Percorrer por data de Publicação, começado por "2026-05-18"
A mostrar 1 - 2 de 2
Resultados por página
Opções de ordenação
- New partners on the street? Cooperation between radical left parties and progressive social movements in PortugalPublication . Conceição, Tiago; Jalali, Carlos; Lourenço, PedroPromoting issues close to radical left parties (RLPs) agenda, progressive social movements (PSMs) have mobilised a new generation of activists in many European democracies in recent years. This article examines how and why RLPs and PSMs cooperate. Methodologically, it triangulates semi-structured interviews with elites from the two main Portuguese RLPs, Left Bloc and Portuguese Communist Party, and of three recent PSMs (International Feminist Strike, School Strike for Climate, and House for Living Platform), as well as of activists with overlapping memberships of the two. Overall, we find interactions to partly align with the co-evolution thesis: both sides maintain autonomy while engaging in informal, non-exclusive collaborations. Yet the relationship is less stable than the model implies and does not necessarily generate sustained mutual adaptation. PSMs primarily cooperate for instrumental reasons: to amplify visibility, influence policymaking and obtain material support. RLPs, in turn, see PSMs as mechanisms to reinforce their policy agenda. Interactions are predominantly informal, through overlapping memberships, which facilitate the exchange of information and resources but also generate tensions. Consistent with the literature, cooperation is shaped by parties’ organisational and ideological traits. However, social movements are not passive actors, with their positions and strategies also significantly shaping interactions with RLPs.
- Impact Assessment of Ecosystems on Universities CompetitivenessPublication . Marchant Pérez, Paula Francisca; Ferreira, João José de Matos; Pulido, David UrbanoThe role of universities has become increasingly multifaceted and strategic for economic, social, and regional development. Their involvement in collaborative interaction models – such as the helix models involving universities, industry, government, and society – highlights universities as key players in the production of knowledge, innovation, and social commitment. This increase in institutional complexity stems, in part, from the incorporation of the third mission, which consists of knowledge transfer and social value generation, complementing the traditional functions of teaching and research. As open systems, universities must continually adapt their strategies in response to changing dynamics. As open systems, universities must constantly adjust their strategies in response to environmental dynamics to meet external demands effectively. Guided by a strategic perspective rooted in the third mission, the university can position itself as a competitive agent in regional ecosystems. Based on these premises, this thesis evaluated the university ecosystem and its impact on institutional competitiveness, employing multiple methodological approaches to analyse, throughout the different chapters, how these interactions influence university competitiveness. To determine the theoretical basis for the empirical chapters, Chapter 2 identified, analysed, and integrated the evolution of the role of universities and ecosystems through a systematic literature review (SLR). The findings highlight the growing interest in researching universities and ecosystems, evidenced by the rise in publications and the greater number and diversity of keywords related to the topic. It was also found that universities have acquired a more complex role over time, establishing four periods of evolution: i) until 2000: university-industry collaboration; ii) 2001–2010: shift to the triple helix model; iii) 2011–2020: from the triple to the quadruple helix model in the knowledge society; and iv) since 2021, with a complex ecosystem and Neo triple helix model, highlighting the role of universities in regional economic and social development thought the entrepreneurial teaching, academic entrepreneurship and knowledge transfer. In addition, in the last period, and considering an analysis from 2021 to 2025, Chapter 3 highlights the roles of alumni, Technological Transfer Offices (TTOs), and the university organisational culture in enhancing the university’s role in regional economic and social development. The effects of academic human capital and social capital (SC) on academic productivity were analysed. In Chapter 4, the objective was to analyse academic human capital, including knowledge, skills, abilities, and their activities, in relation to academic productivity. Using a quantitative approach on a sample of 352 academics, structural equation models (PLS-SEM) were developed for data analysis. The evidence indicates that the role of academics is multifaceted, with academic productivity assessed mainly by publications and participation in scientific dissemination events. Knowledge, skills, and abilities have no significant effect on academic productivity. In addition, skills did not mediate the relationship between abilities and academic productivity. Moreover, routine activities did not mediate the relationship between skills and academic productivity. On the other hand, academic categorisation has a direct effect on productivity, though it does not determine the activities academics perform. The effect of SC on academic productivity was analysed in Chapter 5, also using a quantitative approach on academics as the sample and PLS-SEM for data analysis. The dimensions of SC – cognitive, relational and structural –, in isolation, do not affect academic productivity. However, they do have an indirect effect: skills mediate the relationship between cognitive SC and productivity, while academic categorisation partially mediates the link between structural social capital and productivity. Furthermore, role ambiguity negatively affects structural SC but does not significantly affect academic productivity. Therefore, both chapters 4 and 5, as a whole, show that the intersections between academic human capital, SC, and institutional factors— categorisation, routine activities, and role ambiguity—have repercussions on academic productivity. Chapter 6 aims to analyse the strategic orientation of universities in relation to their institutional role. The research adopted a qualitative approach, triangulating data from 22 semi-structured interviews with university leaders (primary source) and a review of the mission statements (MS) of 16 public universities (secondary source). The findings indicate that MSs incorporate essential components for their use as management tools and are periodically reviewed in light of legal requirements and environmental dynamics, in close alignment with the institutional strategic plan. This strategic planning, in turn, is structured around dimensions related to teaching, research, community engagement, governance, and philosophical values. Universities demonstrate the ability to articulate competitive advantages around education, research, and community liaison. Analysing the relationship between universities and their surrounding environment, actors, and stakeholders guided the development of Chapter 7. Based on a qualitative methodology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with managers from the institutional relations departments of public universities. The evidence indicates that universities face contexts that are more or less challenging, primarily determined by their strategic plans, which also provide the basis for prioritising these contexts and the stakeholders with whom they interact. As a strategy, universities seek a balance between activities, actors, and stakeholders, but this two-way relationship also involves barriers, facilitators, and internal and external factors. Although universities develop mechanisms for interacting with one another, such as activities, agreements, and communication strategies, these mechanisms can also be affected by contextual factors. Considering that, as a complex actor, the university is also evaluated in intangible ways, Chapter 8 sought to analyse the legitimacy of the university's role through its relationship with stakeholders. The qualitative approach, through semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders from public universities, allowed us to understand the crucial elements that confer legitimacy on the university as an anchor actor in the university ecosystem, whose primary purpose and value is knowledge. In addition, the university is an actor that stands out from other actors and also shares common goals with the stakeholders with whom it interacts, highlighting its impact and importance in regional economic and social development. This thesis offers an original and innovative contribution to the literature by elucidating the dynamics and interrelationships among the factors that shape universities' competitiveness within the academic ecosystem and the surrounding environment. Understanding these dynamics has relevant practical implications, as it supports strategic formulation, the management of institutional relations, and the strengthening of universities' intangible assets—essential aspects to redefining their institutional role, fulfilling their multiple missions, and enhancing their competitive standing. Furthermore, the results outline guidelines for future research that can expand knowledge of this topic by adopting a holistic, integrated perspective.