Search

NDFIP1 has been previously reported as a tumor suppressor in multiple solid tumors, but the function of NDFIP1 in NSCLC and the underlying mechanism are still unknown. Besides, the WW domain containing proteins can be recognized by NDFIP1, resulted in the loading of the target proteins into exosomes. However, whether WW domain-containing transcription regulator 1 (WWTR1, also known as TAZ) can be packaged into exosomes by NDFIP1 and if so, whether the release of this oncogenic protein via exosomes has an effect on tumor development has not been investigated to any extent. Here, we first found that NDFIP1 was low expressed in NSCLC samples and cell lines, which is associated with shorter OS. Then, we confirmed the interaction between TAZ and NDFIP1, and the existence of TAZ in exosomes, which requires NDFIP1. Critically, knockout of NDFIP1 led to TAZ accumulation with no change in its mRNA level and degradation rate. And the cellular TAZ level could be altered by exosome secretion. Furthermore, NDFIP1 inhibited proliferation in vitro and in vivo, and silencing TAZ eliminated the increase of proliferation caused by NDFIP1 knockout. Moreover, TAZ was negatively correlated with NDFIP1 in subcutaneous xenograft model and clinical samples, and the serum exosomal TAZ level was lower in NSCLC patients. In summary, our data uncover a new tumor suppressor, NDFIP1 in NSCLC, and a new exosome-related regulatory mechanism of TAZ., QC 20230725

Publicly funded universities have been under increasing pressure to provide evidence regarding the economic value of their core activities, not least when it comes to the social benefits accrued from the research mission. This study offers a glimpse of Nordic perspectives on the social impact of research from the positions of policymakers, university leadership, and academics. From a macro perspective, the paper investigates to what extent Norwegian policy actors rely on the excellence/relevance discourse in their plans for the future development of higher education. At the meso level, the study explores how academic leaders make sense of internal and external pressures (drivers and strategic agendas) to produce and transfer knowledge that addresses social problems. Perry and May’s (2006) typology of the relevance–excellence interplay is used as a framework for interpreting the findings. The findings reveal a complex mix of logics underpinning hegemonic discourses, strategic actions, and postures. Excellence and relevance were found to be deeply embedded in the activities of sub-units, academic groups, and individual academics.

Managerialism in higher education has gained prominence in recent decades. One of the crucial elements of this approach is the steering of the higher education sector, including the introduction of multiple forms of evaluation of academic work. Little is known about how academics evaluate themselves in comparison to their colleagues. Therefore, the focus of this paper is on how academics evaluate their own performance in teaching and research. The article uses survey data (2014–2015) from Norway, Finland and Sweden. Professors’ and associate professors’ answers were considered. Our research relies on social-cognitive theory to develop a set of hypothesis. The empirical findings show that academics are likely to perceive their own and their unit’s research performance as higher when compared to that of their peers and similar units. Associate professors consider themselves to be more performative in teaching, whilst professors highlight their research performance. Finally, the gender differences were found to be minimal.

QC 20190617

QC 20170515

QC 20170504

The public sector in the Nordic countries has been subject to substantial reform in recent decades. The article explores the changing reform dynamic in Denmark and Norway, focusing on centralising and decentralising trends in two prominent sectors: higher education and health care. The main question is: How can the reform dynamics over the last decade explain changes surrounding decentralisation and/or re-centralisation? A new trend can be observed in both sectors, namely the rise of re-centralisation and the concomitant growth of state responsibility in matters pertaining to political and fiscal decision-making. Both hospitals and universities have been given increased (procedural) autonomy. At the same time there is stronger centralised planning and management of performance management, which means that (substantive) autonomy has been reduced.

The public sector in the Nordic countries has been subject to substantial reform in recent decades. The article explores the changing reform dynamic in Denmark and Norway, focusing on centralising and decentralising trends in two prominent sectors: higher education and health care. The main question is: How can the reform dynamics over the last decade explain changes surrounding decentralisation and/or re-centralisation? A new trend can be observed in both sectors, namely the rise of re-centralisation and the concomitant growth of state responsibility in matters pertaining to political and fiscal decision-making. Both hospitals and universities have been given increased (procedural) autonomy. At the same time there is stronger centralised planning and management of performance management, which means that (substantive) autonomy has been reduced.

Following the spirit of an earlier volume in the series focusing on ’Comparative Approaches to Organizational Research’, the mandate of the current volume is to provide a comparative account of dynamics across two organizational fields - health care and higher education - and, subsequently, two specific types of organizational forms - hospitals and universities. In so doing, we take a broader perspective encompassing various conceptual and theoretical points of departure emanating from, mostly, the institutional literature in the social sciences (and its various perspectives), but also from public policy and administration literatures - of relevance to scholars and the communities of practice working within either field. In this introductory paper to the volume, we provide a brief overview of developments across the two organizational fields and illuminate on the most important scholarly traditions underpinning the study of both system dynamics as a whole as well as universities and hospitals as organizations and institutions. We conclude by reflecting on the implication of the volume’s key findings in regards to comparative research within organizational studies., QC 20160209

QC 20170508

QC 20170504

QC 20170504

Following the spirit of an earlier volume in the series focusing on ‘Comparative Approaches to Organizational Research’, the mandate of the current volume is to provide a comparative account of dynamics across two organizational fields – health care and higher education – and, subsequently, two specific types of organizational forms – hospitals and universities. In so doing, we take a broader perspective encompassing various conceptual and theoretical points of departure emanating from, mostly, the institutional literature in the social sciences (and its various perspectives), but also from public policy and administration literatures – of relevance to scholars and the communities of practice working within either field. In this introductory paper to the volume, we provide a brief overview of developments across the two organizational fields and illuminate on the most important scholarly traditions underpinning the study of both system dynamics as a whole as well as universities and hospitals as organizations and institutions. We conclude by reflecting on the implication of the volume’s key findings in regards to comparative research within organizational studies.

Universities face a tension from two urgent pressures they face, firstly to demonstrate that they deliver value for society in return for public investments, and secondly to demonstrate their responsibility by introducing strategic management to demonstrate to their funders that they meet their goals. In this special issue, we explore the ways in which these tensions play out in practice, as universities facing 'mission overload' in turn try to develop additional regional development missions, highlighting three findings. Firstly, there can be no one-size-fits all idea of a 'third university mission' alongside teaching and research because engagement is so context-dependent. Secondly, universities and regions need much better understand their own contexts to improve their performance rather than seeking simplistic best-practice third mission instruments elsewhere. Finally, higher education ministries should recognise that diversity in higher education is critical to delivering societal benefits, and uncritically believing in the power of world class universities.

Managerialism in higher education has gained prominence in recent decades. One of the crucial elements of this approach is the steering of the higher education sector, including the introduction of multiple forms of evaluation of academic work. Little is known about how academics evaluate themselves in comparison to their colleagues. Therefore, the focus of this paper is on how academics evaluate their own performance in teaching and research. The article uses survey data (2014–2015) from Norway, Finland and Sweden. Professors’ and associate professors’ answers were considered. Our research relies on social-cognitive theory to develop a set of hypothesis. The empirical findings show that academics are likely to perceive their own and their unit’s research performance as higher when compared to that of their peers and similar units. Associate professors consider themselves to be more performative in teaching, whilst professors highlight their research performance. Finally, the gender differences were found to be minimal.

Publicly funded universities have been under increasing pressure to provide evidence regarding the economic value of their core activities, not least when it comes to the social benefits accrued from the research mission. This study offers a glimpse of Nordic perspectives on the social impact of research from the positions of policymakers, university leadership, and academics. From a macro perspective, the paper investigates to what extent Norwegian policy actors rely on the excellence/relevance discourse in their plans for the future development of higher education. At the meso level, the study explores how academic leaders make sense of internal and external pressures (drivers and strategic agendas) to produce and transfer knowledge that addresses social problems. Perry and May’s (2006) typology of the relevance–excellence interplay is used as a framework for interpreting the findings. The findings reveal a complex mix of logics underpinning hegemonic discourses, strategic actions, and postures. Excellence and relevance were found to be deeply embedded in the activities of sub-units, academic groups, and individual academics.