 Your new post is loading...
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
The final report identifies opportunities for practical action to increase the impact of British business schools on innovation and growth in the United Kingdom economy. It provides specific guidance for business schools and universities, for faculty and students, and for the government. Together, the Task Force believes that the actions proposed can make a significant difference to the contribution that British business schools make to the economy in which they operate. There are six areas where the independent Task Force think change is needed:
1.Design practice into courses.
2.Bring more practitioner experience into the faculty.
3.Develop and manage company relationships institutionally.
4.Improve measurement and assessment of research impact.
5.Promote research in larger teams, and centres with multi-dimensional roles.
6.Move to more distinctly defined roles for different institutions. Professor Thorpe said: “The six areas of action we recommend in our report are independently valuable but are mutually reinforcing. The main focus for action is by the schools themselves, and by their faculty members. Changes that the government can make to research evaluation and funding, and to support enhanced academic training, will also be important. Finally, businesses have a major opportunity to benefit from closer engagement with an easier-to-access and refocused business and management academic community. As businesses see those benefits, they should be willing to play an increasing role in both delivering business education and supporting research – by providing guidance on key problems, and the access and financial support needed to support practically relevant research.” Richard Rawlinson said: “Our overall objective was to outline how British business schools can build on meritorious but isolated examples of success to create a reliable, general system that better directs and supports the considerable resources of the business-school sector towards effective engagement, innovation and impact – while continuing to attract students and command academic esteem. We see none of our recommendations as contrary to academic goals, or to success in student recruitment. On the contrary, our view is that engaged research can be excellent research, and that schools that engage with business and innovate in pedagogy will better compete for students. We aim to influence and focus the efforts of UK government, business and universities on what they can do to make our business schools more effective across the full range of their missions.”
In their response, the ABS formally welcomed the report, endorsed the main findings and recommendations, and thanked its authors and the members of the Task Force for their significant commitment and contribution. Professor Angus Laing, Dean of the School of Business and Economics at Loughborough University and Chair of the Association of Business Schools said: “I wholeheartedly welcome this independent report, which provides a robust evidence base to inform both policy in respect of supporting economic growth and practice within the business school community. There is much work for the ABS, our members, government, business, funders and other stakeholder bodies to do to respond to deliver the culture change recommended.” “Reigniting growth in the aftermath of the global financial crisis remains the underlying priority for the government. Against the backdrop of significant macroeconomic challenges, microeconomic levers to promote growth and innovation have become increasingly prominent in policy debates. Successive reports from Lord Heseltine and Lord Young have focused attention on providing the economic infrastructure to support the small to mid-sized business community and generating the local conditions conducive to rebalancing the economy away from over dependence on the City. Integral to such an agenda is the recognition of the need to exploit the capabilities of existing institutions rather than engaging, yet again, in the creation of new agencies. Against this backdrop business schools have the potential to play a very significant role to act as local economic anchor institutions.” The recommendations of the Innovation Task Force are wide ranging and the response of the ABS, its partners and other stakeholders will be multiple and will evolve. The ABS is today (21 May 2013) announcing an initial plan of work to take forward aspects of the recommendations of the report. Announcements of further work streams will emerge in due course. The ABS has committed to undertake an annual review of progress against the recommendations and will conduct a five year retrospective review of the impact of the report and the implementation of its recommendations in 2018. Fulltext report: http://www.associationofbusinessschools.org/sites/default/files/130516_absinnovation_web.pdf
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: We analyze international co-authorship relations in the Social Science Citation Index 2011 using all citable items in the DVD-version of this index. Network statistics indicate four groups of nations: (i) an Asian-Pacific one to which all Anglo-Saxon nations (including the UK and Ireland) are attributed; (ii) a continental European one including also the Latin-American countries; (iii) the Scandinavian nations; and (iv) a community of African nations. Within the EU-28 (including Croatia), eleven of the EU-15 states have dominant positions. Collapsing the EU-28 into a single node leads to a bi-polar structure between the US and EU-28; China is part of the US-pole. We develop an information-theoretical test to distinguish whether international collaborations or domestic collaborations prevail; the results are mixed, but the international dimension is more important than the national one in the aggregated sets (this was found in both SSCI and SCI). In France, however, the national distribution is more important than the international one, while the reverse is true for most European nations in the core group (UK, Germany, the Netherlands, etc.). Decomposition of the USA in terms of states shows a similarly mixed result; more US states are domestically than internationally oriented (in both SSCI and SCI). The international networks have grown during the last decades in addition to the national ones, but not by replacing them. The authors:"... the operationalization teaches us that there is no once-and-for-all answer to this relation. Countries and states—and also disciplines!—have progressed differently in terms of internationalization. However, the test at the aggregated level suggests that the international dimension prevails as a predictor of the domestic one and not the reverse. This indicates that the cybernetic expectation that the next-order level is constructed bottom-up, but tends to take over top-down control, may already have passed a point of no return" Source: International Co-authorship Relations in the Social Science Citation Index: Is Internationalization Leading the Network?Loet Leydesdorff, Han Woo Park, Caroline WagnerarXiv:1305.4242 [2013]
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract This paper reflects on the relevance of academic science. Relevance plays a central role in what we define as the ‘contract’ between (academic) science and society. The manifestations of relevance in the daily practice of academic research can be studied using the credibility cycle. Together, the science—society contract and the credibility cycle enable a systematic analysis of relevance in scientific disciplines. This is illustrated with a case study of academic chemistry in The Netherlands. We conclude that science's search for relevance is not new, but that its meaning changes together with changing ideas about the potential benefits of scientific research. The authors:"The ‘relation between science and society’ and ‘scientific practice’ are both vague concepts trying to grasp complex pieces of reality. The strength of our approach is that we have developed a model in which
both are reduced to something that does justice to reality and at the same time allows for systematic analysis. Our notion of the contract clearly articulates the relation between science and society in terms of a limited
number of variables. Similarly, the credibility cycle may not give an exhaustive overview of all activities involved in scientific research but it does
describe the general pattern in which all activities have a position. Assuming that all scientists’ actions aim to contribute to the conversion of credibility, the form of this cycle becomes a crucial factor determining
scientific practice. Source: Laurens K Hessels, Harro van Lenteand Ruud Smits In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society Science and Public Policy (2009) 36(5): 387-401 doi:10.3152/030234209X442034
Corresponding dissertation (2010) is here fultext: http://www.uu.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Corp_UU%20en%20Nieuws/Proefschrift%20Laurens%20Hessels.pdf
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract Public engagement plays an important role in the contemporary UK academy, and is promoted through initiatives such as Beacons of Public Engagement and research grant ‘Pathways to Impact’. Relatively little is known, however, about academic experiences of such engagement activities. This study focuses on one staff group, contract researchers, to explore the perceived challenges and opportunities of public engagement. Qualitative and quantitative data—from a web-based survey and three focus groups—are used to show that, while engagement activities are often seen as rewarding, the challenges involved in participating in them are profound. While researchers report practical needs, such as for logistical support or communication training, key barriers relate to the conditions of contract research more generally, and specifically to job insecurity, transiency, and lack of autonomy. The author:"..both public engagement and research staff sit somewhat uneasily within the dominant model of research as an essentially publication-focused, time-intensive activity—rather than, say, a process which incorporates public engagement, teaching, or commercial activities—both are marginalised. As the practical challenges to public engagement reported above attest, training in the skills necessary for public communication and increased funding and support for it are certainly important. What will ultimately be more influential in normalising public engagement in the manner that is currently being advocated, however, is a broadening of what—and who—is considered valuable within the academy." Source: Higher EducationMay 2013Research staff and public engagement: a UK studySarah R. Davies
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: This paper presents a first approach to analyzing the factors that determine the citation characteristics of books. For this we use the Thomson Reuters' Book Citation Index, a novel multidisciplinary database launched in 2010 which offers bibliometric data of books. We analyze three possible factors which are considered to affect the citation impact of books: the presence of editors, the inclusion in series and the type of publisher. Also, we focus on highly cited books to see if these factors may affect them as well. We considered as highly cited books, those in the top 5% of the most highly cited ones of the database. We define these three aspects and we present the results for four major scientific areas in order to identify field-based differences (Science, Engineering & Technology, Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities). Finally we conclude observing that differences were noted for edited books and types of publishers. Although books included in series showed higher impact in two areas.
The authors: "there is a common phenomenon which occurs across all areas: books published by university presses have a significantly higher impact than the rest.At this point we must take this statement with caution, as after supervising these publishers, we find out that these university presses included in the BKCI are considered of huge prestige such as Cambridge UP, Princeton UP and University of California P. That is, the high impact books published in university presses have may rely on a better selection of books and topics on which to publish than that followed by commercial publishers such as Elsevier, Routledge or Palgrave, for instance."
Source: Analyzing the citation characteristics of books: edited books, book series and types of publishers in the Book Citation IndexDaniel Torres-Salinas, Nicolás Robinson-García, Álvaro Cabezas-Clavijo, Evaristo Jiménez-Contreras
Computer Science > Digital Libraries; 2013arXiv:1305.1483
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
In their 2005 Harvard Business Review article, Bennis and O’Toole described business schools as being “on the wrong track” as a result of their focus on so-called scientific research. Some commentators argue that business schools have slowly lost their relevance since the end of the 1950s when they undertook a major overhaul in response to the harsh criticism of the Ford and the Carnegie Foundations on the state of theory and research in business administration. Inspired by Khurana’s (2007) book on the development of American business schools, this article describes the debate on the relevance of scientific business research that can be found in the popular business press and the academic literature, and suggests a number of structural and cultural changes to increase the relevance of business research and its impact on practice.
The authors: "Just as the teaching assignment of medical professors is adjusted to allow them to practise medicine, business professors could divide their time between teaching and practice, and should be encouraged to use sabbaticals as opportunities to assume roles in businesses. Although this solution could appear unworkable because of the lack of experience many PhD professors have in the “real world” of management and business, we believe that industrial sabbaticals could provide academics with an opportunity to improve their knowledge about business practice and for practitioners to reflect on the way they conduct their affairs."
Source: The great divide between business schools research and business practiceIsabelle Dostaler, Thomas J. Tomberlin Canadian Journal of Higher Education Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur Volume 43, No. 1, 2013, pages 115-128 Fulltext: http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/cjhe/article/view/1895/184000
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: Valorization of research results is becoming increasingly important today. Since academic research should not only contribute to our “quest for fundamental understanding,” but it also needs to “consider use” (Stokes, 1997); these dual goals give rise to tension in academic institutes that need to carefully balance research and its exploitation. Nevertheless, valorization, commercialization, technology transfer, knowledge exploitation or exploitation of research are different labels for a similar activity and have become part and parcel of academic life. Most universities own the intellectual property rights of their research, meaning they have the legal rights (in some countries the legal obligation) to exploit it in a way they see fit. Research shows that universities have different objectives (e.g. regional development, spin-off creation) for engaging in this process and every university has developed its own approach to deal with this in the sense of funding and support. On an abstract level, there are two scenarios for commercialization. In the first scenario the university takes the role of “entrepreneur” and in the second scenario it is the researcher (or the research group) who is involved in research that takes this role with the university being the context in which entrepreneurship takes place. In this contribution our focus is on the university as entrepreneur and we regard valorization as an entrepreneurial process. In order to visualize how the activities of different actors associated with the university contribute to the entrepreneurial process of a university, we will build on ideas postulated by Wakkee and Van der Sijde (2010) regarding the fluid and moldable nature of opportunities. We conceptually elaborate the consequences of their approach for bringing knowledge (and technology) from university to the market. The authors:" In this paper we have considered the university as the entrepreneur rather than as a context in which entrepreneurship takes place. This does not mean, however, that individual members cannot be simultaneously involved this entrepreneurial processes. If managed intelligently by the university, a considerable part of the entrepreneurial activities of staff members may fall under the ‘‘umbrella’’ created by the university’s opportunity scenario, although there will always be individual
researchers who are (at least temporarily) involved in various commercializing activities that fall outside this opportunity scenario." Source: Peter van der Sijde, Ingrid Wakkee, Eveline Stam, Mirjam Leloux (2013), The University as an Entrepreneur: The Ingredients for Valorization and Valorization Strategies, in Ray Oakey, Aard Groen, Gary Cook, Peter Van Der Sijde (ed.) New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millennium (New Technology-Based Firms in the New Millenium, Volume 10), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.213-224
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract:
This paper describes a flexible way to unify the many disparate citation-based journal ranking metrics commonly used to assess the relative merit of academic business journals. The guiding principle for the proposed approach is the simple and intuitively appealing idea that a journal in a given discipline should be judged relative to the prowess of the top journal(s) in its discipline. This ratio approach functions as a hybrid of the stated preference and revealed preference journal ranking ideologies, and accordingly offers several far reaching advantages, among them the ability to map all citation-based journal metrics to the zero-one interval, hence normalizing inter-metric and cross-disciplinary journal comparisons. The ratio approach also accounts for citation density across business fields and mitigates the effects of coercive citation, which can undermine cross-discipline journal comparisons if left unchecked.
The author: "The simple logic of the ratio approach embodied in the paper’s core proposition is that a researcher’s output should be judged relative to the best journals in his or her discipline. Operationalizing this logic permits all citation-based journals metrics to be mapped to the zero-one interval, which normalizes inter-metric and cross-discipline comparisons, and reduces the concern that coercive citation will give one discipline’s research output an advantage over another. The subjective selection of the denominating journal(s) means the ratio approach is a de facto hybrid of the stated and revealed preference journal ranking ideologies. As such, the ratio approach aligns the strengths of each to form a unified approach to the practice of journal ranking."
Source: Haley, M. Ryan, A Simple Journal Ranking Tactic to Address Coercive Citation and Discipline-Specific Citation Density in Academic Business Journals (February 4, 2013). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2211804 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2211804
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract Alternative metrics demonstrate the value and influence of scholars' work apart from traditional citation counts and can enhance the impact of a CV. Altmetrics provide additional, supplementary information and can balance misleading metrics tied to particular journals. More timely than traditional metrics, altmetrics quickly reveal the impact of recent work and add authority to different types of scholarly products not captured as articles. Altmetrics can capture social media references that escape traditional metrics and reflect public engagement prompted by scholarly writing. The availability of altmetrics expands publishing opportunities to include new venues and stimulates innovative strategies for evaluating research. When included in a CV altmetrics must be accurate, clear and meaningful. Source: The power of altmetrics on a CVHeather Piwowar Postdoc1,Jason Priem PhD Student and Royster Fellow, Studying Information Science2 DOI: 10.1002/bult.2013.1720390405 Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Volume 39, Issue 4, pages 10–13, April/May 2013
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
The goal of bibliometric research itself is the development and testing of new performance indicators for research evaluation. For example, to address specific disadvantages of the original h index, nearly 40 variants of the h index have been proposed, most of which are redundant in terms of their application. We need new citation impact indicators that normalize for any factors other than quality that influence citation rates and that take into account the skewed distributions of citations across papers. The percentile indicators described in this paper might provide a solution.
The authors:" In addition to analysing the distribution of percentiles, it is possible to focus on percentile rank classes. Bornmann proposes—also as an alternative to the hindex —the Ptop 10% or PPtop 10% indicators, which can be considered to belong to the group of ‘success indicators’ in bibliometrics, to evaluate an institute. These indicators count the number of successful publications by a research unit, taking into account normalization over age and field. Ptop 10% is the number and PPtop 10% is the proportion of publications that belong to the top 10% most frequently cited publications. A publication belongs to this group if it is cited more often than 90% of publications published in the same field and in the same year."
"Ptop 10% and PPtop 10% have the additional benefit that they do not use an arbitrary threshold to determine the successful publications in a set, which is a disadvantage of the h index."
"PPtop 10% offers a third advantage over the h index in terms of allowing direct comparisons between publication sets. Statistically, it could be expected that 10% of publications from a random sample (drawn from InCites) would belong to the top 10% of the most-cited publications in a given subject category and publication year. The expected PPtop 10% would therefore be 10%."
Source: science & societyEMBO reports (2013) 14, 226 - 230 doi:10.1038/embor.2013.9How good is research really? Measuring the citation impact of publications with percentiles increases correct assessments and fair comparisons Lutz Bornmann & Werner Marx
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
AbstractBackground This study uses scientometrics methodology to reveal the status quo and emerging issues of collaboration in health management. Methods We searched all the articles with the keyword "health management" in the period 1999--2011 in Web of Knowledge, then 3067 articles were found. Methods such as Social network analysis (SNA), co-authorship, co-word analysis were used in this study. Results Analysis of the past 13 years of research in the field of health management indicates that, whether the production of scientific research, or authors, institutions and scientific research collaboration at the national level, collaboration behavior has been growing steadily across all collaboration types. However, the international scientific research cooperation about health management study between countries needs to be further encouraged. 17 researchers can be seen as the academic leaders in this field. 37 research institutions play a vital role in the information dissemination and resources control in health management. The component analysis found that 22 research groups can be regarded as the backbone in this field. The 8 institution groups consisting of 33 institutions form the core of this field. USA, UK and Australia lie in the center by cohesive subgroup analysis; Based on keywords analysis, 44 keywords with high frequency such as care, disease, system and model were involved in the health management field. Conclusions This study demonstrates that although it is growing steadily, collaboration behavior about health management study needs to be enhanced, especially between different institutions or countries/regions, which would promote the progress and internationalization of health management. Besides, researchers should pay attention to the cooperation of representative scholars and institutions, as well as the hot areas of research, because their experience would help us promote the research development of our nation. The authors:" The number of publications in the health management field is showing a rising trend,especially in recent years. Co-authorship is also keeping growing. And the cooperation of authors is obviously higher than that by institutions and countries. 22 research groups and 37 institutions devoted in this field, among which researchers or research team of USA and UK are in the core position in the collaboration network. Reviewing the related articles in other fields and comparing them with the research results in oncology or cardiovascular field in earlier stage, though 81% of the articles are produced by scientific cooperation, the Cooperation intensity in the field of health management is still relatively weak, especially between institutions and countries. Therefore, the important way of promoting the progress and internationalization of health management is to strengthen the cooperation between countries and institutions and take full advantage of the core role of dominant groups" Source: Research collaboration in health management research communities Chichen Zhang, Qi Yu, Qinghua Fan and Zhiguang Duan BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2013, 13:52 doi:10.1186/1472-6947-13-52 Published: 23 April 2013
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract With the increasing globalisation of knowledge and management education, it is important that we build on our scanty understanding of trends and levels of geographic diversification in editorial board membership of management journals. Our study examines geographic diversity in editorial boards in Management over a 20-year period. It uses secondary data from 57 journals covering approximately 16,000 editorial board members. We found that the geographic diversity of editorial boards (EBs) has increased in the last 20 years, but it is still low for most management journals. Further, two factors partly predict the geographic diversity of EBs of management journals: the editor’s country of residence and the field of research. Continued active management by editors, professional associations and individual academics alike is necessary to ensure that our editorial boards properly reflect the diverse management community. The autors: " We acknowledge that maximum geographic diversity in editorial boards does not necessarily equate with maximum innovative research and growth in knowledge. As suggested by Hodgson and Rothman (1999) for the institutional concentration of economics journals, there might be a point beyond which geographic diversity is not good for management journals or for knowledge growth. The challenge for future research in this area is to find the proportion, or the range, of geographic diversity in editorial boards that allows for new approaches and knowledge to flourish. This proportion might vary across fields of management study." Source: Management International ReviewApril 2013, Volume 53, Issue 2, pp 169-187Practicing what We PreachProf. Anne-Wil Harzing,Assoc. Prof. Isabel Metz
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Globally two processes are striking about modern management education. Firstly, management education is changing rapidly to meet new challenges from business and governments and to improve competitiveness. Secondly, management education has become one of the fastest growing areas in higher education. Management Education and Competitiveness provides a wide overview, including studies by scholars in nine countries in Europe, Japan and the United States. It examines how countries have developed different national courses in spite of strong influence from the American system of management education. It also examines the links between education and business. This collection of essays will be invaluable to managers and professionals in educational research and business administration. Contents: 1 IntroductionPart I Different Systems of Management EducationPart II Management Education and Business Source: Management, Education and CompetitivenessEurope, Japan and the United StatesEdited by Rolv Petter Amdam April 2013 by Routledge – 288 pages Series: Routledge International Studies in Business History
|
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Public No More examines the quickly changing environment within higher education, including the permanent decline in state support for public universities. This book raises the question of how research universities can survive with reduced subsidies and increased competition from both non-profit and growing for-profit institutions. Authors Gary C. Fethke and Andrew J. Policano, both longtime university administrators, offer a strategic framework for determining how tuition and access should be set and how universities should decide on quality and program scope. Throughout the text, real-world examples illustrate successful and unsuccessful adoptions of the authors' proposals. Leadership within public higher education, policymakers, and researchers alike will find Public No More to be a sober and well-grounded guide to what lies ahead for universities across the nation. Source:
Public No More; A New Path to Excellence for America’s Public Universities
Gary C. Fethke and Andrew J. Policano
Stanford University Press, 2012 Review: "Fethke and Policano do an excellent job of pinpointing the key issues in public higher education, and presenting strategic management solutions using lucid examples. Rigorous, but not overly technical, this book has a timely message, not just for higher education, but for the analysis of any situation in which strategic choices must be made and change is eminent."—John Kraft, Dean and Professor, University of Florida
Gary C. Fethke served as a university administrator for over twenty-five years, as Dean of the Business School and Interim President at the University of Iowa. He is the Leonard A. Hadley Professor of Leadership in the Tippie College of Business.
Andrew J. Policano is the Dean's Leadership Circle Professor and Dean of the Paul Merage School of Business at the University of California at Irvine. He is widely recognized for his innovative leadership, which spans twenty-two years in three deanships.
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: Previous work indicates that over the past 20 years, the highest quality work have been published in an increasingly diverse and larger group of journals. In this paper we examine whether this diversification has also affected the handful of elite journals that are traditionally considered to be the best. We examine citation patterns over the past 40 years of 7 long-standing traditionally elite journals and 6 journals that have been increasing in importance over the past 20 years. To be among the top 5% or 1% cited papers, papers now need about twice as many citations as they did 40 years ago. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s elite journals have been publishing a decreasing proportion of these top cited papers. This also applies to the two journals that are typically considered as the top venues and often used as bibliometric indicators of "excellence", Science and Nature. On the other hand, several new and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of most cited papers. These changes bring new challenges and opportunities for all parties. Journals can enact policies to increase or maintain their relative position in the journal hierarchy. Researchers now have the option to publish in more diverse venues knowing that their work can still reach the same audiences. Finally, evaluators and administrators need to know that although there will always be a certain prestige associated with publishing in "elite" journals, journal hierarchies are in constant flux so inclusion of journals into this group is not permanent. The authors: "With all these new journals, elite and otherwise, researchers now have increasingly more venues where they can submit their papers, and benefit from a visibility and availability that formerly was possible only for the most widely distributed journals, the “elite” journals. Given the high rejection rates of elite journals, around 93% for Science, for example, researchers might prefer to save time and submit their papers to other journals that ultimately will reach the same audience faster and potentially obtain as many citations. In the digital age it is relatively easy to determine the actual citation rate of individual papers or authors, so the value of a journal’s reputation is now less important. Nevertheless, researchers might still prefer to publish in elite journals. Whether justifiable or not, journal reputation still has some value to the papers therein, through a Mathew effect (Larivière and Gingras 2010), particularly when the research is viewed and evaluated by non-experts." Source: Are elite journals declining?Vincent Lariviere, George A. Lozano, Yves Gingras(Submitted on 24 Apr 2013)arXiv:1304.6460
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract This paper answers five questions about the societal impact of research. Firstly, we examine the opinions of research group leaders about the increased emphasis on societal impact, i.e. does it influence their research agenda, communication with stakeholders, and knowledge dissemination to stakeholders? Furthermore, we investigate the quality of their societal output. We also study whether the societal and scholarly productivity of academic groups are positively or negatively related. In addition, we investigate which managerial and organisational factors (e.g. experience of the principal investigator, group size and funding) influence societal output. Finally, we show for one case (virology) that societal impact is also visible through indirect links. Our study shows that research group leaders have a slightly positive attitude towards the increased emphasis on the societal impact of research. The study also indicates a wide variety of societal-oriented output. Furthermore, the societal and scientific productivity of academic groups are unrelated, suggesting that stimulating social relevance requires specific organisational and contextual interventions. The authors:"The process of knowledge transfer to society may be improved considerably by supporting the societal orientation of research leaders in a
more explicit manner. The current incentive structure in the science system, including research careers, still seems largely based on scientific performance in a narrow sense. It has been pointed out that ties to society and political bodies do not lead to pay-offs that can be mapped by the conventional indicators of successful scientific performance, including contract funding. Universities, for example, like to exhibit their societal engagement, but, in practice, these activities remain largely unrewarded." Key wordssocietal outputresearch groupsresearch fundingscience communicationincentive structuresscience system Source: Inge van der Weijden,Maaike Verbreeand Peter van den Besselaar From bench to bedside: The societal orientation of research leaders: The case of biomedical and health research in the Netherlands Science and Public Policy (2012) 39(3): 285-303 doi:10.1093/scipol/scr003
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract Career transitions within the same industry are challenging enough, but transitions across sectors are even more difficult. Underlying cultural and operational differences between industry and academia present significant hidden obstacles for practitioners seeking to become teachers in higher education. To help expose these challenges, I recount—in this Executive Digest—my personal experiences leaving the consulting profession for a role as a faculty member at the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. I offer comparisons between the two career models, illustrate specific examples of misaligned expectations, and conclude with practical suggestions to ease the transition and set forth a solid foundation for longevity in academia for non-researchers. The author: "For those seeking an opportunity to leave industry and begin a career in academia, there are a number of differences between the perceptions and realities of being a non-tenure track faculty member that may further compound the problem. These perceptions often lead to a period of inflated expectations that overemphasize the more glamorous aspects of teaching, such as being acknowledged for your accomplishments, recognized for your content expertise, and thanked a million times over in the receiving lines at annual graduation processions. When the role is fully revealed, however, many faculty members feel duped and even disil- lusioned by the realities of their new role. Whether it is the lack of career progression or the unexpected amount of work that goes into designing, developing, and delivering curriculum, there are a number of unanticipated challenges that may cause some to regret their decision." Source: Business Horizons Available online 10 May 2013 In Press, Executive Digest So, you want to be a business professor?John E. Wisneski Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, 1309 E. Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN 47405-1701, U.S.A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.04.007,
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract Much has been debated about the perceived relevance/irrelevance of business schools in addressing business needs with some suggesting that academic research is not applicable to practice. We contribute by claiming the debate is itself somewhat misplaced and the real task of business schools is to instil the art of ‘relevating’ the seemingly irrelevant in order to prepare managers for the challenges they face. Paradoxically, we contend that in relentlessly pursuing scholarship, academics can make a valuable contribution to practice by offering counterintuitive viewpoints that challenge business mindsets. Ironically, value-adding contributions to practice are best made when academia resists the seductive tendency to capitulate to the immediate demands of the client. For it is only by challenging conventional wisdom and expectations and thereby creating dissonance in the minds of managers, that new and unthought avenues of action may be opened up for consideration. We illustrate this by examining the experiences of a partnership between a multinational corporation and a university in the United Kingdom where the executive education programme was carried out using action learning techniques while encouraging reflexivity in practice. The authors: "Scholarship and academic rigour on the part of university business schools can serve to challenge the cultural inertia of corporations by disrupting dominant logics (Prahalad, 2004) and established norms of practice in order to expand horizons of comprehension and pave the way for new avenues of venture for a corporation. This is the true competitive advantage of university business schools." Source: Relevance or ‘relevate’? How university business schools can add value through reflexively learning from strategic partnerships with businesssteve paton steve.paton@strath.ac.uk, University of Strathclyde, UKRobert Chia, University of Glasgow, UKGeorge Burt, University of Strathclyde, UK doi: 10.1177/1350507613479541 Management Learning March 21, 2013 1350507613479541
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: This paper focuses on convergence and divergence dynamics among leading British and French business schools and explores how the pressure for accreditation influences these dynamics. We illustrate that despite historical differences in approaches to management education in Britain and France, these approaches have converged partly based on the influence of the American model of management education but more recently through the pursuit of accreditation, in particular from the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business and the European Quality Improvement Standard. We explore these dynamics through the application of the resource-based view of the firm and institutional theory and suggest that, whilst achieving accreditation is a necessary precursor for international competition, it is no longer a form of competitive advantage. The pursuit of accreditation has fostered a form of competitive mimicry reducing national distinctiveness. The resource-based view of the firm suggests that the top schools need a more heterogeneous approach that is not easily replicable if they are to outperform the competitors. Consequently, the convergence of management education in Britain and France will become a new impetus for divergence. We assert that future growth and competitive advantage might be better achieved through the reassertion of national, regional and local cultural characteristics. The authors: "Without jeopardizing their accreditation, we would expect B-schools to pursue individual and separation strategies to differentiate themselves from others. There are already signs of this happening. The proximity of City University to the financial district of London is reflected in a suite of courses in their B-school (Cass Business School) that prepare students for specialized financial careers. BEM Management School in Bordeaux can demonstrate excellence in wine related businesses. In such examples we see the emergence of B-schools that reflect their particular
location, history and culture. But they do this upon high quality foundations. Ironically, therefore, homogenization will help B-schools find their own distinctive identities." source: Convergence and Divergence Dynamics in British and French Business Schools: How Will the Pressure for Accreditation Influence these Dynamics?Lisa Thomas,Jon Billsberry,Véronique Ambrosini,Harry Barton British Journal of Management, 2013 DOI: 10.1111/1467-8551.12007
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract The New York Times receives more citations from academic journals than the American Sociological Review, Research Policy, or the Harvard Law Review. This paper explores the reasons why scholars cite the New York Times so much. Reasons include studying the newspaper itself or New York City, establishing public interest in a topic by referencing press coverage, introducing specificity, and treating the New York Times very much like an academic journal. The phenomenon seems to reflect a Mode 2 type of scholarship produced in the context of application, organizationally diverse, socially accountable and aiming to be socially useful as well as high quality as assessed by peers. The authors: " In this study we investigate the relationship between the scholarly literature and the New York Times as expressed through references in journal articles. We find that NYT referencing is extensive and that growth in NYT referencing has accelerated in recent years, probably due to easier access to NYT articles over the internet. Referencing is widespread, though most intensive in law, international relations and political science. Nevertheless, academics have not become journalists and journalists have not become academics. Examining the contexts of NYT references, we find authors most often leveraging the differences between the scholarly and newspaper genres to advance their arguments. Sometimes the NYT is referenced because the NYT is the subject of the research. Sometimes New York City is the subject, which leads to extensive use of the NYT as a source. More often, authors seek to establish the importance of their topic by using press coverage as evidence of public concern. The New York Times is also used as a primary source, for example in discussing a recent event or inserting words spoken by an influential person. Perhaps half of NYT referencing uses the NYT as a
primary source. Authors who use the NYT for evidence of public concern and to support their turn to specificity are leveraging differences between scholarship and journalism as genres of social knowledge making. In contrast co-citing with journal articles or citing academics writing in the NYT are patterns that seem to violate long standing concerns with demarcation among scholars. These patterns can be understood within a
framework that recognizes that social scientists and humanists work in more than one genre, one of which is enlightenment literature. That the New York Times reigns supreme in the enlightenment literature testifies to the success of 100 years of strategic development that explicitly targeted academia at key points. The New York Times and academia, though distinct, have become symbiotic enterprises within the ecology of public
knowledge." Source: Diana Hicks and Jian Wang. 2013. "The New York Times as a resource for Mode 2" The Selected Works of Diana Hicks
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/diana_hicks/34
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
AbstractCommunities of Practice (CoP) are groups that “share a concern or a passion for something” and “learn how to do it better as they interact regularly” (Wenger 2006). CoP studies reason that learning is an on-going social endeavour based upon the connections between people. One could consider a faculty, institution or an entire field, as a CoP. Scholarly publishing traditions, such as peer-review and citing prior work help ensure rigor and add value to scholarly literature in a way that is not seen to the same extent elsewhere in publishing. Impact is a frequently used term in research circles. Extrapolated impact predictions are a key factor in determining what research is funded, whereas retrospectively calculated impact metrics are a often used to measure the success of a particular researcher, or a research project. Unfortunately the term impact lacks clear definition. Furthermore impact metrics are often interpreted without a full understand of what is being interpreted. Through reviewing relevant literature, this paper positions itself to question whether the value of CoP should be represented in impact metrics, and whether the shortcomings of existing impact metrics can be mitigated by assessing impact in terms of CoP. The authors:" The corpus of literature that discusses altmetrics gives a
compelling account of why an alternative view of metrics is necessary based on problems (with tradmetrics) and opportunities (the potential to exploit newly available data). Scholars have demonstrated how altmetrics work in practice. Altmetrics are inherently based upon socially relevant data, and indeed data that is usually generated through social interactions, but thus far implementations of altmetric compasses have failed to account for the value of stimulating or nurturing those interactions. Altmetrics
demonstrate that social interactions can be used as a measure of impact or influence, stemming from a particular piece of research. It does this through tracking the signatures of these social interactions. Whereas tradmetrics are structurally impotent in this regard, altmetrics fall short in terms of CoP in that they simply don't attempt to account for the tacit value of the social interactions that they are measuring the signature of. Source: Communities of Impact
Joseph Lindley, HighWire DTC, Lancaster University, United Kingdom
j.lindley@lancaster.ac.uk
April 2013
The master copy of this document can be annotated at http://communitiesofimpact.joesart.org/
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: Editor's Summary Since the 1960s citation counts have been the standard for judging scholarly contributions and status, but growing awareness of the strategy's limitations should lead to acceptance of alternative metrics. Citation analysis drawbacks include lack of timeliness, self citation and citations that are superfluous, negative and incomplete, and traditional counts reflect only a small fraction of actual usage. A better categorization of scholarly impact would cover usage, captures, mentions and social media in addition to citations. Metrics should include mentions in blogs and other nontraditional formats, open review forums, electronic book downloads, library circulation counts, bookmarks, tweets and more. Such alternative metrics provide a more complete view of peer response to scholarly writings and better demonstrate the relative position of a research grant applicant and potential for influential work. Altmetrics are readily available, and their value for evaluating scholarly work should be recognized. The authors:" There is a temptation to see this new paradigm for measuring impact as a passing fad: interesting, but too early, or simply not serious with regard to scientific research. The question arises: Does the process for granting tenure need to be changed in order for these measures to be accepted? A better question is why a demonstrably sub-standard process whose faults and drawbacks are so well known has persisted for so long. The easy answer is that it is all we have had for five decades, but the truth is that decisionmakers want quantifiable data for making decisions. Promotion, hiring and grant funding processes will continue to evolve, but those changes will not be prerequisites for including more holistic measurements." source: Special Section: What, Why And Where? You have full text access to this contentAre alternative metrics still alternative?Mike Buschman Co-Founders of Plum Analytics, Worked at Microsoft as a Librarian and Program Manager1,Andrea Michalek Co-Founders of Plum Analytics, Serial Entrepreneur with a Focus on Search and Information Retrieval Products2 DOI: 10.1002/bult.2013.1720390411 Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Volume 39, Issue 4, pages 35–39, April/May 2013
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
New technology innovations – and the startup companies formed to commercialize them – increasingly have their beginnings in university research labs. And it's more likely that PhD students, not faculty, form the initial idea for a new technology. While in later stages these ventures resemble typical technology startups, they experience a different early development process, decision points and potential conflicts that can make or break an innovation's chances of making it to market. "From Lab Bench to Innovation: Critical Challenges to Nascent Academic Entrepreneurs," a new study released by the Kauffman Foundation, examines the particular experience of nascent academic entrepreneurs (NAEs) and the implications of this experience for universities and policymakers. The study is among the few to focus specifically on this important group of entrepreneurs at the individual, rather than institutional, level. "This research supports the notion that graduate students have an important role in commercializing their inventions from the university lab and they need support models to help them advance to the commercial marketplace. This is significant because many universities in the U.S. do not clearly define intellectual property rights in support of student entrepreneurs. I'm hoping this paper will encourage universities to consider more open policies," said Lesa Mitchell, vice president of Innovation and Networks at the Kauffman Foundation. "The paper also reinforces the value of competitions that allow students access to robust resources and experiences that can help them move their science inventions from lab to market." Author Roman M. Lubynsky, senior venture advisor, MIT Venture Mentoring Service, followed and analyzed the experiences of 10 NAEs involved in eight ventures at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, all of whom were enrolled in the university's Venture Mentoring Service. The cases spanned the product life cycle from idea to commercialization across a range of technologies and industries, with data collected through interviews, observation and archival data. Lubynsky defines an NAE as a faculty, staff or student researcher at a university who has left the university, or intends to leave, to devote full-time attention to the development of a company based on research that originated at the university in which he or she was involved, and which has not yet achieved real economic activity through sales of the product or services. Key study findings include: Many academic entrepreneurs are students at the time they formed their initial idea and began exploring the possibility of a startup venture.NAEs typically found academic ventures as "research-based startups" with the goal of completing or developing the new technology to make it ready for commercialization, and spend years – sometimes as much as a decade – in this phase. Their objectives, required resources, structure and funding sources differ at each stage.The decision to launch a venture evolves as the NAE gains confidence in his or her entrepreneurial abilities and determines that the technology likely cannot be licensed unless they bring it to maturity first.Finally, academic entrepreneurs are more likely than typical technology entrepreneurs to experience serious conflicts – particularly with their faculty advisors – over intellectual property and equity participation. Fulltext: http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/DownLoadableResources/from-lab-bench-to-innovation.pdf
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Published on the occasion of Richard C. Levin’s retirement as president of Yale University, this captivating collection of speeches and essays from the past decade reflects both his varied intellectual passions and his deep commitment to university life and leadership. Whether discussing the economic implications of climate change or speaking to an incoming class of Yale freshmen, he argues for the vital importance of scholarship and the critical role that universities play in educating students and promoting the overall well-being of our society. This collection is a sequel to The Work of the University, which contained the principal writings from Levin’s first decade as Yale’s president, and it enunciates many of the same enduring themes: forging a strong partnership with the city of New Haven, rebuilding Yale’s physical infrastructure, strengthening science and engineering, and internationalizing the university. But this companion volume also captures the essence of university leadership. In addressing topics as varied as his personal sources of inspiration, the development of Asian universities, and the university’s role in promoting innovation and economic growth, Levin challenges the reader to be more engaged, more creative, more innovative, and above all, a better global citizen. Throughout, his commitment to and affection for Yale shines through. Richard C. Levin, the Frederick William Beinecke Professor of Economics, is the twenty-second president of Yale University. Before becoming president in 1993, he taught economics at Yale for two decades, chaired the economics department, and served as dean of the Graduate School. Levin serves on President Obama’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology. He is a director of the Hewlett Foundation, ClimateWorks, and American Express. He served on a bipartisan commission to recommend improvements in the nation’s intelligence capabilities, and he co-chaired a major review of the nation’s patent system for the National Academy of Sciences. He holds honorary degrees from Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Peking, Tokyo, and Waseda universities, as well as the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Source: The Worth of the University Richard C. Levin 2013
296 p., 5 1/2 x 8 1/4
5 color illus.
ISBN: 9780300197259
Cloth: $28.00 sc
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: The ‘tyranny of relevance’ captures a widespread sense of concern among social and political scientists that their academic freedom and professional autonomy is under threat from a changing social context in which scholars are increasingly expected to demonstrate some form of social ‘relevance’, ‘impact’ or ‘engagement’ beyond academe. This article attempts to reframe the current debate by reflecting upon the history of the discipline and different forms of scholarship in order to craft an argument concerning the need for political scientists to rediscover ‘the art of translation’. This, in turn, facilitates a more sophisticated grasp of key concepts, emphasises the need for the discipline to engage with multiple publics in multiple ways, and suggests that engaging with non-academic audiences is likely to improve not simply the discipline's leverage in terms of funding, or scholarship in terms of quality, but also teaching in terms of energy and relevance. The simple argument of this article is not therefore that political science has become irrelevant, but that it has generally failed to promote and communicate the social value and benefit of the discipline in an accessible manner. Resolving this situation is likely to demand a little political imagination.
The author:" The argument is not that academics should become public intellectuals, but rather more akin to specific or critical intellectuals in the sense of bringing new perspectives, expertise or insights to bear on contemporary debates. The notion of critical intellectuals injects a very clear normative or political dimension which grates against the view of many critics that the current emphasis on relevance represents little more than the (tyrannical) imposition of a shallow market-based and instrumental logic that should be resisted – resisted on the basis that the need to be viewed as ‘engaged’, ‘relevant’ or having some form of demonstrable ‘impact’ risks sterilising the study of politics and silencing critical voices.A different ‘road to relevance’ might interpret the changing context not as a threat but as an opportunity to showcase exactly why the study of politics matters, to forge a deeper and more reflective model of scholarship, to redefine the boundaries of the discipline and to increase the leverage position of the discipline vis-à-vis external research funders." Source: The Tyranny of Relevance and the Art of TranslationMatthew Flinders Article first published online: 16 APR 2013 DOI: 10.1111/1478-9302.12011 Political Studies Review Volume 11, Issue 2, pages 149–167, May 2013
|
