Search results

Boards of directors are assumed to exercise three key accountability roles – control, monitoring and oversight roles. By researching one board type – investment fund boards – and the power relations around those boards, the purpose of this paper is to show that such boards are not capable of operating the three key roles assumed of them.

The authors conducted 25 in-depth interviews and a focus group session with investment fund directors applying a grounded theory methodology.

Because of their unique position of power, the authors find that fund promoter organisations (that establish and attract investors to the funds) exercise control and monitoring roles. As a result, contrary to prior assumptions, oversight is the primary role of investment fund boards, rather than the control role or monitoring role associated with corporate boards. The findings can be extended to other board-of-director contexts in which boards (e.g. subsidiary boards, boards of state-owned entities) have legal responsibility but limited power because of power exercised by other parties such as large shareholders.

Shareholders and regulators generally assume boards exercise control and monitoring roles. This can lead to an expectations gap on the part of shareholders and regulators who may not consider the practical realities in which boards operate. This expectations gap compromises the very objective of governance – investor protection.

Based on interviews with investment fund directors, the authors challenge the control-role theory of investment fund boards of directors. Building on our findings, and following subsequent conceptual engagement with the literature, the authors differentiate control, monitoring and oversight roles, terms which are often used interchangeably in prior research. The authors distinguish between the three terms on the basis of the level of influence implied by each.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the curriculum of the UK’s first MSc in Gastronomy. The programme supports an interdisciplinary approach to understanding food not yet commonly found in academia or beyond. However, it is increasingly recognized that such a perspective, as fostered by the MSc Gastronomy, may be key in effectively addressing complex contemporary problems within food culture and food systems.

This is a viewpoint paper that explains the rationale behind the chosen definition of Gastronomy, the context that inspired creation of the programme, an outline of the programme structure and justification of content.

The underpinning philosophy stems from a conviction that to address problems of corrupt food systems and problematic societal foodways, a more comprehensive understanding of food is needed. The programme seeks to cultivate this with a truly interdisciplinary approach to the study of food culture and food systems. This approach is recognized as an underrepresented area in academia where the study of food currently tends to be compartmentalized; a reductionist approach also mirrored within politics, commerce and our everyday lives. The MSc Gastronomy investigates how to foster and make commonplace, a more holistic and realistic understanding of food.

The MSc Gastronomy has been shaped by an understanding that a more comprehensive knowledge of food is required if contemporary problems within the food system are to be effectively addressed. To achieve this, the programme adopts an interdisciplinary approach to studying food only upheld by a small number of other academic institutions. It is the first of its kind in the UK, responding most closely to the specific cultural and political dynamics of Scotland’s food culture.