FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W339600302> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W339600302 endingPage "226" @default.
• W339600302 startingPage "221" @default.
• W339600302 abstract "Abstract Undergraduate faculty and administrators were surveyed regarding their perceived academic values, using an adaptation of SERVQUAL Scale. Gap analysis results on differences in ideal versus university values are reported for both groups. Introduction The Values Project evolved out of conversations among researchers who came together to discuss role of academic values in shaping their institution's identity and performance. They explored academic values in order to clarify institutional priorities and pinpoint areas where improvement was needed. An institution's higher educational values were conceptualized as implicit standards and expectations about higher education that influenced decisions of educators and administrators. In order to better understand concept of values, research efforts in disciplines of business administration and education were reviewed. Faculty and administrator values were then measured with questionnaires that were designed from focus groups and literature review. Literature Review Business literature provided insight into organizational values, as educational institutions are organizations. Organizational values have been defined as the means and ends that matter most to that an important guiding and directing role in functioning of organization (Dobni, Ritchie, and Zerbe, 2000, pp. 91-92). They provide a common language for aligning a company's leadership and its people (Rubino, 1998, p. 24). Within an organization, managers and employees will invariably encounter conflicts between personal and organizational values (Anderson 1998, Rubino 1998). In knowledge-based organizations (such as higher education institutions), Burdett argued that personal values will dominate, since the investment in learning is extremely high. The talent pool demanded to fuel growth and survival of such enterprises is, of necessity, marketed by intellectual independence and a demand for high quality of life. (Burdett, 1998, p. 41). A number of issues were found in education literature related to academic values. Browder (1997) identified two major ideological views: traditional view of teaching as pursuit of truth and knowledge versus postmodern view of teaching as a means to social transformation. Connected to this struggle is related issue of whether or not students should be viewed as consumers. If so, adopting a business and customer satisfaction viewpoint for university setting is arguably appropriate (Athiyaman, 1997, Finn, 1997, and Wambsganss & Kennett, 1995). However, Bay and Daniel provided strong arguments against viewing students as customers, including: professors often have a better understanding of what a quality education is than do students; focusing too much on keeping students happy results in institutions ignoring needs of other stakeholders; and empowering students as customers may result in shifts of responsibility for learning from student to institution and power from professors to students (Bay and Daniel, 2001, pp. 3-7). Universities face greater pressures today, coming under fire from legislators, private industry, media and general public to describe positive of a university education and to monitor those outcomes (Browne, et al., 1998, p. 2). Given this conflict, one may ask whether higher education institutions must cater to students as consumers or should remind students that they are also products. Or, if Guolla (1999) is correct, we must consider possibility that our students play at least four roles: customers, clients, producers, and products. Most of prior research examined perspective of students, both undergraduate and graduate, through teaching evaluations and other measures. Alexitch and Page (1997) identified three purposes for universities as seen by faculty: to impart knowledge and new ideas, to develop critical-thinking skills, and to promote personal growth (1997, p. …" @default.
• W339600302 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W339600302 creator A5013021963 @default.
• W339600302 creator A5022059838 @default.
• W339600302 creator A5037414693 @default.
• W339600302 creator A5086147544 @default.
• W339600302 date "2003-06-22" @default.
• W339600302 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W339600302 title "Values Gaps among Faculty and Administrators." @default.
• W339600302 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W339600302 type Work @default.
• W339600302 sameAs 339600302 @default.
• W339600302 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W339600302 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W339600302 hasAuthorship W339600302A5013021963 @default.
• W339600302 hasAuthorship W339600302A5022059838 @default.
• W339600302 hasAuthorship W339600302A5037414693 @default.
• W339600302 hasAuthorship W339600302A5086147544 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C120912362 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C182306322 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C187736073 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C2780510313 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W339600302 hasConcept C67674302 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C10138342 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C120912362 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C144024400 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C144133560 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C15744967 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C162324750 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C17744445 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C182306322 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C187736073 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C199539241 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C2780510313 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C36289849 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C39549134 @default.
• W339600302 hasConceptScore W339600302C67674302 @default.
• W339600302 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W339600302 hasLocation W3396003021 @default.
• W339600302 hasOpenAccess W339600302 @default.
• W339600302 hasPrimaryLocation W3396003021 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W1510149343 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W1650816130 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W2008400763 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W2019233911 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W2040941626 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W224550300 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W2411755021 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W2415597527 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W2419243842 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W2735513112 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W2740899483 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W291049253 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W2994722165 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W2998033504 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W30601160 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W3195252036 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W325737160 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W333615083 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W338078176 @default.
• W339600302 hasRelatedWork W57601300 @default.
• W339600302 hasVolume "7" @default.
• W339600302 isParatext "false" @default.
• W339600302 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W339600302 magId "339600302" @default.
• W339600302 workType "article" @default.