Search

In the following essay, we respond to the Douglass book on Neo-Nationalism and Universities (2021) and the Global Perspectives Review Symposium: Universities between Inter- and Renationalization. We see the university’s extraordinary success as a transcendent global institution fomenting tensions with specific instances of the university in national (and neo-nationalist) contexts. Attacks tend to be on organizational issues in local cases, rather than on The University as a powerful but inchoate global institution.

Existing scholarship documents large worldwide increases in women’s participation in the public sphere over recent decades, for example, in education, politics, and the labor force. Some scholars have argued that these changes follow broader trends in world society, especially its growing liberalism, which increasingly has reconfigured social life around the choices of empowered and rights-bearing individuals, regardless of gender. Very recently, however, a variety of populisms and nationalisms have emerged to present alternatives to liberalism, including in the international arena. We explore here their implications for women’s participation in public life. We use cross-national data to analyze changes in women’s participation in higher education, the polity, and the economy 1970–2017. We find that women’s participation on average continues to expand over this period, but there is evidence of a growing cross-national divergence. In most domains, women’s participation tends to be lower in countries linked to illiberal international organizations, especially in the recent-most period.

Universities are specific local entities, and as such are in competition with one another for resources and prestige. The general tone of the literature—which sees universities mainly as specific organizations—is quite negative, with competition leading to destructive market and political forces. The tone is surprising, given the extraordinary worldwide university expansion over the last seven or eight decades. This inconsistency is resolved with the perspective of neo-institutional theory: the university is a stunningly successful global institution from which specific cases derive their accredited standing and legitimacy. The enlarged and grand institutional canopy has supported thousands of expanded and rationalized organizations, which then suffer from competition. But in their struggles, the contending organizations produce further elaborations of the domain of the overall institution. The university grows, though the instances it flowers may sometimes suffer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyzes academic freedom worldwide with newly available cross-national data. The literature principally addresses impingements on academic freedom arising from religion or repressive states. Academic freedom has broadly increased since 1945, but we see episodic reversals, including in recent years. Conventional work emphasizes the uniformity of international institutional structures and their influence on countries. We attend to the heterogeneity of international structures in world society and theorize how they contribute to ebbs and flows of academic freedom. Post-1945 liberal international institutions enshrined key rights and norms that bolstered academic freedom worldwide. Alongside them, however, illiberal alternatives coexisted. Cold War communism, for instance, anchored cultural frames that justified greater constraints on academia. We evaluate domestic and global arguments using regression models with country fixed effects for 155 countries from 1960 to 2022. Findings support conventional views: academic freedom is associated positively with democracy and negatively with state religiosity and militarism. We also find support for our argument regarding heterogeneous institutional structures in world society. Country linkages to liberal international institutions are positively associated with academic freedom. Illiberal international structures and organizations have the opposite effect. Heterogeneous institutions in world society, we contend, shape large-scale trajectories of academic freedom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article seeks to explain the emergence of a new field of study oriented toward sex laws and sexuality rights in comparative and global perspectives. We argue that this field comes into focus because of three changes in the social context: the introductions of sexuality into sex, of human rights into national laws, and of global into comparative perspectives. Each turn of the social kaleidoscope generates new objects of and rationales for scholarly analysis, along with new ways and reasons to think about existing objects of analysis. Together, these contextual changes inaugurate the global study of sexuality rights and invigorate the comparative study of sex laws. Theoretical shifts accompany the empirical developments. Phenomenological approaches arise alongside their realist counterparts. The consolidation of this new field of study is important not only on academic grounds: It suggests the dynamics of a wider field of policy and practice. © 2013 by Annual Reviews.

This article analyzes cross-national and longitudinal variations in the incorporation of nonhuman animals into country constitutions and legislation. We argue that incorporation follows from the scientific rationalization and human rights-based ontological elaboration of nonhuman animals in world society, carried by a growing number of intergovernmental agreements and international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs). To test our ideas, we use event-history analyses on original data from 195 countries for the period 1972–2020. The models of constitutional incorporation show mixed results, with positive effects from human rights and INGOs but negative effects from science and intergovernmental agreements. The models of legislative incorporation show consistent positive effects from world factors, even when controlling for a range of domestic factors. Legal incorporation suggests an extension of the boundaries of "society," driven by the rising prominence of highly rationalized and elaborated models of nonhuman animals, replete with dignity, sentience, and even tentative forms of rights and personhood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental education is on the rise in universities around the world. Conventional explanations emphasize proximate needs and interests rooted in environmental degradation. We propose instead a top-down causal imagery, hinging on the expanded meaning, purpose, and comprehensibility of the human-nature relationship in world society. We test our view in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses of environmental degree programs in a global sample of universities. Throughout, our explanation proves stronger than the alternative. Universities embrace environmental education as the substance and significance of the human-nature relationship grow in global institutions and as the relationship is increasingly deemed comprehensible within the knowledge framework. (Contains 4 tables, 1 figure, and 16 footnotes.)

The changing academic priorities of universities are often discussed but little investigated by social scientists: What accounts for the striking expansions and contractions in disciplinary fields over time? Focusing specifically on the natural sciences, this article articulates a global-institutional argument that holds that deep shifts in ontological conceptions of action and structure over the course of the 20th century fomented shifts in the teaching and research emphases of universities worldwide. Specifically, it hypothesizes that scientific fields that are premised on fixed categories and hierarchies of entities (for example, zoology) declined relative to fields that are premised on dynamic, horizontal networks of entities (for example, physics). In addition, it hypothesizes that as globally institutionalized reality shifted in favor of human, rather than divine, actorhood, fields that position their practitioners as active investigators in a dynamic universe gained ascendance over those that position practitioners as passive observers of a divinely ordered universe. Using data on worldwide faculty composition from 1915 to 1995, the authors found that these shifts indeed transpired--the fixed-categorical fields of astronomy, botany, and zoology declined precipitously, while the dynamic-network fields of geology, biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics performed much more robustly.

Changes in university history curricula were studied through examination of course titles and abstracts from 335 university catalogs representing 89 countries, 1895-1964. Findings demonstrate that decreasing curricular emphases on Western civilization, metropolitan centers, and nation-states and increasing attention to subnational and supranational aspects of social systems reflect a transformation to more global models of "society." (SV)

The changing academic priorities of universities are often discussed but little investigated by social scientists: What accounts for the striking expansions and contractions in disciplinary fields over time? Focusing specifically on the natural sciences, this article articulates a global-institutional argument that holds that deep shifts in ontological conceptions of action and structure over the course of the 20th century fomented shifts in the teaching and research emphases of universities worldwide. Specifically, it hypothesizes that scientific fields that are premised on fixed categories and hierarchies of entities (for example, zoology) declined relative to fields that are premised on dynamic, horizontal networks of entities (for example, physics). In addition, it hypothesizes that as globally institutionalized reality shifted in favor of human, rather than divine, actorhood, fields that position their practitioners as active investigators in a dynamic universe gained ascendance over those that position practitioners as passive observers of a divinely ordered universe. Using data on worldwide faculty composition from 1915 to 1995, the authors found that these shifts indeed transpired--the fixed-categorical fields of astronomy, botany, and zoology declined precipitously, while the dynamic-network fields of geology, biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics performed much more robustly.