| 1. |
- Silander, Charlotte, 1973-, et al.
(författare)
-
Nordic research on gender equality in academic careers : a literature review
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Higher Education. - : Routledge. - 2156-8235 .- 2156-8243. ; 12:1, s. 72-97
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We provide an integrative review of research on gender and academic careers conducted in the Nordic countries from 2003–2018. We investigate the nature and content of contemporary Nordic research and critically examine the methodological and theoretical approaches authors have used. We read, categorised, and analysed 74 articles retrieved from Web of Science. Our review shows that gender differences in academic careers persist, in line with earlier reviews. Also the early years seem crucial to the development of an academic research career. Studies focusing on gendered career trajectories and publication patterns together with studies on the influence of new public management on gender are the three main areas of research interest. Existing research lacks (1) a focus on the horizontal dimension (i.e. across disciplines), (2) studies developing concepts and theory and (3) studies focusing on the consequences of changes in the research policy framework for higher education.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Brodin, Eva, 1974-, et al.
(författare)
-
Innovation, collaboration, and gender in national policies and guidelines on doctoral education : Shapes from Sweden and South Africa in the 21st century
- 2018
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2011, the European Research Area (ERA) outlined several principles of innovative doctoral training such as research excellence; exposure to industry and other relevant employment sectors; transferable skills training; and quality assurance (Vittorio 2015). Similar policies and guidelines can also be found in doctoral education across the globe, where the request for innovation and societal collaboration is urgent (e.g. Association of American Universities 1998/2017; Australian Council of Learned Academies 2016; HEQSF 2013; Swedish Government Bill, 2008, 2009, 2016). At the same time, it is known that the general conditions for innovation vary across countries (Meeus & Edquist 2006), and that global policy trends are construed and organised differently at national level in doctoral education (Andres et al. 2015). Combined with the fact that gender differences have been found in many studies on doctoral education in general (Jones 2013), it is significant to ask: What are the contextual and gendered conditions for doctoral students to develop their innovative and collaborative capability? In our first approach to this problem field, we will present preliminary results from our analysis of some conditions at macro level in Sweden and South Africa. From a comparative perspective, we will elucidate how expressions of innovation, societal collaboration, gender and related concepts have occurred and converged in their national policies and guidelines on doctoral education in the 21st century. We will use summative content analysis for analysing data, which implies an interpretative process of “identifying and quantifying certain words or content in a text with the purpose of understanding the contextual use of the words or content” (Hsieh & Shannon 2005, p. 1283). Comparing Swedish and South African doctoral education is well justified. Doctoral education is highlighted as a means to increased innovation and collaboration with society in the national policies of both countries. However, they also differ in their organisation of doctoral education, and their societal needs (e.g. for the South African context, see: National Planning Commission 2011). We assume that these differences should reflect nationally diverse ways to conceptualise innovation, societal collaboration, gender and related concepts in policy documents on doctoral education. Also, such a comparative perspective enables deeper understanding of the contextual conditions in Swedish doctoral education. For the purpose of this conference, we will delimit our literature review to Swedish studies on doctoral education. While such studies are generally rare (Elmgren et al. 2015), they are almost non-existent in relation to innovation and collaboration. Some of these studies are rather focused on research policies and institutional conditions in general (Langfeldt et al. 2015; Stensaker & Benner 2013), than on doctoral education per se. Others are more concerned with doctoral students’ conditions for societal collaboration in practice (Andræ Thelin 2009; Bienowska & Klofsten 2012; Heldal 2016; Lundqvist & Benner 2012; Bienkowska, Klofsten and Rasmussen 2016; Wallgren 2007). However, when it comes to studies on innovation, there is dearth in the research literature. But we do know that doctoral students’ creativity is not always encouraged (Brodin 2015, 2016, 2017), and that other scholars have expressed similar concerns (Wingren 2015). Such results matters, as meta-analyses show a strong correlation between individuals’ creativity and innovation and also that contextual factors influence their innovative output (Sarooghi, Libaers & Burkemper 2015). We also know that concepts such as independence, critical thinking, and communication skills are frequently associated with innovation and collaboration (Cobo 2013). Thus our will include such related concepts in our analysis. This conference contribution aims at distributing our study to a Swedish audience, while the same results will be presented at the international Quality in Postgraduate Research conference (QPR) in Adelaide, 17-19 April 2018.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Brodin, Eva, et al.
(författare)
-
Issues on innovation, societal collaboration, and gender in doctoral education : Their historical appearances and relationships in Sweden and South Africa
- 2018
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- In 2011, the European Research Area (ERA) outlined several principles of innovative doctoral training such as research excellence; exposure to industry and other relevant employment sectors; transferable skills training; and quality assurance (Vittorio, 2015). Similar policies and guidelines can also be found in doctoral education across the globe, where the request for innovation and societal collaboration is urgent (e.g. Association of American Universities, 1998/2017; Australian Council of Learned Academies, 2016; HEQSF, 2013; Swedish Government Bill, 2008, 2016). At the same time, it is known that the general conditions for innovation vary across countries (Meeus & Edquist, 2006), and that global policy trends are construed and organised differently at national level in doctoral education (Andres et al., 2015). Furthermore, studies have shown that doctoral students’ inter-sectorial work could be hindered by the fact that the universities are not always near to knowledge-intensive industries, or that the industry is ill prepared to make use of the doctoral students’ qualifications (Vittorio, 2015). Combined with the fact that gender differences have been found in a number studies on doctoral education in general (Jones, 2013), it is accordingly significant to ask: What are the contextual and gendered conditions for doctoral students to develop their innovative and collaborative capability? Current research has no satisfying answer to this complex question yet. Against this background, our conference contribution is founded in a newly started project entitled "Developing innovative and collaborative capability in doctoral education from a gender perspective: Conditions, processes and outcomes in Sweden and South Africa". Based on social rule theory (Burns & Carson, 2002), we assume that learning practices are governed by a range of social rules founded in policies, organisational leadership, scholarly norms, and societal stakeholders. In particular, we are interested in how diverse levels of the doctoral educational system are related (or not) to each other, and how different systems affect the students’ innovative and collaborative development. While our overall project consists of several self-contained but interrelated studies to fulfil this holistic and systems theoretical approach, the first part of our study, reported on here, focuses on the macro level only by analysing national policies and guidelines related to doctoral education. Hence, based on summative content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), this conference contribution will illuminate how the expressions of innovation, societal collaboration, gender and related concepts have occurred, converged and developed over time in Swedish and South African national policies on doctoral education from 1970-2017. Certain attention will be given to differences and similarities in these regards when comparing the two nations. Comparing Swedish and South African doctoral education is well justified. In contrast to Sweden, with its long traditions of societal welfare and of producing doctorates, South Africa is now in a phase of significant expansion and construction of doctoral education – with the political aim to strengthen the economy and democracy of their nation (National Planning Commission, 2011). Due to these national differences, our project can contribute to a deeper understanding of both context-specific and global issues within the problem field.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Lindberg, Leif, 1942-, et al.
(författare)
-
Forskarutbildning - vart är den på väg?
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Att leda lärande. - Kalmar, Växjö : Linnaeus University Press. - 9789188761705 ; , s. 17-40
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Lindberg, Leif
(författare)
-
Ethos och skolframgång
- 2015. - 2:1
-
Ingår i: Struktur, kultur, ledarskap. - Lund : Studentlitteratur AB. - 9789144102887 ; , s. 51-71
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 10. |
- Nordstierna, René, 1951-
(författare)
-
Osäkra möten : Perspektiv på metodbildning för det konstnärliga högskolefältet
- 2015
-
Konstnärligt arbete (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- The dissertation’s background consists of a conceptual and ideohistorical il-lumination of contrasting relationships, distinction, and partition of work between science, art, design, and architecture, both as concept, field, and acti-vities. Simultaneously it consists of an investigation of whether these contra-sting relationships are possible to displace in connection to the artistic field of research. The dissertation is defined to inquire what artistic research can be but most of all how it can be formed. The scientific method has by tradition been a delimination between science and other investigations and experiments. Nevertheless it has been customary within the artistic field of university educa-tion to adopt scientific methods of identity and unity making from other di-sciplines in report on project- and Diploma work. In the light of current ap-prehensions within large parts of the artistic field of university education to-wards subordination of artisticly created project work to traditionally scientific methods when making a report is a method for investigation developed with the capacity: to bring out the significance of the subject in the formulation of the work procedure; to establish relations between personal experiences and conventional statements; and also to remain in singular events instead of exce-eding them towards theoretical generality. The method of inquiry “Uncertain Meetings” relates to ideas of creating, or producing, difference through the set up of meetings between: theory and practice; form and content; discoursive and intuitive knowledge. These meetings will be most fruitful when allowed to take place in uncertainty. Since the scientist or student within artistic rese-arch on the artisticly creative area’s own terms are to be considered both as theorists, who practise their ideas, and as practicians, who generate new theo-ries, the method of investigation will be tested in an artisticly explorative pro-ject work. The method of investigation is used as a means to create space. Simultaneously the creation of space is equated with textual media’s ability to make, intermediate, and communicate information, that neither contradicts the thought of functionality or meaning, the facticity of material or form nor its emotional and associative effects. The method of investigation has obvious applicability within the artistic field of university education for postgraduate and doctoral studies in design and architecture. This is due to that the method enables open and uncertain meetings between scientific investigations and research, whose primary ambition is to produce knowledge, and artistic development work, whose primary ambition is to promote change. “Uncertain meetings” makes it possible to try and find different artisticly creative solu-tions and change complex relationships as well as produce anexact knowledge.
|
|
