Volume 2016, Issue 2

Abstract

Quality of higher education is often assumed to be linked to the size of the faculty. Therefore, this study tested the hypothesis whether Bachelor's theses in ecology at a large, old research university would have more connection to theory than those at a small, young university college. The results revealed no significant difference between the universities. One potential explanation for these results is that theory is more likely to depend on the individual supervisor who may demand a clear connection to theory in Bachelor's theses. However, in the group of theses categorized as without a clear connection to theory, there were significant differences between the two universities regarding whether students were testing/developing a method or performing a case study. At the large, well-equipped research university, Bachelor's theses were significantly more likely to be based on developing/testing methods, while those at the university college more often comprised inexpensive case studies. Further studies including more universities of contrasting sizes, across countries and disciplines, are required to test the general validity of the findings.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2016.2
2016-04-13
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/connect/2016/2/connect.2016.2.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2016.2&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Forsberg E. Formeringen av forskningsanknytning genom examensarbete. Nord. J. Stud. Educ. Policy. 2007; 2006::2.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. HSV. The Swedish National Agency for Higher Education's quality evaluation system 2011–2014. 22 (Swedish National Agency for Higher Education). [https://www.uka.se/download/18.575a959a141925e81d113e8/1403093617434/1103R-quality-evaluation-system-2011-2014.pdf].
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Harman K, Meek VL. Introduction to special issue: ‘Merger revisited: international perspectives on mergers in higher education’. High. Educ. 2002; 44::14.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Gamage DT. Recent reforms in Australian higher education with particular reference to institutional amalgamations. High. Educ. 1992; 24::7792.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Harman G, Harman K. Institutional mergers in higher education: Lessons from international experience. Tert. Educ. Manag. 2003; 9::2944.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Wan Y, Peterson MW. A case study of a merger in Chinese higher education: The motives, processes, and outcomes. Int. J. Educ. Dev. 2007; 27::683696.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Rowley G. Strategic alliances: United we stand: A strategic analysis of mergers in higher education. Public Money Manag. 1997; 17::712.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Harman K. Merging divergent campus cultures into coherent educational communities: Challenges for higher education leaders. High. Educ. 2002; 44::91114.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kyvik S. The merger of non-university colleges in Norway. High. Educ. 2002; 44::5372.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Mok K. Globalization and educational restructuring: University merging and changing governance in China. High. Educ. 2005; 50::5788.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Mao Y, Du Y, Liu J. The effects of university mergers in China since 1990s: From the perspective of knowledge production. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 2009; 23::1933.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Drowley MJ, Lewis D, Brooks S. Merger in higher education: Learning from experiences. High. Educ. Q. 2013; 67::201214.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Kyvik S, Stensaker B. Factors affecting the decision to merge: The case of strategic mergers in Norwegian higher education. Tert. Educ. Manag. 2013; 19::323337.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Välimaa J, Aittola H, Ursin J. University mergers in Finland: Mediating global competition. New Dir. High. Educ. 2014; 2014::4153.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cherfas J. University restructuring based on false premise?: Recent studies contest the British government's argument that big science departments are better than small ones. Sci. N.Y. 1990; 247::278278.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kyvik S. Are big university departments better than small ones? High. Educ. 1995; 30::295304.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Best Colleges | College Rankings | US News Education – US News. US News & World Report. [http://www.usnews.com/best-colleges].
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Ohlsson Ö. Educational Innovation in Economics and Business II. In: Tempelaar DTWiedersheim-Paul FGunnarsson E, eds. Springer Netherlands 1998;:259272. [http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-5268-6_16].
  19. Jerrim J. Family background and access to high ‘status’ universities. The Sutton Trust 2013.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Amf A. Higher education in Sweden – 2014. Universitetskanslersämbetet 2014.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Borde SF. Predictors of student academic performance in the introductory marketing course. J. Educ. Bus. 1998; 73::302306.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Pedrosa RH, Dachs JNW, Maia RP, Andrade CY, Carvalho BS. Educational and socioeconomic background of undergraduates and academic performance: consequences for affirmative action programs at a Brazilian research university. IMHE 2006;. [http://antares.comvest.unicamp.br/paais/artigo2.pdf].
    [Google Scholar]
  23. El Ansari W, Stock C. Is the health and wellbeing of university students associated with their academic performance? Cross sectional findings from the United Kingdom. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health. 2010; 7::509527.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Adler NE, Ostrove JM. Socioeconomic status and health: What we know and what we don't. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1999; 896::315.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Scheiner SM. The ecological literature, an idea-free distribution. Ecol. Lett. 2013; 16::14211423.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Biology Education Centre (IBG). Uppsala University [http://www.ibg.uu.se].
  27. IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. IBM 2010.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Ursin J, Aittola H, Henderson C, Välimaa J. Is education getting lost in university mergers? Tert. Educ. Manag. 2010; 16::327340.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Shibayama S. Distribution of academic research funds: a case of Japanese national research grant. Scientometrics. 2011; 88::4360.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2016.2
Loading
/content/journals/10.5339/connect.2016.2
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Keyword(s): ecology educationsize of facultystudent thesessupervisinguniversity merger and university size

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed