Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Science history
- Creators: Bozeman, Barry
Description
Over the last few hundred years, best practice in some fields of human action—e.g., the treatment of heart disease, the transportation of persons, goods, and messages, and the destruction of landscapes, structures, and lives—has become dramatically more effective. At the same time, best practice in other fields, e.g., the amelioration of poverty or the teaching of reading, writing, or math, has improved more slowly, if at all. I argue that practice and technology (“know-how”) can only improve rapidly under rather special conditions: that, at any given point in time, some fields are more “progressible” than others.I articulate a conceptual framework describing several characteristics of practice in a field that may facilitate rapid progress. These characteristics, while not fixed, tend to remain fairly stable for long periods of time. I argue that know-how can improve more quickly 1) when offline “vicarious trial” of variations in practice is feasible and useful; 2) when practice is formal and standardized; 3) when practice is substantially performed by artifacts rather than by humans; 4) when outcomes of variations in practice may be rapidly evaluated; 5) when goals of practice are consistently agreed upon; 6) when contexts and objects of practice may be treated as, or have been made, consistent for the purposes of intervention; 7) when components of task systems are not heavily interdependent; and 8) when labor is finely and sharply divided.
I illustrate and elaborate this framework through comparative case studies on efforts to improve practice in three differentially “progressible” fields. I examine rapid improvement in a COVID-19 testing lab, inconsistent improvement in undergraduate algebra instruction, and ambiguous improvement in regional water modeling to support municipal water management. These cases indicate that my theory may inform judgments about the plausibility of rapid advance within a field of practice, absent disruptive change in methods or problem formulation. My theory may also shed light on which varieties of innovative effort may and may not foreseeably contribute to improving practice in a given field—more formal, theoretical, and context-independent work in high-progressibility domains, more tacit, grounded, and localized work in low-progressibility ones.
ContributorsNelson III, John Paul (Author) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Thesis advisor) / Bozeman, Barry (Committee member) / Guston, David (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
The three essays in this dissertation each examine how aspects of contemporary administrative structure within American research universities affect faculty outcomes. Specific aspects of administrative structure tested in this dissertation include the introduction of new administrative roles, administrative intensity (i.e. relative size of university administration), and competing roles between faculty, administrators, and staff. Using quantitative statistical methods these aspects of administrative structure are tested for their effects on academic grant productivity, faculty job stress, and faculty job satisfaction. Administrative datasets and large scale national surveys make up the data for these studies and quantitative statistical methods confirm most of the hypothesized relationships.
In the first essay, findings from statistical modeling using instrumental variables suggest that academic researchers who receive administrative support for grant writing and management obtain fewer grants and have a lower success rate. However, the findings also suggest that the grants these researchers do receive are much larger in terms of dollars. The results indicate that administrative support is particularly beneficial in academic grant situations of high-risk, high-reward. In the second essay, ordered logit models reveal a statistically significant and stronger relationship between staff intensity (i.e., the ratio of faculty to staff workers) and faculty stress than the relationship between executive intensity (i.e., the ratio faculty to executive and managerial workers) and faculty job stress. These findings confirm theory that the work of faculty is more loosely coupled with the work of executives than it is with staff workers. A possible explanation is the increase in administrative work faculty must take on as there are fewer staff workers to take on administrative tasks. And finally, in the third essay results from multi-level modeling confirm that both role clarity and institutional support positively affect both a global measure of faculty job satisfaction and faculty satisfaction with how their work time is allocated. Understanding the effects that administrative structure has on faculty outcomes will aid universities as faculty administrative burdens ebb and flow in reaction to macro trends in higher education, such as unbundling of faculty roles, unbundling of services, neoliberalism, liberal arts decline, and administrative bloat.
In the first essay, findings from statistical modeling using instrumental variables suggest that academic researchers who receive administrative support for grant writing and management obtain fewer grants and have a lower success rate. However, the findings also suggest that the grants these researchers do receive are much larger in terms of dollars. The results indicate that administrative support is particularly beneficial in academic grant situations of high-risk, high-reward. In the second essay, ordered logit models reveal a statistically significant and stronger relationship between staff intensity (i.e., the ratio of faculty to staff workers) and faculty stress than the relationship between executive intensity (i.e., the ratio faculty to executive and managerial workers) and faculty job stress. These findings confirm theory that the work of faculty is more loosely coupled with the work of executives than it is with staff workers. A possible explanation is the increase in administrative work faculty must take on as there are fewer staff workers to take on administrative tasks. And finally, in the third essay results from multi-level modeling confirm that both role clarity and institutional support positively affect both a global measure of faculty job satisfaction and faculty satisfaction with how their work time is allocated. Understanding the effects that administrative structure has on faculty outcomes will aid universities as faculty administrative burdens ebb and flow in reaction to macro trends in higher education, such as unbundling of faculty roles, unbundling of services, neoliberalism, liberal arts decline, and administrative bloat.
ContributorsTaggart, Gabel (Author) / Welch, Eric (Thesis advisor) / Bozeman, Barry (Committee member) / Ott, Molly (Committee member) / Stritch, Justin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017