Suchergebnisse

Two prior studies, conducted in 1966 and in 1979, examined the role of economic research in health policy development. Both concluded that health economics had not been an important contributor to policy. Passage of the Affordable Care Act offers an opportunity to reassess this question. We find that the evolution of health economics research has given it an increasingly important role in policy. Research in the field has followed three related paths over the past century—institutionalist research that described problems; theoretical research, which proposed relationships that might extend beyond existing institutions; and empirical assessments of structural parameters identified in the theoretical research. These three strands operating in concert allowed economic research to be used to predict the fiscal and coverage consequences of alternative policy paths. This ability made economic research a powerful policy force. Key conclusions of health economics research are clearly evident in the Affordable Care Act.

This study explores the role of university-based collaborative research units (CRUs) in the internationalization of China's university-government-industry linkages. Specifically, it examines how CRUs' R&D cooperation with multinational corporations (MNCs) affects the roles and responsibilities of research universities in local and global collaborations. It delves into the effectiveness of different organizational structures of the Chinese CRUs in developing R&D strategies, goals and activities to facilitate university-MNC partnerships. The thesis draws on data collected through a multiple case-study approach at Tsinghua University (THU) and Peking University (PKU). On the basis of the superstructure analysis on Science & Technology policies and descriptive statistics as well as structure analysis on THU and PKU' international collaboration settings and strategies, data collected through case studies were analyzed to explain how understructure CRUs interact with global and local stakeholders. This study argues that the CRUs serve as strategic interfaces between the international R&D initiatives of Chinese research universities and MNCs at times when conflicts between imported and indigenous innovation are evolving. The collaborative CRUs possess unique advantages for reconciling the contradiction between global and local stakeholders. They primarily achieve the reconciliatory goals by generating knowledge spillover from the MNCs' innovative R&D to China's national innovation system, and fully engaging the indigenous innovation capacity of leading scholars and their research teams in Chinese research universities. This study points to a prevalent dichotomy of CRUs in the discourse of Chinese research collaborations: i.e., substantive and virtual CRUs. The university- MNC joint research institutes (JRIs) at THU are mostly virtual CRUs, which always face the challenge of staff retention; while the substantive ones possess an advantage in this regard, which is favorable for undertaking the MNCs' forward-looking innovative R&D. However, a disciplinary "role strain" is faced by full-time researchers of interdisciplinary substantive CRUs, who have to deal with the psychological loss of a disciplinary identity when they are officially affiliated with interdisciplinary CRUs. This study suggests that a semi-substantive structure is ideal for CRUs' undertaking of boundary-crossing research (e.g., international and interdisciplinary) while giving researchers an opportunity to avoid disciplinary "role strain". In the context of R&D internationalization, as cross-boundary cooperative strategies have become increasingly prominent, the JRIs have grown to be an important category of CRUs. Furthermore, they can contribute to releasing another "role strain" faced by THU and PKU researchers who are interested in undertaking industrial projects: they have to sacrifice time and energy that is more commonly allocated to governmental projects, because the research outputs of government projects are much more valued by the university promotion and appraisal systems than those of industrial projects. The study foresees the role of university-MNC JRIs in promoting the innovation content of international industrial projects. This study expands on and enriches the conceptualization of the higher education internationalization by examining the overlaps of industrial, university and governmental perspectives at the micro level of analysis. It identifies and predicts the specific features and contributions of the Chinese university-based CRUs when these understructure-level research units are pulled into the process of R&D internationalization. ; published_or_final_version ; Education ; Doctoral ; Doctor of Philosophy

This book uses case studies of academic units from Australian public universities to explore the reasons why those units respond in different ways to similar contemporary challenges. The 'academic units' - departments, schools and faculties - in the world's public universities may be their own administrative fiefdoms, but the wider environment within which they operate is both complex and dynamic. In fact, today's academic landscape is barely recognizable from what it was like two decades ago. The globalization of higher education markets for students, faculty and research funding has expanded the challenges and opportunities for academic units beyond the boundaries of nation states. However, academic units must also deal with the diverse needs and expectations of national and local stakeholders, as well as operate within government regulatory and policy frameworks. In addition, they are required to adhere to policy and operational directives from institutional executives and consider the often-competing needs and expectations of other stakeholders such as faculty, students, employers, funding bodies and professional associations. As public funding slowly evaporates some university faculties have embraced the imperative to be more business-oriented. Others have shrunk from congress with Mammon. The milieu of tertiary education is having to adapt to fresh trends in this domain, such as the advocacy of marketization, entrepreneurialism and corporatization, the three pillars of so-called 'new public management'. With its case studies from different academic disciplines and types of university, this book asks some key questions: Why do some units adapt to environmental challenges and others resist change? How and why do academic units adopt different modes and processes of adaptation or resistance? Along with its new conceptual framework for the wider context, the text makes an important contribution to scholarship on leading and managing change in universities, while at the same time offering those in academic leadership positions relevant advice and practical suggestions to guide their units through these complex challenges. Where other academic studies have examined the university as an institution in its entirety, this focused study compares the decision-making on a lower rung of the administrative ladder.

Developing greater cooperation between researchers and practitioners is a long‐standing concern in social science. Academics and practitioners working together to coproduce research offers a number of potential gains for public administration scholarship, but it also raises some dilemmas. The benefits include bringing local knowledge to bear on the field, making better informed policy, and putting research to better use. However, coproduction of research also involves managing ambiguous loyalties, reconciling different interests, and negotiating competing goals. The authors reflect on their experience of coproducing a research project in the United Kingdom and discuss the challenges that coproducers of research confront. They situate the discussion within a consideration of traditions of public administration scholarship and debates about the role of the academy to understand better the politics of their joint practice. Thinking about the politics of coproduction is timely and enables the authors to become more attuned to the benefits and constraints of this mode of research..

The author describes three "anchors" in Israeli conceptions: about the Palestinians in Lebanon ("the Palestinian is a refugee"), about the PLO ("the Palestinian organizations are terrorist organizations"), and about the relations between the Palestinians and the PLO ("the Palestinians and the PLO are synonymous"); reactions of Israeli politicians, government officials and scholars to the invalidation of the anchors; the question of how academic research on issues of current political import contributes to the adjustment of entrenched socio-political anchors in these areas

Introduction / David D. Dill, Frans A. Van Vught -- Australia / V. Lynn Meek, Leo Goedegebuure, Jeannet Van Der Lee -- Canada / Donald Fisher, Kjell Rubenson -- Japan / Akira Arimoto -- The European Union / Frans A. Van Vught -- Finland / Seppo Hölttä -- Germany / Jürgen Enders -- The Netherlands / Ben Jongbloed -- The United Kingdom / Mary Henkel, Maurice Kogan -- The United States / David D. Dill -- Pennsylvania / Roger L. Geiger -- California / William M. Zumeta -- Conclusion / David D. Dill, Frans A. Van Vught