框架:社区纽带、集体责任、亲和力/人际交往技巧、文化契合、服务意愿和强迫服从。最典型的是,同事关系被描述为以合作互动为标志的教师群体特征。将同事关系描述为社区纽带往往伴随着 "失落叙事"(Kligyte & Barrie, 2014)。针对学术求职者和教师评审候选人的职业建议文章将合群性定格为一种理想的个人品质,以及同行评价中隐含但至关重要的标准。与此相反,讨论机构政策和就业纠纷的文章则提出了更具批判性的观点,将合议精神视为强迫服从的委婉说法和管理控制的工具。本文认为,不同的合议框架反映了高等教育中相互竞争的机构逻辑和逻辑铸造的相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The enigma of collegiality: collegiality frames and institutional logics in US higher education

The principle of collegiality is one of the philosophical backbones of academic tradition. However, in the USA, institutional policies that aim to enforce collegiality have met strong opposition. This paper examines the framings of collegiality in American higher education and underlying institutional logics through qualitative content analysis of the Chronicle of Higher Education articles published between 2013 and 2022. The analysis identified six collegiality frames: Communal Ties, Collective Responsibilities, Likability/Interpersonal Skills, Cultural Fit, Willingness to Serve, and Coerced Conformity. Most typically, collegiality is portrayed as a characteristic of the faculty community marked by collaborative interactions. The framing of collegiality as communal ties is often accompanied by a “narrative of loss” (Kligyte & Barrie, 2014). Career advice articles targeting academic job seekers and faculty review candidates frame collegiality as a desirable individual quality and an implicit yet crucial criterion in peer evaluation. In contrast, articles discussing institutional policies and employment disputes offer a more critical framing, presenting a view of collegiality as an euphemism for coerced conformity and an instrument for managerial control. This paper contends that the divergent collegiality framings reflect the interplay of competing institutional logics and logic casting within the higher education landscape.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信