Business Schools are Driving Innovation in the Domestic Economy UK according to new ABS report

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

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

 

See on www.associationofbusinessschools.org

Public No More: A New Path to Excellence for America’s Public Universities; how research universities can survive with reduced subsidies and increased competition from both non-profit and for-profi…

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

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.

See on www.sup.org

International Co-authorship Relations in the Social Science Citation Index: Is Internationalization Leading the Network?

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

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]
See on arxiv.org

Are elite journals declining now emerging and established journals are publishing an increasing proportion of most cited papers?

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

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 
See on arxiv.org

In search of relevance: The changing contract between science and society; introducing the credibility cycle as heuristic

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

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

 

See on spp.oxfordjournals.org

From bench to bedside: The societal orientation of research leaders

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

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

See on spp.oxfordjournals.org

Research staff and public engagement: a UK study

See on Scoop.it – Dual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

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

 

See on link.springer.com