Higher education policy: Why hope for quality when rewarding quantity?

Do funding sources complement or substitute? Examining the impact of cancer research publications

Academic research often draws on multiple funding sources. This paper investigates whether complementarity or substitutability emerges when different types of funding are used. Scholars have examined this phenomenon at the university and scientist levels, but not at the publication level. This gap is significant since acknowledgement sections in scientific papers indicate publications are often supported by multiple funding sources. To address this gap, we examine the extent to which different funding types are jointly used in publications, and to what extent certain combinations of funding are associated with higher academic impact (citation count). We focus on three types of funding accessed by UK-based researchers: national, international, and industry. The analysis builds on data extracted from all UK cancer-related publications in 2011, thus providing a 10-year citation window. Findings indicate that, although there is complementarity between national and international funding in terms of their co-occurrence (where these are acknowledged in the same publication), when we evaluate funding complementarity in relation to academic impact (we employ the supermodularity framework), we found no evidence of such a relationship. Rather, our results suggest substitutability between national and international funding. We also observe substitutability between international and industry funding.

S&T resource allocation considering both performance and potential: The case of Chinese research institutes

The ex-post assessment of institutional performance has been applied to allocate scientific and technological (S&T) resource to universities and public research institutes. However, over-emphasis on particular types of performance could lead to unintended results and harm the science system. This research assesses the performance of these universities and public research institutes using ‘technical efficiency’ and their potential using ‘capacity utilization’, which are obtained by data envelopment analysis methods. Moreover, a comprehensive S&T resource allocation framework is proposed, where the organizations can be classified into four groups according to their performance and potential assessment results. An empirical study is conducted using the data of 58 Chinese research institutes from 2011 to 2018. Results indicate different patterns in the distribution and evolution of the performance and potential of these research institutes. The approaches proposed by this research are expected to complement existing performance-based S&T resource allocations.

The model of maximum productivity for research universities SciVal author ranks, productivity, university rankings, and their implications

Aware of the growing importance of global rankings, universities aim to enhance their positions. However, the exact relation between research productivity and ranking positions is not fully understood in recruitment processes. Taking the field of communication as a case study, this paper analyzes the scholarly performances of 6291 faculty members from 172 QS top-ranked communication departments, and it also offers an experiment in which we tested top departments’ interest in recruiting a highly productive communication scholar. We found that while both departments and scholars are aware of the connection between productivity and excellence, there is still room for improvement. Even in the top ranked communication departments, there is a significant scarcity of best-performing scholars, but it is hard to employ a top scholar beyond the usual job posting methods. Contrary to the Standard Model of Productivity, whereby recruitment is based on assumptions and potential, we offer our Model of Maximum Productivity where both recruitment and assessments are based on scientometrics, productivity and evidence alone.

Conceptualising the entrepreneurial university: the stakeholder approach

This study uses the stakeholder perspective to knowledge spillover theory at university to explain how various characteristics of internal and external university stakeholders will affect its entrepreneurial outcomes. Acknowledging the heterogeneity between entrepreneurial universities, we theoretically developed and empirically tested a model for four types of stakeholders (knowledge enablers, knowledge creators, knowledge codifiers, knowledge facilitators) across three university types (Russel group, teaching-based and polytechnic universities). To test our hypotheses related to the role of stakeholders in entrepreneurial outcomes of a university we used panel data on 139 UK universities that achieved entrepreneurial outcomes during 2010 and 2016. The results demonstrate significant differences in the role that stakeholders play in knowledge spillover entrepreneurship at universities with the effects vary across three distinct university types.

Evaluation of the Current Approach to Education of Security Issues at Selected Universities Preparing Future Pedagogues

This paper deals with education in security issues. The aim of this work is to examine and evaluate the current approach to education of future educators in the field of security issues at selected universities in the Czech Republic. The primary method of research was a survey through questionnaires, where information was collected at selected universities. The evaluation is performed using SWOT analysis. The fragmentation and inconsistency of the approach of individual universities is evident from the results of the survey. New knowledge, which is based on the research, is the identification of the current state of training of future teachers in the field of security. The result of the survey is used by an expert group of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic as input information for the development of minimum standards for pedagogical universities.

Reflecting on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Self Study of a Research-Oriented University Community

Research-oriented universities are known for prolific research activity that is often supported by students in faculty-guided research. To maintain ethical standards, universities require on-going training of both faculty and students to ensure Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). However, previous research has indicated RCR-based training is insufficient to address the ethical dilemmas that are prevalent within academic settings: navigating issues of authorship, modeling relationships between faculty and students, minimization of risk, and adequate informed consent. U.S. universities must explore ways to identify and improve RCR concerns for current (faculty) and future researchers (students). This article reports the findings of a self-study (N = 50) of research stakeholders (students and faculty) at a top tier research institution. First, we report on their perceived importance of applying RCR principles. Second, we explore relationships between stakeholder backgrounds (e.g., prior training, field, and position) and how they ranked the degree of ethical concerns in fictitious vignettes that presented different unethical issues university students could encounter when conducting research. Vignette rankings suggested concerns of inappropriate relationships, predatory authorship and IRB violations which were judged as most unethical, which was dissimilar to what sampled researchers reported in practice as the most important RCR elements to understand and adhere to for successful research. Regression models indicated there was no significant relationship between individuals’ vignette ethics scores and backgrounds, affirming previous literature suggesting that training can be ineffectual in shifting researcher judgments of ethical dilemmas. Recommendations for training are discussed.

Does government support of a few leading universities have a broader impact on the higher education system? Evaluation of the Russian University Excellence Initiative

Many governments attempt to improve national higher education through the competitive support of universities. These policy approaches raise questions about the impact on the entire system—both in research and educational—of targeted support for a small number of universities. Addressing challenges in the measurement of university excellence initiatives are among the most vital topics in research evaluation due to the central roles they often play in national research and university policy efforts. Using data from the Russian University Excellence Initiative (RUEI), we measure the spillover effects of such focused support and demonstrate that a broader impact does exist. In particular, we examine the performance of higher education institutions that were not part of RUEI and were not directly supported by it. We compare the university performance in regions both with and without RUEI universities. In doing so, we measure the indirect impact of RUEI on the higher education sector at the regional level. We show a positive effect on the level of publication activity that has recently become apparent. However, there has been no effect on the share of young faculty, international collaboration in publications, or the quality of enrollment. Judging from the broader research policy\research evaluation perspective, our study sheds light on the systemic effects of excellence initiatives, which are often neglected. Besides, excellence initiatives could trigger a change in the approach to evaluating research. So government should develop measure properly, taking into account various consequences, some of which are considered in our article.

The Language of Sustainable Tourism as a Proxy Indicator of Quality

Sustainable tourism (ST) has recently become the mainstream of the tourism industry and, accordingly, has influenced contemporary tourism research. However, ST is not just theories about indications and contraindications of global travel, but also a specific language that needs mastering to take sustainability work forward. In other words, what research receives recognition depends on the proficiency in how the articulation in research proposals and within assessment under the heading of “research impact”. The aim of this paper is to investigate how tourism research gains recognition within research evaluation, by investigating the national research appraisal in the United Kingdom (Research Excellence Framework). By using content analysis, we disentangle the rhetorical choices and narrative constructions within researchers’ impact claims. Our findings suggest that researchers adopt a rhetorical style that implies causality and promotes good outcomes facilitating ST. However, the structure of the assessment format enforces an articulation of sustainable research impact without stating the methodological limitations of that such claim. Therefore, the rhetorical choices of ST researchers merely represent a proxy indicator of the claimed impact. We conclude that the lack of rigor in accounting for the impact of ST research may inadvertently restrict attaining ST.

How the publish-or-perish principle divides a science: the case of economists

The publish-or-perish principle has become a fact of academic life in gaining a position or being promoted. Evidence is mounting that benefits of this pressure is being countered by the downsides, like forms of goal displacement by scientists or unethical practices. In this paper we evaluate whether perceived work pressure (publishing, acquisition funds, teaching, administration) is associated with different attitudes towards science and the workplace among economists working at Dutch universities. Publication pressure is high and is related to faculty position and university ranking position. Based on a latent class analysis we can detect a clear divide among economists. Around two third of the economists perceives that this pressure has upsides as well as serious downsides and one third only perceives upsides and no downsides. Full professors see more than other faculty members the positive sides of the publish-or-perish principle and virtually no downsides. These different perceptions are also reflected in their appreciation of the academic work environment.