[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-596689-105":59,"doc-detail-596689-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","theorizing-college-governance-across-epistemic-differences-awareness-contexts-of-college-administrators-and-faculty","Theorizing College Governance across Epistemic Differences - Awareness Contexts of College Administrators and Faculty","","Awareness contexts are used as symbolic interactionist concepts to examine how Canadian colleges construct everyday realities around governance. The study sorts interview vignettes from administrators and faculty into four awareness-context types derived from Glaser and Strauss’s 1965 framework. It identifies closed awareness in college fundraising, mutual suspicion in administrator-faculty interaction on student success policy, mutual pretense regarding mission change and workload formulas, and open awareness through dialogue shaped by unions or professional bodies.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/theorizing-college-governance-across-epistemic-differences-awareness-contexts-of-college-administrators-and-faculty/596689/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/theorizing-college-governance-across-epistemic-differences-awareness-contexts-of-college-administrators-and-faculty/596689.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Muffet","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":24},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What framework does the paper use to analyze college governance?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"It applies Glaser and Strauss’s 1965 theory of “awareness contexts,” originally developed from physician-patient interactions around bad news.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How do “closed awareness” and “open awareness” differ in the college setting?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Closed awareness occurs where openness is absent around issues such as college fund-raising, while open awareness involves dialogue when professional bodies or unions intervene.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What four awareness-context types are identified from the interview data?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The paper uses four types: “closed awareness,” “mutual suspicion,” “mutual pretense,” and “open awareness,” illustrating different patterns of interaction between administrators and faculty.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},596689,1792192074,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":24,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962090768927,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_085a072bc5b1113ac321206ff7593b45","CSSHE  \nSCÉES  \nCanadian Journal of Higher Education Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur Volume 46, No. 3, 2016, pages 59-72  \nTheorizing College Governance across Epistemic Differences: Awareness Contexts of College Administrators and Faculty  \nLinda Muzzin  \nOntario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto  \nAbstract  \nAwareness contexts are useful concepts in symbolic interactionist research, which focusses on how everyday realities are constructed. To provide a fresh perspective on governance in Canada’s colleges, I sorted vignettes in interview data collected from administrators and faculty into four types of contexts originally derived from observation of interaction between physicians and patients around bad news. These theoretical categories were introduced by Glaser and Strauss in their 1965 book Awareness of Dying. Applying this lens revealed a “closed awareness” context around college fund-raising and a “mutual suspicion” context in administrator-faculty interaction around student success policy. Examples of“mutual pretense” included feigned administrator-faculty cooperation around changing college missions and faculty workload formulas.  \n“Open awareness” or dialogue, however, occurred where professional bodies or unions intervened. Sorting by awareness contexts reveals similarities between doctor-patient and administrator-faculty interactions. For example, just as doctors feared that delivering bad news to patients might precipitate“mayhem” in the hospital, college administrators may fear that openness around divisive topics might precipitate “mayhem” in college management.  \nRésumé  \nLes contextes de prise de conscience constituent un élément essentiel de la recherche en interactionnisme symbolique, dont l’objectif est desavoir élaborer des réalités au quotidien. En effet, afin d’obtenir une nouvelle perspective  \nCJHE / RCES Volume 46, No. 3, 2016  \nTheorizing College Governance across Epistemic Differences / L. Muzzin 60  \nquant à la gouvernance des collèges universitaires au Canada, l’auteure trie les données tirées d’entrevues effectuées auprès d’administrateurs et de membres du corps enseignant, à partir de quatre types de contextes décrivantune interaction entre médecinset patients au sujet dela mort. Il fautsavoir que Glaser et Strauss (1965) ont élaboré ces contextes théoriques dans leur livre Awareness of Dying. Le présent article propose un exemplede « contextefermé de prise de conscience » (campagne de financement), un autre de « suspicion réciproque » (politique de réussite estudiantine), ainsi que des exemples de « faux-semblant mutuel » (coopération feinte entre administrateurs et corps enseignant quant au changement de mission du collège universitaire et aux formules d’attribution de charge de travail) . Toutefois, la « prise de conscience ouverte », ou dialogue, se produit lors d’interventions par des organismes professionnels ou des syndicats. Tous ces exemples révèlent des similitudes entre les interactions médecin-patient et administrateurs-corpsenseignant. Ainsi, tout comme les médecins redoutaient que l’annonce d’une mauvaise nouvelle aux patients ne déclenche « une pagaille » à l’hôpital, les administrateurs de collèges universitaires craignent que s’exprimerouvertement sur des questions controversées produise le même effet sur lagestion de l’institution.  \nIntroduction  \nGlaser and Strauss’(1965) theory of“awareness contexts”(detailed below) was chosen as a way to frame the data collected in a national study of college faculty and administrative careers and everyday working experiences. Sorting their explanations by type of awareness context revealed divergent views between faculty and administrative constituencies in six areas, namely (1) funding, especially industry involvement in college finances; (2) policy around student success; (3) college mission; (4) faculty workload formulas;(5) the maintenance of quality in the construction and implementation of the curricu","cbCaiiP4ipswCsKE","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiiP4ipswCsKE","pdf",190452,14,"English","# Abstract\n# Résumé\n# Introduction\n# Methods and Purpose","[{\"question\":\"What framework does the paper use to analyze college governance?\",\"answer\":\"It applies Glaser and Strauss’s 1965 theory of “awareness contexts,” originally developed from physician-patient interactions around bad news.\"},{\"question\":\"How do “closed awareness” and “open awareness” differ in the college setting?\",\"answer\":\"Closed awareness occurs where openness is absent around issues such as college fund-raising, while open awareness involves dialogue when professional bodies or unions intervene.\"},{\"question\":\"What four awareness-context types are identified from the interview data?\",\"answer\":\"The paper uses four types: “closed awareness,” “mutual suspicion,” “mutual pretense,” and “open awareness,” illustrating different patterns of interaction between administrators and faculty.\"}]","Theorizing College Governance across Epistemic Differences - Awareness Contexts of College Administrators and Faculty | PDF",1792083536,35]