The Experts below are selected from a list of 2350821 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Andrew C. Worthington - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a network dea quantity and quality orientated production model an application to australian University Research services
QUT Business School, 2016Co-Authors: Andrew C. WorthingtonAbstract:The motivation for this analysis is the recently developed Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) program developed to assess the quality of Research in Australia. The objective is to develop an appropriate empirical model that better represents the underlying production of higher education Research. In general, past studies on University Research performance have used standard DEA models with some quantifiable Research outputs. However, these suffer from the twin maladies of an inappropriate production specification and a lack of consideration of the quality of output. By including the qualitative attributes of peer-reviewed journals, we develop a procedure that captures both quality and quantity, and apply it using a network DEA model. Our main finding is that standard DEA models tend to overstate the Research efficiency of most Australian universities.
-
ranking and clustering australian University Research performance 1998 2002
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2006Co-Authors: Abbas Valadkhani, Andrew C. WorthingtonAbstract:This paper clusters and ranks the Research performance of 36 Australian universities according to their Research performance over the period of 1998–2002. Research performance is measured according to audited numbers of Ph.D. completions and publications, and Research grants income (in accordance with rules established by the Department of Education, Science and Training), and analysed in both total and per academic staff terms. Hierarchical cluster analysis supports a binary division between 15 higher‐performing and 22 lower‐performing universities, with the specification in per academic staff terms identifying the self‐designated Research intensive Group of Seven universities, plus several others in the better‐performing group. The higher‐performing group includes the 7 Research‐intensive Group of Eight universities examined. Factor analysis indicates that the top three Research performers in terms of total Research performance are the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney, and Queensland, while the top 3 i...
-
Ranking and Clustering Australian University Research Performance, 1998-2002
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2006Co-Authors: Abbas Valadkhani, Andrew C. WorthingtonAbstract:This paper clusters and ranks the Research performance of thirty-seven Australian universities over the period 1998-2002. Research performance is measured according to audited numbers of PhD completions, publications and grants (in accordance with rules established by the Department of Education, Science and Training) and analysed in both total and per academic staff terms. Hierarchical cluster analysis supports a binary division between fifteen higher and twenty-two lower-performing universities, with the specification in per academic staff terms identifying the self-designated Research intensive "Group of Eight" (Go8) universities, plus several others in the better-performing group. Factor analysis indicates that the top-three Research performers are the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland in terms of total Research performance and the Universities of Melbourne, Adelaide and Western Australia in per academic staff terms.
Abbas Valadkhani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ranking and clustering australian University Research performance 1998 2002
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2006Co-Authors: Abbas Valadkhani, Andrew C. WorthingtonAbstract:This paper clusters and ranks the Research performance of 36 Australian universities according to their Research performance over the period of 1998–2002. Research performance is measured according to audited numbers of Ph.D. completions and publications, and Research grants income (in accordance with rules established by the Department of Education, Science and Training), and analysed in both total and per academic staff terms. Hierarchical cluster analysis supports a binary division between 15 higher‐performing and 22 lower‐performing universities, with the specification in per academic staff terms identifying the self‐designated Research intensive Group of Seven universities, plus several others in the better‐performing group. The higher‐performing group includes the 7 Research‐intensive Group of Eight universities examined. Factor analysis indicates that the top three Research performers in terms of total Research performance are the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney, and Queensland, while the top 3 i...
-
Ranking and Clustering Australian University Research Performance, 1998-2002
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2006Co-Authors: Abbas Valadkhani, Andrew C. WorthingtonAbstract:This paper clusters and ranks the Research performance of thirty-seven Australian universities over the period 1998-2002. Research performance is measured according to audited numbers of PhD completions, publications and grants (in accordance with rules established by the Department of Education, Science and Training) and analysed in both total and per academic staff terms. Hierarchical cluster analysis supports a binary division between fifteen higher and twenty-two lower-performing universities, with the specification in per academic staff terms identifying the self-designated Research intensive "Group of Eight" (Go8) universities, plus several others in the better-performing group. Factor analysis indicates that the top-three Research performers are the Universities of Melbourne, Sydney and Queensland in terms of total Research performance and the Universities of Melbourne, Adelaide and Western Australia in per academic staff terms.
Philip Shapira - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
mapping the emergence of international University Research ventures
Journal of Technology Transfer, 2019Co-Authors: S A Kolesnikov, Seokkyun Woo, Philip Shapira, Yin Li, Jan YoutieAbstract:Research universities are expanding their institutional Research presence overseas through the creation of Research centers, facilities and partnerships outside of their home countries. We argue that such international University Research ventures (IURV) are a distinct type of intermediary node in global knowledge networks occurring at the intersection of three trends: (1) expanding international Research collaborations, (2) globalization of higher education, and (3) growing demand for capacity building in science, technology and innovation in emerging economies. To understand and characterize the scope and scale of this phenomenon we undertake an exploratory study of IURVs of 108 Research-intensive universities in the United States. Data on U.S. IURV locations and their characteristics is collected from University websites and other secondary sources. We find that 54 U.S. Research universities have established at least one IURV, with 183 IURVs in total created in 59 countries. A conceptual framework based on motivations and pathways of IURV emergence is developed. It distinguishes between strategy-driven, collaboration-driven, policy-driven and problem-driven IURVs. Insights from the mapping of U.S. IURVs are discussed, along with implications for future Research.
-
institutionalization of international University Research ventures
Research Policy, 2017Co-Authors: Jan Youtie, Juan D. Rogers, Philip Shapira, Yin LiAbstract:International Research collaborations are widespread, but few have studied those that reach the scale and scope of what we call international University Research ventures (IURVs). In an IURV, a University sets up a formal and organizationally consolidated Research relationship in a foreign country. This paper puts forward an institutionalization framework to explain the development of IURVs with different forms. Five case studies are presented of IURVs in the countries with the largest number of IURVs involving US universities: China and Singapore. The five cases are examined relative to the elements of the institutionalization framework: nominal, leadership, administrative support, multi-year funding, Research targets, formal Researcher-to-Researcher exchange, visibility, evaluation, and supporting characteristics. The results show that the emergence of IURVs depends on the specific connections between the role of government and the availability of resources with the realization of mutual benefits, leading to different patterns of institutionalization. This variation is in part a function of the degree of involvement of the government agency or department providing the funding for the IURV, which influences retention of the knowledge produced by the IURV in the region through institutionalized mechanisms as well as the development of scientific and technical human capital in the host country. Institutionalization is not a benefit without limits; nevertheless, an institutionalized structure may be necessary if ambitious Research-driven goals are to be achieved.
Jarno Hoekman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
what drives University Research performance an analysis using the cwts leiden ranking data
Journal of Informetrics, 2017Co-Authors: Koen Frenken, Gaston Heimeriks, Jarno HoekmanAbstract:Abstract This paper analyzes the factors underlying University Research performance as indicated by the number of highly-cited publications, international co-publications, and University-industry co-publications. The three performance indicators evaluate three possible University missions, respectively: Research excellence, internationalization, and innovation. Using a regression analysis, we assess to what extent a University's Research performance is influenced by structural variables including size, age, city size, location in a capital city, disciplinary orientation, and country location. Our results show that Research performance differences among universities mainly stem from size, disciplinary orientation and country location. This suggests that simple global benchmarking can be misleading; rather, benchmarking is most meaningful between universities of a similar size supplemented with contextual information on a University's specific mission, orientation and national institutions.
Aldo Geuna - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
University Research evaluation and funding an international comparison
Minerva, 2003Co-Authors: Aldo Geuna, Ben R MartinAbstract:Many countries have introducedevaluations of University Research, reflectingglobal demands for greater accountability. Thispaper compares methods of evaluation usedacross twelve countries in Europe and theAsia-Pacific region. On the basis of thiscomparison, and focusing in particular onBritain, we examine the advantages anddisadvantages of performance-based funding incomparison with other approaches to funding.Our analysis suggests that, while initialbenefits may outweigh the costs, over time sucha system seems to produce diminishing returns.This raises important questions about itscontinued use.
-
the changing rationale for european University Research funding are there negative unintended consequences
Journal of Economic Issues, 2001Co-Authors: Aldo GeunaAbstract:In recent years there has been wide-ranging debate on the advantages and drawbacks of the rationale for resource allocation to University Research. The post-World War II rationale for public support of science has been challenged by a more contractual-oriented vision of how to support Research. The academic debate has provided a diverse set of descriptions and explanations with some views strongly supporting the contractual-oriented rationale and others critical of it.1 The debate transcends the academic circle, as illustrated by the large number of national government reports: for example, Commission Jacques Attali (1998) for France, House Committee on Science (1998) for the United States, and National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education (1997) for the United Kingdom.2 This article examines how changes in the rationale for science funding might influence the behavior of universities in European Union (EU) countries and the USA.3 The article begins by describing the changes in University Research funding for a selected group of EU countries during the period 1981-1996 and goes on to analyze the contractual-oriented vision of University Research funding and its consequences. The primary focus is on the negative unintended consequences of the new rationale. It is shown that the short-term efficiency gains resulting from the quasi-market incentive
-
the changing rationale for european University Research funding are there negative unintended consequences
Journal of Economic Issues, 2001Co-Authors: Aldo GeunaAbstract:(2001). The Changing Rationale for European University Research Funding: Are There Negative Unintended Consequences? Journal of Economic Issues: Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 607-632.
-
the economics of knowledge production funding and the structure of University Research
1999Co-Authors: Aldo GeunaAbstract:Part 1 A theoretical and historical framework: the economics of University Research behaviour an evolutionary account of European universities. Part 2 Allocation of funds and University Research: contemporary European universities - relationships among age, size and Research output allocation of funds and Research output - the case of British universities. Part 3 EU funding of University Research: University participation in community framework programmes EU and national University Research funding - the BRITE-EURAM programme. Part 4 Summary and conclusions. Annex: data sources.
