Article Sidebar

Submitted
Oct 27, 2020
Published
Oct 26, 2020
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 519 Download : 290

Main Article Content

Abstract

This paper proposes a hybrid approach to the management of stakeholder conflicting expectations in higher education (HE) by combining Stakeholder Theory (ST) and a participatory approach. In this paper, we use an ex post facto approach to retrospectively report Sultan Qaboos University (SQU) experience in managing stakeholder conflicting expectations in developing the BA in English Language and Literature Program as a case study. We show that for an effective management of stakeholder conflicting expectations in HE, the three perspectives of ST (i.e., descriptive, instrumental and normative) have to be taken together as a unified approach with the normative perspective occupying the core. In addition, we argue that this unified approach should be complemented by a participatory approach to add an interactive dimension to stakeholder conflict management and allow stakeholders to become active conflict-solvers. The paper concludes that this hybrid approach is essential to manage stakeholder conflicting expectations in academic program development and to project academic program development in HE as a shared social responsibility.

Keywords

Higher education academic program development conflict management stakeholder theo-ry participatory approach

Article Details

References

  1. Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stake-holder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation. High-er Education, 59, 567-588. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2
  2. Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Ana-lyzing qualitative data: systematic ap-proaches.CA: Sage Publications
  3. Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsid-ered: Priorities of the professorate. NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for Ad-vancement of Teaching.
  4. Boyer, E. L. (1996). The Scholarship of En-gagement. Journal of Public Service and Outreach, 1(1), 11–20.
  5. Butcher, J., Bezzina, M., & Moran, W. (2011). Transformational partnerships: A new agenda for higher education. Innovative Higher Education, 36, 29–40. doi:10.1007/s10755-010-9155-7
  6. Cavallone, M., M., Ciasullo, V., Manna, R., & Palumbo, R. (2020). A tale of two stakeholders: achieving excellence by merging quality expectations in Higher Education institutions. Studies in Higher Education, 1–16. doi:10.1080/03075079.2020.1739016
  7. Cohen, C., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education. London and New York: Routledge.
  8. de la Torre, E. M., Rossi, F., & Sagarra, M. (2018). Who Benefits from HIEs En-gagement? An Analysis of priority stakeholders and activity profile of HEIs in the United Kingdom. Studies in Higher Education, 1–20. doi. 10.1080/03075079.2018.1479847
  9. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The Stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20 (1), 65–91.
  10. Dziewanowska, K. (2017). Value types in higher education – Students’ perspec-tive. Journal of Higher Education Poli-cy and Management, 39 (3), 235–46. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2017.1299981
  11. Evan, W., & Freeman, R. E. (1988). A Stake-holder theory of the modern corpora-tion: Kantian capitalism. In T. L. Beau-champ and N. Bowie (Eds.), Ethical theory and business (97–103). Eng-lewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  12. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Manage-ment: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
  13. Garvare, R., & Johansson, P. (2010). Man-agement of sustainability- A stake-holder theory. Total Quality Manage-ment and Business Excellence, 21(7), 737–744. doi:10.10.80/14783363.2010.483095
  14. Guijt, I. (2014). Participatory Approaches. Methodological Briefs. (Impact Evalua-tion 5). UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.
  15. Guijt, I., & Gaventa, J. (1998). Participatory monitoring and evaluation: Learning from change. (IDS Policy Briefing No.12). University of Sussex, Brighton.
  16. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its com-munities: Interconnections, interde-pendencies and a research agenda. Higher Education,56, 303–324. doi:10.1007/s10734008-9128-2
  17. Labanauskis, R., & Ginevičius, R. (2017). Role of stakeholders leading to devel-opment of higher education services. Engineering Management in Produc-tion and Services,9 (3), 63–75. doi.org/10.1515/emj-2017-0026
  18. Mainardes, E., Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2013). Identifying stakeholders in a Portuguese university: A case study. Revista de Educación, 362, 429–457. doi: 10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2012-362-167
  19. Marić, I. (2013). Stakeholder Analysis of Higher Education Institution. Interdis-ciplinary Description of Complex Sys-tems, 11(2), 217–226. doi: 10.7906/indecs.11.2.4
  20. Marshall, S. J. (2018). Internal and external stakeholders in higher education. In S. J. Marshall (Ed.), Shaping the universi-ty of the future: Using technology to catalyse change in university learning and teaching (77-102). Singapore: Springer.
  21. Melewar, T. C., & Akel, S. (2005). The role of corporate identity in the higher educa-tion sector. Corporate Communica-tions: An International Journal, 10 (1), 41–57. doi:10.1108/13563280510578196
  22. Merrill, B., Finnegan, F., O’Neill, J., & Re-vers, S. (2020). “When it comes to what employers are looking for, I don’t think I’m it for a lot of them”: Class and capi-tals in, and after, higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 45 (1), 163–75. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1570492
  23. Mitchel, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). “Toward a Theory of Stake-holder Identification and Salience: De-fining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” Academy of Manage-ment Review. 22 (4), 853–886.
  24. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organization. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Publishing Corp.
  25. Rubens, A., Spigarelli, F., Cavicchi, A., & Rinaldi, C. (2017). Universities’ third mission and the entrepreneurial uni-versity and the challenges they bring to higher education institutions. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, 11(3), 354–372. doi: 10.1108/JEC-01-2017-0006
  26. Schoen, A., Laredo, P., Bellon, B., & Sanchez, P. (2007). Observatory of Eu-ropean University: PRIME Position Pa-per, version March 2007. Available at: http://www.primenoe. org/Local/prime/dir/Projects/OEU/OEU%20position%20paper%20march2007.pdf
  27. Strier, R. (2014). Fields of paradox: Univer-sity-community partnerships. Higher Education, 68 (2), 155—165. doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9698-5
  28. Suchman, M.C. (1995). Managing legitima-cy: Strategic and institutional ap-proaches. Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), 571–610.
  29. Trencher, G., Yarmie, M., McCormick, K. B., Doll, C. N., & Karines, S. B. (2014). Be-yond the third mission: Exploring the emerging university function of co-creation for sustainability. Science and Public Policy, 41(2), 151–179. doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct044.