Knowledge exchange in a global city: a typology of universities and institutional analysis

Tang, Hei Hang Hayes; Chau, Chi Fung Wilton

doi:10.1080/21568235.2019.1694424

Cited by 14 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Activities described under "faculty engagement" are generally recognized as part of knowledge translation and exchange and therefore embedded within the "service" pillar of academia. Scholars have explored this notion in terms of associated concepts of "knowledge exchange" (Johnson, 2020;Tang and Chau, 2020), "engaged scholarship" (Nkhoma, 2020;Renwick et al, 2020), as well as "service". However scholars note that methods to recognize, evaluate, and reward academic engagement need to be enhanced, (Brownson et al, 2006;Denis and Lomas, 2003;Jacobson et al, 2004;Lomas, 2007;Longest Jr and Huber, 2010;McVay et al, 2016;Oliver et al, 2014;Stamatakis et al, 2013) but offer few ideas for what these could be.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations and recommendations from one School of Public Health

Jessani

Valmeekanathan

Babcock

et al. 2020

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In academia, faculty are bound by three pillars of scholarship: Teaching, Research and Service. Academic promotion and tenure depend on metrics of assessment for these three pillars. However, what is and is not acceptable as “service” is often nebulous and left to the discretion of internal committees. With evolving requirements by funders to demonstrate wider impacts of research, we were keen to understand the financial and non-financial incentives for academic faculty to engage in knowledge translation and research utilization. Between November 2017–February 2018, 52 faculty from one School of Public Health (SPH) were interviewed. Data was analyzed using Atlas.Ti and furthermore with framework analysis. The appeal of incentives varied according to personal values, previous experiences, relevance of research to decision-making, individual capacities, and comfort ranging from instinctive support to reflexive resistance. Discussions around types of incentives elicited a plethora of ideas within 4 different categories: (a) Monetary Support, (b) Professional Recognition, (c) Academic Promotion, and (d) Capacity Enhancement. However, concerns included adverse incentives, disadvantaging suboptimally-equipped faculty, risk of existing efforts going unnoticed, vaguely defined evaluation metrics, and the impacts on promotion given that engagement activities often occur outside of the traditional grant cycle. With a shift in funder requests to demonstrate greater social return on their research investments, as well as renewed global attention to research, science and evidence for decision making, SPHs such as this one, are likely going to be concerned about the implications of an enhanced “service” pillar on the other two pillars: teaching and research. The role of incentives in enhancing academic engagement with policy and practice is therefore neither simple nor universally ideal. A tempered approach that considers the various professional aspirations of faculty, the capacities required, organisational culture of values around specific discovery sciences, funder conditions, as well as alignment with the institution’s mission is critical. Deliberations on incentives leads to a larger debate on how to we shift the culture of academia beyond incentives for individuals who are engagement-inclined to institutions that are engagement-ready, without imposing on or penalizing faculty who are choice-disengaged.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations and recommendations from one School of Public Health

Jessani

Valmeekanathan

Babcock

et al. 2020

Humanit Soc Sci Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, focusing on knowledge exchange/technology transfer activities in public universities, Tang and Chau (2020) state that since 2009 most universities have undergone a steady expansion of their knowledge exchange initiatives. However, those universities with specialised institutional missions made the relevant changes in their knowledge exchange compared to traditional/comprehensive universities.…”

Section: Public-private Higher Education Institutionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does the public-private higher education institution distinction influence academics' societal engagement? Evidence from Chile and Turkey

Guzmán

Véliz

Uslu

et al. 2022

IJCED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between the participation in commercially- and socially-oriented Academics' Societal Engagement (ASE) activities, partnership choices, and funding preferences of academics working in public and private universities from Chile and Turkey. Chile represents a private-dominant higher education system (HES), while Turkey is public-dominant. This article presents the results of an international survey, the Academic Profession in Knowledge-based Society (APIKS), applied to academics from over 20 countries, including Chile and Turkey.Design/methodology/approachThrough a quantitative analysis the authors analyse how the dominant institutional type influences ASE activities, partnership choices, and funding preferences.FindingsResults from the analysis show that being part of a public or private university does not solely explain the activity type that academics engage with. Moreover, the rate of Chilean academics participating in ASE activities is more than twice that of Turkish academics regardless of the public-private distinction.Research limitations/implicationsFurther research about the academic life and ASE activities using a qualitative approach can complement this study. Applying further in-depth interviews to obtain more information from external partners can provide different perspectives and help to better understand the ASE activities. Additional analysis could compare external activities by higher education institution (HEI) type regarding vocational/technical centres since the Chilean and Turkish private HEIs included in this study received a mix of public-private funds and are considered not-for-profit, so extending this research to include for-profit private HEIs may be worthwhile for additional comparison.Practical implicationsMore support and funding for the development of commercially-oriented ASE activities is recommended for Chile and Turkey's HES. In Turkey, a law-update in 2017 facilitates the establishment of technology transfer offices (TTOs) as companies within universities (Author, 2019). Though it is too early to know its effects, a positive contribution is anticipated. Centred Chile's private dominant HES, it would be appropriate for this type of system to also create different support structures to incentivise socially-oriented external activities and partnership opportunities. As done in other universities, the establishment of a community engagement office may provide professional guidance for partnership creations. Regardless of a country's HE public/private dominance, diverse sources of funding and support mechanisms can also be created to strengthen organisational and financial autonomy facilitating academics' participation in ASE activities. For example, universities can develop institutional policies to support academic establishment, lead or join in administration of non-governmental organisations, or form institutional media to deliver academics' viewpoints of social issues to the larger and non-academic audience. University managers should also empower the connection between academics and industry and business sector through different organisational structures such as Research Office, Science Park Incubators, Career Centre, while guiding and financially supporting academics' research commercialisation by their TTO experience and sources.Originality/valueThe literature has studied the public-private higher education distinction in vast aspects, however, no empirical studies have explored it concerning ASE. Chile and Turkey propose interesting cases since they represent opposite ends considering the public-private predominance of higher education systems. Turkey exhibits a heavy public predominance, whereas Chile has a significantly strong private system.

show abstract

“…In 2019, more than half of the HKDSE Examination candidates did not take any STEM elective subjects 2 whereas the enrolment in advanced mathematics declined remarkably from over 22% in to approximately 14% in 2018(Legislative Council Secretariat, 2020. Moreover, the narrow job prospects for STEM graduates because of the underdeveloped innovation system of Hong Kong (Sharif & Tang, 2014;Lo & Tang, 2020;Tang, 2020;Tang & Chau, 2020) hinders the majority of non-elite students in their aspiration for higher education and careers in STEM-related fields.…”

Section: Stem Education and Gender In Hong Kongmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Equity in STEM in Higher Education

Ro¹,

Fernandez²,

Ramon³

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge exchange in a global city: a typology of universities and institutional analysis

Cited by 14 publications

References 56 publications

Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations and recommendations from one School of Public Health

Academic incentives for enhancing faculty engagement with decision-makers—considerations and recommendations from one School of Public Health

Does the public-private higher education institution distinction influence academics' societal engagement? Evidence from Chile and Turkey

Gender Equity in STEM in Higher Education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About