Strengthening sustainability in global supply chains requires producers, buyers, and nonprofit organizations to collaborate in transformative cross-sector partnerships (CSPs). However, the role played by nature in such partnerships has been left largely unattended in literature on CSPs. This article shows how strategizing nature helps CSPs reach their transformative potential. Strategizing nature entails the progressive revealing and reconciling of temporal tensions between “plants, profits, and people.” We show how a CSP took a parallel approach—recognizing the divergent temporalities of plants, people, and profits as interlaced and mutually determined—toward realizing their objective of implementing living wages in a sub-Saharan African country’s the tea industry, simultaneously driven by the revitalization of tea plantations. The promise of better quality tea leaves allowed partners to take a “leap of faith” and to tackle pressing issues before the market would follow. Our findings thus show the potential of CSPs in driving regenerative organizing.
In this paper we examine policy texts in three European societies to consider the ways in which they construct a view of how each society ensures the production of knowledgeable professionals. Based on an analysis of national policy texts in England, Germany and the Netherlands, we argue that there are differences in the ways in which higher education is positioned as being responsible for producing knowledgeable professionals; the ways in which employment is defined, and the roles that research is expected to playin the production of professionals. These differences are related to the national structure of the higher educational system and more fundamental notions of the role of higher education in society. We argue that these differences offer helpful alternative ways of thinking about the relations between higher education and employment.
MULTIFILE
Overall the research integration in higher education is considered meaningful. It has also been argued that the inclusion of students in research through the curriculum differs between disciplines. Students of ‘hard’ disciplines are supposed to gain more seniority before the research discipline includes them, while students in ‘soft’ disciplines are invited sooner. While previous studies do confirm this trend line, also contradictoryresults have been found. Furthermore, the Biglan Framework (1973) provides more disciplinary differences than the often studied hard/soft divide. Moreover, the notion of involvement in research is more diverse than‘doing research’. Through an online survey this study systematically investigates undergraduate students’ experienced research integration for all study years of seven different faculties (N=2192). The findings indicateconfirmation of the claim that students of different disciplines are included in research at different moments in their educational track. However, this difference is not always based on the hard/soft divide.
MULTIFILE
