ISSN:0951-5224    

DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2273.1993.tb01630.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0951-5224    

DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2273.1993.tb01631.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractAccess is a central issue in the debate about the future shape and characteristics of the post‐binary system of higher education. It is seen as crucial to the shift towards a more open, mass system. This paper examines commitments to access in the contents of institutional missions and strategic plans. The results of our analysis suggest a widespread concern to be involved in the access process. However, we also reveal substantial differences in emphasis between the older universities, ex‐polytechnics and colleges that comprise the post‐binary system. On the basis of present institutional planning it would appear that access is frequently seen as an addition to, rather than a replacement of, the commitments of the binary era. Our evidence suggests that a fundamental shift of ethos within the system as a whole may be some wa

ISSN:0951-5224    

DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2273.1993.tb01632.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThis article examines the modularisation movement in higher education in the light of a comparative study of recent experience at the universities of Ghana and Bristol. Particular attention is given to an identification of motivating factors, both internal and external, and to an analysis of similarities and differences in the implementation of the modularisation process. The analysis focuses primarily upon perspectives articulated by government and administrators in the modularisation debate; but points to the need for further studies that more directly document the nature of the academic response.

ISSN:0951-5224    

DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2273.1993.tb01633.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractIn 1993, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) introduced a new system for determining the research component of block grant funding to English universities. The inter‐disciplinary differences in the amounts allocated suggest funding anomalies which are not related to the costs of research infrastructure in those disciplines. Analyses of the allocation procedure indicate how those anomalies have come about.I am grateful to the staff of the HEFCE for providing tabulations of unpublished data, and for background information of the allocation procedure, and to Mr R. E. Goodchild for useful discussions and advic

ISSN:0951-5224    

DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2273.1993.tb01634.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:0951-5224    

DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2273.1993.tb01635.x

出版商:Blackwell Publishing Ltd    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY