Rigour, Relevance and Reward: Introducing the Knowledge Translation Value-chain

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university


This paper recognizes the substantive contributions made within the British Journal of Management to conducting research relevant to management at the level of individual studies. We aim to reorient the debate to take account of a researcher’s contribution to practice over time and, by so doing, to indicate the range of ways knowledge can be translated and (through engagement with users and policymakers) modified, embedded and otherwise found useful. To achieve this, we conceptualize management scholarship as a knowledge translation value-chain. We propose that, to maximize relevance, knowledge must be reconfigured in multiple contexts, of which management research provides but one. The paper concludes with observations on the additional skills that researchers might need to make use of opportunities for engagement right across the knowledge translation value-chain.



Rigour, Relevance and Reward: Introducing the Knowledge Translation Value-chain

Richard Thorpe1,Colin Eden2,John Bessant3,Paul Ellwood1

DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00760.x

British Journal of Management

Special Issue: British Academy of Management’s 25th Celebration Special Issue: Guest Editors: Peter McKiernan and David Wilson

Volume 22, Issue 3, pages 420–431, September 2011

See on onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Gift Contributions to U.S. Colleges and Universities Concentrated at the top research universities

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

The Council for Aid to Education published survey data (of 1,009 institutions) on charitable giving to American colleges and universities during fiscal year 2011. In total, charitable gifts to these institutions of higher education increased (after adjusting for inflation) 4.8 percent from the previous year to $30.3 billion.


Charitable Gifts Concentrated at the Top

As is true of the nonprofit sector overall, most of the charitable

dollars go to a small number of institutions. Twenty-five percent of the responding institutions raised 86.3 percent of the dollars

reported on the VSE survey. The next 25 percent account for under 10 percent, and the next two quartiles of institutions together account for less than 5 percent of the total.


The nation’s top 20 fundraising universities

(and dollars received) in 2011 are:

1. Stanford University ($709.42 million)

2. Harvard University ($639.15 million)

3. Yale University ($580.33 million)

4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology ($534.34 million)

5. Columbia University ($495.56 million)

6. Johns Hopkins University ($485.41 million)

7. University of Pennsylvania ($437.72 million)

8. University of California–Los Angeles ($415.03 million)

9. University of California–San Francisco ($409.45 million)

10. University of Southern California ($402.41 million)

11. University of Texas at Austin ($354.34 million)

12. Duke University ($349.66 million)

13. New York University ($337.85 million)

14. University of Washington ($334.49 million)

15. University of Wisconsin–Madison ($315.77 million)

16. Cornell University ($315.53 million)

17. Indiana University ($295.90 million)

18. University of California–Berkeley ($283.35 million)

19. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ($274.95 million)

20. University of Minnesota ($272.57 million)


Press release: http://www.cae.org/content/pdf/VSE_2011_Press_Release.pdf

See on centerforcollegeaffordability.org

Science in Society: a Challenging Frontier for Science Policy

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

This new ESF report aims to highlight the role of science in society, to raise awareness of how scientific knowledge is translated into society, and to encourage better practice in the relationship between science and society. In order to achieve a better society and increase the quality of research and innovation, this MO Forum recommends that the following aspects be taken into account by ESF Member Organisations (MOs).


• Quality in SiS activities is needed.
• Clear commitment to SiS in MO science policy and strategy has to be enhanced.
• Transparent SiS processes must be put in place within the organisational structures of MOs and other research funding and performing bodies. SiS processes must also be seen as an
essential and central part of a researcher’s work. A cultural change must be encouraged through staff policies, organisational strategies and education of researchers.
• Researchers and research groups must be properly rewarded for their work in this area.
• More experiments concerning instruments, activities and methods should be encouraged. Sharing experience and best practice through networks for exchange within Europe on a regular basis would increase efficiency in SiS.
• Networks to jointly develop systems for indicators, evaluations and measurements are needed. There is a need to coordinate efforts
for greater impact. Organisations need the instruments to do this and this involves ensuring that SiS activities are formally evaluated, which
is not the case today.


Source; European Science Foundation (ESF)




See on www.esf.org

Project Snowball; A new research metric standard for the future

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Project Snowball is a public service project that aims to help universities benchmark their performance across a broad range of research activities. The project, developed among eight UK institutions and scientific publisher Elsevier, aims to determine a standard set of common metrics for external benchmarking and to share the methodology behind those metrics publically.

In 2010, Elsevier and Imperial College London participated in a joint JISC-funded studywithin the English higher education sector. The study reviewed the sector’s efforts and experiences of implementing research management systems. It evaluated and compared the tools that universities currently use to manage data related to research. It also aimed to identify problems with the current approaches used, and to publicise elements of good practice. The study resulted in the report Research information management: Developing tools to inform the management of research and translating existing good practice (available at www.projectsnowball.info).The work contains several recommendations, most notably: institutions should work more collaboratively with each other, with funders, and with suppliers, to develop data standards and drive consistency in research systems. Following the completion and publication of the report, the Imperial College/Elsevier team initiated a second phase of work that would address and build on the recommendations.

Second phase: Snowball – agreeing on benchmarking metrics for UK research performance

The overriding objective of Project Snowball is to build consensus to deliver metrics to benchmark research performance in the UK, and to simplify the interaction between institutions, suppliers and funders. To reach this objective, a number of workshops were set up with leading UK academic institutes. Eight universities agreed to collaborate on the project: Imperial College London, Queen’s University Belfast, University College London, University of Bristol, University of Cambridge, University of Leeds, University of Oxford, and University of St Andrews.

Project reports:



See on www.projectsnowball.info

Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Abstract: Google Scholar Metrics (GSM), a new bibliometric product of Google that aims at providing the H-index for scientific journals and other information sources. We conduct a critical review of GSM showing its main characteristics and possibilities as a tool for scientific evaluation. We discuss its coverage along with the inclusion of repositories, bibliographic control, and its options for browsing and searching. We conclude that, despite Google Scholar’s value as a source for scien- tific assessment, GSM is an immature product with many shortcomings, and therefore we advise against its use for evalu- ation purposes. However, the improvement of these shortcomings would place GSM as a serious competitor to the other existing products for evaluating scientific journals.



Delgado-López-Cózar, Emilio, Google Scholar Metrics: an unreliable tool for assessing scientific journals
Cabezas-Clavijo, Álvaro


Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Granada

See on digibug.ugr.es

Realized Publicness at Public and Private Research Universities

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

Although research-extensive universities in the United States produce similar outcomes—research, teaching, and service—they vary substantially in terms of the publicness of their environments. In this article, the authors adopt a public values framework to examine how regulative, normative/associative, and cultural cognitive components affect realized public outcomes by faculty. Using survey data from a random sample of faculty scientists in six fields of science and engineering at Carnegie Research I universities, findings show that organizational and individual public values components are associated predictably with different realized individual public outcomes. For example, individual support from federal resources and affiliation with a federal lab (associative) are related to increased research outcomes, while tuition and fee levels (regulative) explain teaching outcomes, and perceived level of influence in the workplace (cultural cognitive) explains teaching and service outcomes.



Realized Publicness at Public and Private Research Universities

Mary K. Feeney*,Eric W. Welch*

DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02521.x

Public Administration Review

Volume 72, Issue 2, pages 272–284, March/April 2012

See on onlinelibrary.wiley.com

The U.S. Research University as a Global Model: Some Fundamental Problems to Consider

See on Scoop.itDual impact of research; towards the impactelligent university

This paper examines the development of the U.S. research university, highlighting both its great success as well as some fundamental problems. Arguing that the U.S. research university is
often looked to globally as a model for other nations, the author offers some cautionary concerns. More specifically, the author identifies four critical stages in the development of the U.S. research
university: the Germanic influence of the 1800s, the rise of government sponsorship of research during World Wars I and II, the emergence of the multiversity, and the rise of the entrepreneurial
university under neoliberalism. The author argues that critical flaws related to each of these stages are evident in the contemporary rendition of the U.S. research university and that such flaws must
be considered in either drawing from the U.S. model or in seeking to recast it.



The U.S. Research University as a Global Model: Some Fundamental Problems to Consider. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 7((2), Rhoads, Robert A., UCL. 2011

Publication Info:

InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, UC Los Angeles



See on escholarship.org

RSS Business School News

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Locations of Site Visitors

Altmetric Related stuf

if(typeof(AltmetricWidget) !== 'undefined'){ window.AltmetricWidget489 = new AltmetricWidget("AltmetricWidget489"); }}

%d bloggers like this: