Benchmarking research development in nursing: Curran's competitive advantage as a framework for excellence

Journal of Research in Nursing

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 269-287

  James, Veronica ^a   Clark, Jill Macleod ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b Faculty of Medicine   (Malaysia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Excellence; Health professions; Nursing; RAE; Research; Strategy

Indexed keywords

EID: 46249130339     PISSN: 17449871     EISSN: 1744988X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1744987107077527     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Anonymous, http://www.brookes.ac.uk/schools/bms/ research/THESarticle. doc!, downloaded 20.06.04.
2. Antony, D. (2005) The nursing research assessment exercise 2001: an analysis. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing 9: 4 - 12.
3. Blackmore, P. (2000) Some problems in the analysis of academic expertise. Teacher Development 4: 45 - 63.
4. Bonell, C. (1999) Evidence-based nursing: a stereotyped view of quantitative and experimental research could work against professional autonomy and authority. Journal of Advanced Nursing 30: 18 - 23.
5. Bradshaw, T. (2002) The joint funding bodies' review of research assessment. London: CBI, Confederation of British Industry.
6. Cecil, R., Thompson, K. et al. (2005) The research assessment exercise in nursing: learning from the past, looking to the future. Journal of Clinical Nursing 14: 1 - 8.
7. CoD (2005) 2005 survey of nursing & allied health professions education staff. Council of Deans & Heads of UK University Faculties for Nursing & Health Professions.
8. Curran, P. (2000) Competition in UK Higher Education: competitive advantage in the Research Assessment Exercise and Porter's diamond model. Higher Education Quarterly 54: 386 - 410.
9. Curran, P.J. (2001) Competition in UK Higher Education: Applying Porter's Diamond to Geography departments. Studies in Higher Education 26: 2.
10. Elton, L. (2000) The UK Research Assessment Exercise: unintended consequences. Higher Education Quarterly 54: 274 - 283.
11. Farrant, J., Billing, D. et al. (2003) Operational Review of the Research Assessment Exercise 2001. Milton Keynes, Universitas, Higher Education Management Consultants.
12. Gilbert, N. (2006) RAE reforms go too far, Russell Group says. Research Fortnight 261: 1.
13. Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1965) Awareness of dying. New York: Aldine Publishing Company.
14. Hare, P. (2002) The UK's Research Assessment Exercise: impact on institutions, departments, individuals. OECD Conference on Higher Education, Paris.
15. Hefce (2001) Research in Nursing and Allied Health Professions: Task Group 3 to HEFCE and the Department of Health. London: HEFCE.
16. Hicks, C., Hennessy, D. (1997) Mixed messages in nursing research: their contribution to the persisting hiatus between evidence and practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing 25: 595 - 601.
17. Institute of Higher Education (2005) Academic Ranking of World Universities. Shanghai.
18. McKay, S. (2003) Quantifying Quality: can quantitative data ('metrics') explain the 2001 ratings for Social Policy & Administration. SocialPolicy & Administration 37: 444 - 467.
19. McLeay, S. (2004) Reconciling RAE 2001 with RAE 2008.
20. Morley, L. (2005) The micropolitics of quality. Critical Quarterly 47: 83 - 95.
21. Newby, H. (2004) Rough assessment ? The Guardian, Education 23.11.04.
22. Nursing and Midwifery Council (2005) Statistical analysis of the register: 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, London.
23. Owens, B. (2006) Social scientists seek to fill void in post RAE thinking. Research Fortnight 261: 5.
24. Piercy, N. (2000) Why it is fundamentally stupid for a business school to try to improve its research assessment exercise score. European Journal of Marketing 34: 27 - 35.
25. Porter, M. (1990) The competitive advantage of nations. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
26. Porter, M. (1998) The competitive advantage of nations (with a new introduction by the author) Basingstoke: Macmillan.
27. Rafferty, A.M., Traynor, M. et al. (2000) Measuring outputs of the nursing R&D. London: Centre for Policy on Nursing Research.
28. Rafferty, A.M., Traynor, M. et al. (2003) Research in nursing, midwifery and the allied health professions: quantum leap required for research quality. British Medical Journal 326: 833 - 834.
29. Robinson, J., Watson, R. et al. (2002) The United Kingdom Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2001. Journal of Advanced Nursing 37: 497 - 498.
30. Thompson, D., Watson, R. (2001) Academic Nursing- what is happening to it and where is it going. Journal of Advanced Nursing 36: 1 - 2.
31. Traynor, M., Rafferty, A.M. (1998) Nursing Research and the Higher Education Context, Centre for Policy in Nursing Research.
32. Von Tunzelmann, N., Kraemer Mbula, E. (2003) Changes in research assessment practices in other countries since 1999: final report.
33. Watson, R. (1997) United Kingdom Universities' Research Assessment Exercise 1996: Critique, comment & concern (editorial). Journal of Advanced Nursing 26: 641 - 642.
34. West, M., Smith, H. et al. (1998) Research excellence and departmental climate in British universities. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 71: 261 - 281.