12 SES 14 B JS, Educational Research Infrastructure
Joint Paper Session NW 09 and NW 12
Intellectual capital is a concept that is achieving researcher’s attention day by day. Education sector especially universities were selected because it plays a critical role for the development and growth of knowledge intensive sector. In this research study our sample are composed by the financial support and evaluating, number of researchers and bibliometric indicators in research units in Portugal. Reliability analysis is conducted to check the reliability of constructs and Pearson’s correlation is applied to explore the relationship of these variables. Results indicate that the relation of human capital is more prominent with intellectual capital and can be interpreted us a product (Publications) and measured like an input.
The aim of this paper is to analyse some fundamental challenges regarding the measurement of the intellectual capital (IC) of Units Research (UR). The paper reviews the main initiatives concerning the measurement, management and disclosure of intellectual capital (IC) in UR. Those organisations also are facing the challenge of managing intangible in their value creation process. Several researchers have linked some elements of IC – Intellectual Capital (human, structural and relational capital) to performance indicators in firms. However, IC is still not being sufficiently implemented in universities and similar knowledge-based organisations. Three main initiatives are remarkable throughout the academic literature: (1) the ICU-Report; (2) the Danish IC Guidelines (Industry 2000) and (3) the Austrian Research Centres initiative.
There are a lack of a more holistic model for managerial purposes, however there are original matrix including performance indicators of the three missions of a university (teaching, researching and transferring), trying to relate them with their possible causal IC elements. European public policies regarding Higher Education are highlighting the role of such institutions in the knowledge-based economies. As stated by Commission (2003) the main goals of universities must be production, diffusion and knowledge transferring. Other authors, who define the main goals of a university today, state similar idea (Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzman, S.; Scott, P. and Two 1994); Bueno Campos 2007).
The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between Intellectual Capital (IC) and the evaluation of the Portuguese Research Units (RU) given by the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). In particular the aim is to argue that in these Research Units, the evaluations of IC is related to Financial Support (FS) and Bibliometric Indicators (BI). The article tests the BI/FS relationship at the Research Units in Portugal, by surveying the inputs products of full time researchers’ members. The survey addresses, in particular, the financial support given by Portuguese FCT to Researcher Units measured by bibliometric. The results suggest that RU evaluations are indeed related to thematic scientific area and not with IC. The survey addresses, in particular, the factors that promote the RU evaluations and their perception, like bibliometric indicators as input products, of IC in ours Universities. The evaluation of the survey was limited to a period of 2007 to 2010 and we apply correlation analysis and linear multiple regression between variables. The findings may be more substantive if the sample were on in a recent period, because it would be great to compare difference in governance achievements.
Universities assets are human capital (faculty) and relational capital (students) besides structural capital. In popular belief Intellectual Capital is associated with “human capital” or “knowledge.” The term Intangible Assets encompasses not only the contents of researcher’s minds but also the complex intangible structure that surrounds them and makes the organisation function. There is no measurement corresponding to the monetary unit on a balance sheet. It is marked by ethical concerns about including human capital on a balance sheet. Placing a price on individual’s research can send a message that researchers may be substituted for other forms of capital. Intellectual capital measures should take into account the different qualities of output – the output of the organisation (e.g. publication, a training course), and the output of the researcher/user (e.g. problem solved). The system should help the organisations involved to identify what works and what does not work. Results should not be punitive. From the presented elements it is possible to uncover a plurality of operations and measurement methods related to intellectual capital. It should be noted that none of these forms of operationalization and measurement is consensually chosen as the best way to operationalize and measure this concept. It is non-financial capital. The findings have several important implications. First, the results demonstrated a significantly positive association between the Researchers and Publications, Financial Support and Research Area while researcher’s and research area are not significant. Additionally indicates that traditional financial support has a negative association with the research area, it underlines the bibliometric research used by the FCT to justify the funding provided. Nevertheless, the findings subvert the prevailing understanding that human capital, structural capital, and social capital are unique forms of introducing knowledge in society, ensuring that wisdom and quality are correctly evaluate.
Boisot, M., 2002. The creation and sharing of knowledge C. W. y Choo & N. Bontis, eds., USA: Oxford University Press. Bontis, N., 1999. Intellectual Capital: An Exploratory Study that Develops Measures and Models. Management Decision,, 36(2), pp.63–76. Bontis, N., 1996. There’s a Price on Your Head: Managing Intellectual Capital Strategically. Business Quarterly, 60(4), pp.40–78. Bueno Campos, 2007. La Tercera Misión De La Universidad: El Reto De La Transferencia Del Conocimiento. Revista madrid, marzo-abri(41). Cañibano, L. and Sánchez, M.P., 2009. Intangibles in: Universities: Current Challenges for Measuring and Reporting. Journal of Human Resource Costing & Accounting,, 13(2), pp.93–104. Commission, E., 2006. Reporting Intellectual Capital to Augment Research, Development and Innovation in SMEs. Report to the Commission of the High Level Expert Group on RICARDIS. Encourage corporate measuring and reporting on research and other forms of intellectual capital., European Commission, Europe. Commission, E., 2003. The Role of Universities in the Europe of Knowledge, Communication from the Commission of 5 February 2003. Edvinsson, L; Malone, M.S., 1997. Intellectual capital: Realizing your company’s true value by finding its hidden brainpower., New York: Harper Business. Edvinsson, L. and Sullivan, P., 1996. Developing a Model for Managing Intellectual Capital. European Management Journal, 14(4), pp.356–364. Fitz-enz, 2000. The ROI of human capital: measuring the economic value of employee performance, New York: Amacon. Gibbons, M.; Limoges, C.; Nowotny, H.; Schwartzman, S.; Scott, P. and Two, M., 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, London: Sage Publications. Gratton, L.; Ghoshal, S., 2003. Managing personal human capital: new ethos for the “volunter” employee. European Management Journal, 21(1), pp.1–10. Hall, R., 1992. The Strategic Analysis of Intangible Resources. Strategic Management Journal, 13(2), pp.135–144. Industry, M. of T. and, 2000. A guide for Intellectual capital statement, Danish Agency for Trade and Industry, Copenhaga, November 2000. Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.., 1996. Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System. Harvard Business Review,, 74(1), pp.75–85. McGregor, J.; Tweed, D. and Pech, R., 2004. Human Capital in the New Economy: Devil’s Bargain? Journal of Intellectual Capital,, 5(1), pp.25–46. Nkomo, S.., 1987. Human resource planning and organization performance: An exploratory analysis. Strategic Management Journal, 8(4), pp.387–398. OCDE, 1996. Measuring what peple know: Human Capital accounting for the knowledge economy, Paris.
00. Central Events (Keynotes, EERA-Panel, EERJ Round Table, Invited Sessions)
Network 1. Continuing Professional Development: Learning for Individuals, Leaders, and Organisations
Network 2. Vocational Education and Training (VETNET)
Network 3. Curriculum Innovation
Network 4. Inclusive Education
Network 5. Children and Youth at Risk and Urban Education
Network 6. Open Learning: Media, Environments and Cultures
Network 7. Social Justice and Intercultural Education
Network 8. Research on Health Education
Network 9. Assessment, Evaluation, Testing and Measurement
Network 10. Teacher Education Research
Network 11. Educational Effectiveness and Quality Assurance
Network 12. LISnet - Library and Information Science Network
Network 13. Philosophy of Education
Network 14. Communities, Families and Schooling in Educational Research
Network 15. Research Partnerships in Education
Network 16. ICT in Education and Training
Network 17. Histories of Education
Network 18. Research in Sport Pedagogy
Network 19. Ethnography
Network 20. Research in Innovative Intercultural Learning Environments
Network 22. Research in Higher Education
Network 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Network 24. Mathematics Education Research
Network 25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Network 26. Educational Leadership
Network 27. Didactics – Learning and Teaching
The programme is updated regularly (each day in the morning)
- Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
- Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
- Search for authors and in the respective field.
- For planning your conference attendance you may want to use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference
- If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.