How do Higher Education Institutions Enhance their Financial Autonomy? Examples from Finnish Polytechnics

Numerous studies have addressed how state authorities and public funding bodies control, regulate, steer, supervise or oversee higher education institutions. There are fewer studies on how higher education institutions respond to the actions of the mentioned authorities. States have aimed at increasing the autonomy of higher education institutions. At the same time institutions are expected to generate social benefits and economic growth. There is an endless tension between a policy that will strengthen the autonomy and simultaneously retain a space for state steering. The Finnish polytechnic and university sectors have very different origins from which their financial autonomy takes its shape. This article sheds light on how six Finnish polytechnics aspire to enhance their financial autonomy. The polytechnics operate under two separate steering systems, the state and local owners, and both of these actors exercise their own steering. This article shows that polytechnics are willing and able to enhance their financial autonomy. They calculate their advantages and habitually engage with the Ministry of Education or their owners depending on the case in question. The financial autonomy of polytechnics does not culminate in a form of diversified funding sources, but as balancing between the two masters on whose resources they are heavily dependent.     

Linking Mind,Brain, and Education to Clinical Practice: A Proposal for Transdisciplinary Collaboration

It has been suggested that the field of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) requires a stable infrastructure for translating research into practice. Hinton and Fischer (2008) point to the academic medical center as a model for similar translational work and suggest a similar approach for linking scientists to research schools. We propose expanding their model to include a formal role for clinicians. Including clinicians who work with children with learning problems brings an important perspective to the translational work. For example, the integration of the concept of “differential diagnosis,” a core precept in clinical medicine, would bring needed diagnostic specificity to the field of MBE. We describe a virtual infrastructure for collaboration, or “collaboratory,” consisting of research scientists, educators, and clinicians, linked to an academic institution. We anticipate that MBE graduates can play a critical role in the collaboratory model. With additional training, they can become “neuroeducators” capable of moving comfortably among the disciplines, building linkages, fostering communication, and facilitating collaboration.     

The Developmental Process of Clinical Supervisors in Training: An Investigation of the Supervisor Complexity Model

The authors investigated C. E. Watkins's (1994) supervisor complexity model (SCM). The Psychotherapy Supervisor Development Scale (PSDS; C. E. Watkins, L. J. Schneider, J. Haynes, & R. Nieberding, 1995) was used to ascertain development over a 15‐week supervision practicum for 12 doctoral students and to compare their development with 7 doctoral students who had not yet begun their practicums. A set of retrospective interview questions produced responses that were used to investigate the viability of the 4 proposed discrete developmental stages in the SCM. The PSDS findings are congruent with theory. The retrospective interview findings, although interesting, are less definitive. Recommendations for research and training are presented.     

Breaking up is hard to do: the resilience of the rock group as an organizational form for creating music

Though there is a long tradition of band members quitting the group or taking a hiatus, the rock group as an organization to produce music continues to be both popular and economically viable. The research question addressed in this paper is whether or not it is a good idea to quit or take a hiatus from the group. We begin with a discussion of the framework for understanding why groups are formed and why they may be difficult to keep together. We then discuss differences between groups in the decade of the 1960s versus today. We argue that there is something unique about the output of the group even with the changes in the structure of contracts, compensation, and consumer focus on the artist that explain the resilience of the rock band as an organizational form within which to create music. We compare the charting success of bands that have members leave the group with the charting success of the members who left the group. We identified the groups in five representative years: 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995, and 2005. We then analyzed the entire Billboard Hot 100 charting careers of those groups and the artists who quit those groups. Our main finding is that when charting success is divided equally among members, going solo pays off—there is a clear economic rationale because solo acts have greater average charting success than the original bands they started in. The other ensuing side projects: duos, collaborations, and other groups are not as lucrative as the original bands. These findings are valid for members of charting groups from each of the 5 years examined. Despite the difficulties in keeping a rock band together, there are fewer band breakups today and remaining with the group generally results in a longer and more productive charting career. Thus, the rock group remains an important organization for producing contemporary music. However, there remains a compelling incentive to go solo. Superstars may benefit from solo projects, but for the average, non-superstar group member, in many circumstances it is better for the band to stay together if the income is divided equally.