The Russian excellence project, referred to as the 5–100 program, is coming to an end. While it did not accomplish one of its goals to catapult some Russian universities into the top 100 of the global university rankings, the project achieved a number of important objectives. These include internationalization, improved management, and strengthened research infrastructure and productivity. The Russian government is currently considering a new program for university improvement.
Russia is about to become an academic superpower, which makes it very successful at least in the context of the BRIC countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China. After various effective reforms, including the Bologna process and the modernization of admissions procedures, the Russian government is now working hard on remedying corruption in higher education.
This article describes the problems of small innovative businesses, established in universities. Based on the analysis of the legal framework, the study of small innovative enterprises identified and critically evaluated the practical problems of compliance with the legislation, the purpose of their creation in relation to economic activities. The directions of development improve the efficiency of their operation. The study based on the survey of leading Russian Universities and the number of the most efficient small innovative enterprises operating today. DOI:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n24p227
In a context of greater demands in terms of accountability and transparency in management, we analyse the extent to which Corporate Governance (CG) mechanisms have been adopted and we define the model of governance in universities in Colombia. In the field of higher education, there are usually no compulsory requirements related to CG. Nevertheless, governance mechanisms are nowadays crucial in determining the objectives, strategies and direction of universities. Based on a survey of 81 rectors of higher education institutions in Colombia, we analyse the models of CG adopted (managerial and stakeholder models). The results contribute to a better understanding of key CG concepts at universities.Points for practitionersThere is an increasing awareness of the importance of improving the mechanisms of governance that may help to achieve greater effectiveness and efficiency in the management of resources and awareness of society. The analysis of the predominant CG models, the stakeholder model and the managerial model, and the way in which Colombian universities are introducing these models could be used to promote the establishment of a common legal framework. This model should be flexible and include different opinions and preferences. The results may be useful and could be transferred to other countries that have the same characteristics.
Governance in Canadian universities is a topic that has not been widely studied to date. In Canada, the most common form of university governance is the bicameral system, which is co-ordinated governance between a Board of Governors and a university Senate. As the structure and needs of universities change, it will be important to consider that a change may also need to occur in the structure and relationship between the Board and the Senate. This project will review the existing literature on Canadian university governance, compile information on governance structure from various Canadian universities, and provide a discussion on some of the challenges that are being faced by the governing bodies of Canadian universities. Finally, some suggestions on possible improvements to the governance system will be provided, as well as a brief discussion of a few of the challenges that may be emerging for universities in the near future. --P. ii. ; The original print copy of this thesis may be available here: http://wizard.unbc.ca/record=b1805627
The literature on research-university governance is predominantly concerned with how higher education institutions become successful research universities. However, there is a dearth of studies on the perceptions of university stakeholders towards research-university governance. Therefore, this research aims to reveal the university stakeholders' perception of research universities in Thailand, with special attention to governance. Governance is investigated through two levels of analysis: national and institutional. Two institutions in Thailand are chosen as case studies: Chulalongkorn University (CU) and Chiang Mai University (CMU). A qualitative approach is adopted, which is based on three methods of data collection: document analysis, interviews, and observations. There are 52 research participants, mainly consisting of top university leaders and academics of CU and CMU, and senior officials from governmental agencies and independent organizations. One of the key findings is that it can be argued that the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997 has significantly changed the pattern of university behavior via the introduction of quasi-market mechanisms. These quasi-market mechanisms facilitated the adoption of a university entrepreneurial culture, particularly in terms of diversifying the financial base. In addition, the crisis also promoted the emergence of autonomous universities. This research has both theoretical and practical contributions. In terms of theoretical contribution, it provides an alternative theoretical framework for examining research-university governance. This framework is called the Design of Contractual Relationships, which provides a theoretical lens to examine the perceptions of university stakeholders on the critical conditions and actions of research-university governance. It has three fundamental dimensions: (1) context-underpinning factors (2) incentive arrangements and funding and (3) monitoring and oversight mechanisms. In terms of practical contribution, this research illuminates the fundamental elements of research-university governance in Thailand and provides a comparison between CU and CMU in terms of governance. The Design of Contractual Relationships is adopted to examine the governance comparison between CU and CMU. The comparison shows that the university stakeholders? perceptions of critical conditions and actions can be broadly categorized into the following aspects: the institutional entrepreneurial culture in terms of diversified financial base, the impact of bureaucratic mindset over the university incentive arrangements and monitoring mechanisms, academic inbreeding, and the absence of a "publish or perish" culture. An examination of research-university governance at both the national and institutional levels indicates that there are four fundamental elements embedded in the university cultural structure and the university stakeholders? behavior. These elements are (1) Thai bureaucracy (2) quasi-market mechanisms (3) patronage and (4) pluralistic academic freedom. These fundamental elements have implicitly and explicitly exerted their power over university governance, affected the way in which the governance instruments are selected, and influenced university stakeholders? behavior and the university as a whole. ; published_or_final_version ; Education ; Doctoral ; Doctor of Philosophy
Formen kollektiver Entscheidungsfindung werden in den letzten Jahren nicht nur durch staatliche Institutionen dominiert, sondern auch von zivilgesellschaftlichen Organisationsformen beeinflusst. Diese zunehmende Partizipation ist auch der steigenden Komplexität moderner Umwelt- und Nachhaltigkeitsprobleme geschuldet. Der Autor diskutiert das Konzept der Partizipation im Zusammenhang mit gesellschaftlicher Governance. Partizipation bedeutet Beteiligung an kollektiven Entscheidungen. Fünf zentrale Elemente charakterisieren Partizipation näher: Kooperation/Kommunikation, Öffentlicher Raum, Mitbestimmung, Machtabgabe und Repräsentation. Als Prozess tritt Partizipation auf, wenn der Charakter der Informationsflüsse, die Stärke des Einflusses auf die Entscheidungen sowie der Kreis der beteiligten Akteure untersucht wird. Innerhalb der Umweltsoziologie werden Kerndiskurse um die Leitthemen Emanzipation, demokratische Legitimität und Effektivität geführt. Stand der Forschung in Bezug auf die Effektivität ist, dass Partizipation in modernen Demokratien sich als erhebliches Governance-Potenzial identifizieren lässt, insbesondere in Hinsicht auf Umweltbezug und gesellschaftlicher Akzeptanz. Forschungslücken liegen in einer Systematisierung von Fallstudien zur Partizipation und Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung, in der genauen Erfassung von Effektivität sowie in der Integration natur- und sozialwissenschaftlicher Konzepte im Umweltbereich. (ICC)
The governance of universities and colleges in the United States basically follows the concept and spirit of democracy embraced by the nation from its birth. The systems and practices in place at most U.S. institutions of higher learning include collaborative, representative, or collective decision-making arrangements known as shared governance. However, these systems and practices are hardly uniform due to the diversity of governance patterns that reflect the unique and different history, needs, and mission of a particular institution. Sometimes they are differentiated from, and contrasted with, corporate, business, and more authoritarian or centralized forms of institutional governance. In contrast with university governance elsewhere in the world—that can range from strong central government control to private self-regulated operations—the U.S. forms of campus governance have emerged in a country that does not have centralized authority over education. U.S. institutions of higher learning respond to a variety of controls and interests that are on display variously at public, private non-profit, private for-profit, and religious universities. Governance, authority, and administration are spread across a wide spectrum of players, including governing boards; presidents, chancellors, and other administrators; the academy/faculty; administrative staff; campus committees; students; and, even some external factors. Shared governance is not a perfect formula or panacea for university administration and decision-making. It does, however, provide a methodology, system, and concept that can help guide the leadership of a university as it approaches the administration and conduct of its educational responsibilities. In today's higher education environment, the term governance is rather expansive. In one sense, it means top-down governance that is the rightful role and authority of an institutional board charged with overseeing policy, programming, performance, and executive guidance and evaluation. But, it also variously means the use of institutional strategies, operations, and components to distribute, disseminate, and "share" authority and responsibilities for a university's administrative, management, and decision-making functions, i.e., "on-campus governance." In this respect, shared governance "borrows" many of the attributes and principles of democratic government. In any case, shared governance, in its many forms and applications, is widely practiced in U.S. universities, including Delta State University.
