Introducing business school research and positive impact
Typically, there are three main priorities, and dimensions, which interact with each other as business schools frame their visions and missions of enhancing management knowledge and producing distinctive management theories and insights. First, the processes of knowledge generation and development t...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/lkcsb_research/7476 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/lkcsb_research/article/8475/viewcontent/10.4324_9781003467410_1_pvoa_cc_by_nc_nd__1_.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | Typically, there are three main priorities, and dimensions, which interact with each other as business schools frame their visions and missions of enhancing management knowledge and producing distinctive management theories and insights. First, the processes of knowledge generation and development to produce high quality, often multi-disciplinary research outputs involving academic faculty, doctoral students and ‘tri-sector’ participants. Second, knowledge dissemination in teaching and learning activities enabling the growth of quality education at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and thus contributing to student intellectual growth and societal socio-economic development and advancement. Third, knowledge transfer through ‘tri-sector’ collaboration, engagement and practice enhancements that is translating academic knowledge into meaningful impacts for potential implementation by key stakeholders. Internationally the standard quantitative output measure for research merit and excellence is the number, and citations, of so-called high impact publications in leading A-star journals. These measures are widely critiqued by many academics, who are against the use of journal impact factors as a measure of research quality. |
|---|