Relating universities' research performance and cities' cultural capital in global university rankings

620 views
546 views

Published on

Presented at the 18th Nordic Workshop on BIbliometrics and Research Policy, October 28-29, KTH Royal School of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
620
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Relating universities' research performance and cities' cultural capital in global university rankings

  1. 1. THE 18TH NORDIC WORKSHOP ON BIBLIOMETRICS AND RESEARCH POLICY OCTOBER 28-29, KTH ROYAL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY, STOCKHOLM Relating universities’ research performance and cities’ cultural capital in global university rankings Nicolás Robinson-García, Clara Calero-Medina & Thed N. van Leeuwen EC3 Research Group University of Granada Spain CWTS Leiden University The Netherlands
  2. 2. Background
  3. 3. Background Problems when using bibliometric indicators 1. More papers and more citations do not necessarily translate to wealth 2. Input and context are important
  4. 4. Background Unidirectional model Input Triple Helix Model Output University Investment → Results Research → Innovation Market State
  5. 5. Background University Innovation Market Knowledge Infra-structure State Political Economy Leydesdorff (2010)
  6. 6. Background
  7. 7. Research question 1. Industry indicators a. Regional GDP b. % Industry investment in R&D c. % Regional manpower Input 2. Teaching indicators a. Academic staff b. PhD staff c. Students 3. Structural indicators Context Output a. University type b. University age 4. Bibliometric /research indicators Bordons et al., 2010
  8. 8. Research question 1. Industry indicators a. Regional GDP b. % Industry investment in R&D c. % Regional manpower Input 2. Teaching indicators a. Academic staff b. PhD staff c. Students 3. Structural indicators Context Output a. University type b. University age 4. Bibliometric /research indicators Bordons et al., 2010
  9. 9. Research question 1. Industry indicators a. Regional GDP b. % Industry investment in R&D c. % Regional manpower Input 2. Teaching indicators a. Academic staff b. PhD staff c. Students 3. Structural indicators Context Output a. University type b. University age 4. Bibliometric /research indicators Bordons et al., 2010
  10. 10. Research question 1. Industry indicators a. Regional GDP b. % Industry investment in R&D c. % Regional manpower Input 2. Teaching indicators a. Academic staff b. PhD staff c. Students 3. Structural indicators Context Output a. University type b. University age 4. Bibliometric /research indicators Bordons et al., 2010
  11. 11. Research question Bordons et al., 2010
  12. 12. Hypothesis
  13. 13. Hypothesis It is in fact impossible to account for the structure and functioning of the social world unless one reintroduces capital in all its forms and not solely in the one form recognized by economic theory. Economy theory […] defines as disinterested those forms of exchange which ensure the transsubstantiation whereby the most material types of capital – those which are economic in the restricted sense – can present themselves in the immaterial form of cultural capital or social capital and vice versa. Pierre Bourdieu, 1986
  14. 14. Hypothesis Forms of cultural capital  Embodied. Intrinsic in the mind and body  Objectified. Books, monuments … pictures, museums,  Institutionalized. Educational qualifications …
  15. 15. Hypothesis Where do we find cultural capital?
  16. 16. Hypothesis The image of cities 1 2 3 4 5 6 • Urban attractiveness • Transport infrastructure • Historical heritage • Environment • Social problems • Culture 7 8 9 10 11 12 • Innovation & business culture • Economy and commerce • Services • Education - University • International projection • Self-perception Luque-Martínez et al. (2007)
  17. 17. Hypothesis The Creative Class • It contributes to innovative production • It grows from weak links in social networks (heterogeneity) • It is based on the principle that cities most not only attract firms but also people • Larger regions attract and retain the creative class
  18. 18. Hypothesis The school should pay attention primarily to those strengths in which it possesses a differential advantage, that is, it can outperform competitors on that dimension. For example, Georgetown University not only has an excellent international studies program, but its location in Washington, D.C., gives it a differential advantage in pursuing preeminence in this area of study. Kotler & Murphy, 1981
  19. 19. Hypothesis How can we measure the cultural capital of cities ?
  20. 20. Hypothesis Which variables do we think are important for the analysis? • Population of the city • Specific variables that could help to understand the position of the university in the city – % of students of the population – Number of campus of the university and their location in the city • Culturally relevant variables : – – – – – – Number of museums Number of libraries Number of concert halls Number of theaters and movie theaters Number of parks ….
  21. 21. Research question
  22. 22. THE 18TH NORDIC WORKSHOP ON BIBLIOMETRICS AND RESEARCH POLICY OCTOBER 28-29, KTH ROYAL SCHOOL OF TECHNOLOGY, STOCKHOLM Relating universities’ research performance and cities’ cultural capital in global university rankings Nicolás Robinson-García, Clara Calero-Medina & Thed N. van Leeuwen EC3 Research Group University of Granada Spain CWTS Leiden University The Netherlands
  23. 23. Hypothesis Approach 1. Analysis of the relation between cities’ size and universities’ research performance
  24. 24. Approach 1. Evidences Bettencourt & West, 2010
  25. 25. Approach 1. Temptative analysis Relating research impact with population

×