Making Strangers at Home: Anthropologists Studying Higher Education

The impact of higher education institutions on society has become the focus of significant policy attention in recent years, most prominently as part of research evaluation. This paper presents a theoretical exploration of the notion, identifying the key dimensions as source, form, trajectory, intensity, timescale and destination. While acknowledging the importance of porosity between universities and society, and the need to address critical contemporary challenges, five dangers of the impact agenda are highlighted: the normative dimension; the linear relationship; unpredictability; measurement; and instrumentalization. As a response to dominant conceptualizations, the paper proposes the notion of the generative intrinsic as a more robust basis on which to base the work of universities.ResumoO impacto das instituições de ensino superior na sociedade tem se tornado o foco de atenção política significativa nos últimos anos, mais proeminentemente como parte da avaliação da pesquisa. Este artigo apresenta uma exploração teórica da categoria noção, identificando as dimensões-chave como fonte, forma, trajetória, intensidade, escala de tempo e destino. Embora reconhecendo a importância da porosidade entre as universidades e a sociedade, e a necessidade de abordar desafios contemporâneos críticos, cinco perigos da agenda de impacto são destacados: a dimensão normativa; o relacionamento linear; imprevisibilidade; medição; e instrumentalização. Como resposta às conceituações dominantes, o artigo propõe a noção do intrínseco generativo como uma base mais robusta sobre a qual basear o trabalho das universidades.Keywords: Higher education policy, Impact, Instrumentalization, Public engagement, Research evaluation, Universities.Palavras-chave: Políticas de educação superior, Impacto, Instrumentalização, Engajamento público, Avaliação da pesquisa, Universidades.ReferencesASHWIN, P. (2016) ‘From a teaching perspective, “impact” looks very different’. Times Higher Education, 21 March. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/teaching-perspectiveimpact-looks-very-different (accessed 3 May 2018).BARNETT, R. (2004) ‘The purposes of higher education and the changing face of academia’. London Review of Education, 2 (1), 61–73.BELFIORE, E. (2014) ‘”Impact”, “value” and “bad economics”: Making sense of the problem of value in the arts and humanities’. Arts and Humanities in Higher Education, 14 (1), 95–110.BRENNAN, J., KING, R. AND LEBEAU, Y. (2004) The Role of Universities in the Transformation of Societies: Synthesis report. London: Association of Commonwealth Universities and the Open UniversityBYNNER, J. AND EGERTON, M. (2001) The Wider Benefits of Higher Education. Report by the Wider Benefits of Learning Research Centre, Institute of Education, University of London.CHUBB, J. AND WATERMEYER, R. (2017) ‘Artifice or integrity in the marketization of research impact? Investigating the moral economy of (pathways to) impact statements within research funding proposals in the UK and Australia’. Studies in Higher Education, 42 (12), 2,360–72.COLEMAN, J.S. (1986) ‘The idea of the developmental university’. Minerva: A Review of Science, Learning and Policy, 24 (4), 476–94.COLLINI, S. (2012) What are Universities For? London: Penguin. Dewey, J. (1967) ‘The continuum of ends-means’. In Archambault, R. (ed.) John Dewey on Education: Selected writings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 97–107. ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) (n.d.) ‘What is impact?’. Online. www.esrc.ac.uk/ research/impact-toolkit/what-is-impact/ (accessed 22 April 2018).FIELDING, M. (2003) ‘The impact of impact’. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (2), 289–95.FRANCIS, B. (2011) ‘Increasing impact? An analysis of issues raised by the impact agenda in educational research’. Scottish Educational Review, 43 (2), 4–16.GIBBONS, M., LIMOGES, C., NOWOTNY, H., SCHWARTZMAN, S., SCOTT, P. AND TROW, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SAGE Publications.GUNN, A. AND MINTROM, M. (2016) ‘Higher education policy change in Europe: Academic research funding and the impact agenda’. European Education, 48 (4), 241–57.GUNN, A. AND MINTROM, M. (2017) ‘Five things to consider when designing a policy to measure research impact’. The Conversation, 12 January. Online. http://theconversation.com/fivethings-to-consider-when-designing-a-policy-to-measure-research-impact-71078 (accessed 22 April 2017).ILIE, S. AND ROSE, P. (2016) ‘Is equal access to higher education in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa achievable by 2030?’. Higher Education 72 (4), 435–55.JUMP, P. (2015) ‘The impact of impact’. Times Higher Education, 19 February. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/features/the-impact-of-impact/2018540.article (accessed 3 May 2018).LEE, S.T. (2017) ‘The Structure of a University: A Karatanian interrogation into instrumentalism, idealism and community in postwar British higher education, 1945–2015’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Birkbeck University.MACFARLANE, B. (2011) ‘The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the paraacademic’. Higher Education Quarterly, 65 (1), 59–73. Marginson, S. (2011) ‘Higher education and public good’. Higher Education Quarterly, 65 (4), 411–33.MARGINSON, S. (2016) ‘The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems’. Higher Education, 72 (4), 413–34.MARTIN, B. (2011) ‘The Research Excellence Framework and the ‘impact agenda’: Are we creating a Frankenstein monster?’. Research Evaluation, 20 (3), 247–54.MARTIN, C. (2011) ‘Philosophy of education in the public sphere: The case of “relevance”’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30, 615–29. McCowan, T. (2009) Rethinking Citizenship Education: A curriculum for participatory democracy. London: Continuum.MCCOWAN, T. (2015) ‘Should universities promote employability?’. Theory and Research in Education, 13 (3), 267–85.MCCOWAN, T. (2016a) ‘Three dimensions of equity of access to higher education’. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46 (4), 645–65.MCCOWAN, T. (2016b) ‘Universities and the post-2015 development agenda: An analytical framework’. Higher Education, 72 (4), 505–23.MCCOWAN, T. (2017) ‘Higher education, unbundling and the end of the university as we know it’. Oxford Review of Education, 43 (6), 733–48.McDowell, G. (2003) ‘Engaged universities: Lessons from the land-grant universities and extension’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 585 (1), 31–50.MCMAHON, W. (2009) Higher Learning, Greater Good: The private and social benefits of higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.NIXON, J. (2004) ‘Education for the good society: The integrity of academic practice’. London Review of Education, 2 (3), 245–52.OANCEA, A. (2013a) ‘Buzzwords and values: The prominence of “impact” in UK research policy and governance’. Research Trends, 33, 6–8.OANCEA, A. (2013b) ‘Interpretations of research impact in seven disciplines’. European Educational Research Journal, 12 (2), 242–50.OKETCH, M., MCCOWAN, T. AND SCHENDEL, R. (2014) The Impact of Tertiary Education on Development: A rigorous literature review. London: Department for International Development.OVSEIKO, P., OANCEA, A. AND BUCHAN, A. (2012) ‘Assessing research impact in academic clinical medicine: A study using Research Excellence Framework pilot impact indicators’. BMC Health Services Research, 12 (478), 1–23.PARKER, J. AND VAN TEIJLINGEN, E. (2012) ‘The Research Excellence Framework (REF): Assessing the impact of social work research on society’. Practice: Social Work in Action, 24 (1), 41–52.PENFIELD, T., BAKER, M.J., SCOBLE, R. AND WYKES, M.C. (2014) ‘Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review’. Research Evaluation, 23 (1), 21–32.PERKIN, H. (2007) ‘History of universities’. In Forest, J.J.F. and Altbach, P.G. (eds) International Handbook of Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer, 159–206.PHIPPS, A. (2014) ‘The dark side of the impact agenda’. Times Higher Education, 4 December. Online. www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/the-dark-side-of-the-impactagenda/2017299.article (accessed 3 May 3018).READINGS, B. (1996) The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.REF (Research Excellence Framework) (2011) Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions: Research excellence framework 02.2011. Online. www.ref.ac.uk/2014/pubs/2011-02/ (accessed 22 April 2018).RESEARCH COUNCIL ECONOMIC IMPACT GROUP (2006) Increasing the Economic Impact of Research Councils. London: Department of Trade and Industry.Research Councils UK (2017) Excellence with Impact. Online. www.ukri.org/innovation/excellencewith-impact/ (accessed 15 July 2017).SALL, E., LEBEAU, Y. AND KASSIMIR, R. (2003) ‘The public dimensions of the university in Africa’. Journal of Higher Education in Africa, 1 (1), 126–48.SANTOS, B.S. (2004) A universidade do século XXI: Para uma reforma democratica e emancipatória da universidade. São Paulo: Cortez.Siegfried, J., Sanderson, A. and McHenry, P. (2007) ‘The economic impact of colleges and universities’. Economics of Education Review, 26 (5), 546–58.SMITH, S., WARD, V. AND HOUSE, A. (2011) ‘”Impact” in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy’. Research Policy, 40 (10), 1,369–79.UNIVERSITIES UK (2014) The Impact of Universities on the UK Economy. London: Universities UK.UPTON, S., VALLANCE, P. AND GODDARD, J. (2014) ‘From outcome to process: Evidence for a new approach to research impact assessment’. Research Evaluation, 23 (4), 352–65.WALTER, I., NUTLEY, S.M. AND DAVIES, H.T.O. (2003) Research Impact: A cross-sector review. Research Unit for Research Utilisation, University of St Andrews. Online. www.ruru.ac.uk/pdf/LSDA%20 literature%20review%20final.pdf (accessed 22 April 2016).WATERMEYER, R. (2016) ‘Impact in the R

The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is the lead United Nations (UN) agency in the field of education. As its website proudly proclaims, UNESCO is: “the only UN body with a mandate in higher education.”1 However, UNESCO’s work in higher education has always operated at the margins of its education program (Daniels 2003, 22). Higher education has long been overshadowed by the organization’s focus on popular access to basic education, especially over the past decade, when UNESCO has made achieving “education for all” the central pillar of its educational activities (Mundy 1999). Nonetheless, a strong argument can be made about the need for a UN presence in higher education, particularly in the context of the globalization and internationalization of higher education. Massification of higher education, the growth of private and trans-border service provision, and new information and communications technologies are each transforming the global organization of higher education. In higher education, these processes of globalization have created new types of within-country inequality, and new regional and interstate forms of competition (Robertson and Keeling 2008; Marginson 2008). UNESCO’s mandate within the UN requires it to defend and promote the idea of equality of opportunity within an increasingly globalized higher education policy arena. Its own constitution also requires UNESCO to promote the sharing of knowledge and to defend cultural diversity. This chapter explores the effort within UNESCO to translate its mandate as the UN body in the field of higher education into an effective program of action. Based primarily on document review, this chapter also draws on private communication with 10 higher education experts either involved in UNESCO initiatives or on staff. The chapter is structured as follows: a historical review of UNESCO activities, suggesting how these activities have been shaped by the changes in the organization and in the wider UN environment; UNESCO activities in higher education over the past decade, assessing inparticular UNESCO’s response to the rapid globalization of higher education and its efforts to define a unique role for itself in the international higher education policy agenda; exploring the challenges posed to UNESCO’s work in higher education by current UN and UNESCO; and concluding with some preliminary thoughts on the key opportunities for UNESCO in the governance of higher education as a policy arena.

In a time of rapid change and arising challenges, Millennials are the latest generation to enter high education institutions as junior faculty, administrators, researchers, and scholars. As with each generation they bring new values, perspectives, technological expertise, and expectations. Higher education is facing potentially overwhelming challenges in finances, student debt, relevance, non-traditional hiring, with some institutions facing closure. Academic leaders, often Baby Boomers, attempt to meet these challenges while still tied to traditions from a bygone time. The Changing Faces of Higher Education gives voice to Millennial academics and their perspective of higher education. This thought-provoking volume provides the insights and lessons from Millennials working in higher education across various subfields. The contributing authors speak from divergent institutions including small mid-western private colleges to larger East coast public institutions and many locations in-between. The contributing authors are not limited to faculty but covers a range of professionals working in higher education. While diverse, all the authors focus on the challenges in teaching, mentorship, and leadership, challenges related to diversity, and improving technology and research. The thirteen chapters in this book address ongoing challenges faced by Millennials working in higher education, offers advice and best practices, and addresses the ways that Millennials serve as a bridge between their “Boomer” colleagues and Gen Z who make up the majority of currently enrolled college students. Each chapter presents the experiences of the author(s) and the strategies utilized to navigate the increasingly fast changing landscape of higher education.

Previous articleNext article No AccessElite and Mass Higher Education in Britain: A Regressive Model?Guy R. NeaveGuy R. Neave Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Comparative Education Review Volume 29, Number 3Aug., 1985 Sponsored by the Comparative and International Education Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/446526 Views: 13Total views on this site Citations: 12Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1985 The Comparative and International Education SocietyPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva Securitization of Higher Education Expansion in Authoritarian States: Uzbekistan’s Seemingly “Elite” Tertiary System, Problems of Post-Communism 9 (Oct 2021): 1–12.https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216.2021.1974886Malcolm Tight Mass Higher Education and Massification, Higher Education Policy 32, no.11 (Nov 2017): 93–108.https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-017-0075-3Peter Mandler EDUCATING THE NATION: II. UNIVERSITIES, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society 25 (Sep 2015): 1–26.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080440115000079Karen Bradley Higher Education, (Feb 2012).https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470670590.wbeog267Guy Neave, Alberto Amaral Introduction. On Exceptionalism: The Nation, a Generation and Higher Education, Portugal 1974–2009, (Oct 2011): 1–46.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2135-7_1Nicholas h. Foskett, Anthony J. Hesketh Constructing Choice in Contiguous and Parallel Markets: institutional and school leavers’ responses to the new post‐16 marketplace, Oxford Review of Education 23, no.33 (Jul 2006): 299–319.https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498970230303Paul Trowler Beyond the Robbins trap: Reconceptualising academic responses to change in higher education (or … quiet flows the don?), Studies in Higher Education 22, no.33 (Jan 1997): 301–318.https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331380916Michael J. Harrison Access ? the Problem and Potential, Higher Education Quarterly 44, no.33 (Jul 1990): 193–214.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.1990.tb01537.xAlbert H. Yee Cross‐cultural perspectives on higher education in East Asia: Psychological effects upon Asian students, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 10, no.33 (Sep 2010): 213–232.https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1989.9994375Oliver Fulton Elite survivals? Entry ‘standards˚s and procedures for higher education admissions, Studies in Higher Education 13, no.11 (Jan 1988): 15–25.https://doi.org/10.1080/03075078812331377935Karen Bradley, Maria Charles UNEVEN INROADS: UNDERSTANDING WOMEN’S STATUS IN HIGHER EDUCATION, (): 247–274.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3539(03)14011-6John Lilly Researching the ineffable — That which cannot be expressed in words, (): 187–210.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1529-210X(02)80029-8

Although research on Canadian higher education has advanced considerably over the past few decades, the opportunities for university level study of higher education in Canada are still quite limited. Only four universities offer higher education programs; only one has a higher education department; and only a handful of other institutions offer even a course in higher education. The number of students enrolled in higher education programs in Canada is about 200, compared to about 6,000 in the United States; the number of faculty about 15 compared to 700 in the U.S. Moreover, while American higher education journals have, since the early 1970's, regularly featured articles about university higher education programs, there has not been a single article on this subject in The Canadian Journal of Higher Education. This paper attempts to fill some of that gap by providing some basic information about the study of higher education in Canadian universities and by examining the role of these programs in the overall development of higher education research and the possible reasons for the very limited scale of such programs in Canada. The author's conclusion is that the factor which has most limited the development of higher education studies in Canadian universities is neither insufficient student demand nor limited employment opportunities of graduates, but reluctance of Canadian universities to allocate resources for this area of study. This reluctance is attributed to the combination of the low prestige of higher education as a field of study and the lack of a strong lobby for this program area outside the university. It is suggested that - in contrast to their American counterparts - presently Canadian higher education programs have less than the minimum resources necessary to make the advances that would be required to overcome this "prestige barrier".

In South Africa widening participation in higher education is located within a transformation discourse that sought to change the demographics of the student population in public higher education institutions. Current literature on public higher education participation demographics suggests that the transformation agenda of increasing the participation of previously disadvantaged population groups have been met in terms of headcount. There are, however, concerns raised about equality of opportunity to access public higher education institutions, especially with regard to potential students from deep rural contexts and who have attended school education in impoverished communities. In attempting to address these concerns, higher education institutional marketing became one of the communication tools through which higher education studies were promoted across the country. Although, higher education institutional marketing at Universities of Technology has been well established within South Africa, the marketing recruitment strategy employed was largely intended for the urban and sub-urban contexts. This study focuses on this challenge within a social justice and equality discourse. The study, therefore, engages with the literature on higher education transformation, marketing, social justice, equity and equality to show the complexity of higher education institutional marketing and highlights the inequalities in current marketing strategies and practices that continues to disadvantage marginalised communities from accessing higher education studies. The primary aim of this study is to explore the inequalities in current higher education institutions’ marketing processes to recruit potential students from geographically marginalised communities, with a view to reducing these inequalities. The study explored the marketing strategies employed by a University of Technology to understand the experiences and concerns identified by learners and teachers of deep rural schools in accessing higher education. The case study approach to methodology required a mixed method for the data collection from stakeholders (grade 12 learners and educators) of three secondary schools in three different deep rural contexts. A survey was conducted using a questionnaire to obtain information from grade 12 learners. In addition, the Life Orientation educators of these three schools were interviewed. In order to obtain a holistic perspective of the institutional marketing efforts, current first year university students from deep rural contexts were interviewed to explore their experiences into higher education. The analysis of the data revealed that learners in deep rural contexts were aware of higher education studies, but the information received about accessing and studying at a higher education institution was inadequate to make informed decisions. The study also found that there was a mismatch between what was marketed by higher education institutions and the needs of the learners and the community. Furthermore, the needs and resources for the potential students from disadvantaged communities were identified. Therefore, a customised recruitment strategy is proposed with regard to the promotional materials and processes to encourage and support aspiring higher education students. The findings proposes a marketing strategy that is located within a social justice, equity and equality framework that aligns institutional marketing with the needs of the communities located in deep rural and impoverished contexts. In other words, a strategic community engagement action plan between the university and the department of education is suggested. The study, therefore, makes recommendations to higher education institutions about marketing strategies that would be relevant to a diverse target market, particularly to marginalised or rural areas in KwaZulu-Natal. In addition, the study makes recommendations to address inequalities in institutional marketing that could lead to views about substantive equality needed for higher education transformation within the current South African context.

The purpose of this publication is to provide a reference source on key topics in higher education. Chapters in the first volume cover central themes in the study of higher education, while contributors to the second volume focus on contemporary higher education issues within specific countries or regions. Part one 'Global themes and contemporary challenges' contains the following chapters: Introduction / Philip G. Altbach and James J. F. Forest; The academic profession / Jurgen Enders; Accountability and quality assurance: new issues for academic inquiry / Elaine El-Khawas; Curricula in international perspective / Lisa R. Lattuca; Doctoral education: present realities and future trends / Philip G. Altbach; Higher education finance: trends and issues / Arthur M. Hauptman; For-profit higher education: US tendencies, international echoes / Kevin Kinser and Daniel C. Levy; Globalization and the university: realities in an unequal world / Philip G. Altbach; Governance and administration: organizational and structural trends / Barbara Sporn; History of universities / Harold Perkin; Internationalization: concepts, complexities and challenges / Jane Knight; Higher education management: challenges and strategies / George Keller; Reflections on the transition from elite to mass to universal access: forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII / Martin Trow; The private fit in the higher education landscape / Daniel C. Levy; Beyond private gain: the public benefits of higher education / David E. Bloom, Matthew Hartley, and Henry Rosovsky; Research and scholarship / Grant Harman; Student politics: activism and culture / Philip G. Altbach; Teaching and learning in higher education / James J. F. Forest; Rhetoric or reality?: technology in borderless higher education / Svava Bjarnason; Part two 'Regions and countries' contains: Section one 'Regional perspectives': Higher education in the Arab world / Linda Herrera; Higher education in Central and Eastern Europe / Peter Scott; Higher education developing countries / David E. Bloom and Henry Rosovsky; European integration in higher education: the Bologna Process towards a European high education area / Hans de Wit; Higher education in French-speaking Sub-Saharan Africa / Juma Shabani; Latin American university transformation in the 1990s: altered identities? / Marcela Mollis; Higher education in Scandinavia / Evanthia Kalpazidou Schmidt; Higher education in Southeast Asia in the era of globalization / Molly N. N. Lee; Higher education in Sub-Saharan Africa / Damtew Teferra; Section two 'National perspectives': Argentina / Ana M. Garcia de Fanelli; Australia / Simon Marginson; Brazil / Simon Schwartzman; Canada / Glen A. Jones; Chile / Jose Joaquin Brunner and Anthony Tillett; China / Ruth Hayhoe and Qiang Zha; Egypt / Iman Farag; France / Christine Musselin; Germany / Barbara M. Kehm; India / N. Jayaram; Indonesia / M. K. Tadjudin; Iran / Abbas Bazargan; Israel / Yaacov Iram; Italy / Roberto Moscati; Japan / Akiyoshi Yonezawa; Kenya / Charles K. Ngome; Korea / Namgi Park; Mexico / Hugo Casanova-Cardiel; The Netherlands / Egbert de Weert; Nigeria / Munzali Jibril; Poland / Wojciech Duczmal; Russia / Anna Smolentseva; South Africa / Chika Trevor Sehoole; Spain / Jose-Gines Mora; Turkey / Hasan Simsek; United Kingdom / Michael Shattock; United States / Peter D. Eckel and Jacqueline E. King.

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic took a sledgehammer to the education sector, shattering the established structured systems, norms and rituals of practices and procedures. To ensure continuity whilst adhering to the pandemic-induced containment measures, higher education institutions adopted a remote work model to address the needs of a dispersed workforce. Amidst the uncertainty and continuous changes posed by the pandemic, remote working arrangements gradually dominated the higher education workspace, thereby increasing demands on institutions and employees. Consequently, the notion of resilience as a crucial constituent of Crisis Management has never been more salient. Yet surprisingly, there has been a paucity of literature in this domain. Whilst research on resilience is gaining interest, there is a need for a comprehensive overview of what the concept means for academics during an emergency and its application in the Crisis Management framework. This article addresses this research gap using a systematic Literature Review method to unearth the current state of scientific research regarding resilience in Crisis Management in the context of remote work during COVID-19. The findings of the study provide a research agenda that centers on understanding how resilience in Crisis Management and its strategic use in remote work can advance the research streams.

Reviewed by: Deadly Professors: A Faculty Development Mystery John H. Metoyer Thomas B. Jones. Deadly Professors: A Faculty Development Mystery. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2010. 192 pp. Cloth: $19.95. ISBN: 978-1579224509. Thomas Jones’s second faculty development novel, Deadly Professors: A Faculty Development Mystery, is just that: a sophisticated faculty development guide neatly woven into the plot of a campy higher education murder mystery novel. As a work of fiction, Deadly Professors is a well-conceived parody of the mystery novel that takes place on the campus of a small, private, liberal arts campus in St. Paul, Minnesota. At the core of the mystery are Jack Ramble, literature professor and department chair, and a group of his undergraduate students, who haphazardly (and I mean this in the best possible sense) fall into the study of African American mystery authors while taking Ramble’s honors literature class. As a result of their research and Ramble’s alternative approach to teaching the literature course, the students are able to unearth the key clue that leads to the mystery’s resolution. Peppered throughout the novel are issues, concerns, and characters that should be familiar to anyone working in higher education: the bumbling administrator, debates over multiculturalism, the effect of digital technology on the modern classroom, the unsavory trustee, departmental infighting, funding issues, campaigns against the liberal arts, and generational gaps among faculty to name a few. All of these elements exist in the novel as a platform for what the book is actually about—faculty development. Jones, whose expertise lies, in part, in faculty development, includes a chapter-by-chapter guide of discussion questions and faculty development activities that touch on all of the issues raised throughout the novel. The deaths are as ghoulish and campy as anything you would find in a Vincent Price movie from [End Page 132] the 1970s, and many of the characters in the novel follow suit: over-the-top stereotypes whose flat predictabilities serve as a foil to the more realistic and likeable characters—faculty and students, of course. Toward the end of the fiction portion of the text, readers of a certain age will no doubt summon up the dénouement of almost every Scooby Doo episode: “And I would have gotten away with it, too. . . ” In fact, one line from Deadly Professors reads, “If it weren’t for you two professors and those students in your class, we’d have never suspected more than what was in front of our noses” (p. 155). Add a Great Dane and a psychedelic van, and you are there. Corn and campiness aside, Deadly Professors takes a light-hearted, fun, and fresh approach to what can be the bane of many professors’ careers: faculty development. While the book will be of great interest to faculty new to the profession, more seasoned professionals will also find value in the inclusive and novel means by which Jones approaches faculty development. The workshop portion of the text approaches professional enrichment through the lens of active learning. Development becomes a group activity that requires thought and conversation regarding serious issues facing most in American higher education. Deadly Professors is not a “how to” guide for dealing with contemporary issues on campus, but more of a “how would you” guide, allowing faculty to respond locally to problems facing campuses nationally. John H. Metoyer Vice President of Academic Affairs, City Colleges of Chicago—Harold Washington College Copyright © 2012 Association for the Study of Higher Education

Relationships are central to the processes and outcomes for both decolonizing work in higher education and communities of practice that support faculty learning and professional development. Yet the development of these meaningful learning relationships is in direct tension with the isolation, precariousness, and impermanence of contract teaching faculty who make up more than half the academic labor force in Canadian universities. Our chapter describes a multidisciplinary online Contract Teaching Faculty (CTF) learning community called “Decolonizing and Indigenizing the Classroom.” Our community set out to challenge power relationships in interconnecting systems in higher education to make space for decolonizing work by building, deepening and expanding new and supportive learning relationships between CTF and with our students. As nine participants we look at the value of CTF learning communities by assessing the ongoing impacts of our commitment to transformative learning—our own and our students. We highlight the role CTF learning communities can play in inspiring and sharing pedagogical innovations. We outline the benefits of CTF learning communities for nurturing community and helping overcome the institutional isolation of CTF and our physical isolation exacerbated by the pandemic. We also recognize the challenges and limitations our CTF learning community faced. As precarious workers who are marginalized by this system that exploits and devalues CTF, how can we teach, model, and learn within the colonial systems at work in higher education when we are relatively powerless to affect change?

This co-produced study explores the experiences of autistic staff working in higher education in Ireland, a group largely overlooked in existing research. While much attention has been given to autistic students, little research has explored how autistic academics navigate their professional roles. This study investigates the challenges and strengths autistic staff encounter within academic environments. Eleven autistic participants took part in semi-structured interviews, conducted flexibly to respect individual preferences and communication needs. Data were analysed using the Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Four key themes emerged: (1) Discovering being autistic, (2) Role ambiguity and institutional invisibility, (3) Stress, burnout, and workplace unpredictability, and (4) Autistic strengths. Participants described strengths such as hyper-focus, problem-solving, and deep commitment to teaching while also highlighting barriers such as unclear expectations, a lack of visibility, and high emotional labour. The findings underscore the need for more inclusive institutional practices that reduce the pressure to mask and protect against burnout. Supporting autistic staff through affirming environments not only enables individuals to thrive but also enriches the wider educational community by fostering diverse approaches to teaching, learning, and communication.Lay AbstractThis study explores the experiences of autistic people who work as academic staff in universities. Autistic staff often face challenges such as unclear job expectations, misunderstandings from colleagues, and barriers to being open about their identity. Through interviews, we learned that many autistic academics care deeply about their work but feel unsupported in environments that reward constant social interaction, speed, and competition. Despite this, participants found creative ways to make space for themselves and others. This research helps us understand what autistic staff need to thrive in universities and shows why workplaces should value different ways of thinking, working, and communicating. Making these changes could benefit not only autistic staff but the wider academic community as well.

This chapter is an educational approach to online collaborative work in higher education, considering both the digital tools and the strategies for the e-assessment. We can observe the evolution of digital learning: from e-learning to m-learning and u-learning, through blended-learning and new other models like adaptive learning. In every model, we can try to promote collaborative work and we need to assess these group strategies. Thus, our main objectives are answering what type of digital tools we can use to promote virtual collaboration, which are the main strategies to implement, and finally considering different models of e-assessment in relation to the previous issues. Educational research shows the possibilities of digital tools like social networks, e-portfolios, collaborative environments, or traditional tools inside LMS from an assessment approach that considers the formative processes as the key to online collaboration.

This thesis argues that higher education systems in post-conflict states have the potential to contribute towards more effective post-war reconstruction and recovery. However, while the role of Higher Education in Development was emphasised in the post-WWII era, the specific experience of higher education in post-conflict contexts has escaped the attention of both academics and policy-makers engaged in reconstruction. Furthermore, donor policy attention has not been placed upon utilising the resources of higher education in post-war recovery. The overall aim is therefore to address this gap in the literature by providing global analysis of higher education in post-war recovery. Firstly, a theoretical framework of the relationship between higher education and recovery was constructed in terms of the functions that higher education can perform in contributing to recovery, the features of the post-war environment that hinder or enable higher education, and various policy options available to post-conflict higher education. Secondly, two case-studies of Iraq and Libya were examined to explore the relationship between higher education and post-war recovery. Principally through interviews with academics and policy-makers from case-study countries, the thesis reveals a range of perspectives and voices on higher education during post-conflict recovery and transition. The thesis concludes that higher education should be conceptualised as an important pillar of recovery; the capacity of domestic higher education sectors in post-conflict contexts is an often under-recognised and under-utilised resource of considerable potential value that can connect to a wide range of reconstruction and recovery processes and effectively drive post-conflict recovery and transitions. Given the under-theorised and under-studied nature of higher education and post-conflict recovery the thesis operates in a theory-building mode and offers what is to date the first attempt to construct a global theorisation.

This essay is a call for world-systems analysis of education. Increasingly, the field of comparative education is moving toward more sophisticated examinations of education in relationship to economic, political, and social forces. Studies of the ecology of educational institutions and processes, however, often fail to take into account an international context of transactions. To date, most macro studies of education have taken the nation-state as the basic unit of analysis.' An examination of the international forces impinging upon education systems is no less essential than an examination of the international economic order would be to an

Roger Brown, the Chair of the Editorial Advisory Board, and I are delighted that John Aubrey Douglass, Senior Research Fellow of the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California Berkeley, has agreed to edit this special issue of perspectives. The papers arise out of contributions to a Symposium in September 2004 on UK and US Higher Education Funding and Access, organised by the Oxford Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies (OxCHEPS) and the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California Berkeley campus. It was co‐chaired by John and David Palfreyman, the Director of OxCHEPS, and it is a pleasure and privilege to publish some of the main papers. We are indebted to the AUA, the Sutton Trust, the Higher Education Policy Institute, the Rothermere Institute, the Institute for Governmental Studies (UC Berkeley), the Center for British Studies (UC Berkeley), and the University of California Office of the President, all of whom provided support for the Symposium. John’s first paper sets the scene on the UK funding environment and student support, and provides a context for those that follow. Ed.