Analysis of knowledge transference processes in first mission activities of universities: portfolios as proposal of analytical tool for competitive intelligence functions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37380/jisib.v4i1.83Keywords:
Knowledge transference, university assessment, portfolios, competitive intelligenceAbstract
The relationship between higher education activities follows a sequential cycle focused on knowledge transference. The aim of this paper is to examine the details of the following associated questions of debate about KT (knowledge translation) in education mission activities (first mission): relationship between teaching activities and scientific research, correlation between learning and teaching quality, entrepreneurship and the Bologna Process: the reform of education systems and finally, learning & teaching outcomes. This analysis allows a systematic approach to the specific goals of the Bologna Process that include promoting the student centred model, increasing the autonomy and accountability of universities, strengthening the responsibility of institutions for the quality of teaching, highlighting the excellence of learning, enhancing the quality of research and the transference of knowledge, as a basis for a competitive economy. In order to achieve this goal, from a CI (competitive intelligence) perspective, portfolios represent a critical tool for education systems as training-for-self-assessment, promoting new forms of support for the excellence of learning & teaching activities and designing of curricula and programmes.References
Adam, S. (2004). Using Learning Outcomes: A consideration of the nature, role, application and implications for European education of employing learning outcomes at the local, national and international levels. Report on United Kingdom. Bologna Seminar, July 2004, Herriot-Watt University.
Adam, S. (2006). An introduction to learning outcomes, in EUA Bologna Handbook, Froment E., Kohler J, Purser L, Wilson L (Eds), article B.2.3-1. Berlin, Raabe.
Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 21 (10) p. 93 – 108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079612331381487
AUTM, The Association of University Technology Managers. Available at: http://www.autm.net/AM/Template.cfm?Section=FAQs&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=2186
Bercovitz, J., Feldman, M., Feller, I., & Burton, R. (2001). “Organizational structure as determinants of academic patent and licensing behavior: An exploratory study of Duke, Johns Hopkins, and Pennsylvania State Universities”. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 21–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007828026904
BPTNR (2009). Bologna Process Template for National Reports: 2007-2009. Available at: http://www.bologna.msmt.cz/files/national-report-09-cr.pdf
Brandenburg, U.; Carr, D.; Donauer, S.; Berthold, Ch. (2008). Analysing the future Market – Target Countries for German HEIs. Working paper, no. 107, May. Available at: http://www.che.de/downloads/Analysing_the_Future_Market_Target_Countries_for_German_HEIs_AP107.pdf
Bricall, J. M. (2000). Universidad 2mil. Madrid; CRUE.
Carlsson, B. (1994). “Technological Systems and Economic Performance”. In: M. Dogson and R.Rothwell (Ed.): The Handbook of Industrial Innovation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781954201.00008
Chalmers, D. (2007). A review of Australian and international quality systems and indicators of learning and teaching. August, 2007. V.1.2. Available at: http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/146827/T&L_Quality_Systems_and_Indicators.pdf
Chalmers, D. (2008). Indicators of University Teaching and Learning Quality. Available at: http://www.catl.uwa.edu.au/__data/page/146827/Indicators_of_University_Teaching_and_Learning_Quality.doc
Chevalier, A.; Conlon, G. (2003). “Does it pay to attend a prestigious university?” Arnaud Chevalier and Gavan Conlon, March 2003, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.435300
CHE (2009). Centre for Higher Education Development. Available at: http://www.che-concept.de/cms/?getObject=302&getLang=en
Clark, B. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organisational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford, New York, Tokyo: International Association of Universities and Elsevier Science.
Commission of the European communities (2006). Communication from the Commission – Delivering on the modernisation agenda for universities: education, research and innovation. Brussels; Commission of the European Communities.
Etzkowitz, H.; Leydesdorff, L. (1997). University and the Global Knowledge Economy. A Triple Helix of University- Industry- Government Relations. London; Pinter Publishers.
Etzkowitz, H. Webster, A. Gerhardt, C., Terra, B. (2000). “The future of the University and the university of the future: evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial paradigm”, Research Policy, 29 (2): 313-330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00069-4
DESTAG, Department of Education, Science and Training or the Australian Government (2006). Knowledge transfer and Australian Universities and publicly funded research agencies. A report to the Department of Education, Science and Training.
European Commission (2003a). Third European Report on Science & Technology Indicators. Brussels; European Commission.
European Commission. (2003b). Thematic Trend Report: Industry-Science Relations. Brussels: European Commission.
Gallavara, G.; Hreinsson, E.; Kajaste, M.; Lindesjöö, E.; Sølvhjelm, C.; Sørskår, A.K.; M. Sedigh Zadeh, M. (2008). Learning outcomes: Common framework – different approaches to evaluation learning outcomes in the Nordic countries. Joint Nordic project 2007–2008, by the Nordic Quality Assurance Network for Higher Education (NOQA). Available at: http://www.enqa.eu/files/NOQA%20report_occasional%20papers%2015.pdf
Gosling, D. and Moon, J. (2001). How to use Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria. London: SEEC Office.
Gulbrandsen, M.; Slipersaeter, S. (2007). The third mission and the entrepreneurial university model. At: Bonaccorsi, A.; Daraio, C. (eds.) Universities and Strategic Knowledge Creation. USA; Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847206848.00011
Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). Available at: http://www.hesa.ac.uk/
Howard Partners (2003). Evaluation of the Cooperative Research Centres Programme. Report of a study commissioned by the Department of Education, Science and Training.
Howard Partners (2005a). The emerging business of knowledge transfer: Creating value from intellectual products and services. Report of a study commissioned by the Department of Education, Science and Training.
Howard Partners (2005b). Knowledge exchange networks in Australia’s innovation system: overview and strategic analysis. Report of a Study Commissioned by the Department of Education, Science and Training.
Howells, J. (2006). “Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation”. Research Policy, 35, 175-728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
Kennedy, D.; Hyland, A.; Ryan, N. (2006). Writing and Using Learning Outcomes: a Practical Guide. Available at: http://www.bologna.msmt.cz/files/learning-outcomes.pdf
Mager, R. F. (1984). Preparing instructional objectives . 2nd ed., Belmont, California: Pitman Learning.
Molas-Gallart, J., Salter, A., Patel, P., Scott, A., Duran, X. (2002). Measuring third stream activities. Brighton: SPRU.
Molas-Gallart, J.; Castro-Martínez, E. (2006). “Ambiguity and conflict in the development of «Third Mission» indicators”. At The 9th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators; Lovaina.
Molas-Gallart, J.; Castro-Martinez, E.; Fernandez-de-Lucio, I. (2008). “Interface structures: knowledge transfer practice in changing environments”. Ingenio Working Paper Series no. 2008/4.
OECD-AHELO (2008a). OECD Feasibility Study for the International Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO). Available at: www.oecd.org/edu/ahelo
OECD-AHELO (2008b). Roadmap for the OECD assessment of higher education learning outcomes (AHELO) feasibility study. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/50/50/41061421.pdf
OECD (2009). Assessment of learning outcomes in higher education: a comparative review of selected practices. Available at:http://www.oecd.org/document/51/0,3343,en_2649_35961291_42295603_1_1_1_1,00.html
O’Shea, R., Roche, F., Allen, T., & Chevalier, A. (2005). “Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of US Universities”. Research Policy, 34(7), 994–1009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.05.011
Polt, W., C. Rammer, H. Gassler, A. Schibany, and D. Schartinger. (2001). “Benchmarking industry-science relations: the role of framework conditions”. Science and Public Policy, 28 (4):247-258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3152/147154301781781453
QF_EHEA (2009). Qualifications Frameworks in the EHEA. Bologna Process official web site. European Higher Education Area (EHEA) Available at: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/qf/qf.asp
UNESCO (1998). “The World Declaration on higher education for the twenty-first century: vision and action adopted by the World Conference on Higher Education. Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action by 9 October 1998. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/wche/declaration_eng.htm#world%20declaration
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2014 Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
