Tournament in academia: a comparative analysis of faculty evaluation systems in research universities in China and the USA

Gu, Jianxiu; Levin, John S.

doi:10.1007/s10734-020-00585-4

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Models 1 and 3, the regression coefficients of the TSR are both significant and positive. Generally, universities with relatively high teacher/student ratios are often research-oriented universities that focus on scientific research [79,80]. Therefore, they are more likely to produce academic patents and commercialize them [81].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Patent Policy on Outputs and Commercialization of Academic Patents in China: A Spatial Difference-in-Differences Analysis

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of a difference-in-differences estimator is a new move in patent policy evaluation research. However, such an estimator neglects the possibility that academic patent activities follow a spatial autoregressive process with respect to the dependent variable. The objective of this study was to propose a spatial difference-in-differences estimator accounting for possible spatial spillover effects. In this study, an empirical analysis of a sample of 31 Chinese provinces from 2010 to 2019 indicates that an incentive patent policy has a positive impact on the output and commercialization of academic patents, with positive effects also spilling over into neighboring provinces. This study further found that incentive patent policies play a placebo role in academic patent activities. Provincial patent policies are merely a proxy for other variables that characterize the systemic differences between provinces that implement patent policies and those that do not. Therefore, the promotion of academic patent activities cannot be attributed to policy incentives.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Patent Policy on Outputs and Commercialization of Academic Patents in China: A Spatial Difference-in-Differences Analysis

2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The game has become one of producing an approved number, status, and value of measurable research outputs, the result of university management's preoccupation with performativity Mahoney and Weiner, 2019) Thus, academics and researchers find themselves hostage to a proliferating array of quantified Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) through which they and their activities are managed for the strategic operational and financial objectives of the organisation (Parker, 2012a;Adams, 2019), or as Martin-Sardesai and Guthrie (2018a) put it, the culture has shifted to one of managing for results. Intensified management accountability being exacted through quantified measures and performance assessments are revealed in recent empirical results reported by Gu and Levin (2020), Kallio et al (2016), andHansen et al (2019). The focus is on organisational priorities rather than the development of researchers themselves (Adams, 2019).…”

Section: A Performativity Culturementioning

confidence: 99%

Public university research engagement contradictions in a commercialising higher education world

Parker

2022

Financ Acc Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims to critically assess the impact of public university commercialisation on research engagement and practice relevance. Recent decades have seen dramatic changes in university environments, identities and missions, as well as in government and private sector funding and involvement. As increasingly commercialised and corporatised organisations, universities have increasingly mimicked private sector hierarchical organisation structures, professionally managed and subject to performance management via proliferating management control systems. From accumulated prior research, this paper finds university research now primarily conducted for the private rather than public good, researchers being subject to and tailoring their endeavors to conform with proliferating metrics focused university management control systems. External engagement appears as a university impression management strategy, while internally, researchers are still compelled to pursue a contradictory focus on high-status self-referential journal publication venues. This contradictory environment is found to have produced an increasing distance betweenThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

“…For example, the government in New Zealand uses the performance-based research fund to grant funding to higher education institutions (HEIs) with more active research activities at the international and national levels (Mutch & Tatebe, 2017). The managerial accountability and performativity culture have also become more prevalent in various Asian countries, such as in China (Gu & Levin, 2021;Huang, 2020), Hongkong (W. V. Chan et al, 2020;Postiglione & Jung, 2017), Korea (Lee & Lee, 2013), and the Philippines (Sannadan & Lang-ay, 2021). At the national level, the emphasis on accountability and performativity has transformed HEIs in some nations, such as Singapore (Cheong, 2017), Taiwan (Shreeve, 2020), and China (Gu & Levin, 2021;Shi et al, 2018), into world-class universities.…”

Section: Abbreviationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The managerial accountability and performativity culture have also become more prevalent in various Asian countries, such as in China (Gu & Levin, 2021;Huang, 2020), Hongkong (W. V. Chan et al, 2020;Postiglione & Jung, 2017), Korea (Lee & Lee, 2013), and the Philippines (Sannadan & Lang-ay, 2021). At the national level, the emphasis on accountability and performativity has transformed HEIs in some nations, such as Singapore (Cheong, 2017), Taiwan (Shreeve, 2020), and China (Gu & Levin, 2021;Shi et al, 2018), into world-class universities. However, managerial accountability has transformed faculty evaluation in many global HEIs in ways that are not fruitful to professional learning and improvement among faculty members.…”

Section: Abbreviationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Faculty evaluation in higher education: a theory-of-action case study in Vietnam

Nguyen¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study has two key implications. First, it suggests the improvement of faculty evaluation policymaking and implementation by revising several existing constraints and by adding some cultural and individual constraints to the current theories of action. The faculty evaluation problems could be solved by improving the quality of evaluation processes and data, reconceptualising SET and voting evaluation, and treating faculty members’ underperformance as a collective problem. Second, the study suggests a framework to predict the likely success of future intervention on faculty evaluation. For instance, faculty evaluation for learning and improvement will be more feasible if policymakers and implementers prioritise transformational purposes and make joint efforts to foster dialogues and collaboration among individuals and groups. My study also highlights the need to understand faculty evaluation, and possibly other higher education practices in Vietnam, in religious contexts and from individual participants’ spiritual values or philosophical backgrounds. The study implications are applicable to Vietnamese higher education and potentially to other educational settings with similar characteristics.

show abstract

Tournament in academia: a comparative analysis of faculty evaluation systems in research universities in China and the USA

Cited by 15 publications

References 26 publications

Effects of Patent Policy on Outputs and Commercialization of Academic Patents in China: A Spatial Difference-in-Differences Analysis

Effects of Patent Policy on Outputs and Commercialization of Academic Patents in China: A Spatial Difference-in-Differences Analysis

Public university research engagement contradictions in a commercialising higher education world

Faculty evaluation in higher education: a theory-of-action case study in Vietnam

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About