Measuring university engagement

Measuring university engagement

Автор: Kochetkov D.M., Sadekov N. Kh., Gudkova I.A.

Журнал: Университетское управление: практика и анализ @umj-ru

Рубрика: Взаимодействие университетов и бизнеса

Статья в выпуске: 5 т.23, 2019 года.

Бесплатный доступ

This article presents a model for the evaluation of scientific research output from the standpoint of university engagement with the socio-economic environment based on a scientometric analysis of topical areas. The primary aim was to examine various interrelations between conventional and alternative scientometric indicators that most clearly reflect the relationship between universities, industry and society. Three countries and five topical research areas were chosen as the object of the study. A comparative analysis showed that conventional scientometric indicators correlate quite well with the indicators of social and commercial relevance of scientific research. However, since this relationship was not observed in the case of Brazil, an assumption was made about the influence of the national and disciplinary context. The evaluation of university engagement cannot be performed based exclusively on quantitative indicators, thus requiring qualitative assessment, e. g. peer review.

Еще

University engagement, engaged university, third mission, community engagement, scientometric indicators, peer review

Короткий адрес: https://sciup.org/142227549

IDR: 142227549   |   DOI: 10.15826/umpa.2019.05.043

Список литературы Measuring university engagement

  • Olssen M., & Peters M. A. Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism, Journal of Education Policy, 2005, vol. 20(3), pp. 313-345. (In Eng.).
  • Wissema J. G. Towards the Third Generation University: Managing the University in Transition. Cheltenham & Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2009. 252 p. (In Eng.).
  • Schumpeter J. A. The Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1934. 255 p. (In Eng.).
  • Rogers E. M. Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press, 2003. 576 p. (In Eng.).
  • Carayannis E. G., & Campbell D. F. J. "Mode 3" and "Quadruple Helix": toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem, International Journal of Technology Management, 2009, vol. 46(3/4), pp. 201-234. (In Eng.).
  • Carayannis E. G., & Campbell D. F. J. Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology, International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 2010, vol. 1(1), pp. 41-69. (In Eng.).
  • Etzkowitz H. Incubation of incubators: Innovation as a triple helix of university-industry-government networks, Science and Public Policy, 2002, vol. 29(2), pp. 115-128. (In Eng.).
  • Etzkowitz H., & Klofsten M. The innovating region: Toward a theory of knowledge-based regional development. R and D Management, 2005, vol. 35(3), pp. 243-255. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2005.00387.x (In Eng.).
  • Etzkowitz H., & Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and "mode 2" to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations, Research Policy, 2000, vol. 29(2), pp. 109-123. (In Eng.).
  • Belderbos R., Cassiman B., Faems D., Leten B., & Van Looy B. Co-ownership of intellectual property: Exploring the value-appropriation and value-creation implications of co-patenting with different partners, Research Policy, 2014, vol. 43(5), pp. 841-852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2013.08.013 (In Eng.).
  • Bogers M., Chesbrough H., & Moedas C. Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies, California ManagementReview, 2018, vol. 60(2), pp. 5-16. https://doi.or g/10.1177/0008125617745086 (In Eng.).
  • Dahlander L., & Gann D. M. How open is innovation? Research Policy, 2010, vol. 39(6), pp. 699-709. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013 (In Eng.).
  • Felin T., & Zenger T. R. Closed or open innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice, Research Policy, 2014, vol. 43(5), pp. 914-925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2013.09.006 (In Eng.).
  • Laursen K., & Salter A. J. The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration, Research Policy, 2014, vol. 43(5), pp. 867-878. https://doi.org/10.1016/). respol.2013.10.004 (In Eng.).
  • Lopez-Vega H., Tell F., & Vanhaverbeke, W. Where and how to search? Search paths in open innovation, Research Policy, 2016, vol. 45(1), pp. 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2015.08.003 (In Eng.).
  • Saebi T., & Foss N. J. Business models for open innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions, European Management Journal, 2015, vol. 33(3), pp. 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. emj.2014.11.002 (In Eng.).
  • West J., Salter A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H. Open innovation: The next decade, Research Policy, 2014, vol. 43(5), pp. 805-811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. respol.2014.03.001 (in Eng.).
  • Darrell K. Rigby, Sutherl J., & Takeuchi H. The Secret History of Agile Innovation, Harward Business Review, 2016. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2016/04/ the-secret-history-of-agile-innovation (In Eng.).
  • Freeman C. The 'National System of Innovation' in historical perspective, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1995, pp. 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje. a035309 (In Eng.).
  • Grupp H., & Schubert T. Review and new evidence on composite innovation indicators for evaluating national performance, Research Policy, 2010, vol. 39(1), pp. 67-78. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.10.002 (In Eng.).
  • Proksch D., Haberstroh M. M., & Pinkwart A. Increasing the national innovative capacity: Identifying the pathways to success using a comparative method, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2017, vol. 116, pp. 256-270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. techfore.2016.10.009 (In Eng.).
  • Wu J., Ma Z., & Zhuo S. Enhancing national innovative capacity: The impact of high-tech international trade and inward foreign direct investment, International Business Review, 2017, vol. 26(3), pp. 502-514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ibusrev. 2016.11.001 (In Eng.).
  • Mryglod O., Kenna R., Holovatch Y., & Berche B. Comparison of a citation-based indicator and peer review for absolute and specific measures of research-group excellence, Scientometrics, 2013, vol. 97(3), pp. 767-777. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-013-1058-9 (In Eng.).
  • Harzing A.-W. Running the REF on a rainy Sunday afternoon: Do metrics match peer review? 2017. (In Eng.).
  • Traag V. A., Waltman L. Systematic analysis of agreement between metrics and peer review in the UK REF, Palgrave Commun, 2019, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 1-12. https:// doi:10.1057/s41599-019-0233-x (In Eng.).
  • Vernon M. M., Andrew Balas E., & Momani S. Are university rankings useful to improve research? A systematic review, PLoS ONE, 2018, vol. 13(3), pp. 1-15. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193762 (In Eng.).
  • Safon V. What do global university rankings really measure? The search for the X factor and the X entity, Scientometrics, 2013, vol. 97(2), pp. 223-244. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11192-013-0986-8 (In Eng.).
  • Lim M. A. The building of weak expertise: the work of global university rankers, Higher Education, 2018, vol. 75(3), pp. 415-430. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10734-017-0147-8 (In Eng.).
  • Van Eck N. J., & Waltman L. Software survey: VOSviewr, a computer program for bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics, 2010, vol. 84, pp. 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3 (In Eng.).
  • Van Eck N. J., & Waltman L. Visualizing Bibliometric Networks, In Measuring Scholarly Impact, 2014, pp. 285320. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10377-8_13 (In Eng.).
  • Chile L. M., & Black X. M. University-community engagement: Case study of university social responsibility, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 2015, vol. 10(3), pp. 234-253. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197915607278 (In Eng.).
  • de Rassenfosse G., & Williams R. Rules of engagement: measuring connectivity in national systems of higher education, Higher Education, 2015, vol. 70(6), pp. 941-956. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-015-9881-y (In Eng.).
  • Fleischman D., Raciti M., & Lawley M. Degrees of co-creation: an exploratory study of perceptions of international students' role in community engagement experiences, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 2015, vol. 25(1), pp. 85103. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2014.986254 (In Eng.).
  • Kindred J., & Petrescu C. Expectations Versus Reality in a University-Community Partnership: A Case Study, Voluntas, 2015, vol. 26(3), pp. 823-845. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11266-014-9471-0 (In Eng.).
  • Levine P. A defense of higher education and its civic mission, Journal of General Education, 2014, vol. 63(1), pp. 47-56. https://doi.org/10.1353/jge.2014.0002 (In Eng.).
  • Mtawa N. N., Fongwa S. N., & Wangenge-Ouma, G. The scholarship of university-community engagement: Interrogating Boyer's model, International Journal of Educational Development, 2016, vol. 49, pp. 126-133. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2016.01.007 (In Eng.).
  • Whitley C. T., & Yoder S. D. Developing social responsibility and political engagement: Assessing the aggregate impacts of university civic engagement on associated attitudes and behaviors, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 2015, vol. 10(3), pp. 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1177/174619 7915583941 (In Eng.).
  • Trippl M., Sinozic T., & Lawton Smith H. The Role of Universities in Regional Development: Conceptual Models and Policy Institutions in the UK, Sweden and Austria, European Planning Studies, 2015, vol. 23(9), pp. 1722-1740. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1052782 (In Eng.).
  • Iorio R., Labory S., & Rentocchini F. The importance of pro-social behaviour for the breadth and depth of knowledge transfer activities: An analysis of Italian academic scientists, Research Policy, 2017, vol. 46(2), pp. 497-509. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.12.003 (In Eng.).
  • Rosli A., & Rossi F. Third-mission policy goals and incentives from performance-based funding: Are they aligned? Research Evaluation, 2016, vol. 25(4), pp. 427-441. https://doi. org/10.1093/reseval/rvw012 (In Eng.).
  • Abuzar M. A., & Owen, J. A community engaged dental curriculum: A rural Indigenous outplacement programme, Journal of Public Health Research, 2016, vol. 5(1), pp. 27-31. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2016.668 (In Eng.).
  • Crea T. M., & McFarland M. Higher education for refugees: Lessons from a 4-year pilot project, International Review of Education, 2015, vol. 61(2), pp. 235-245. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11159-015-9484-y (In Eng.).
  • Dada O., Jack S., & George M. University-Business Engagement Franchising and Geographic Distance: A Case Study of a Business Leadership Programme, Regional Studies, 2016, vol. 50(7), pp. 1217-1231. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343 404.2014.995614 (In Eng.).
  • Frank A. I., & Sieh L. Multiversity of the twenty-first century - examining opportunities for integrating community engagement in planning curricula, Planning Practice and Research, 2016, vol. 31(5), pp. 513-532. https://doi.org/10.108 0/02697459.2016.1180573 (In Eng.).
  • Shiel C., Leal Filho W., do Paço A., & Brandli L. Evaluating the engagement of universities in capacity building for sustainable development in local communities, Evaluation and Program Planning, 2016, vol. 54, pp. 123-134. https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.evalprogplan.2015.07.006 (In Eng.).
  • Granado X. O., Mendoza Lira M., Apablaza C. G. C., & López V. M. M. Positive emotions, autonomy support and academic performance of university students: The mediating role of academic engagement and self-efficacy, Revista de Psicodidactica, 2017, vol. 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1387/ RevPsicodidact. 14280 (In Eng.).
  • Navarro-Abal Y., Gómez-Salgado J., López-López M. J., & Climent-Rodríguez J. A. Organisational justice, burnout, and engagement in university students: A comparison between stressful aspects of labour and university organization, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2018, vol. 15(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15102116 (In Eng.).
  • Mazet J. A. K., Uhart M. M., & Keyyu J. D. Stakeholders in One Health, OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique, 2014, vol. 33(2), pp. 443-452. https://doi. org/10.20506/rst.33.2.2295 (In Eng.).
  • Spies L. A. Developing Global Nurse Influencers, Journal of Christian Nursing: A Quarterly Publication of Nurses Christian Fellowship, 2016, vol. 33(2), pp. E 20-E 22. (In Eng.).
  • Malfitano A. P. S., Lopes R. E., Magalhaes L., & Townsend E. A. Social occupational therapy: Conversations about a Brazilian experience, Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 2014, vol. 81(5), pp. 298-307. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0008417414536712 (In Eng.).
  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. VOSviewerManual (version 1.6.4), 2016, pp. 1-28. https://doi.org/10.3402/jac. v8.30072 (In Eng.).
  • Leydesdorff L., Bornmann L. & Mingers J., Statistical significance and effect sizes of differences among research universities at the level of nations and worldwide based on the leiden rankings, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2019, vol. 70, pp. 509-525. https:// doi:10.1002/asi.24130 (In Eng.).
Еще
Статья научная
SciUp 2024 © 2024 ©