مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد تغییر سازمانی در یک دانشگاه استرالیایی – الزویر ۲۰۱۷

elsevier

 

مشخصات مقاله
ترجمه عنوان مقاله تغییر سازمانی در یک دانشگاه استرالیایی: پاسخ به تمرین ارزیابی پژوهشی
عنوان انگلیسی مقاله Organizational change in an Australian university: Responses to a research assessment exercise
انتشار مقاله سال ۲۰۱۷
تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی ۳۱ صفحه
هزینه دانلود مقاله انگلیسی رایگان میباشد.
پایگاه داده نشریه الزویر
نوع نگارش مقاله مقاله پژوهشی (Research article)
مقاله بیس این مقاله بیس نمیباشد
نمایه (index) scopus – master journals – JCR
نوع مقاله ISI
فرمت مقاله انگلیسی  PDF
ایمپکت فاکتور(IF) ۲٫۲۳۲ در سال ۲۰۱۷
شاخص H_index ۵۲ در سال ۲۰۱۷
شاخص SJR ۰٫۹۸۶ در سال ۲۰۱۷
رشته های مرتبط مدیریت
گرایش های مرتبط مدیریت استراتژیک
نوع ارائه مقاله ژورنال
مجله / کنفرانس بررسی حسابداری انگلیسی – The British Accounting Review
دانشگاه School of Business and Law – Central Queensland University – Australia
شناسه دیجیتال – doi
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2017.05.002
کد محصول E9452
وضعیت ترجمه مقاله  ترجمه آماده این مقاله موجود نمیباشد. میتوانید از طریق دکمه پایین سفارش دهید.
دانلود رایگان مقاله دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی
سفارش ترجمه این مقاله سفارش ترجمه این مقاله

 

فهرست مطالب مقاله:
Abstract
۱ Introduction
۲ The Australian higher education sector context
۳ Performance management systems
۴ An organizational change model
۵ Research method — A case study of UniA
۶ Findings
۷ Conclusion
References

بخشی از متن مقاله:
Introduction

Neo-liberal reforms have flowed through the public sector since the 1980s, with new public management (NPM) practices resulting in a global cultural and managerial transformation of the sector (Ferlie & Steane, 2002). There has been a dramatic change from a public administration focus to a more competitive, corporate culture that emphasizes results (Parker & Guthrie, 1993; Skalen, 2004). Academic research has focused in particular on changes in health and higher education, identifying not only the politically mandated changes themselves, but organizational responses to a results-oriented approach (Agrizzi, 2008; Broadbent, 2007; Broadbent, Jacobs & Laughlin, 2001; Broadbent, Laughlin & Read, 1991; Fredman & Doughney, 2012; Skalen, 2004; Taylor, 1999; Vaira, 2004; Watty, Bellamy & Morley, 2008). Focusing on the Higher Education Sector (HES), this paper contextualises the changes that have occurred and examines organizational responses to those changes as research performance is built into universities’ Performance Management Systems (PMSs). In 2010, the Australian Research Council (ARC), an Australian Government body, evaluated the research performance of the Australian HES under its new Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) initiative. However, this was not the first Australian attempt to assess and evaluate research, with a proposed ‘Research Quality Framework’ (RQF) foreshadowed in 2000 (Larkins, 2011) and advanced through the preparation of an Issues paper “Assessing the Quality and Impact of Research in Australia” in 2005 (Nelson, 2005). The underlying intent of such ‘research assessment exercises’ (RAEs) is to increase the quality and international reputation of research conducted within the Australian HES. A change in the Australian Federal Government in 2007 resulted in the abandonment of the proposed RQF and the eventual implementation of ERA. ERA provides the administrative mechanism whereby institutional (i.e., university) research performance is captured, measured, and reported to the ARC for evaluation and assessment. The linking of elements of government funding to research performance incentivizes a strategic and operational response by Australian universities to improve the quality (and quantity) of research and, where appropriate, to develop and implement research PMSs. Conceptually, RQF and ERA are similar to RAEs implemented in other jurisdictions (for example, the ‘Research Excellence Framework’ in the United Kingdom (UK) (HEFCE, 2010), and ‘Performance Based Research Funding’ in New Zealand (NZ) (Northcott & Linacre, 2010), and similar research evaluations undertaken in other countries including Spain, Hong Kong, Sweden, Demark, and so on (Hicks, 2012; Martin-Sardesai, Irvine, Tooley & Guthrie, 2016). Despite any differences in scope and application, each jurisdiction’s approach is designed to measure and assess research performance within its respective HES (Martin-Sardesai, Irvine, Tooley & Guthrie, 2017; Whittington, 2000). In each jurisdiction, these changes demand a response from universities, which will necessitate internal organizational changes and arguably, an increasing emphasis on PMSs designed to align university performance with government requirements.

ارسال دیدگاه

نشانی ایمیل شما منتشر نخواهد شد. بخش‌های موردنیاز علامت‌گذاری شده‌اند *