 Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
CitNetExplorer is a software tool for visualizing and analyzing citation networks of scientific publications. The tool allows citation networks to be imported directly from the Web of Science database. Citation networks can be explored interactively, for instance by drilling down into a network and by identifying clusters of closely related publications.
Why use CitNetExplorer? Examples of applications of CitNetExplorer include: Analyzing the development of a research field over time. CitNetExplorer visualizes the most important publications in a field and shows the citation relations between these publications to indicate how publications build on each other. Identifying the literature on a research topic. CitNetExplorer delineates the literature on a research topic by identifying publications that are closely connected to each other in terms of citation relations. Exploring the publication oeuvre of a researcher. CitNetExplorer visualizes the citation network of the publications of a researcher and shows how the work of a researcher has influenced the publications of other researchers. Supporting literature reviewing. CitNetExplorer facilitates systematic literature reviewing by identifying publications cited by or citing to one or more selected publications. DataWeb of Science import. Citation networks can be imported directly from the Web of Sciencedatabase.Pajek export. Citation networks can be exported in the popular Pajek file format.Large networks. Very large citation networks, including millions of publications and tens of millions of citation relations, are supported.FeaturesDataVisualizationAnalysis Share this page VisualizationZooming and scrolling. Visualizations of citation networks can be explored using zoom and scroll functionality similar to for instance Google Maps. A smart labeling algorithm ensures that labels do not overlap.Indirect citation relations. In addition to direct citation relations, higher-order indirect citation relations can be made visible as well.Screenshots. Screenshots of citation network visualizations can be easily copied into other programs, such as Word or PowerPoint.AnalysisSelection of publications. Publications can be selected simply by indicating the oldest and most recent publications of interest. Intermediate publications are automatically added to the selection.Drill down and expand. Drill down and expand functionality offers an intuitive way of moving through a citation network. Like in a web browser, back and forward buttons can be used to move back and forth.Algorithms. Algorithms are available for identifying connected components, clusters, core publications, and shortest and longest paths. Why use CitNetExplorer? Examples of applications of CitNetExplorer include: Analyzing the development of a research field over time. CitNetExplorer visualizes the most important publications in a field and shows the citation relations between these publications to indicate how publications build on each other. Identifying the literature on a research topic. CitNetExplorer delineates the literature on a research topic by identifying publications that are closely connected to each other in terms of citation relations. Exploring the publication oeuvre of a researcher. CitNetExplorer visualizes the citation network of the publications of a researcher and shows how the work of a researcher has influenced the publications of other researchers. Supporting literature reviewing. CitNetExplorer facilitates systematic literature reviewing by identifying publications cited by or citing to one or more selected publications. SciNEtExplorer is a software tool for visualizing and analyzing citation networks of scientific publications. The tool allows citation networks to be imported directly from the Web of Science database. Citation networks can be explored interactively, for instance by drilling down into a network and by identifying clusters of closely related publications.Why use CitNetExplorer? Examples of applications of CitNetExplorer include: Analyzing the development of a research field over time. CitNetExplorer visualizes the most important publications in a field and shows the citation relations between these publications to indicate how publications build on each other. Identifying the literature on a research topic. CitNetExplorer delineates the literature on a research topic by identifying publications that are closely connected to each other in terms of citation relations. Exploring the publication oeuvre of a researcher. CitNetExplorer visualizes the citation network of the publications of a researcher and shows how the work of a researcher has influenced the publications of other researchers. Supporting literature reviewing. CitNetExplorer facilitates systematic literature reviewing by identifying publications cited by or citing to one or more selected publications. - See more at: http://www.citnetexplorer.nl/
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
The Erasmus University Rotterdam has developed a game which helps staff and students discuss dilemmas and stimulates them to find solutions. This game contains many common integrity issues. It also offers participants the opportunity to formulate dilemmas from their own practice. In a lighthearted fashion, they can discuss how their own department applies the values from the Integrity code and clarify their responsibilities. Scientific integrity dilemma game Besides the existing general dilemma game, a game specifically focusing on professionalism and integrity in research has been developed. The dilemma game Professionalism and integrity in research uses over 70 common dilemmas in science and invites discussion on the subject. The dilemma game is available as interactive PDF here: http://www.eur.nl/fileadmin/ASSETS/ieb/integriteit/dilemmagame-mrg.pdf
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
The study “Investments in JOint and open R&D Programmes and analysis of their economic impact” (the JOREP study) has been launched by the Directorate General for Research and Innovation of the European Commission (Economic Analysis Unit) to quantify and analyse the coordination and opening-up of national public funding which constitute a fundamental development towards a more integrated European Research Area. This study is part of a set of projects providing key information for policy making in the perspective of contributing to growth in Europe through innovation policies. The JOREP study addresses questions like: What is the EU member states’ engagement in transnationally coordinated programmes? What is the openness of their public R&D programmes? What needs do joint and open R&D programmes mainly respond to? What are the main motivations driving the joint undertaking of research and the opening of R&D programmes? Are there differences between scientific domains? The study aims at providing a sound quantitative basis for the monitoring of investments in joint and open research programmes in EU countries, as well as empirical evidence of the policy rationales and impacts of these programmes on the European Research Area. The project has carried out a comprehensive collection of data about joint and open programmes according to a set of standardised descriptors, and provided an analysis of motivations and impact of these programmes. The study covers eleven European countries corresponding to about 85% of national public funding in Europe and displaying various situations within ERA: medium-size countries with a well-developed science basis, large countries, Mediterranean countries, and Central and Eastern European Member States. These countries are (in alphabetical order): the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Switzerland, Spain, and the United Kingdom. This publication is the Final report of the study. It is accompanied by the study’s methodological Handbook. These two publications, as well as a short Summary report of the study, the detailed Analytical Report and 11 Country reports are available at: http://www.ec.europa.eu/ research/innovationunion/index_en.cfm?pg=other-studies Source: Investments in joint and open research programmes and analysis of their economic impact (JOREP)Final report; 2013 ISBN: 978-92-79-29661-1 DOI: 10.2777/10945 KI-31-13-908-EN-N
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
This addition to the "Success in Research" series addresses the importance of understanding and achieving impact for the purposes of gaining research funding and reporting achieved impact for the Research Excellence Framework (REF). The book includes contributions from researchers and researcher developers who feel that impact is ill-defined and poorly understood despite its prevalence in policy documents, websites and institutional activities. This succinct and cohesive text draws on the expert contributors' collective research practice, knowledge and experience. Using a variety of examples, boxed activities and highlighted reflection points, this practical guide covers the following key areas: - The meaning of impact in relation to research - How the Impact Agenda fits with attitudes and ethics that motivate research - The different characterisations of research impact and when impact is apparent - How impact can be planned into proposals, evaluated and evidenced - The skills needed to be an impactful researcher - How impact can be supported through Knowledge Exchange and effective partnerships Table of contents: What is the meaning of impact in relation to research and why does it matter? A view from inside academia
Colin Chandler
What is the meaning of the Impact Agenda - is it a repackaged or a new entity? Views from inside the Research Councils
Sophie Payne-Gifford
How does the Impact Agenda fit with attitudes and ethics that motivate research?
Jennifer Chubb
What are the different characteristics of research impact?
Jo Lakey, Geoff Rodgers and Rosa Scoble
When might research impact be apparent?
Christopher Wood
How can impact be planned into research proposals?
Rob Daley and Sara Shinton
How can impact evaluation be planned?
Tony Bromley and André de Campos
How can impact be evidenced: practical methods?
Tony Bromley
What skills are needed to be an impactful researcher?
Jennifer Chubb
How can knowledge exchange support the development of impact through partnerships and university infrastructures?
Andy Jackson
How can you become an impactful researcher?
Ellen Pearce and Pam Denicolo
Appendix I A special case: researcher development and the work of the impact and evaluation group
Christopher Wood and Pam Denicolo
Appendix II An illustration of the Researcher Development Framework (Vitae)
Appendix III The pathways to impact framework provided by RCUK source: Achieving Impact in Research
Pam Denicolo
October 2013, AGE Publications Ltd
Series: Success in Research
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Researchers in economy, econometrics and finance from the Netherlands have the highest collaboration with internatonal co-authros. compared to the UK, France and Germany. In 2012 over 60% of publications were collaborative. See the Scimago compare tool, very useful for benchmarking. Link here: http://www.scimagojr.com/compare.php
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: Although bibliometrics has been a separate research field for many years, there is still no uniformity in the way bibliometric analyses are applied to individual researchers. Therefore, this study aims to set up proposals how to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences. 2005 saw the introduction of the h index, which gives information about a researcher's productivity and the impact of his or her publications in a single number (h is the number of publications with at least h citations); however, it is not possible to cover the multidimensional complexity of research performance and to undertake inter-personal comparisons with this number. This study therefore includes recommendations for a set of indicators to be used for evaluating researchers. Our proposals relate to the selection of data on which an evaluation is based, the analysis of the data and the presentation of the results. The authors give a "handle with care" advice: " Scientists, who should be used to handling bibliometric data as end users, should be able to understand the limitations of the data and the risks that can result and it must be possible for them to call them to account. However this is often not the case: when money and reputation are at stake, scientists are also only human and forget the rules of good scientific practice. Bibliometric data is likely to be misinterpreted if this can benefit their positive image or completely ignored if it does not provide confirmation of scientists' perception of themselves. It might also be used as ammunition against competitors if it seems appropriate for this purpose. The danger of partiality presents anyone creating bibliometric data (the database producers) and undertaking bibliometric studies (the bibliometricians) with a special responsibility. The end users of the data are called upon to take the guidelines of both groups seriously to take account of the outcomes and relationships determined by bibliometric research over decades." Source: How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations. Lutz Bornmann, Werner Marx arXiv:1302.3697, 4 Oct 2013 Fulltext: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.3697v2
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract This article addresses the issue of internationalization of social sciences by studying the evolution of production (of academic articles), collaboration and citations patterns among main world regions over the period 1980–2009 using the SSCI. The results confirm the centre–periphery model and indicate that the centrality of the two major regions that are North America and Europe is largely unchallenged, Europe having become more important and despite the growing development of Asian social sciences. The authors’ quantitative approach shows that the growing production in the social sciences but also the rise of international collaborations between regions have not led to a more homogeneous circulation of the knowledge produced by different regions, or to a substantial increase in the visibility of the contributions produced by peripheral regions. Social scientists from peripheral regions, while producing more papers in the core journals compiled by the SSCI, have a stronger tendency to cite journals from the two central regions, thus losing at least partially their more locally embedded references, and to collaborate more with western social scientists. In other words, the dynamic of internationalization of social science research may also lead to a phagocytosis of the periphery into the two major centers, which brings with it the danger of losing interest in the local objects specific to those peripheral regions. Source: The globalization of social sciences? Evidence from a quantitative analysis of 30 years of production, collaboration and citations in the social sciences (1980–2009) doi: 10.1177/0011392113498866 Current Sociology October 1, 2013 0011392113498866 Authors: Sébastien Mosbah-Natanson (Paris-Sorbonne University Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates; CIRST, UQAM, Canada) & Yves Gingras (CIRST, UQAM, Canada). http://m.csi.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/09/30/0011392113498866.full.pdf ;
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: This paper explores how, in the light of global economic downturn and rising student populations, new academic–industrial models for research collaboration based upon specific technological expertise and knowledge can be developed as potential mechanisms for preserving and extending central university research infrastructure. The paper explores two case studies that focus upon the new serious games sector: the UK-based Coventry University's Serious Games Institute – a hybrid model of applied research and business, and the Netherlands-based TU-Delft University's Serious Game Center – a networked model of semi-commercial funding and public–private co-operation between industry, public sector and research partners. To facilitate these kinds of academic–industrial collaborations, the paper introduces the Innovation Diffusion Model (IDM) which promotes innovation diffusion by bringing academic and industrial experts into close proximity. Overall, the benefits include: sustained intellectual property development and publication opportunities for academics, employment creation, accelerated development and real commercial benefits for industrial partners.
Source: Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management Industrial and academic collaboration: hybrid models for research and innovation diffusionDOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2013.825413Sara de Freitas, Igor Mayer, Sylvester Arnab & Ian Marshall
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: The interest in developing scholarly impact metrics is frequently justified by the need to objectively prioritize scarce resources and to better manage scholarly productivity. However, the study of scholarly communication in general, including scholarly impact metrics, has significant relevance to a number of other scientific domains such as computational social science, social network analysis, web science, and complex systems. In this presentation I will provide an overview of established scholarly impact metrics, grounding each in their respective scientific traditions and backgrounds. Changes in scholarly communication patterns, including the move to online environments and the increasing use of social media, have recently prompted a Cambrian explosion of new impact metrics derived from new data sources. These metrics may reflect previously unexplored facets of scholarly communication and impact, and may thus yield a more complete picture of scholarly communication. In my presentation I will provide an overview of these new metrics, and identify the opportunities as well as challenges that they present. 3 innovations: A: Citation based social metrics: Degree; In-degree/Out-degree Random walk; PageRank/Eigenvector Shortest path; Closeness/Betweenness B: Behavioural: Scholarly community and communication is moving online. Data pertaining to online activities (implicit, behavioral) vs. citation data (explicit declaration of influence) C: AltMetrics: Behavioral AND “attention” data Social media attention, bookmarking, mentions. Attempt to also capture “social” attention or public impact of scholarly work Source:Metrics Session: An overview of scholarly impact metricsPresented by Mr. Johan BOLLEN on 19 Jun 2013 from 15:30 to 16:00Session: Plenary 2 PDF: http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=3&sessionId=4&resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=211600 PPT: http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=3&sessionId=4&resId=0&materialId=slides&confId=211600
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract Quantile kernel regression is a flexible way to estimate the percentile of a scholar's quality stratified by a measurable characteristic, without imposing inappropriate assumption about functional form or population distribution. Quantile kernel regression is here applied to identifying the one-in-a-hundred economist per age cohort according to the Hirsch index. The author:"The Hirsch index (Hirsch, 2005) is an often-used measure of life-time achievement. The Hirsch index is the highest number h for which holds that an author has h publications that are cited h times or more. The Hirsch index cannot fall over time and tends to increase. Any ranking based on the Hirsch index thus favours those with a longer career. This is fine for many purposes, but not if the aim is to identify excellent individuals in a cohort, e.g., for hiring scholars (Ellison, 2010). The Hirsch rate (Burrell, 2006 and Liang, 2006) – the Hirsch index over the number of active years – corrects for career length. However, the Hirsch rates assume a linear relationship between Hirsch index and active years. This may be problematic when comparing job candidates of different ages if the relationship is (locally) non-linear. This paper therefore proposes quantile kernel regression (Sheather & Marron, 1990) as a method to find exceptional researchers. Kernel regression does not impose linearity or any other functional form. Quantile regression focuses the analysis on exceptional, rather than average, scholars. The proposed method is applied to a sample of 32,000 economists. For illustration, I am looking for the one-in-a-hundred economists in each age group."....."In this paper, I propose quantile kernel regression as a way of identifying excellent scholars by cohort. Like the crown indicator, the proposed method finds people who stand out – but percentiles have a natural interpretation whereas z-scores do not (unless the distribution is Normal). Like the Hirsch rate, the proposed method distinguished between people of different age – but kernel regression does not impose linearity. I illustrate the proposed method with a large sample of economists. The results appear reasonable, but need to be tested still against data from other disciplines, against alternative assumptions on kernel regression, against alternative non-parametric methods, and against parametric methods for quantile regression. This is deferred to future research." Figure: Fig. 5. The 99%ile as estimated by the kernel density and as approximated by the Crown index (displayed on left axis) and the number of standard deviations (‘sigma’) between the mean and the 99%ile (displayed on the right axis).
Source:
Journal of Informetrics Volume 7, Issue 4, October 2013, Pages 803–810 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.06.003 Identifying excellent researchers: A new approachRichard S.J. Tola, b, c, d, a Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Jubilee Building, Falmer BN1 9SL, United Kingdomb Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlandsc Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlandsd Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract Business school publications are widely criticized for their lack of managerial or teaching relevance. One reason for this criticism is that business school scholarship is typically evaluated purely in terms of one type of work: academic journal articles that are meant to be read by other scholars. However, academics produce multiple types of publications, and business schools serve a wider range of stakeholders. These other stakeholders are often central to the schools’ purposes and may be critical in acquiring resources. These stakeholders probably prefer to see scholarship that is relevant for students or for practitioners. They may prefer scholarship that is ethically relevant or regionally relevant and otherwise different from the model that dominates U.S. journals. Technologies are now available to measure the impact of writings in a much wider range of venues than covered by the Social Sciences Citation Index in the Web of Science. Moreover, a wider range of measures, such as the size of writings’ readership, may be needed. We consider these issues and present some recommendations, arguing that faculty evaluations should follow an intentional strategy and not necessarily conform to the traditional default. The authors:"As dean, you now recognize the concerns of the full set of stakeholders of your school, not just other scholars. Therefore, you charge a taskforce with the following four questions: (1) Who are the key stakeholders for your business school’s publications? (2) What types of publications do these stakeholders desire? (3) How can these publications be evaluated and rewarded? (4) What are the implications for changing your current evaluation and reward practices?"........"The university business school can create and does create scholarship for many audiences. It is uniquely positioned to serve not only scholars but also students, executives, policymakers, and regional
leaders. What it needs is the will and clear strategic thinking. Otherwise, business schools will rightly continue to be seen as out of touch with key constituencies. This is the opportunity and the challenge that confronts the dean and all of us in business schools." Source: Business Horizons Volume 56, Issue 3, May–June 2013, Pages 323–331 Evaluate your business school's writings as if your strategy mattersJohn L. Cotton, ,Alex Stewart College of Business Administration, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881, U.S.A.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2013.01.010,
|
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Where is the information? Where are the scientifically relevant results? Where are the good ideas? Are these things (only) in journals? The author:" In the not too distant future, today’s science journals will be replaced by a set of decentralized, interoperable services that are built on a core infrastructure of open data and evolving standards — like the Internet itself. What the journal did in the past for a single article, the social media and internet resources are doing for the entire scholarly output. We are now immersed in a transition to another science communication system— one that will tap on Web technology to significantly improves dissemination. I prefer to represent the future of science communication by a block diagram where the four main components: (i) Data, (ii) Publications, (iii) Dissemination and (iv) Certification/Reward" Source: http://computationalproteomic.blogspot.ca/2014/02/in-era-of-science-communication-why-you.html
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
This web application visualizes scientific excellence worldwide in 17 subject areas. For each institution (university or research-focused institution), the estimated probabilities of (i) publishing highly cited papers (Best Paper Rate) or (ii) publishing in the most influential journals (Best Journal Rate) are shown. Both probabilities, which can be adjusted by covariates, range from blue (high probability) through grey (average) to red (low probability) at a circle. The circle size corresponds to the institutional number of papers.
The Web application is based on Scopus data collected for the SCImago Institutions Ranking. To obtain reliable data in terms of geo-coordinates and performance metrics, we only consider those institutions that have published at least 500 articles, reviews and conference papers in the period 2006 to 2010 in a certain Scopus subject area in the study.
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
In 2012, ScienceWatch last revisited the topic of multiauthor papers—the trend toward scholarly publications listing authors whose numbers, in some cases, now reach into the thousands. In this report, we turn to the opposite end of the spectrum. In the field of Social Sciences dominates, according to both the 1981 and 2012 measurements, with Economics & Business and Mathematics following closely. Each of those fields, in 1981, registered single authorship on upwards of 70% of its total papers. By 2012, as Graph 4 makes plain, the rate of single authorship had fallen drastically in all the fields, with the greatest percentage drop in Economics & Business (42 points), and comparable reductions in Computer Science (40 points), and Mathematics (38). Social Sciences, from a high of 72% in 1981, also recorded a 30-points-plus decline to its 38% of single-authored papers in 2012.
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
This study describes knowledge transfer from European universities and institutes to industry, focusing on the role of the Industrial Liaison / Technology / Knowledge Transfer Office function. It explores practices in European institutions and compares these with international ones, especially from the USA. The project is based upon a comprehensive literature review and a programme of detailed case studies of knowledge transfer strategies and practices. It addresses the wide range of knowledge transfer activities undertaken by public research organisations, in addition to IP exploitation and their different effects on innovation in the business sector. It presents a model of the transition of PROs' knowledge transfer strategies from pure technology transfer based only on IP to a broader role in knowledge transfer and ultimately to a two-way process of knowledge exchange between PROs and industry and wider society. The report presents a number of policy options to support this process. Source: Knowledge transfer from public research organisations EU bookshop, 2012 ISBN: 978-92-823-4018-9 DOI: 10.2861/99859
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract: This paper discusses a number of avenues management scholars could follow to reduce the existing gap between scientific rigor and practical relevance without relativizing the importance of the first goal dimension. Such changes are necessary because many management studies do not fully exploit the possibilities to increase their practical relevance while maintaining scientific rigor. We argue that this rigor-relevance gap is not only the consequence of the currently prevailing institutional context in the scientific system, but that individual scholars can reduce the gap between rigorous and practically relevant research by modifying their research work. Thus, most of our suggestions refer to individual scholars’ research activities and relate to specific steps in the (empirical) research process. Our discussion does not imply that all management studies should be practically oriented; basic research will remain a very important part of management research. However, we believe that not enough management research studies are significantly influenced by practical relevance. The authors: " The discussion of these suggestions has shown that significant changes are necessary in the area of idea generation, in the area of testing ideas, as well as in the area of their presentation. If the practical relevance of management research is to increase, modifications will have to be made in all stages of the (empirical) research process. An integrative view of these suggestions shows the advantages of close cooperation between scholars and practitioners. This insight is fully consistent with the results of the publications by Gibbons and colleagues (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott, and Trow 1994; Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons 2001). According to them, the generation of new knowledge is increasingly due to joint efforts by scholars and practitioners. This will help management research become “a contextualized science” (Nowotny, Scott, and Gibbons 2001, p. 90) and to advance its stock of insights from “reliable knowledge to socially robust knowledge” (pp. 167 et seq.).1 Moreover, the current paper has shown that if the scientific community is to reduce the rigorrelevance gap, it will have to master the challenge of increasing the creativity of the research results and the consistency of management research’s body of knowledge. The integration of these two goals is not a trivial task. Nevertheless, management’s scientific community should be able to reduce this conflict, as not all research projects have to be both highly creative and highly commensurable with the existing stock of knowledge." Source:How Individual Scholars Can Reduce the Rigor-Relevance Gap in Management Research
Joachim Wolf
University of Kiel - Faculty of Economics and Social Sciences
Timo Rosenberg
University of Kiel
BuR Business Research Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.178-196, November 2012
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
ABSTRACT Who is most likely to discover a breakthrough? Why are some scientists more successful than others at discovering them? By using extant theories of breakthrough emergence to predict a groundbreaking discovery in biology, RNA interference, I show that the explanatory power of combining all current theories are weak because they sample on rare successes rather than the multiple instances of failure in the discovery process. Instead, I focus on understanding these failures by interviewing scientists with high potential of discovering breakthroughs in a case historical analysis. My findings suggest that the seminal discovery was missed several times not only due to difficulties in solving a particular problem but also due to failures in identifying breakthrough opportunities. I propose a cognitive framework with institutional underpinnings at the basis of these failures. In the problem identification stage, framing barriers from pursuing normal science and existing boundary barriers between communities of scientists contribute to difficulties in identifying the breakthrough opportunity by misrepresenting the magnitude of the problem. In the problem-solving stage, scientists are constrained by paradigmatic pressures to avoid being wrong, and coupled with boundary barriers similar anti-dogmatic observations stay isolated and unsubstantiated, thus diminishing confidence to identify a new revolutionary paradigm. The author: "This work has implications in the design of organizations and institutions that partake in scientific discovery. Understanding the barriers to scientific knowledge creation is vital not only for academic administrators but also crucial from both managerial and policy standpoints. It illustrates the fundamental differences inherent in the production of scientific and technological knowledge, and directly speaks to the organizational design of science-based firms (where the literature has mainly focused on technological innovation and remains thin) by providing structural characteristics and policies that foster the production of groundbreaking discoveries. These include facilitating interdisciplinary research teams, encouraging cross-organism and cross-field conference attendance, and providing incentives that enable the flexibility to take on side projects at the fringe. " Source: Sen Chai (LWP-HLS and NBER) " "Moving Beyond Bibliometrics: Understanding Breakthrough Emergence through Missed Opportunities" Fulltext: http://economics.harvard.edu/files/economics/files/chai-sen_moving_beyond_bibliometrics_10-11-13.pdf
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Infomous creates a nice topiccloud from your rss feed. As example I created one for my Dual Impact weblog.
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Assessing Research Impact An international review of the Excellence i Innovation for Australia Trial
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
There is an urgent need to provide academic professionals with individual, institutional, and contextual accounts of their careers and career-making endeavors. An individual account makes academicians think about what they do and how they might do it better. An institutional account makes academicians reflect upon the organizational environment in which they function and ponder what they might do to improve it. A contextual account connects academicians and their work to knowledge, the knowledge enterprise, and the larger social structure so that they know and understand the impact they and their career-making efforts have on themselves, academia, and general social processes.
This book examines academic careers and career-making activities with respect to their main aspects, milestones, and general pathways. In content, it divides into four identifiable parts. Part I focuses on professional preparation. It examines education, degree, reeducation, job search, and job change. Part II centers on organizational employment. It investigates position, research, teaching, service, and tenure. Part III revolves around professional networking. It looks into publication, conference presentation, application for grants and awards, and membership in academic associations. Part IV rises above specific issues. It explores general career pathways and overall scholarly identity.
CONTENTS
Introduction.
PART I 1. Educational Preparation. 2. Degree. 3. Job Search and Change.
PART II 4. Organizational Employment. 5. Position. 6. Teaching. 7. Service. 8. Tenure.
PART III 9. Professional Networking. 10. Publication. 11. Grant. 12. Academic Award. 13. Membership in Academic Associations. 14. Conference Presentation and Participation.
PART IV 15. Academic Career Pathways. 16. Scholarly Identity. Conclusion. Appendix. References. About the Author. Index. Source: Navigating the Academic CareerCommon Issues and Uncommon StrategiesBy: Victor N. Shaw, California State University–Northridge IAP, 2013, Paperback, 9781623961176
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Cornell Chair and Professor of International Business Ilan Alon recently published Innovation in Business Education in Emerging Markets (Palgrave, 2013). Alon and his co-editors, Victoria Jones and John R. McIntyre, invited scholars and educators from around the world to share their professional analyses and projections about the fastest growing markets for management education. This volume covers the spectrum from market analysis to critical commentary and promising new trends. Across the countries, themes and chapters in this book, the message is clear: innovation in instructional design and applications of new technologies can transform business education in emerging markets. Emerging market economies account for 80% of the world's population and some 75% of its trade growth in the foreseeable future. Management education can be a significant driver of growth in these markets, but the dominant US and European education models must be transformed to meet the unique needs of these regions.Innovation in Business Education in Emerging Markets provides insights for success that can be used by educators, administrators, policy makers and planners in rapidly growing education markets.
The editors invited scholars and educators from around the world to share their professional analyses and projections about the fastest growing markets for management education. This volume covers the spectrum from market analysis to critical commentary and promising new trends. Across the countries, themes and chapters in this book, the message is clear - innovation in instructional design and applications of new technologies can transform business education in emerging markets. Contents: PART I: REGIONAL TRAJECTORIES
1. Management Education in Africa: Prospects and Challenges; John Kuada
2. Advancing People Skills for 21st Century Business Education in Chile; María-Teresa Lepeley and Carlos A. Albornoz
3. Emerging Trends in Higher Education in the GCC: A Critical Assessment; Mourad Dakhli and Dina El Zohairy
4. An Overview of Indian Education System: From Its Religious Roots to Its Present Incarnation; Jitender Gill
5. The Development of Business Education in a Young, Entrepreneurial Country: The Case of Israel; Diana Bank and Tamar Almor
6. Business Education in the Emerging Economy of Vietnam:Twenty Years of Expectations, Illusions, and Lessons; Quan Hoang Vuong, Tri Dung Tran, Nancy K. Napier and Thuy Ha Dau PART II: CONTENT ADAPTATIONS
7. Economic and Management Education in China: The Pros and Cons of Emulating the US Model; Penelope B. Prime
8. International Accreditation of Business Schools in Emerging Markets: A Study of FGV-EAESP and Insper in Brazil; Eric Ford Travis 9. Business Education and Ethics: The Case of Mexico as an Emerging Market; Francisco Iracheta and Diana Bank
10. Stakeholder Dialogues in Transition Economies: Educating and Training Leaders to Build Relations between Investors and Local Communities; Roland Bardy and Maurizio Massaro PART III: NEW DIRECTIONS
11. A Review of the Current Status of Mobile Apps in Education: Implications for Emerging Countries' Business Education Strategies Education; Christoph Lattemann and Ferial Khaddage
12. India Today: From Brain Drain to Brain Gain; P.J.Lavakare
13. Reaping the Benefits of Brain Circulation: The Impact of the Overseas Study and the Returnees on the Development of the Management Education in China; Wenxian Zhang
14. Outsourcing Global Skills Development to Australian Vocational Colleges: A Case Study on Reverse Transnationalization; Valeri Chukhlomin and Irina Chukhlomina
15. New Ways to Think About Business Education for Emerging Markets; Victoria Jones Source: Innovation in Business Education in Emerging MarketsEdited By Ilan Alon, Victoria Jones and John R. McIntyre Palgrave Macmillan, June 2013 ISBN: 978-1-137-29295-7, ISBN10: 1-137-29295-4, 5.430 x 8.500 inches, 296 pages, 10 b/w tables, 9 figures,
|
|
Scooped by
wmijnhardt
|
Abstract 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: "instead of promoting top-tier academic journal publication as the highest benchmark, business schools should encourage the adoption of multiple models of academic inquiry coexisting on equal footing. Publishing in scholarly journals should not “count” more than writing case studies or developing industry notes for teaching tools"..."we have argued that a discrepancy between business research and business practice exists and is widening. Further research is needed to evaluate the magnitude
of this discrepancy." Source: Canadian Journal of Higher Education
Revue canadienne d’enseignement supérieur
Volume 43, No. 1, 2013, pages 115-128
The Great Divide Between Business School Research and Business Practice
Isabelle Dostaler, Concordia University
Thomas J. Tomberlin, Carleton University
|
