institutional practices

This study examines the historical development of pesantren in Ogan Ilir Regency, South Sumatra, focusing on institutional diversity and the formation of its socio-religious identity as a City of Santri. Using a qualitative-historical approach, the study investigates 22 pesantren through in-depth interviews with 75 informants, participant observation, and document analysis. Historical source criticism and thematic analysis are employed to reconstruct institutional trajectories and identify patterns of institutional differentiation. The findings reveal three historical phases: initial institutionalization (1932–1967), consolidation and diversification (1983–1996), and institutional expansion and integration (2003–2023). Across these phases, three overlapping institutional orientations emerge: scholarly tradition, educational modernization, and self-reliance and community empowerment. These orientations demonstrate that pesantren development involves the coexistence of Islamic scholarly continuity, educational transformation, and expanding social functions rather than a linear transition from traditional to modern institutions. The study interprets these developments through the perspectives of continuity and change, ideal typology, and social construction, highlighting how institutional practices may reproduce socio-religious meanings. It offers an integrated historical and institutional account of pesantren development in Ogan Ilir while recognizing that the extent to which the City of Santri identity is collectively accepted requires further empirical investigation.

Abstract Faculty development (FD) and the preparation of future faculty are central to university teaching quality, yet in Japan they are studied separately and remain underexamined in English. Pre-faculty development (pre-FD), a term coined within Japanese higher education, exclusively denotes the pre-service teaching preparation of doctoral students and other prospective academics, broadly corresponding to the American “Preparing Future Faculty” movement. Treating the two as tracks of a single academic-development continuum, this article asks how each has been institutionalized and localized in Japan, and what constrains the translation of policy into teaching improvement. The study is a narrative, document-based conceptual review of policy documents, statutory standards, national surveys, and Japanese- and English-language scholarship, using the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) as an analytical lens. Three findings emerge. First, both tracks advanced through top-down policy-driven and policy-induced reform: In-service FD became a legal mandate in 2008, whereas pre-FD remains a best-effort obligation. Second, in-service FD has developed a distinctive cluster of locally grounded practices: inter-university networks, mutual FD, the collegial model, and student-engaged FD. Third, national survey data show participation rising while collegial formats and dedicated provision declined over the same period, indicating that participation rates are a poor proxy for teaching-development quality. Reading the tracks together reveals what single-track accounts obscure: shared organizational carriers and a common ceiling set by the absence of a continuing professional role in academic development. The article argues, as a proposition derived from the analysis, that sustainable development depends on connecting the two tracks into a continuous career pathway framed by SoTL.

This study aims to develop an integrative conceptual model that connects student development management and Islamic Guidance and Counseling (Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam/BKI) within the framework of holistic student development in Islamic education. The study employs an integrative conceptual literature review to identify, examine, and synthesize relevant theoretical and conceptual perspectives. Literature was searched through Google Scholar, Garuda, and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) during January–July 2026. From an initial 312 records, successive stages of duplicate removal, relevance screening, and full-text assessment resulted in a final corpus of 58 sources. The literature was analyzed through data extraction, initial coding, thematic categorization, cross-source comparison, and conceptual synthesis. The literature synthesis indicates conceptual convergence around the importance of integrating students’ spiritual, moral, psychological, and personal development within Islamic education. Based on this synthesis, the study proposes an integrative conceptual model comprising four interconnected components: fitrah as the philosophical and anthropological foundation of human potential; holistic Islamic education as the overarching developmental orientation; student development management as the institutional framework for planning, coordinating, and evaluating student development; and Islamic Guidance and Counseling as the professional support mechanism for identifying students’ needs and facilitating preventive, responsive, and developmental interventions. Functionally, fitrah establishes the foundational understanding of human potential, holistic Islamic education defines the developmental direction, student development management translates this orientation into coordinated institutional practices, and Islamic Guidance and Counseling provides individualized and group-based support within appropriate professional boundaries. These components operate as a mutually reinforcing framework for integrating educational planning, student support, and holistic development. The study concludes that this model offers a coherent conceptual basis for understanding student development in Islamic education, while its practical applicability and effectiveness require further empirical examination.

Global crises, most notably the COVID-19 pandemic, have profoundly transformed the landscape of higher education governance. These unprecedented circumstances accelerated the transition from conventional institutional practices to digital and remote modalities, necessitating a paradigm shift toward adaptive, resilient, innovative, and strategically decisive actions to ensure administrative continuity. Anchored in Crisis Leadership theory and supported by principles of Transformational Leadership theory, this study aims to provide an initial validation of a measurement instrument designed to map the underlying factors that define effective higher education leadership, specifically within the regional socio-academic context of East Coast Malaysian public universities in the post-pandemic era. Employing a cross-sectional quantitative questionnaire, data were collected through a field study (n=150) targeting academic leaders across four public universities. An initial exploratory factor analysis identified 28 items, which were further refined through a pooled Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in AMOS. The measurement model was optimized by excluding three items (DC1, DC2, and OC3) due to low loadings and high modification indices, and bootstrapping procedures were used to address multivariate normality. This systematic refinement yielded an acceptable model fit across eight preliminary constructs: Compassion and Care, Openness and Communication, Adaptiveness, Resilience and Courage, Decisiveness, Consultation and Collaboration, Empowerment, and Crisis Handling Effectiveness. Although this regional validation does not establish causal evidence of leadership effectiveness, the resulting 25-item framework provides a preliminary baseline for assessing leadership configurations. Rather than serving as a definitive diagnostic tool, the model provides context-specific insights that can tentatively guide professional development initiatives and shape adaptive governance strategies within the Malaysian higher education sector.

بحران‌های جهانی، به‌ویژه همه‌گیری کووید-۱۹، چشم‌انداز حکمرانی آموزش عالی را به‌طور عمیقی دگرگون کرده‌اند. این شرایط بی‌سابقه، گذار از رویه‌های سنتی نهادی به شیوه‌های دیجیتال و دورکاری را تسریع نموده و نیازمند تغییر پارادایم به‌سوی اقدامات سازگارانه، تاب‌آور، نوآورانه و راهبردی برای تضمین تداوم اداری شده است. این مطالعه که مبتنی بر نظریه رهبری در بحران و با حمایت از اصول نظریه رهبری تحول‌آفرین انجام شده، با هدف ارائه اعتبارسنجی اولیه یک ابزار سنجش طراحی شده برای ترسیم عوامل زیربنایی تعریف‌کننده رهبری مؤثر آموزش عالی، به‌ویژه در بستر اجتماعی-آکادمیک منطقه‌ای دانشگاه‌های دولتی سواحل شرقی مالزی در دوران پساکرونا صورت گرفته است. با بهره‌گیری از پرسشنامه کمی مقطعی، داده‌ها از طریق مطالعه میدانی (n=150) و با هدف قرار دادن رهبران دانشگاهی در چهار دانشگاه دولتی گردآوری شد. تحلیل عاملی اکتشافی اولیه ۲۸ گویه را شناسایی کرد که با تحلیل عاملی تأییدی تجمیعی (CFA) در نرم‌افزار AMOS بیشتر پالایش شدند. مدل اندازه‌گیری با حذف سه گویه (DC1، DC2 و OC3) به دلیل بار عاملی پایین و شاخص‌های اصلاحی بالا بهینه شد و برای رفع نرمال بودن چندمتغیره از روش بوت‌استرپ استفاده گردید. این پالایش نظام‌مند منجر به برازش قابل قبول مدل در هشت سازه مقدماتی شد: شفقت و مراقبت، گشودگی و ارتباط، سازگاری، تاب‌آوری و شجاعت، قاطعیت، مشورت و همکاری، توانمندسازی و اثربخشی مدیریت بحران. اگرچه این اعتبارسنجی منطقه‌ای شواهد علی برای اثربخشی رهبری ارائه نمی‌دهد، چارچوب ۲۵ گویه‌ای حاصل، مبنایی مقدماتی برای ارزیابی پیکربندی‌های رهبری فراهم می‌کند. این مدل به‌جای آن‌که ابزاری تشخیصی قطعی باشد، بینش‌هایی زمینه‌محور ارائه می‌دهد که می‌تواند به‌طور موقت راهنمای ابتکارات توسعه حرفه‌ای و شکل‌دهنده راهبردهای حکمرانی سازگارانه در بخش آموزش عالی مالزی باشد.

Three interconnected clusters of questions: 1. What sort of thing is an AI, how many of them are there, where are they and how long do they exist? 2. Is an AI the sort of thing that can have beliefs, desires and goals? 3. When we say to an LLM, “Your argument is confused”, what does that 'you' refer to? When it replies, “I'm sorry for the confused argument”, what does that 'I' refer to? In this paper, our focus is on reference and coreference: we approach 1 and 2 by first trying to answer 3. Three views are argued for. First, don't start with metaphysics or philosophy of mind-start with reference questions. Second, the practice of referring to LLMs is being engineered; it's unsettled and currently so vague that there's no fact of the matter about which of many candidates we're talking about. Third, what will make reference more determinate is a range of institutional factors: laws, regulations, authorizations and various practical arrangements. The answers don't come from the philosophy of mind or from metaphysics. They come from the institutions and practices we embed LLMs in.

سه خوشه به‌هم‌پیوسته از پرسش‌ها مطرح می‌شود: ۱. هوش مصنوعی چه نوع موجودی است، چند تا از آن وجود دارد، کجا هستند و چه مدت وجود دارند؟ ۲. آیا هوش مصنوعی از آن نوع موجوداتی است که می‌تواند باورها، خواسته‌ها و اهداف داشته باشد؟ ۳. زمانی که به یک مدل زبانی بزرگ (LLM) می‌گوییم «استدلال تو گیج‌کننده است»، این «تو» به چه چیزی اشاره دارد؟ وقتی پاسخ می‌دهد «برای استدلال گیج‌کننده متأسفم»، این «من» به چه چیزی اشاره دارد؟ در این مقاله تمرکز ما بر ارجاع و هم‌ارجاعی است: ما به پرسش‌های ۱ و ۲ از طریق تلاش برای پاسخ به پرسش ۳ نزدیک می‌شویم. سه دیدگاه مورد استدلال قرار می‌گیرد. نخست، نباید با متافیزیک یا فلسفه ذهن آغاز کرد، بلکه باید با پرسش‌های ارجاعی شروع نمود. دوم، عمل ارجاع به مدل‌های زبانی بزرگ در حال مهندسی شدن است؛ این امر تثبیت‌نشده و در حال حاضر آن‌قدر مبهم است که هیچ واقعیتی درباره این‌که به کدام یک از گزینه‌های متعدد اشاره می‌کنیم وجود ندارد. سوم، آنچه ارجاع را معین‌تر خواهد کرد، مجموعه‌ای از عوامل نهادی است: قوانین، مقررات، مجوزها و ترتیبات عملی مختلف. پاسخ‌ها از فلسفه ذهن یا متافیزیک نمی‌آیند، بلکه از نهادها و رویه‌هایی که مدل‌های زبانی بزرگ را در آن‌ها جای می‌دهیم، نشأت می‌گیرند.