DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP … · The Department of Management and...

RAE2015 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TURKUPEER-EVALUATION REPORT

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIPTurku School of Economics

RAE2015 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TURKU PEER-EVALUATION REPORT

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP Turku School of Economics

Panel: Ann Jorissen (chair), Kirsimarja Blomqvist, Ted Fuller, Tage Madsen, Jaakko Pehkonen

1. OVERALL RATING OF THE UNIT – RATING: Good

The Department of Management and Entrepreneurship consists of three units. Management and Organisations covers the broad area of management, strategy and organisation studies. Entrepreneurship cover the area of entrepreneurship and innovation. Information Systems Science includes such areas as Management Information Systems, e-business, and social media

The research across the Department is highly commendable, with some excellent publications and projects and in a range of areas. The people in the Department should be congratulated on their worthwhile endeavours and contributions to knowledge.

Further developments are needed in the units of the Department if they are all to become internationally excellent in research quality.

The Department of Management and Entrepreneurship (The Department) does not yet feel or act as a department, but as three different units, which means that possible synergies are not fully developed, nor is the good experience of one unit used for collective development of the whole department.

The differences between the units in terms of research are considerable and therefore this report necessarily offers feedback and judgements on each area as well as the Department as a whole.

It is of particular concern that Management and Organisation (MO), as a subject area has shown a decline in research output and research funding, given the important of the subject in general to business education. It appears that the one tenured track person has left, one professor is permanently absent due to ill health, one professor has left and the remaining professors are not often in Turku, which dilutes their effective leadership.

2 / 16

2. Description of the research activity during the evaluation period 2010–2013 – RATING: Good

GENERAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

The units have been very active in research and have produced good results, ranging from sufficient to excellent. This has to be taken to a higher level through collaboration and focus.

As a whole, the Department recognises the imperative of a) higher quality research and b) external income generation for research.

The current situation of each unit (Management and Organisations MO; Entrepreneurship (E-ship); information Systems Science ISS) is different and hence their paths to research excellence (as higher peer-reviewed quality) are different.

MO: appears to be in the weakest position, despite having two of the most highly ranked papers in the assessment period. The unit appears to be lacking effective academic leadership. The plans for the future lack substance. Rating: Sufficient (despite two excellent publications, because the trajectory is unclear)

E-ship is a strong unit and has learned to develop high quality research outputs from its historic policy-oriented and practice beginnings. It is a strong player internationally. There is a danger that the resources and effectiveness of the unit will be diminished through an orientation to funding ‘Major’ teaching programmes. Rating: Excellent

ISS is strong nationally and is making its first serious moves to develop its international profile and capability, particularly with China. It may have to focus its efforts to achieve what it wants. Rating: Good

Scientific quality and innovativeness of the research activity

The period has produced some work of real excellence, in management/organisation, gender, entrepreneurship and computing education. No particular outstanding ‘breakthroughs’ are claimed. The best research outputs in each unit are excellent.

Main achievements in relation to the main resources: indicate strengths, weaknesses and other remarks

The addition of the dedicated entrepreneurship research unit has made quite a difference to the profile of the Department in this period. This integration need to be further consolidated over the next 3-5 years to provide synergy without losing its competitive focus.

Overall the outcomes are creditable for the resources involved, though a continued focus on raising the standards of research and publication to internationally excellent and outstanding level needs to continue.

3 / 16

Overall strengths and weaknesses: Strengths: A commitment to research, some excellent people Weaknesses: Unattractive to experienced international scholars, disparate groups.

Units’ Strength /Weaknesses Strengths: MO: previous high impact publications and good projects E-ship: strong identity, international networks, research practice doctoral support, external funding, research publications. ISS: strong national presence and external income, good potential in areas of research and China/Asian connections. Weaknesses: MO: remoteness of professors, high relative teaching loads, informal research support, lack of current direction. E-ship: concern over continued basic funding. ISS: lack of experience in international level research

3. Organisation and personnel during the evaluation period 2010–2013 – RATING: Sufficient


The Department is beginning to enhance the quality of academic research through development and greater focus on outputs. It has to develop attractive pathways for international talent as well.

1. The unit’s recruiting policy of researchers at various career stages

We understand that the department is changing its orientation in recruitment to be more international and to recruit academics able to generate research funds. So is everyone else. There is no clear strategy expressed with respect to facilitating international recruitment. For Finnish universities in general, international recruitment is difficult. The approaches used by the different units differ according to their experience and resources, but mainly relate to the personal networks of active international researchers.

The recruitment focus is early career via doctoral studentships in Finland (which do attract international students) and senior posts which are difficult to fill, plus internal promotion through merit.

More specifically: MO: no explicit strategy E-ship: strong level of visiting academics and external visits; mainly western, which improves research and publication quality. ISS: newly developed relationships with China in particular which look promising. There are two international staff China/Bangladesh in the unit.

4 / 16

2. Possibilities for researchers to proceed in their career

The ‘tenured track’ approach is not yet well established. It would seem that academics leave to develop their careers. However, some professors are ‘home grown’, which is good when balanced with the stimulus of external appointments.

The panel saw evidence of the inclusion of PhD student, post-docs, senior lecturers and professors, all of whom were research active and with some possibility of advancement through research.

It was difficult to assess the individual units in this respect, broadly with the levels of base funding in decline, opportunities for progression were possible, as evidenced by new post-docs, but limited.

3. Are the teachers and the researchers also actively involved in research and teaching, respectively? how do you see the balance between teaching and research?

Overall, the Department ranges from providing reasonable opportunities for researchers to be involved in teaching to a position which hinders the quality of research.

MO: has quite a high teaching proportion, with everyone in Turku teaching, including post-doc research fellows spending 50% of their time teaching. This was said to inhibit research, which is a credible claim. E-ship: there are teaching opportunities in minor subjects, though the focus was on research projects and outreach. At least one teacher is also doing a PhD (80/20) ISS : This unit has the greatest number of students and research fellows typically spend about 20% of their time teaching, so we understand.

Some of the PhD students in the Department are teachers with 20% of their time allocated to PhD studies (MO and ISS in particular)

4. Gender and equality issues: pay attention e.g. i) to good gender balance as well as the proportion of foreign personnel in the personnel groups in appendix A

Between 2011–13 there is an almost equal gender balance in the Department, other than what appears to be more M in the entrepreneurship activity introduced in 2013. The number of ‘foreign’ staff is reported to have grown from 1 to 6 in three years, though only 2 were mentioned in the interview (ISS).

In the interview it was reported that recruiting international staff was difficult, but that China and the international Masters degrees might generate more in the longer term. The number of staff with doctoral degrees awarded from outside Finland was zero in the period.

ii) to the parental leave issues and gender balance in Appendix B

The data in App. B appears to show good support for family life.

5 / 16

4. Research funding during the evaluation period 2010–2013 – RATING: Good


The issue is generating a bigger share of a reducing flow and obtaining new sources. Greater strategic collaboration is needed.

The research funding over the period has really been quite successful overall, with a number of AoF and Tekes grants as well as some international funds, mainly from Europe. This demonstrates the good to excellent capability of the Department.

The focus of this has to be on international quality research with good partnerships. A wider search of private foundations might also be considered in some specific areas.

Attention should be made to aligning research collaboration with research themes/programmes with emerging world challenges and with the imperatives and politics of funding streams.

A. The success and strategy of the unit in the competition for funding

Overall the research income for the unit has been about €1.3m per annum but declining, with the biggest decline in ‘other public funding’. AoF has reduced, but Tekes has increased . European funding is sporadic. The overall level is not outstanding, but does demonstrate competent research bidding and projects. The Academy professorship is certainly an accolade for the Department. The involvement of external networks is evident in the project descriptions provided.

At unit level:

MO: does not appear to have a pattern of significant funding generation nor do they appear to have a strategy for this. They have had one good project (circa €800k over 3 years, involving an impressive network of academic institutions who shared half the funding). There does not appear to have been any follow-on from this.

E-ship: The project focus seems to have worked very well for this unit. They have gained a range of projects, including prestigious AoF professorship and grants, totally around €3.5m 2010–2014. The continued success is also ongoing with, for example, a 5 year FiDiPRo from 2015.

ISS has also been successful with national projects such as SHOK and ERDF funds, and in collaboration with E-ship, on e-health and ageing (circa €1.2m). A good sign is a post-doc AoF award for value creation is social media (until 2015). Their new-found ability to tap into China funds for collaboration and research training has potential.

6 / 16

Overall, however, it would seem that a greater focus on conceptualising new research programmes, from an international research perspective, and bidding for funds is essential, in particular for MO, though also for ISS and even E-ship have to maintain progress.

B. Is the division of external funding into the different categories as shown in Appendix C appropriate?

Clearly the ratio of funding overwhelmingly national, as is the income for most business schools. The mix is understandable. Some growth may come from the Framework programme once re-established, but the focus should probably be on the Academy and Tekes for the more innovation oriented research. EU finding (H2020) will only work for research if they are tightly aligned to the longer term research programme and research capabilities of those involved. Remaining competitive for Tekes and AoF requires strong research programmes and international cooperation (AoF), as well as good private networks (e.g. for Tekes). These components are not so visible in the Department generally and should be a priority but aligned to specific research themes aligned to specific funding streams.

5. Infrastructure during the evaluation period 2010–2013 – RATING: Good


The Department needs to be clear about what ‘infrastructure’ as structural capital means, and how it is developed and maintained. There are opportunities to further develop these strategically.

A. Major strengths and weaknesses in the unit’s infrastructure

Overall the silence on infrastructure in the self-evaluation is a good thing, it shows that apart from the ISS, infrastructure is not a hindrance to research

The self-evaluation suggests that the most important form of infrastructure is the research network. If so, this notion could be developed much further if so. For instance with respect to research clients and users (e.g. firms, government etc.) as well as collaborators. Also, databases and longitudinal archives (such as GEM) provide a competitive structure for long term research and reputation.

Each unit should consider how to develop its structural capital, for example the possession of key resources such as longitudinal data, observatories, academic training and networks

B. Development of the infrastructure 2010–2013 in relation to research needs

The development of GEM, hosting of ECSB secretariat and establishment of TCLS in 2011 are examples which have contributed to the strengthening of networks.

7 / 16

C. Possible impact of the unit in developing research infrastructures

No specific instances were offered or discussed.

6. Scientific quality of research during 2010–2013 – RATING: Good

How would you evaluate the scientific quality of the unit’s research in relation to top national/international research? General comments and recommendations

A few outstanding achievements, some good development and room for improvement.

The self-report suggests room for improvement with respect to publications, noting that quality and quantity of publications do not necessarily correlate.

Clearly the Department is highly active in national and international research networks, most notably in Entrepreneurship. There are legitimate claims to some degree of esteem in the academic community as a result.

The self-evaluation would be improved had it actually explained what was the scientific contribution and quality actually, rather than describing the areas were covered.

The prizes listed reflect good quality work. Emerald (Literati) offers many prizes in recognition, but even so they are still a mark of esteem.

Best papers at ISBE and AOM are not easily achieved, and best paper in Org Studies is a particularly high achievement. Such awards are outstanding.

7. Publications 2010–2013 – RATING: Good


The balance of future papers should be JUFO2/3 rather than lower. Incentives for JUFO3 may need increasing. There are different approaches to improving the quality of research and publication in the three units. The Department should consider pooling their own best practice, such as the Journal club.

– How would you evaluate the publication policy and quality based on the examples of publications in the self-evaluation report and Appendixes D and E?

The self-evaluation report reflects the issue of quantity over quality. 300 papers over 3 years by about 50 people (App A), with 1/3 of these as professional or promotions outputs (useful in themselves)/ 173 international outputs, of which 111 rated 1–3 by outlet (App.D), an average of 2 rated international outputs over 3 years per person. Given the stated average of 70%

8 / 16

overall proportion of time to research, this average seems a little light, especially on quality. According to App D only 6 papers were published in JuFO3 journals in 3 years.

The Department’s policy of raising the level of international publication quality targeting JUFO3 journals and well-known higher impact journals should be pursued with vigour.

Our recommendation is to develop a) skills in writing up research for international publication b) thorough, in depth research and time spent in developing contributions to knowledge from the research, rather than simply reporting it c) a greater differentiation in the incentives for publishing in JUFO3 level journals, which takes considerably more time and effort.

Estimate the overall quality of the publications that the unit estimates as its most important ones.

The examples of outputs provided in self-evaluation demonstrate competent research. The publications listed are mainly international and most are probably in the range JUFO2-3. The highest ranking journals or Journal of Management Studies (1 article) Organisation Studies (1 article) Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice (1 article) and Journal of Business Venturing (2 articles, one of which already has 50 citations). Other papers are in slightly lower but still well-rated journals in the field (such as Computers and Education, Small Business Economics, International Journal of Human Resource Management) and several papers have double digit citations already (Scopus).

All in all this is creditable. The policy of working jointly with ‘external’ authors with a greater track record in high ranking publications appears to be working, and is most explicit in Entrepreneurship.

MO: Of the different research areas, Management and Organisations have fewer, but generally JUFO3 publications. The panel understands that two key authors in OB /MOrg will no longer be publishing for the Department for different reasons.

E-ship: have authored papers under the Management of Organisations (MOrg) list as well as entrepreneurship list. They have a good list of JUFO3 publications in world class journals, e.g. as shown as ABS 4 listing). The New Working Modes is being published in lower ranked journals in the period, perhaps because the research empirical data is still being collected. The behaviour and growth research seems more established.

ISS: have a reasonable list of journals articles. The social media and digital network research in ISS is not yet reaching higher journals, but has promise with the AoF grant in support. MIS and IS in learning as a more mature field is being published in JUFO 2 (and at least one JUFO3 journal. There is clearly room for improvement here.

Reading the actual articles, where available from online databases, gives the impression that the level of research and contributions to knowledge approximate to the journal rankings.

9 / 16

8. Doctoral training 2010–2013 as part of the scientific activity in the unit – RATING: Good/Excellent

How would you estimate the organisation and success of doctoral training in the unit?

There is a sound basis of doctoral training that must be maintained. Moves to focus on full time and good quality part time are a positive.

Overall the doctoral training is done well, making use of national (KATAJA, FDPE, INFORTE), European (e.g. EIASM) and international networks (e.g. iBEREA). The number of completions in the period is quite low considering the size of the whole Department (typically 3 per year).

There are about 20 active PhD students in the Department half of which are part time. Moves have been made to consolidate the over-running part time doctoral candidates and to focus more on full time and motivated part-time candidates all of whom link to the research interests of the Department.

PhD students are engaged in the TSE GS programme. They also see supervisors regularly.

In addition each unit has its own complementary approach:

MO: is said to use an informal system of support. Everyone can ask others for comments. E-ship: run some training of their own specifically to cover the entrepreneurship field. In addition they run a journal club, seminar discussion by professors and other colleagues based on two-page presentation and a ‘friendly review committee’. ISS: are involved with the local collaboration TISRA which runs seminars for PhD students, as well as the Maths and Computer science doctoral programme at the University. They have research team meetings that meet and discuss research, including doctoral research.

9. Researcher mobility – RATING: Good


International mobility is an important factor in developing world class research. It is not always easy to accomplish. The department shows that it can do this, but it should be much further developed in its scope and seriousness.

A. How would you evaluate researcher mobility in the unit

The team of visiting academics in Entrepreneurship is strong. The number of links and visits in ISS is also commendable. Overall data indicates in three years; 9 long outward visits, 3 long in-visits, 17 short out visits (half in 2013) and 20 short in-visits (less than one month). For an overall staffing level of 52 [10-12 in E-ship, 10-12 in M&O, 26-28, total= 46-52] , this is commendable, though there is probably scope for more in-coming longer visits, perhaps built on the shorter term ones. Internationally excellent research is best built through international partnerships which require significant time and relationship to achieve.

10 / 16

MO: There is little mobility, a lot of time spent teaching and a lack of attempt to recruit international collaborators. E-ship: In the self-evaluation, there are many examples of international mobility in this group, which has been active in this for a long time. ISS: The focus now is building on the international masters with partnership is Brazil and China in particular. ISS has at least 6 international PhD students at present. There are ‘loose coupled’ networks for collaboration with China.

Much necessary work is needed by professors ‘behind the scenes’ to develop international partnership and find good places for PhD students to go abroad. Where this has been done by some professors, it has been successful.

B. Has the unit succeeded in attracting international researchers?

The unit has attracted temporary international researchers to a range of interesting research topics, though it is not clear what the precise nature or length of time was involved in any particular case.

There has been collaboration on research and publication with high quality international researchers. The work on the gendered economy is good example.

The upcoming FiDiPro (e-ship/knowledge governance) is exemplary

Visiting professors are effective in the contribution both at Turku (and Pori) and also this continues at a distance in terms of doctoral and research support.

However, the data on where academic staff completed their PhDs indicates zero personnel with PhDs outside Finland on the permanent staff. This ‘local’ effect is now unusual in Business Schools in Europe and will hinder international development

10. International co-operation and partners 2010–2013 – RATING: Sufficient/Good


More international partnership and collaborations are needed with experienced partners

Where they exist, partnerships in the Department are built on particular projects and on the personal networks of academics.

A variety of types of partnerships and collaborative networks are engaged. However, if there is a ‘partnership strategy’, it is not clear.

As (the right) international partnerships are so important to developing research quality, a greater concentration of developing excellent partnership at individual and institutional level should be made.

11 / 16

A. Success and extent of international co-operation.

The list of projects show clearly that international collaboration is active in the Department. Each project has a different characteristic. For instance GEM is an international network of which Finland is one node. Framework 7 projects necessarily involve partnerships.

Nationally funded projects cite partners but it is not clear what the partners bring to the project, i.e. the extent of longer term partnership development and working.

Only in e-ship and related topics, is international research collaboration the norm at present, though MO has had a project with excellent international research collaboration in the period.

B. Has international co-operation provided clear extra value for the research?

Cooperation would appear to provide added value: some projects are necessarily multi-partners. Others have produced multi author publications.

International cooperation and national cooperation are both features of most of the major projects.

Each partnership needs to be scrutinised for its potential and actual value, even if this is difficult to assess in the short term. Partnerships are time-consuming and investment has to be focussed.

11. National co-operation partners 2010–2013 – RATING: Good


This seems quite effective on a project by project basis and is necessary for TEKES funding. It is not clear if long term strategic partnerships exist. Some may be reduced in favour of international partnerships.

A. Success and extent of national co-operation

The list of projects with partners is impressive and involves both co-researchers and end-users/clients, the latter being good for effective applied research. In particular E-ship and ISS have many active national partners in projects. Such partnerships are often a prerequisite for funding and have been effective in achieving funding.

B. Has the national co-operation provided clear extra value for the research?

It is quite difficult to judge this on limited evidence. The self-evaluation does not specifically explain the added value of the partnerships, merely stating their existence. The existence of partnerships in projects implies some value. Some partnerships are more related to shared learning than research outcomes.

12 / 16

12. Wide-range impact of research during 2010–2013 – RATING: Sufficient/Good

– How would you estimate the impact of the unit’s research on basic and applied research? General comments and recommendations

Generally this is unclear.

The self-evaluation tends not to differentiate between expertise and research. Individuals’ expertise is of course developed through their research, but is not the same thing. Areas in which research may have impact are described (such as evaluation studies). However no evidence is offered on the actual impact. For instance in ‘designing legislation and delivery’, a more explicit explanation of how this was used and to what effect would provide greater evidence than the unspecific term ‘helped’.

The descriptions do give some clues however, and it seems likely that there has been real contributions to the areas described, for example in the use of business analysis, problem solving for SMEs and reorganising activities in government, amongst others.

13. Innovations

– How would you evaluate the innovations (e.g. social innovations, co-operation with companies and TEKES projects, established companies, patents, innovation announcements) described in the unit’s self-evaluation report?

A claim is made to have contributed to firm innovation, but no other evidence is provided.

14. Special impact on the national and international scientific community 2010–2013 – RATING: Sufficient

– How would you evaluate the unit’s impact on scientific leadership as well as on the national and international scientific community?

A few individuals are making a contribution, Entrepreneurship makes an important internationally contribution, but the Department is not a recognised leader overall in management research.

The table (5) of examining and editorial activities does not state whether national or international. However, the contribution to the community by these activities is commendable. The conferences listed are all good national contributions. The more senior professors appear to be acting as leaders in science and education policy, including internationally. E-ship has taken a lead role, especially in European networks.

13 / 16

15. Research activity plan 2015–2018 – RATING: Sufficient


The overall research activity plan needs further development to harness the existing strengths of the Department and address its weaknesses.

A. Is the research activity plan feasible? How do you see the ratio of the planned investments and the aimed outcomes and impacts? Does the unit describe potential weaknesses that may affect reaching these aims? How are alternative approaches being considered?

MO: appears not to have stated a particular strategy, except ‘much the same’. This implies a spread of research interests. International linkages seem quite muted. They appointed a visiting professor in 2015 linking MO and International Business. They recognise the need to improve the quality of appropriate international links and the intensity of doctoral supervision in order to improve research quality and outputs. No specific key scientific areas are identified.

It seems that MO requires greater strategic direction. This is an important subject area for a Business School. Organisation Studies and Management may have some cross-over with ISS and E-ship at times (as a subject) but they have their own journals and bodies of knowledge. There is an opportunity to build critical mass in the unit by connecting to emerging themes in management and Org Studies, facilitated by one or two senior appointments. The panel was advised that the unit had ‘given up’ on strategy research, which is a serious weakness.

E-ship has a programme for developing their work, being Knowledge Governance, related to curriculum development. They imply a continuation in international partnerships. This is further enhanced via a collaborative Centre of Excellence which has received 5 year AoF funding for Distinguished Professor from 2015. The unit suggests that collaboration on research with ‘the best’ partners they can find internationally, nationally and locally is an appropriate strategy, which seems reasonable. They identify that recent structural trends challenge their capacity to sustain their important contributions. Two examples are (1) ‘block thinking’ of teaching programmes as the main organisational orientation (i.e. orientating basic funding to Major subjects), rather than multi disciplinarity and (2) the ‘decline in national funding’. The latter prompts greater international multidisciplinary collaborations (such as H2020), though the decline in income is not discernible from the unit’s 2011–2013 income.

IS Science is working in a field of continued growing interest and it one must question whether the unit is using its resources adequately to take advantage of this. The appointment of a visiting professor, emerging relationship with China and collaboration on Health and Well-being are good possible opportunities, but not yet strategic programmes. Some planning may be required to consolidate stronger positions. The overall size of the ISS unit is large considering the research outputs and funding, so increases might be expected from greater activity in designing international quality research and building research partnerships.

14 / 16

B. Estimate the potential of this research activity plan for significant new outcomes, scientific breakthroughs, scientific progress in this field, as well as its potential outcomes and impacts.

The self-evaluation does not really focus on the scientific aspects of the potential research, except with respect to Knowledge Governance, which is quite a broad topic. The document reads more descriptively about resources and areas of study. This is currently a weakness in presentation.

C. Can the panel foresee any potential scientific breakthroughs not considered by the unit itself?

It would certainly seem possible to explore the inter-relationships between the units within the department. However, the department should not become introverted as focussed strategic external partnerships are often more fruitful. However as a stated plan, there is inadequate explanation of the (social) science being undertaken to make much comment here.

D. Estimate the planned national and international co-operation and networks in light of the aimed outcomes and impacts.

In all units, there are good examples of international co-operation and this is necessary. Each potential development described appears to have some partnerships involved.

MO: this unit needs the most strategic development, which may come about with the appointment of a new chair, and further support to re-energise research in the unit. E-ship: The plans are ambitious and not without risk. In particular the absence of a Major subject makes them more vulnerable to funding cuts, unless their strategy, which offers some distinction to the university, is built into the university strategy. ISS: This area has multiple strands and some consolidation of these may be necessary as projects become clearer. The visiting professor is helping with this. Development with China seem promising in terms of access to data, and in the longer term, a stream of high class researchers. The quality resulting from these relationships needs to be monitored.

E. Estimate the potential of the described strategy for success in competition for funding.

The strategies are separate for each unit. There is no sense of a cohesive whole and no overall income generation strategy for research The movements by E-ship towards broader concepts of Knowledge Governance take it more into the managerial research. There are certainly more opportunities for collaboration within the Department. The themes of such possible collaboration are as yet largely unformed but do have some precedence in previous projects, such as e-ship and technology, gender and knowledge governance.

Success in funding requires a previous track record, state of art knowledge, themes which are compelling and access to data. The constituents of such programmes are within the grasp of the Department, once international partnerships are included. These need to be articulated, planned and led.

15 / 16

MO: The current strategy does not provide confidence in achieving success in funding competitions. E-Ship: has a good basis for further funding efforts, especially in combination with its existing partners, as well as possible new ones. ISS: is most likely to develop on the basis of its international degrees and China connection, which is a longer term perspective.

Summary of key recommendations The research across the Department is highly commendable, with some excellent publications and projects and in a range of areas. The people in the Department should be congratulated on their worthwhile endeavours and contributions to knowledge. The units have been very active in research and have produced good results, ranging from sufficient to excellent. This has to be taken to a higher level through collaboration and focus. Further developments are needed in the units of the Department if they are all to become internationally excellent in research quality. The Department is beginning to enhance the quality of academic research through development and greater focus on outputs. It has to develop attractive pathways to recruit international talent as well. The funding issue is generating a bigger share of a reducing flow and obtaining new sources. Greater strategic collaboration is needed. The focus of this has to be on international quality research with good partnerships. A wider search of private foundations might also be considered in some specific areas. Remaining competitive for Tekes and AoF requires strong research programmes and international cooperation (AoF), as well as good private networks (e.g. for Tekes). These components are not so visible in the Department generally and should be a priority but aligned to specific research themes aligned to specific funding streams. Overall a greater focus on conceptualising new research programmes, from an international research perspective, and bidding for funds is essential, in particular for MO, though also ISS and E-ship have to maintain progress. Attention should be made to aligning research collaboration with research themes/programmes with emerging world challenges and with the imperatives and politics of funding streams. The Department needs to be clear about what ‘infrastructure’ as structural capital means, and how it is developed and maintained. There are opportunities to further develop these strategically. The balance of academic articles should be JUFO2/3 rather than lower. Incentives for JUFO3 may need increasing. Our recommendation is to develop a) skills in writing up research for international publication b) thorough, in depth research and time spent in developing contributions to knowledge from the research, rather than simply reporting it c) a greater

16 / 16

differentiation in the incentives for publishing in JUFO3 level journals, which takes considerably more time and effort. There is a sound basis of doctoral training that must be maintained. Moves to focus on full time and good quality part time are a positive. International mobility is an important factor in developing world class research. It is not always easy to accomplish. The department shows that it can do this, but it should be much further developed in its scope and seriousness. More international partnership and collaborations are needed with experienced partners. As (the right) international partnerships are so important to developing research quality, a greater concentration of developing excellent partnership at individual and institutional level should be made. Each partnership needs to be scrutinised for its potential and actual value, even if this is difficult to assess in the short term. Partnerships are time-consuming and investment has to be focussed. Some national partnerships may need to be reduced as a priority in favour of international partnerships A few individuals are making a contribution to the international scientific community. Entrepreneurship makes an important internationally contribution, but the Department is not a recognised leader overall in management research. The overall research activity plan needs further development to harness the existing strengths of the Department and address its weaknesses.

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP … · The Department of Management and...

Documents

Transcript of DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP … · The Department of Management and...