Suchergebnisse

The federal government withdrew from the field of direct financial support of universities in 1967 under provisions of the new Act. Along with the full responsibility for university finance, the federal government transferred to each province certain tax revenues and a post-secondary education adjustment payment to bring the total financial transfer to at least 50 per cent of the allowable operating cost of post-secondary education. Costs allowable under the Act exclude capital costs, federal grants, student aid, and income for assisted, sponsored, and contract research. The federal councils and agencies continue to be the primary contributors to university research funds. The purpose of this note is to determine the current financial contribution of the government of Canada to university research. Much of the problem is its definition. To establish the framework for this definition, three sets of ideas are explored. These are: direct and indirect costs of university research, university research as an embedded activity, and the problem of relating university activity costs to incomes received from specific sources. These notions lead to formulae which yield divergent alternatives of the federal contribution depending upon the set of assumptions deemed appropriate. Much of the data needed for these calculations were gathered from primary sources and illustrate the application of the formulae for the four-year period 1966–70.

New Public Management unterstützt Universitäten und Forschungseinrichtungen dabei, in einem stark wettbewerbsorientierten Forschungsumfeld zu bestehen. Entscheidungen unter Unsicherheit, z.B. die Verteilung von Mitteln für den Forschungsbedarf und Forschungszwecke, erfordert von Politik und Hochschulmanagement, die Beziehungen zwischen den Dimensionen der Forschungsleistung und den resultierenden oder eingehenden Zuschüssen zu verstehen. Hierfür ist es wichtig, die Variablen der wissenschaftlichen Wissensproduktion auf der Ebene von Individuen, Forschungsgruppen und Universitäten zu untersuchen. Das Kapitel 2 dieser Arbeit analysiert die Ebene der Individuen. Es verwendet die Beobachtungen der Forscherprofile von Handelsblatt (HB), Research Papers in Economics (RePEc, hier RP) und Google Scholar (GS) als meist verbreitete Ranking-Systeme in BWL und VWL im deutschsprachigen Raum. Das Kapitel 3 liefert eine empirische Evidenz für die Ebene von Forschungsgruppen und verwendet die Daten eines Sonderforschungsbereichs (SFB) zu Finanzinputs und Forschungsoutput von 2005 bis 2016. Das Kapitel beginnt mit der Beschreibung passender Performanzindikatoren, gefolgt von einer innovativen visuellen Datenanalyse. Im Hauptteil des Kapitels untersucht die Arbeit mit Hilfe eines Zeit-Fixed-Effects-Panel- Modells und eines Fixed-Effects-Poisson-Modells den Zusammenhang zwischen finanziellen Inputs und Forschungsoutputs. Das Kapitel 4 beschäftigt sich mit dem Niveau der Universitäten und untersucht die Interdependenzstruktur zwischen Drittmittelausgaben, Publikationen, Zitationen und akademischem Alter mit Hilfe eines PVARX-Modells, einer Impulsantwort und einer Zerlegung der Prognosefehlervarianz. Abschließend befasst sich das Kapitel mit den möglichen Implikationen für Politik und Entscheidungsfindung und schlägt Empfehlungen für das universitäre Forschungsmanagement vor. ; New Public Management helps universities and research institutions to perform in a highly competitive research environment. Decision making in the face of uncertainty, for example distribution of funds for research needs and purposes, urges research policy makers and university managers to understand the relationships between the dimensions of research performance and the resulting or incoming grants. Thus, it is important to accurately reflect the variables of scientific knowledge production on the level of individuals, research groups and universities. Chapter 2 of this thesis introduces an analysis on the level of individuals. The data are taken from the three widely-used ranking systems in the economic and business sciences among German-speaking countries: Handelsblatt (HB), Research Papers in Economics (RePEc, here RP) and Google Scholar (GS). It proposes a framework for collating ranking data for comparison purposes. Chapter 3 provides empirical evidence on the level of research groups using data from a Collaborative Research Center (CRC) on financial inputs and research output from 2005 to 2016. First, suitable performance indicators are discussed. Second, main properties of the data are described using visualization techniques. Finally, the time fixed effects panel data model and the fixed effects Poisson model are used to analyze an interdependency between financial inputs and research outputs. Chapter 4 examines the interdependence structure between third-party expenses (TPE), publications, citations and academic age using university data on individual performance in different scientific areas. A panel vector autoregressive model with exogenous variables (PVARX), impulse response functions and a forecast error variance decomposition help to capture the relationships in the system. To summarize, the chapter addresses the possible implications for policy and decision making and proposes recommendations for university research management.

Since the mission of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the purposes of the universities do not coincide, the question whether this is pragmatically important is examined. Relevant events in recent history are mentioned, and the reasons given in support of DoD funding of university research are summarized. Five consequences of such support are then discussed: distortion of the balance between research fields, change of emphasis within research fields, classification and other restrictions, consequences for graduate students, and political consequences. Social responsibility for the end use of research is then considered, and it is suggested that social responsibility should become an important university criterion of excellence. The article concludes that the negative consequences of DoD funding far outweigh its perceived benefits, and suggests that the universities should work to establish a strong civilian base of research funding instead of lobbying for DoD support.

To approach the problem of research misconduct sensibly, we need a better understanding of not only the incidence of misconduct but also alternative mechanisms for handling allegations. Universities with well-developed mechanisms might provide support and information to institutions newly confronting such issues. Reconsideration and articulation of standards will help, but all efforts must be balanced with attention to how they may affect the U.S. research system overall.