Abstract
The starting point of this article is the relation between teaching quality and expectations by different governance actors in higher education. Managing a department in a public university is, to a large extent, about the coordination of governance actors, involving government authorities as well as the university and the faculty. Internally, the departmental management has to act strategically to achieve this coordination, especially in relation to teachers who expect resource allocation to ensure teaching quality, expressed in terms of academic requirements. To explore this, the concept of proximity is introduced. The study points out the importance of organizing teaching activities to create proximity, as well as that the context and conditions for creating proximity are important for teaching quality, thus achieving coordination with governance actors.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boschma, R. A. (2005, February). Proximity and innovation: A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 39, 61–74.
Davies, M., Hirschberg, J., Lye, J., & Johnston, C. (2010). A systematic analysis of quality of teaching surveys. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 87–100.
Davis, J. H., Schoorman, D. F., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22, 20–47.
Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8, 54–63.
Kluvers, R., & Tippett, J. (2011). An exploration of stewardship theory in a not-for-profit organization. Accounting Forum, 35, 275–284.
Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2006). Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration: A literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, 71–89.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leten, B., Landoni, P., & Van Looy, B. (2014). Science or graduates: How do firms benefit from the proximity of universities? Research Policy, 43, 1398–1412.
Lundqvist, K.-J., & Trippl, M. (2013). Distance, proximity and types of cross-border innovation systems: A conceptual analysis. Regional Studies, 4, 440–460.
Macey, J. R., & Boot Arnoud, W. A. (2004). Monitoring, corporate performance: The role of objectivity, proximity and adaptability in corporate governance. Yale Law School, Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 1420.
Plecki, Margaret L., Alejano, C. R., Knapp, M. S., & Lochmiller, C. R. (2006). Allocating resources and creating incentives to improve teaching and learning. Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.
Shearmur, R. (2010). Space, place and innovation: A distance-based approach. The Canadian Geographer, 54, 46–67.
Simões, C., & Soares, A. M. (2010). Applying to higher education: Information sources and choice factors. Studies in Higher Education, 335, 371–389.
Sivakumar, K., Li, M., & Dong, B. (2014). Service quality: The impact of frequency, timing, proximity, and sequence of failures and delights. Journal of Marketing, 78, 41–58.
Swedish Higher Education Authority. (2014). Higher education in Sweden. 2014 status report. Stockholm: Swedish Higher Education Authority Report, 2014, 10.
Torre, A. (2008). On the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission. Regional Studies, 42, 869–889.
Torre, A., & Rallet, A. (2005). Proximity and localization. Regional Studies, 39, 47–59.
Turnbull, S. (1997). Corporate governance: Its scope, concerns and theories. Corporate Governance, 5(4), 180–205.
https://doi.org/www.lu.se.. 16 April 2015
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Macheridis, N., Paulsson, A. Governance of higher education — the role of proximity in teaching quality. Tert Educ Manag 22, 202–217 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2016.1183036
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2016.1183036