scholarly journals U.S. National Higher Education Internationalization Policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (6S1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yovana Soobrayen Veerasamy
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
National Level ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
The Public ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Higher Education Internationalization ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Multiple Actors

Situated within the context of globalization, the purpose of this historical policy analysis study is to identify and describe the ways in which multiple actors shape national higher education internationalization policy within the U.S., and to capture the emerging direction in higher education internationalization policy at the national level between 2000 and 2019. Data will be collected from multiple sources at the national level essentially from organizations within the public, private and voluntary policy-making sectors. The guiding theoretical framework for this study will rely on horizontal and vertical historical analysis. The study aims to describe (1) how policy is shaped in a pluralistic policy-making process, (2) identify factors that influenced policy trajectory, and (3) outline policy rationales between 2000 and 2019.

Enterprise System Development in Higher Education

2011 ◽  
pp. 196-221
Author(s):  
Bongsug Chae ◽  
Marshall Scott Poole
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
System Development ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Value Systems ◽  
It Management ◽  
Enterprise System ◽  
The Public ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Strategic Goals ◽  
Private Sector Organizations

“One system for everyone” has been an ideal goal for information technology (IT) management in many large organizations, and the deployment of such systems has been a major trend in corporate world under the name of enterprise systems (ES) (Brown & Vessey, 2003; Davenport, 2000; Markus, Petrie, & Axline, 2000). Benefits from ES use are claimed to be significant and multidimensional, ranging from operational improvements through decision-making enhancement to support for strategic goals (Shang & Seddon, 2002). However, studies (Hanseth & Braa, 2001; Rao, 2000; Robey, Ross, & Boudreau, 2002) of the deployment of ES in private sector organizations show that the ideal is difficult to accomplish. This chapter reports a case in which a major university system in the U.S. attempted to develop an in-house enterprise system. The system is currently used by more than 4,000 individual users in almost 20 universities and state agencies. This case offers a historical analysis of the design, implementation and use of the system from its inception in the mid 1980s to the present. This case indicates that ES design and implementation in higher education are quite challenging and complex due to unique factors in the public sector—including state mandates/requirements, IT leadership/resources, value systems, and decentralized organizational structure among other things—that must be taken into account in planning, designing and implementing ES (Ernst, Katz, & Sack, 1994; Lerner, 1999; McCredie, 2000). This case highlights (1) the challenges and issues in the rationale behind “one system for everyone” and (2) some differences as well as similarities in IT management between the private and public sectors. It offers some unique opportunities to discuss issues, challenges and potential solutions for the deployment of ES in the public arena, particularly in higher education.

Introduction

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Carl Purcell
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Child Abuse ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Children's Services ◽  
Public Policy Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Children’S Services

This chapter outlines the rationale for the book and the contribution it seeks to make to research on children’s services reform and the public policy-making process. The emphasis placed on the influence of child abuse inquiries in previous research in this area is questioned. A brief overview of the chapters that follow is also provided.

Structure and Governance in American Higher Education: Historical and Comparative Analysis in State Policy

1989 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Davis Graham
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Liberal Arts ◽  
Baby Boom ◽  
National Level ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
State Level ◽  
Manhattan Project ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cultural Tradition ◽  
American Higher Education

Historians of public policy, who typically share a conviction that historical analysis can clarify the options available to policymakers, have witnessed this decade's quickening debate over the role and control of American higher education with, in one of Yogi Berra's immortal phrases, a sense of “déjà vu all over again.” Political leaders have continued, in a near vacuum of historical knowledge, to manipulate present variables and project them into the future with little awareness, beyond current political memory, of their past consequences, or of a legacy of political and cultural tradition that would constrain their manipulation. At the national level of debate, which is not where educational policy in the United States historically has been made, the level of historical awareness generally has been greater than at the state level. In the flurry of national commissions and foundation reports that probed the deficiencies of American higher education in 1984–85, the historical evolution of the college curriculum was addressed in reasonably informed historical terms.1 Even though the urgency of debate in the 1980s was fueled by the common pain of recession and post-baby-boom retrenchment, and also by fears of increasing vulnerability to oil boycotts and Japanese economic competition, the national elites who wrote the reports were mindful of the roots of Big Science in the Manhattan Project. Their ties to the academic establishment were intimate, and their historical memories embraced the wisdom of the liberal arts as well as the efficacy of land-grant agriculture and Silicon Valley.

THE DISABILITY POLICY MAKING PROCESS

2020 ◽  
Vol 559 (10) ◽  
pp. 22-29
Author(s):  
Paweł Kubicki ◽  
Adriana Mica ◽  
Mikołaj Pawlak
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
People With Disabilities ◽  
Disability Policy ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
The Public ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
Public Policy Process ◽  
Policy Making Process

Our goal is to analyze the disability policy making process in Poland on the example of implementing the assumptions of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The key tool we use is the model of the five streams of the public policy process: problem, solutions, politics, process and program. In particular, we look at the role played by the movement of people with disabilities in this process. We claim that the weakness of the movements and the origins of activism of people with disabilities other than in Western countries makes the implementation of the Convention in Poland difficult and often ends in failure.

scholarly journals Does Controversial Science Call For Public Participation? The Case Of Gmo Skepticism

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-50
Author(s):  
Andreas Christiansen ◽  
Karin Jonch-Clausen ◽  
Klemens Kappel
Keyword(s):  
Public Participation ◽  
Science Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Science And Technology ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
The Public ◽  
Scientific Experts ◽  
Policy Making Process

Many instances of new and emerging science and technology are controversial. Although a number of people, including scientific experts, welcome these developments, a considerable skepticism exists among members of the public. The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a case in point. In science policy and in science communication, it is widely assumed that such controversial science and technology require public participation in the policy-making process. We examine this view, which we call the Public Participation Paradigm, using the case of GMOs as an example. We suggest that a prominent reason behind the call for public participation is the belief that such participation is required for democratic legitimacy. We then show that the most prominent accounts of democratic legitimacy do not, in fact, entail that public participation is required in cases of controversial science in general, or in the case of GMOs in particular.

scholarly journals Psychology, counseling psychology, and professional counseling: Shared roots, challenges, and opportunities

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peggy Brady-Amoon ◽  
Kathleen Keefe-Cooperman
Keyword(s):  
Counseling Psychology ◽  
Historical Analysis ◽  
Professional Counseling ◽  
Call To Action ◽  
The Public ◽  
Challenges And Opportunities ◽  
Narrow Definition ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Counseling Psychologists

Psychology, counseling psychology, and professional counseling are at a crossroad. The growing movement to establish professional counseling as a distinct profession, based on an increasingly narrow definition of professional identity, is particularly relevant to counseling psychologists and professional counselors and has implications for the broader field of psychology. A brief systematic historical analysis of these professional specialties in the U.S. provides the context to examine current challenges, including proposed restriction of master’s level training, licensure or other authorization to practice, and employment to graduates of programs accredited by the Council for the Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). These restrictions reduce services to the public and threaten the viability of counseling psychology and professional counseling in the U.S. These challenges also have significant implications for counseling psychologists in Europe and internationally given similar efforts. Going beyond a call to action, the article concludes with recommendations for counseling psychologists and allied professionals to address shared challenges, maximize shared opportunities, and foster enhanced intra- and inter-professional collaboration and cooperation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document