首页> 外文期刊>Geographical Research >Politically Engaged Geographical Research with the Community Sector: Is It Encouraged by Australia's Higher Education and Research Institutions?
【24h】

Politically Engaged Geographical Research with the Community Sector: Is It Encouraged by Australia's Higher Education and Research Institutions?

机译:与社区界有政治渊源的地理研究:澳大利亚的高等教育和研究机构是否对此予以鼓励?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

With the application of neoliberal thinking to the higher education sector, measures of research quality and utility have proliferated in efforts to increase academic accountability, innovation, and contributions to public policy. We intend to reignite discussion about community activism and the role of the academic in response to trends in higher education policy and recent debate in Australia about research quality assessment and policy relevance. We challenge the common portrayal of the public sector as the sole locus of policy-making and argue the case for greater recognition of the role of the community sector and its research partners in policy development and implementation - one that is not given due attention in the discourse on or in measures of research value and impact. Informed by recent literature on governance and interpretative approaches to policy analysis, we draw on our combined experience conducting research with two Australian movements at the forefront of reforms to property rights institutions, legal standards, and norms relating to social and economic equity to outline the institutional tensions and structural impediments facing researchers working with the non-government sector. The paper documents the progressive roles the academic can play in such work, arguing that institutional change is required within the tertiary sector to support researchers to build closer, more trusting research partnerships in which due attention is given to social impact and relevance.
机译:随着新自由主义思想在高等教育领域的应用,研究质量和效用的测量方法在为增加学术责任,创新和对公共政策的贡献而努力的过程中得到了广泛应用。我们打算重新讨论关于社区行动主义和学术界对高等教育政策趋势的反应的讨论,以及澳大利亚最近关于研究质量评估和政策相关性的辩论。我们对公共部门作为政策制定唯一场所的共同描述提出挑战,并提出了进一步承认社区部门及其研究伙伴在政策制定和实施中的作用的理由-在这一过程中并未给予应有的重视关于研究价值和影响的衡量或讨论。在有关治理和政策分析的解释方法的最新文献的指导下,我们借鉴了结合两个澳大利亚运动进行研究的经验,这两个运动是在产权制度,法律标准以及与社会和经济平等相关的规范改革的最前沿,以概述制度与非政府部门合作的研究人员面临的紧张局势和结构性障碍。该论文记录了学者在此类工作中可以发挥的进步作用,认为第三产业需要进行制度变革以支持研究人员建立更紧密,更信任的研究合作伙伴关系,并在其中充分关注社会影响和相关性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号