Search results

The aim of this paper is to present a vision for university educator professional development, based on self-analysis of pedagogical styles and production of knowledge about the practices that promote education for sustainable development (ESD).

The “STSE” course is part of the department’s Professional Development Program. The course aims to articulate the relationship between ESD processes and university educator training through reflection on their practices. To accomplish this objective, the course promotes interdisciplinary groups of educators from different backgrounds. These groups are encouraged to introspect regarding their pedagogical styles. A survey is applied to encourage self-analysis of the four pedagogical style dimensions.

University educators adopt their own pedagogical styles based on the evolution of their practices. This information is useful in generating education, formation and transformation of new professionals in their respective fields. This knowledge also raises questions about ESD, and the construction of processes, values and attitudes to aid this education.

This paper only describes the characterization stage of the university educator pedagogical styles through practice-related self-analysis

This study builds pedagogical knowledge, promotes higher education transformation for sustainable development and strengthens the quality of university education.

For better mapping the path of intellectual capital (IC) research, the purpose of this paper is to selectively review empirical studies of IC published, and identify theories, components and three dimensions of analysis: national IC (NIC), regional IC (RIC) and organizational IC (OIC).

The systematic literature review (SLR) subject to analysis is based on empirical studies made between 1960 and 2016, and focuses on three dimensions of analysis: NIC, RIC and OIC. Four research questions were designed, using the following databases, namely, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, for data collection purposes.

The SLR unveils a multidimensional taxonomy for measuring and classifying the type of IC applicable to the different levels of analysis and provides some recommendations for future studies of NIC, RIC and OIC, by outlining the need for clear definitions of components and measures of IC and identifying strengths, limitations and future research avenues.

In order to fill the gap found in the literature and the non-existence of a study clarifying the multiple dimensions of analysis of IC, this SLR makes a twofold, original contribution to the literature on management: providing an SLR of the main empirical studies dealing with different units of analysis; and identifying a multidimensional taxonomy for measuring and classifying the type of IC applicable to the different levels of analysis.