Caracterización de la gestión universitaria dentro de la Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí (ULEAM), Ecuador
This article focuses on one of the most significant problems of higher education in Ecuador: university management. Its definition is the only element designed with an academic perspective, since administrative actions have not been included and there is a lack of information regarding its component...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | Perú |
| Institución: | Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos |
| Repositorio: | Revistas - Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos |
| Idioma: | español inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:revistasinvestigacion.unmsm.edu.pe:article/16531 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://revistasinvestigacion.unmsm.edu.pe/index.php/idata/article/view/16531 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Organization; university management; higher education; governabilityt Organización; gestión universitaria; educación superior; gobernabilidad |
| Sumario: | This article focuses on one of the most significant problems of higher education in Ecuador: university management. Its definition is the only element designed with an academic perspective, since administrative actions have not been included and there is a lack of information regarding its components, without which no examination or characterization is possible. As a result, this study analyzes and describes management at the Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí (ULEAM) via the implementation of “Dimensión II. Misión y proyecto institucional. Gobierno y gestión” [Dimension II. Institutional mission and project. Government and management], which integrates the tool used by the Comisión Nacional de Evaluación y Acreditación Universitaria [National Commission for University Evaluation and Accreditation] (CONEAU) of Argentina in their evaluation processes. This tool has been adapted to the Likert scale survey in order to collect data gathered from faculty and non-faculty members. Finally, the results showed a serious weakness in government, management and governability factors. |
|---|