{"title":"现状的严重性:研究治理对系统级冲击的反应。","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":"{\"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}","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}
The gravity of the status quo: the response of research governance to system-level shocks.
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.
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.