|Title||Institutional logics in research supervision|
According to Halse and Malfroy (2010) research supervision should be viewed as a profession. Professions have their own institutional norms, of course; explicit norms are what makes something a profession, rather than a craft. But in the world of
contemporary higher education, where the word "institution" is often used to denote the organization of the university and the bureaucracy of HE policy-making, the
institutionalized aspects of professional life can get lost. This paper examines the growing literature on research supervision through the lenses of a) knowledge theory, with its tacit, explicit and latent dimensions; and b) new institutional theory, with its focus on the diffusion of norms of social practices through isomophorism. It identifies three competing institutional logics: the traditional "craft" approach, an emerging "factory" mentality of measurable outcomes and target, and a middle way – a
"professional" logic. The paper concludes with a discussion of the role of
accountability and how it influences the legitimacy of these competing institutional logics.
|Publisher||University of Westminster|
|Web address (URL)||http://2009.westminster.ac.uk/schools/business/research/working-paper-series|