Towards the Entrepreneurial University 2.0: Reaffirming the Responsibility of Universities in the Era of Accountability

Universities have been expected to do more to solve economic and social problems in the knowledge-based society. Many universities have tried to become more entrepreneurial in order to respond to the overloaded demands from external society. However, the notion of entrepreneurial university is still quite vague, and so this paper firstly tries to propose a comprehensive framework describing the entrepreneurial university. Facing the increasing global competition, the national governments have also push universities to do more for the society and to be accountable for their “effectiveness” and “quality”, by using the new public management techniques. However, these managerialism approaches have posed serious challenge for the development of entrepreneurial universities. In order to better balance the expectation for being entrepreneurial from the external industry and society, and the managerialism requirement from the government, this paper proposes to reassert the responsibility of universities in the accountability era, moving towards “Entrepreneurial Universities 2.0”.

The Mechanism

This chapter presents evidence on patterns of exile through a large dataset of political leaders and measure of leader culpability for mass atrocities. It explains why the decision to flee into exile is conditional on whether leaders can expect to face post-tenure international punishment. It also points out how culpable leaders were more likely to flee abroad than nonculpable leaders in the impunity era. The chapter provides statistical analysis with a case study of Liberia's Charles Taylor, who is one of the few culpable leaders to go into exile in the accountability era. It elaborates how the Taylor case study clarifies why some leaders still choose exile and confirms whether culpable leaders who go into exile in the accountability era actually get punished.

The Perverse Effect

This chapter investigates civil war duration and shows how culpable leaders respond to incentives to fight until the bitter end. It provides quantitative analysis that demonstrates civil wars last longer when culpable leaders are in power during the accountability era. It reviews a case study of Muammar Gaddafi during the 2011 Libyan revolution, which illustrates how the justice cascade has altered the decision calculus of culpable leaders. The chapter describes Gaddafi, who was unlike his peers during the impunity era, as he worried enough about an international prosecution to spurn the exile option. It recounts Gaddafi's decision to risk it all on the battlefield, which prolonged the Libyan conflict.

Understanding District Support for Leader Development and Success in the Accountability Era: A Review of the Literature Using Social-Cognitive Theories of Motivation

As an intermediary between U.S. state and federal policy and the school, the school district, many scholars maintain, remains a key player in meeting the needs of school-level leadership. Moreover, the job of the principal is difficult and has become increasingly complex as a result of increased pressure, accountability, and oversight under the No Child Left Behind Act (now the Every Student Succeeds Act) in the United States. These two propositions raise important questions about what we know (and do not yet know) about how to support school leaders’ learning and development in their quest to effectively lead a school. In this review, we use extant social-cognitive theories of motivation to organize the research on district effectiveness in pursuit of the following question: How does the district as a key player in school/instructional improvement facilitate conditions under which school principals’ learning, development, and success are enhanced? In pursuing this question, we hoped to strengthen two particular weaknesses in this strand of scholarship: (1) the concern that research in this particular area is relatively atheoretical and (2) concerns about the applicability of this research to practice.

Learning From Early Adopters in the New Accountability Era: Insights From California’s CORE Waiver Districts

Purpose: The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) represents a notable shift in K-12 accountability, requiring a more comprehensive approach to assessing school performance and a less prescriptive approach to intervening in low-performing schools. In this article, we seek to leverage the experiences of California’s CORE (California Office to Reform Education) waiver districts to better understand what it means to implement an ESSA-like system. Specifically, we examine educators’ attitudes about CORE’s accountability system, how it was implemented, and its intermediate outcomes. Research Methods: We use a multiple, embedded case study design, examining the implementation of CORE’s accountability system across all six CORE Districts. We draw on interviews with CORE staff ( n = 4), district leaders ( n = 6) and administrators ( n = 29), and school principals ( n = 15); observations of CORE meetings (42 hours); and documentation. Findings: We find strong buy-in for CORE’s accountability system and considerable adaptation of its key elements. District administrators also reported challenges with achieving reciprocity in collaborative activities, and limited capacity, validity concerns, and policy misalignment constrained implementation. Reported effects on practice and learning indicate CORE efforts were a work in progress. Implications for Research and Practice: This research suggests lessons about what it means to be “data-driven” in a multiple-measures accountability era and raises questions about how to facilitate school improvement. While efforts to motivate change via test-based measures, sanctions, and prescribed interventions in prior accountability eras may not have yielded all the expected positive results, our study indicates that a shift to multiple measures, greater flexibility, and locally determined capacity-building efforts brings its own set of challenges.