Search results

Business schools are vital in promoting responsible management (RM) – a management grounded in ethics and values beneficial to a wide array of stakeholders and overall society. Nevertheless, due to deeply embedded institutional modernistic dynamics and paradigms, RM is, despite its importance, repeatedly marginalised in business school curricula. If students are to engage with RM thinking, then its occlusion represents a pressing issue. Drawing on the United Kingdom (UK) business school context, this paper aims to examine this issue through a framework of institutional theory and consider the role played by (modernistic) institutional accreditation and research assessment processes in marginalisation of RM.

This study used an exploratory qualitative research method. Data were collected from 17 RM expert participants from 15 UK business schools that were signatories to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Management Education through semi-structured in-depth interviews and analysed using the six phases of Braun and Clarke’s thematic analysis.

The study identifies a potent institutional isomorphic amalgam resulting in conservative impacts for RM. This dynamic is termed multiple institutional isomorphic marginalisation (MIIM) – whereby a given domain is occluded and displaced by hegemonic institutional pressures. In RM’s case, MIIM operates through accreditation-driven modernistic-style curricula. This leads business schools to a predilection towards “mainstream” representations of subject areas and a focus on mechanistic research exercises. Consequently, this privileges certain activities over RM development with a range of potential negative effects, including social impacts.

This study fills an important gap concerning the need for a critical, in-depth exploration of the role that international accreditation frameworks and national institutional academic research assessment processes such as the Research Excellence Framework in the UK play in affecting the possible growth and influence of RM. In addition, it uses heterotopia as a conceptual lens to reveal the institutional “mask” of responsibility predominantly at play in the UK business school context, and offers alternative pathways for RM careers.

Although supporting and assessing the non-academic “impact” of research are not entirely new developments in higher education, academics and research institutions are under increasing pressure to produce work that has a measurable influence outside the academy. With a view to supporting the solution of complex societal issues with evidence and expertise, and against the background of increased emphasis on impact in the United Kingdom's 2021 Research Excellence Framework (REF2021) and a proliferation of impact guides and tools, this article offers a simple, easy to remember framework for designing impactful research. We call this framework “The 7Cs of Impact” – Context, Communities, Constituencies, Challenge, Channels, Communication and Capture.

Drawing on core elements of the Policy Institute at King's College London's Impact by Design training course and the authors' practical experience in supporting and delivering impact, this paper outlines how this framework can help address key aspects across the lifecycle of a research project and plan, from identifying the intended impact of research and writing it into grants and proposals, to engaging project stakeholders and assessing whether the project has had the desired impact.

While preparations for current and future REF submissions may benefit from using this framework, this paper sets out the “7Cs” with a more holistic view of impact in mind, seeking to aid researchers in identifying, capturing, and communicating how research projects can and do contribute to the improvement in society.

To assess whether interdisciplinary research evaluation scores vary between fields.

The authors investigate whether published refereed journal articles were scored differently by expert assessors (two per output, agreeing a score and norm referencing) from multiple subject-based Units of Assessment (UoAs) in the REF2021 UK national research assessment exercise. The primary raw data was 8,015 journal articles published 2014–2020 and evaluated by multiple UoAs, and the agreement rates were compared to the estimated agreement rates for articles multiply-evaluated within a single UoA.

The authors estimated a 53% agreement rate on a four-point quality scale between UoAs for the same article and a within-UoA agreement rate of 70%. This suggests that quality scores vary more between fields than within fields for interdisciplinary research. There were also some hierarchies between fields, in the sense of UoAs that tended to give higher scores for the same article than others.

The results apply to one country and type of research evaluation. The agreement rate percentage estimates are both based on untested assumptions about the extent of cross-checking scores for the same articles in the REF, so the inferences about the agreement rates are tenuous.

The results underline the importance of choosing relevant fields for any type of research evaluation.

This is the first evaluation of the extent to which a careful peer-review exercise generates different scores for the same articles between disciplines.

Scholars often aim to conduct high quality research and their success is judged primarily by peer reviewers. Research quality is difficult for either group to identify, however and misunderstandings can reduce the efficiency of the scientific enterprise. In response, we use a novel term association strategy to seek quantitative evidence of aspects of research that are associated with high or low quality.

We extracted the words and 2–5-word phrases most strongly associated with different quality scores in each of 34 Units of Assessment (UoAs) in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. We extracted the terms from 122,331 journal articles 2014–2020 with individual REF2021 quality scores.

The terms associating with high- or low-quality scores vary between fields but relate to writing styles, methods and topics. We show that the first-person writing style strongly associates with higher quality research in many areas because it is the norm for a set of large prestigious journals. We found methods and topics that associate with both high- and low-quality scores. Worryingly, terms associated with educational and qualitative research attract lower quality scores in multiple areas. REF experts may rarely give high scores to qualitative or educational research because the authors tend to be less competent, because it is harder to do world leading research with these themes, or because they do not value them.

This is the first investigation of journal article terms associating with research quality.

Purpose – The authors investigate the interpretations of senior university decision-makers on three questions: (1) What constitutes “relevant” research? (2) In what ways is the relevance of research typically measured? and (3) What alternative ways might be adopted in measuring the relevance of research?

Design/methodology/approach – This exploratory study adopts an inductive approach, informed by data collected from semi-structured interviews with senior research-related university leaders and archival sources in five Australian and eight US universities.

Findings – There is considerable convergence in the conceptualization as well as the operationalization of the notion of relevance between the Australian and US universities participating in this study. The evidence supports a relational rather than currently prevailing transactional approaches in operationalizing the concept of research relevance. This relational approach emphasizes the importance of stakeholders, their needs and expectations, and their engagement in the articulation of measures that demonstrate the relevance of research in both the short and longer terms.

Research limitations/implications – The evidence is primarily based on the views of university senior management drawn from a relatively small number of universities leading to questions about the representativeness and generalizability of the findings. Moreover, the findings have been informed by leaders at the most senior hierarchical levels. Although consistent with the aim of the study, the views of university leaders provide only one view on our research questions.

Originality/value – The authors provide a conceptual view of research relevance from the perspective of one pivotal group – university senior management – that has been largely and surprisingly overlooked in discussions of the relevance of academic research.

The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a framework to achieve sustainable development and fulfilling these Goals will take an unprecedented effort by all sectors in society. Many universities and businesses are using the Goals within their strategies and sustainability reporting. However, this is difficult as there is currently no standard methodology to map the 17 goals, 169 targets and 232 indicators. Work at the University of Leicester has focused on developing a robust methodology to map a higher education institution's (HEI's) research contribution to the Goals. We have integrated this unique methodology into an automated software tool to measure a university's academic contribution to the Goals using mathematical text mining techniques. Our ability to quickly and effectively map institutions' research contributions has boosted our ambitions and efforts to develop software to map the full operations of an HEI or business.

This chapter examines the scope and value of activist criminology, and questions whether it should be defined in relation to its means or its ends. It also outlines the nature and potential value of something that the author describes as Janus-faced criminology – an amalgam of activist and administrative criminology, and one which therefore straddles two very different sets of goals and priorities. To explore these issues, this chapter draws on some recent work that the author conducted in the UK with the cross-party parliamentary Youth Violence Commission. Ultimately, the author contends that Janus-faced criminology has its place in advancing the causes of social and legal justice in the years ahead.

Technology is sometimes used to support assessments of academic research in the form of automatically generated bibliometrics for reviewers to consult during their evaluations or by replacing some or all human judgements. With artificial intelligence (AI), there is increasing scope to use technology to assist research assessment processes in new ways. Since transparency and fairness are widely considered important for research assessment and AI introduces new issues, this review investigates their implications.

This article reviews and briefly summarises transparency and fairness concerns in general terms and through the issues that they raise for various types of Technology Assisted Research Assessment (TARA).

Whilst TARA can have varying levels of problems with both transparency and bias, in most contexts it is unclear whether it worsens the transparency and bias problems that are inherent in peer review.

This is the first analysis that focuses on algorithmic bias and transparency issues for technology assisted research assessment.

As a core element of the marketing mix, place is of central concern within marketing. Yet existing literature typically presents accounts of research about rather than with places. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to argue that engaged scholarship can help academics, practitioners, policymakers and communities to work collaboratively to solve place-based “wicked problems”. Specifically, this paper focuses on high street revitalisation, a challenge frustrating policymakers and communities since the 1980s.

This paper draws on a mixed-method research project conducted with place-based stakeholders in Manchester, the UK, to discuss the benefits and challenges arising through an engaged scholarship approach.

The authors outline several benefits to engaged scholarship, including forming tailored solutions to place-based problems, engendering trust and ongoing research partnerships and generating real-world impact beyond the academy. However, the authors also draw attention to the challenges including political sensitivities within places, additional layers of scrutiny and challenges to dissemination arising through partnership working with organisations external to the university.

Whereas a range of techniques have been used to research places within marketing, engaged scholarship is lacking. This paper, therefore, provides first-hand insights into the benefits and challenges that the authors experienced using the approach. This is of significance because of the rising importance of generating real-world impact within the academy, which the authors feel requires more institutional support. This paper also suggests Van de Ven’s diamond model of engaged scholarship extends to encompass issues of research governance.