Higher Education Policy ( IF 1.640 ) Pub Date : 2020-05-06 , DOI: 10.1057/s41307-020-00190-1 Peter Woelert , Jenny M. Lewis , Ai Tam Le
Over the last two to three decades, many universities around the world have seen an increase in both organizational autonomy and performance-based accountability. While these developments have attracted considerable attention, relatively little remains known about how, within this transformed governance context, academics themselves practice their autonomy as researchers. Focusing on the case of one highly research-intensive university situated in Australia, this paper explores how academics from various disciplines understand and experience their practical autonomy in their own research in both its strategic and operational dimensions. Drawing on analyses of semi-structured interviews with 18 experienced academics, we find that academics’ practical autonomy is only loosely coupled to the autonomy they formally have. We further find that the practical realization of autonomy is closely associated with having adequate levels of resources such as funding (strategic autonomy) and time (operational autonomy), with the former being more important for scientists, while the latter was more important for those in the humanities and social sciences. Increasing levels of bureaucratization (humanities and social sciences) and the increasingly narrow thematic focus and strategic orientation of the major funding schemes (sciences and social sciences) were perceived as constraining these academics’ practical autonomy.
中文翻译:
形式上鲜活但实际复杂:学术界对其作为研究人员的自主性认知的探索
在过去的两到三年中,世界各地的许多大学都看到了组织自治和基于绩效的问责制的增加。虽然这些发展引起了相当多的关注,但对于在这种转变的治理背景下,学术界本身如何实践他们作为研究人员的自主权,人们知之甚少。本文以澳大利亚一所高度研究密集型大学为例,探讨了来自不同学科的学者如何理解和体验他们在战略和运营方面的研究中的实践自主权。通过对 18 位经验丰富的学者的半结构化访谈的分析,我们发现学者的实践自主权与他们正式拥有的自主权只是松散耦合的。我们进一步发现,自主的实际实现与拥有充足的资金(战略自主)和时间(运营自主)等资源水平密切相关,前者对科学家更重要,而后者对那些从事工作的人更重要。人文和社会科学。官僚化程度的提高(人文和社会科学)以及主要资助计划(科学和社会科学)的主题重点和战略方向日益狭窄,被认为限制了这些学者的实践自主权。而后者对于人文和社会科学领域的人来说更为重要。官僚化程度的提高(人文和社会科学)以及主要资助计划(科学和社会科学)的主题重点和战略方向日益狭窄,被认为限制了这些学者的实践自主权。而后者对于人文和社会科学领域的人来说更为重要。官僚化程度的提高(人文和社会科学)以及主要资助计划(科学和社会科学)的主题重点和战略方向日益狭窄,被认为限制了这些学者的实践自主权。