Search results

With the increased demand for the application of technology in property activities, there is a growing need for property professionals adept in using digital technology. Hence, it is important to assess the competence of academia in equipping property professionals with digital technology skills. This study, therefore, assesses property academics in Australian universities to identify their level of knowledge and use of digital technology applicable to the property industry.

Online questionnaire surveys were administered to 22 out of 110 property academics contacted through the Australia Property Institute (API) database to achieve this aim. The collected data were analysed using mean score ranking and ANOVA.

The study found that apart from databases and analytics platforms such as Corelogic RP data, price finder and industry-based software such as the Microsoft Office suite and ARGUS software, the academics were not knowledgeable in most identified and sampled proptech tools. Similarly, most proptech tools were not used or taught to the students. It was also found that early career academics (below five years in academia) were the most knowledgeable group about the proptech tools.

Relying on the API database to contact property academics potentially excludes the position of property academics who may not be affiliated or have contacts with API, hence, the findings of this study should be generalised with caution.

The study bears huge implications for the property education sector and industry in Australia; a low knowledge and use of nascent tools such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, blockchain, drones, fintech, which have received intense interest, reveals some level of skill gap of students who pass through that system and may need to be upskilled by employers to meet the current day demand.

In response to the clamour for technology-inclined property professionals, this paper presents itself as the first to assess the knowledge levels and application of digital technology by property academics.

The university context has changed considerably in recent years. This paper aims to identify career strategies that can be used by property academics in the property education, research and industry linkages spaces in this changing university environment. This is particularly relevant for early career researchers (ECRs), as they navigate developing their careers as the next generation of property academics.

This research is based on a thorough understanding and extensive experience of the university environment in the property area by the four authors. This depth of understanding is at a global level, with team members having extensive property academic experience over many years in Europe, the USA and Asia–Pacific.

Career strategies for property academics are identified that will ensure the next generation of property academics are suitably prepared for the challenges of being an academic in the changing university environment. This is particularly relevant for ECRs in property.

It is important to prepare the next generation of property academics to ensure the high quality of property graduates as they become the next generation of property professionals. Practical career strategies are identified for property academics to ensure that they have the necessary skills to develop their academic careers to empower the next generation of property professionals.

This paper is the first paper to specifically address the career strategies needed by property academics in universities today. This is a key issue for the property industry going forward at all levels to ensure the next generation of property academics are empowered to prepare the next generation of property professionals.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the use of blended learning in property education courses in different countries. The rationale for this study is to fill the research gap in this area. The focus of previous research on blended learning has been on individual countries only, and there is yet to appear any research on a cross-country comparison. The purpose of this study is to identity the differences as well as the good practices using blended learning as a delivery approach in different countries As a result, individual countries can learn experience from another country. It is expected academics interested in using blended learning as a delivery approach will benefit from the research findings of this paper, through gaining an understanding of the advantages and challenges of using blended learning in different countries.

This paper presents the research findings of questionnaire surveys and interviews with academics teaching property courses in Australia and the UK. The questionnaire aimed to gather academics’ views on blended learning, their reasons for using blended learning as a teaching method, their design of blended learning courses and the support they provide to students on dealing with web technology. The aim of the interviews was to gain deeper insight into the successful factors and challenges in the use of blended learning. In total, 16 interviews were conducted. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded to identify similar themes. Content analysis was used as a method to analyse the interview data. The frequency of the answer in the questionnaire and comments from interviewees is presented.

The Australian and UK property academics have similar views on many aspects of blended learning. Their definitions of blended learning are similar as their reasons to use it as a teaching method. The commonly used teaching and learning activities in their blended learning courses in both countries are, again, similar, such as the use of lectures, case studies and guest lecturers. On the other hand, the academics in the two countries face different challenges. A challenge faced by the Australian property academics is to deliver online courses to students who have limited internet downloading capacity and broadband width. Australia is a very large country and has more regional and remote areas. Another challenge faced by the Australian academics is keeping up with the constant introduction of new teaching and learning technology by their universities. On the other hand, the UK academics faced a different challenge, which was to sufficiently engage and encourage students to contribute in online Discussion Boards. The finding is possibly because the UK study was conducted two years prior to the Australian study and the idea of online discussions was relatively new to students at the time. The conclusion drawn from this research is that “time” and the size of the country influence the use of blended learning.

This project is the first to conduct a cross-country comparison on the use of blended learning in professionally accredited property courses.

This paper aims to review property and valuation education within the university context, using the experience of program re‐development at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, as a case study.

The paper utilises a literature review, comparing and contrasting the program renewal process within the university to experiences elsewhere and their inherent values. In critically examining some of the difficulties found within the program renewal process, issues symptomatic of the wider valuation profession and tertiary education system have been revealed. It provides the genesis of a wider study linking tertiary education and the valuation profession's needs in the mid‐term.

Valuation education is often subsumed within a generalist property curriculum. As part of their resource allocation models universities are now paying close attention to teaching quality, research output, and graduate outcomes, often favouring generalist curricula rather than discipline‐specific. There needs to be a careful analysis of the university experience of property and valuation students to ensure that graduate capabilities meet industry expectations, and that graduates themselves are able to adapt to future change. There also needs to be greater attention paid to the quality of teaching within universities and more evidence that mainstream tertiary teaching pedagogy is properly applied within the programs offered.

As a case study this paper chronicles the experiences at one university. It indicates a need for a wider, systematic study of how greater engagement by property and valuation academic and teaching staff can be more actively engaged in mainstream university teaching pedagogy.

The value of this paper lies in its chronicling of a detailed and structured renewal process. It highlights real difficulties faced by tertiary academics in a narrow discipline such as valuation during a renewal process, aimed at continuing high‐quality professional education.

This paper aims to consider a more visual approach to property law teaching practices. This will be achieved by exploring the existence of “visual learners” as a student body, evaluating the use of more visual teaching techniques in academic practice, recognising the historic dominance of text in legal education, and examining the potential for heightening visual teaching practices in the teaching of property law.

The paper reviews and analyses some of the available literature on visual pedagogy, and visual approaches to legal education, but also introduces an amount of academic practitioner analysis.

This paper evidences that, rather than focusing on the categorisation of “visual learner”, the modern academic practitioner should use the customary use of more visual stimuli, consequently becoming a more “visual teacher”. This paper demonstrates that these practices, if performed effectively, can impact upon the information literacy of the whole student body. It also proffers a number of suggestions as to how this could be achieved within property law teaching practices.

The paper will provide support for early-career academic practitioners, who are entering a teaching profession in a period of accelerated and continual change, by presenting an overview of pedagogic practices in the area. It will also provide a stimulus for those currently teaching on property law modules and support their transition to a more visual form of teaching practice.

This paper provides a comprehensive overview of visual pedagogy in legal education, and specifically within that of property law, which has not been conducted elsewhere.

This paper aims to identify changes occurring within the property professions and at the same time focus on the changing structures of the tertiary education sector in Australia and how both of these will influence property/real estate education and research into the future.

The paper reviews a range of published international material and conference papers mostly emanating from the Pacific Rim Real Estate Society (PRRES) a formal focus for property researchers, educators and practitioners from over 15 countries. Structured interviews with leading property academics were conducted along with the authors' direct involvement with the Australian Property Institute and their National Education Board.

There is a strong demand for tertiary/property real estate education, which will continue in Australia though with a likely wider base extending beyond the traditional valuation and analysis fields. However, given the significant emerging changes in the tertiary sector in Australia, certain universities will tend to focus in such specialist areas.

It would appear that this is not a widely researched area outside the PRRES group. The findings, however, are sound and have important implications for education and research in this critical economic sector.

The findings should help better refine the academic offer and research initiatives developed by those individual universities as they seek to establish their market niche. Whilst this paper applies particularly to the Australian context, observations regarding changing demand will be of wider interest and assistance.

This paper for the first time considers the changing demand for real estate / property graduate courses and demands for research in this field against the backdrop of contemporary change in the tertiary sector in Australia.

This chapter focuses on a university case that interprets the variability of academic freedom in terms of faculty’s textbook selection and the need for students’ textbook affordability. Faculty members are participants in a collective bargaining unit and students are members of the student government organization in a state university system. The faculty contract outlines tenets of academic freedom that delineate faculty selection of curriculum (textbooks), instruction, and assessment practices. This chapter highlights the nuances of faculty rights in the name of academic freedom and the students’ need for more affordable textbooks which includes open educational resource materials. In this case, the administration, faculty association, and the student government worked together to create a set of conditions for a more affordable textbook selection. This collaborative process is explored and explained as a set of practices that other colleges and universities can replicate at their institutions.

This paper identifies the need to expand the range of research methodologies considered suitable for high-calibre property research publications in the top property journals, particularly concerning the critical “bigger” property research issues going forward. This is important for early career researchers (ECRs), as the ECRs develop the suitability of the research methodologies used by the ECRs in expanding the ECRs' property research agendas.

This research is based on a thorough understanding and extensive experience of the range of property research methodologies available today to publish in the top property journals. This depth of understanding is supported by extensive discussions with leading property industry professionals, as well as reviewing the property research, track record of several leading property researchers from the UK.

A broader range of research methodologies is needed in property research today to fully capture the challenges of the critical property research questions going forward. These methodologies need to go well beyond the finance paradigm that has dominated property research in recent years.

Many of the key property research questions going forward need to be addressed by a range of methodologies for richer and deeper insights into resolving these property issues. This particularly relates to the important research issues for the property industry which require a “bigger picture” analysis of these issues, with the research presented in a manner which is accessible and relevant to property industry professionals.

This paper addresses the need to expand the research methodologies used in property research today. This is a key issue for property researchers going forward, as many of the important property research questions cannot be addressed from just within the traditional finance paradigm.

Global technological competition has made technology transfer from academia to firms an important public policy issue (Rahm, 1994). Academia and individual academic institutions are a primary source of new knowledge production and innovation (Brennan & McGowan, 2007). It is widely acknowledged that the commercialization of scientific and technological knowledge produced in public funded research institutions, including universities and research centres, into the marketplace have a fundamental role to play in wealth creation, supporting economic growth and technological innovation, and plays a significant role in new venture creation, growth of existing firms, and new job creation (Mansfield, 1991; Harmon et al., 1997; Ndonzuau, Pirnay, & Surlemont, 2002; Siegel, Waldman, Atwater, & Link, 2003b; Steffensen, Rogers, & Speakman, 1999; Walter, Auer, & Ritter, 2006; Perez & Sanchez, 2003). Research by Acs, Audretsch, and Feldman (1992), Jaffe (1989), Mansfield (1991, 1998), and others indicates that technological change in important segments of the economy has been significantly based on knowledge that spin-off from academic research.