Academic governance: disciplines and policy

Academic Governance: Disciplines and Policy

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 1-191

  Lewis, Jenny M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84917090491     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203754085     Document Type: Book

References (231)

1. Abbott, Andrew. 2001. Chaos of disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Adams, Jonathan. 2008. Strategic review of the performance-based research fund. Wellington, NZ: Tertiary Education Commission.
3. Adler, Nancy J., and Anne-Wil Harzing. 2009. “When knowledge wins: Tran-scending the sense and nonsense of academic rankings.” Academy of Management Learning and Education 8(1):72–95.
4. AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council). 2009. Research funding guide. London: Arts and Humanities Research Council.
5. Åkerlind, Gerlese S. 2007. “Academic freedom in the social sciences: The freedom to serve society.” in Autonomy in social science research: The view from the United Kingdom and Australian universities, edited by Carole Kayrooz, Gerlese S. Åkerlind, and Malcom Tight, 31–46. Oxford: Elsevier.
6. Amabile, Teresa. 1998. “How to kill creativity.” Harvard Business Review Sep–Oct. 1998: 77–87.
7. Andrade, Helga Bermeo, Ernesto de los Reyes López, and Tomas Bonavia Martín. 2009. “Dimensions of scientific collaboration and its contribution to the aca-demic research groups’ scientific quality.” Research Evaluation 18(4):301–311.
8. ARC (Australian Research Council). 2008. ERA indicator principles. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
9. ARC (Australian Research Council). 2010. “Australian Research Council ERA 2010.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.arc.gov.au/era/era_2010/archive/2010faq.htm#2010.
10. ARC (Australian Research Council). 2012. “Australian Research Council National Competitive Grants Program.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.arc.gov.au/ncgp/default.htm.
11. Archambault, Éric, and Étienne Vignola Gagné. 2004. The use of bibliometrics in the social sciences and humanities (science-metrix final report). Montreal: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC).
12. Association of University Teachers. 2004. “UK academic staff 2002–3: Gender and research activity in the 2001 Research Assessment Exercise.” London: Association of University Teachers.
13. Auckland University of Technology 2012. “AUT history 1995–2000.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.aut.ac.nz/about-aut/aut-timeline.
14. Bakker, Leon, Jonathan Boston, Lesley Campbell, and Roger Smyth. 2006. Evaluating the Performance-Based Research Fund: Framing the debate. Wellington, NZ: Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University of Wellington.
15. Barker, Katharine. 2007. “The UK Research Assessment Exercise: The evolution of a national research evaluation system.” Research Evaluation 16(1):3–12.
16. Barnett, Ronald. 2000. Realizing the university in an age of supercomplexity. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
17. Beaver, Donald. 2004. “Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority?” Scientometrics 60(3):399–408.
18. Becher, Tony, and Paul R. Trowler. 2001. Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines, 2nd ed. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
19. Bentley, Peter James, and Svein Kyvik. 2012. “Academic work from a comparative perspective: A survey of faculty working times across 13 countries.” Higher Education 63:529–547.
20. Berlyne, Daniel E. 1954. “A theory of human curiosity.” British Journal of Psychology 45:180–191.
21. Bernard, G. W. 2000. “History and research assessment exercises.” Oxford Review of Education 26(1):95–106.
22. Biglan, Anthony. 1973a. “The characteristics of subject matter in diff erent academic areas.” Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3):195–203.
23. Biglan, Anthony. 1973b. “Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments.” Journal of Applied Psychology 57(3):204–213.
24. Bleiklie, Ivar, and Haldor Byrkjeflot. 2003. “Changing knowledge regimes: Universities in a new research environment.” Higher Education 44:519–532.
25. Boston, Jonathan, Brendan Mischewski, and Roger Smyth. 2005. “Performance-based research fund: Implications for research in the social sciences and social policy.” Social Policy Journal of New Zealand 24:55–84.
26. Bozeman, Barry, and P. Craig Boardman. 2003. Managing the new multipurpose, multidiscipline university research centers: Institutional innovation in the academic community. Washington, DC: IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.
27. Bozeman, Barry, and Elizabeth Corley. 2004. “Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital.” Research Policy 33:599–616.
28. Bozeman, Barry, James S. Dietz, and Monica Gaughan. 2001. “Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation.” International Journal of Technology Management 22(7/8):716–740.
29. Bozeman, Barry, and Monica Gaughan. 2011. “How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers.” Research Policy 40:1393–1402.
30. Brass, Daniel J. 1985. ‘Men’s and women’s networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization.’ Academy of Management Journal 28:327–343.
31. Brass, Daniel J., Kenneth D. Butterfield, and Bruce C. Skaggs. 1998. “Relation-ships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective.” Academy of Management Review 23(1):14–31.
32. Brew, Angela. 2007. “Academic autonomy and research decision-making: The researcher’s view.” in Autonomy in social science research: The view from the United Kingdom and Australian universities, edited by Carole Kayrooz, Gerlese S. Åkerlind, and Malcom Tight, 47–64. Oxford: Elsevier.
33. Brew, Angela, and Lisa Lucas. 2009. “Introduction: Academic research and researchers.” in Academic research and researchers, edited by Angela Brew and Lisa Lucas, 1–12. Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
34. Butler, Linda. 2002. “A list of published papers is no measure of value: The present system rewards quantity, not quality—but hasty changes could be as bad.” Nature 419(6910):877.
35. Butler, Linda. 2003. “Modifying publication practices in response to funding formulas.” Research Evaluation 12(1):39–46.
36. Byrnes, Dolores. 2007. “Narrating the university: Values across disciplines.” in Bright satanic mills: Universities, regional development and the knowledge economy,edited by Alan Harding, Alan Scott, Stephan Laske, and Christian Burtscher, 133–148. Aldershot: Ashgate.
37. Cameron, Noel. 2007. “Impact factors and research quality.” Annals of Human Biology 34(1):13–15.
38. Capano, Giliberto. 2011. “Government continues to do its job: A comparative study of governance shifts in the higher education sector.” Public Administration 89(4):1622–1642.
39. Cave Martin, Steve Hanney, Mary Henkel, and Maurice Kogan. 1988. The use of performance indicators in higher education. The challenge of the quality movement, 3rd ed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
40. Christensen, Tom. 2011. “University governance reforms: Potential problems of more autonomy?” Higher Education 62:503–517.
41. Clark, Burton. 1983. “The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective.” Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
42. Clark, Burton. 1996. “Substantive growth and innovative organization: New categories for higher education research.” Higher Education 32:417–430.
43. Cohcrane, William, Michael Law, and Tom Ryan. 2005. The 2003 experience: A survey of academic staff at the University of Waikato. Waikato, NZ: Centre for Labour and Trade Union Studies, University of Waikato.
44. Considine, Mark. 2001. “The tragedy of the common-rooms? Political science and the new university governance.” Australian Journal of Political Science 36(1):145–156.
45. Considine, Mark, and Jenny M. Lewis. 1999. “Governance at ground level: The frontline bureaucrat in the age of markets and networks.” Public Administration Review 59(6):467–480.
46. Considine, Mark, and Jenny M. Lewis. 2003. “Bureaucracy, network or enterprise? Comparing models of governance in Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, and New Zealand.” Public Administration Review 63(2):131–140.
47. Crane, Diana. 1969. “Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the ‘invisible college’ hypothesis.” American Sociological Review 34(3):335–352.
48. Curtis, Bruce. 2005. “La perruque in university work (in the humanities and social sciences).” Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Researchers in Organization Studies 11th International Colloquium, Melbourne, December 4–7.
49. Curtis, Bruce. 2006. “Tactics of resistance in academic work.” TASA conference proceedings 2006. Perth: University of Western Australia.
50. Curtis, Bruce. 2007. “Academic life: Commodification, continuity, collegiality, confusion and the Performance Based Research Fund.” New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations 32(2):2–17.
51. DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austasch Dienst—German Academic Exchange Service). 2012. “Funding for joint research collaboration.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.daad.de/en/index.html.
52. Dale, Tony, and Shaun Goldfinch. 2005. “Article citation rates and productivity of Australasian political science units 1995–2000.” Australian Journal of Political Science 40(3):425–434.
53. Davies, Celia, and Penny Holloway. 1995. “Troubling transformations: Gender regimes and organizational culture in the academy.” in Feminist academics: Creative agents for change, edited by Louise Morley and Val Walsh, 7–21. Lon-don: Taylor and Francis.
54. Dawkins, John. 1988. Higher education: A policy statement. Edited by Depart-ment of Education, Employment and Training. Canberra: AGPS.
55. Dearlove, John. 1998. “The deadly dull issue of university ‘administration’: Good governance, managerialism and organising academic work.” Higher Education Policy 11:59–79.
56. Deci, Edward L., Richard Koestner, and Richard M. Ryan. 1999. “A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 125(6): 627–668.
57. Deem, Rosemary, Sam Hillyard, and Mike Reed. 2007. Knowledge, higher education, and the new managerialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58. Del Favero, Marietta. 2005. “The social dimension of academic discipline as a discriminator of academic deans’ administrative behaviors.” The Review of Higher Education 29(1):69–96.
59. de Solla Price, Derek J., and Donald Beaver. 1966. “Collaboration in an invisible college.” American Psychologist 21(11):1011–1018.
60. DIISRTE (Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education). 2012. “Research block grants.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.innovation.gov.au/Research/ResearchBlockGrants/Pages/default. aspx.
61. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1991a. “The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields.” in The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, eds. Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, 63–82. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
62. DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1991b. “Introduction.” in The new institutionalism in organizational analysis, eds. Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio, 1–38. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
63. Donovan, Claire. 2005. “The governance of social science and everyday epistemology.” Public Administration 83(3):597–615.
64. Douglas, Mary. 1996. Natural symbols, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
65. Eastwood, David. 2008. “Research excellence framework: Outcomes of consultation and next steps.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/year/2008/cl132008/.
66. Elton, Lewis. 2000. “The UK Research Assessment Exercise: Unintended conse-quences.” Higher Education Quarterly 54(3):274–283.
67. Etzkowitz, Henry, Carol Kemelgor, and Brian Uzzi. 2000. Athena unbound. The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. European Commission. European Commission Research and Innovation FP7. 2012. “FP7: The future of European Union research policy.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/research/fp7/index_en.cfm.
69. Farber, Miriam. 2005. “Single-authored publications in the sciences at Israeli universities.” Journal of Information Science 31(1):62–66.
70. Ferlie, Ewan, Christine Musselin, and Gianluca Andresani. 2009. “The governance of higher education systems: A public management perspective.” in University governance: Western European comparative perspectives, edited by Cath-erine Paradeise, Emanueala Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, and Ewan Ferlie, 1–19. Milton Keynes UK: Springer
71. Fletcher, Catherine, Rebecca Boden, Julie Kent, and Julie Tinson. 2007. “Performing women: The gendered dimensions of the UK new research economy.” Gen-der, Work and Organization 14(5):433–453.
72. Foucault, Michel. 1991. Discipline and punish. London: Penguin.
73. Fox, Mary Frank, and Catherine A. Faver. 1982. “The process of collaboration in scholarly research.” Scholarly Publishing 13:327–339.
74. Frame, J. Davidson, and Mark P. Carpenter. 1979. “International Research Collaboration.” Social Studies of Science 9(4):481–497.
75. Frank, Robert H. 2005. “Positional externalities cause large and preventable welfare losses.” American Economic Review 95(2):137–141.
76. French, Nigel J., William F. Massy, and Kenneth Young. 2001. “Research assessment in Hong Kong.” Higher Education 42(1):35–46.
77. Frey, Bruno S. 1993. “Does monitoring increase work effort? The rivalry with trust and loyalty.” Economic Inquiry XXXI: 663–670.
78. Frey, Bruno S., and Reto Jegen. 2001. “Motivation crowding theory.” Journal of Economic Surveys 15(5):589–611.
79. Friedkin, Noah E. 1998. A structural theory of social infl uence. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.
80. Frith, Simon. 1999. “Research matters.” Critical Quarterly 41(3):123–139.
81. Geertz, Clifford. 1980. “Blurred genres: The refiguration of social thought.” The American Scholar 49(2):165–179.
82. Geuna, Aldo, and Ben R. Martin. 2001. “University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison.” Brighton: Science and Technology Policy Research Unit (SPRU), University of Sussex.
83. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Novotny, Simon Schwartzman, Peter Scott, and Martin Trow. 1994. The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage.
84. Go8 (Group of eight). 2012. “Group of Eight Australia website.” Accessed Decem-ber 29, 2012. http://www.go8.edu.au/.
85. Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The strength of weak ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360–1380.
86. Gray, Barbara. 2008. “Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative leadership.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35(2S):S124–132.
87. Greenbank, Paul. 2006. “The academic’s role: The need for a re-evaluation?” Teaching in Higher Education 11(1):107–112.
88. Halsey, Albert H. 1992. Decline of donnish dominion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
89. Hare, Paul G. 2003. “The United Kingdom’s Research Assessment Exercise: Impact on institutions, departments, individuals.” Higher Education Management and Policy 15(2):43–62.
90. Harzing, Anne-Wil. 2010. The Publish or Perish book. Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis. Melbourne: Tarma Software Research.
91. Hawley, Amos. 1968. “Human ecology.” in International encyclopedia of the social sciences, ed. David L. Sills, 328–337. New York: Macmillan.
92. Hazelkorn, Ellen. 2009.Impact of global rankings on higher education research and the production of knowledge. UNESCO Forum on Higher Education, Research and Knowledge Occasional Paper no. 15.
93. HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council of England). 2008. “RAE 2008 quality profiles.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.rae.ac.uk/results/.
94. HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council of England). 2009. “Recurrent grants for 2009–10.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_08/#exec.
95. Hemmings, Brian C., Peter Rushbrook, and Erica Smith. 2007. “Academics’ views on publishing refereed works: A content analysis.” Higher Education 54:307–332.
96. Henkel. Mary. 1997. “Academic values and the university as corporate enterprise.” Higher Education Quarterly 51(2):134–143.
97. Henkel, Mary. 1999. “The modernisation of research evaluation: The case of the UK.” Higher Education 38(1):105–122.
98. Henkel, Mary. 2000. Academic identities and policy change in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
99. Henkel, Mary. 2005. “Academic identity and autonomy in a changing policy environment.” Higher Education 49:155–176.
100. HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency). 2009. “HESA data shows increase in proportion of female professors.” Press release 131, March 2009. Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.hesa.ac.uk/content/view/1397/161/.
101. Hicks, Diana. 2004. “The four literatures of social science.” in Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems, edited by Henk F. Moed, Wolfgang Glanzel, and Ulrich Schmoch, 473–496. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Aca-demic Publishers.
102. Hicks, Diana. 2009. “Evolving regimes of multi-university research evaluation.” Higher Education 57(4):393–404.
103. Hicks, Diana. 2012. “Performance-based university research funding systems.” Research Policy 41:251–261.
104. Hirsch, Fred. 1976. Social limits to growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
105. Hirsch, J. E. 2005. “An index to quantify an individual’s scientific output.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U.S.A. 102:16569–16572.
106. HM Treasury. 2006. Science and innovation investment framework 2004–2014: Next steps. London: HM Treasury.
107. HM Treasury. 2010. “Spending review November 2010.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/spend_index.htm.
108. Hood, Christopher. 1991. “A public management for all seasons?” Public Administration 69:3–29.
109. Hood, Christopher. 1998. The art of the state: Culture, rhetoric and public management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
110. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. 2004. Research Assessment Exercise: A reassessment. Eleventh report of session 2003–4. London: HM Stationery Office.
111. Huxham, Chris, and Siv Vangen. 2005. Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. London: Routledge.
112. Ibarra, Herminia. 1992. “Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm.” Administrative Science Quarterly 37(3):422–447.
113. Ibarra, Herminia. 1997. “Paving an alternative route: Gender differences in managerial networks.” Social Psychology Quarterly 60(1):91–102.
114. Jackson, Peter. 1988. “The management of performance in the public sector.” Public Money and Management 8(4):11–16.
115. Jeffrey, Paul. 2003. “Smoothing the waters: Observations on the process of cross-disciplinary research collaboration.” Social Studies of Science 33(4):539–562.
116. Jha, Yamini, and Eric W. Welch. 2010. “Relational mechanisms governing multi-faceted collaborative behavior of academic scientists in six fields of science and engineering.” Research Policy 39(9):1174–1184.
117. Johnston, Ron. 2005. “On preparing for more subjective judgments: RAE 2008.” Perspectives 9(4):115–120.
118. Katz, J. Sylvan. 2000. “Scale-independent indicators and research evaluation.” Science and Public Policy 27(1):23–36.
119. Katz, J. Sylvan, and Ben R. Martin. 1997. “What is research collaboration?” Research Policy 26(1):1–18.
120. Kayrooz, Carole. 2007. “Autonomy, entrepreneurialism and Australian university policy: A difficult balancing act.” in Autonomy in social science research: The view from the United Kingdom and Australian universities, edited by CaroleKayrooz, Gerlese S. Åkerlind, and Malcom Tight, 121–146. Oxford: Elsevier.
121. Kayrooz, Carole, Gerlese S. Åkerlind, and Malcolm Tight. 2007. “Autonomy in social science research.” in Autonomy in social science research: The view from the United Kingdom and Australian universities, edited by Carole Kayrooz,Gerlese S. Åkerlind, and Malcom Tight, 3–27. Oxford: Elsevier.
122. Kayrooz, Carole, Pamela Kinnear, and Paul Preston. 2001. Academic freedom and commercialization in Australian universities: A study of social scientists. Australia Institute Discussion Paper no. 37. Canberra: Australia Institute.
123. Kolb, David A. 1981. “Learning styles and disciplinary differences.” in The mod-ern American college, edited by Arthur W. Chickering, 253–278. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.
124. Koppenjan, Joop, and Erik-Hans Klijn. 2004. Managing uncertainties in net-works: A network approach to problem solving and decision-making. London: Routledge.
125. Kuhn, Thomas S. 1996. The structure of scientific revolution, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
126. Krishnan, Armin. 2009. What are academic disciplines? Some observations on the disciplinarity vs. interdisciplinarity debate. Working paper 03/09. Southampton: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods.
127. Lam, Alice. 2011. “What motivates academic scientists to engage in research com-mercialisation: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’, or ‘puzzle’?” Research Policy 40:1354–1368.
128. Lane, Julia. 2010. “Let’s make science metrics more scientific.” Nature 464(25 March 2010):488–489.
129. Lane, Julia, and Stefano Bertuzzi. 2011. “Measuring the results of science investments.” Science 331(11 February 2011):678–680.
130. Lee, Sooho, and Barry Bozeman. 2005. “The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity.” Social Studies of Science 35(5):673–702.
131. Lewis, Janet. 2000. “Funding social science research in academia.” Social Policy and Administration 34(4):365–376.
132. Lewis, Jenny M. 2007. Research networks in the faculty of arts. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
133. Lewis, Jenny M. 2010. Connecting and cooperating: Social capital and public policy. Sydney: UNSW Press.
134. Lewis, Jenny M. 2011. “The future of network governance research: Strength in diversity and synthesis.” Public Administration 89(4):1221–1234.
135. Lewis, Jenny M., and Sandy Ross. 2011. “Research funding systems in Australia, New Zealand and the UK: Policy settings and perceived effects.” Policy and Politics 39(3):379–398.
136. Lewis, Jenny M., Sandy Ross, and Thomas Holden. 2012. “The how and why of academic collaboration: Disciplinary differences and policy implications.” Higher Education 64(5):693–708.
137. Lin, Nan. 2001. Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
138. Lindenberg, Seigwart. 2001. “Intrinsic motivation in a new light.” Kyklos 54(2–3):317–342.
139. Loftus, Alex. 2006. “RAE-ification and the consciousness of the academic.” Area 38(1):110–112.
140. Lohmann, Susanne. 2004. “Darwinian medicine for the university.” in Governing academia, edited by Ronald G. Ehrenberg, 71–90. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
141. Lucas, Lisa. 2006. The research game in academic life. Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
142. Malcolm, Wilf, and Nicholas Tarling. 2007. Crisis of identity. The mission and management of universities in New Zealand. Wellington: Dunmore Publishing.
143. Marginson, Simon. 1996. “Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education.” Higher Education 52:1–39.
144. Marginson, Simon. 1997. Markets in Education. St Leonards: Allen and Unwin.
145. Marginson, Simon. 2007. “Freedom as control and the control of freedom: F. A. Hayek and the academic imagination.” in Autonomy in social science research: The view from the United Kingdom and Australian universities, edited by CaroleKayrooz, Gerlese S. Åkerlind, and Malcom Tight, 67–104. Oxford: Elsevier.
146. Marginson, Simon, and Mark Considine. 2000. The enterprise university: Power, governance and reinvention in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
147. Marsden, Peter V. 1987. ‘Core discussion networks of Americans.” American Sociological Review 52:122–131.
148. Marsden, Peter V. 2005. “Recent developments in network measurement.” in Models and methods in social network analysis, edited by Peter J. Carrington, John Scott, and Stanley Wasserman, 8–30. New York: Cambridge University Press.
149. Marsden Fund. 2012. “Marsden Fund.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/programmes/funds/marsden/.
150. Matthews, Rebecca, and Association of University Teachers. 2005. “Exercises in assessment: What the NZ and UK versions teach us.” NTEU Advocate April 2005:30–34.
151. Mayntz, Renate. 1993. “Governing failures and the problem of governability: Some comments on a theoretical paradigm.” in Modern governance: New government-society interactions, edited by Jan Kooiman, 9–20. London: Sage.
152. McInnis, Craig. 1996. “Change and diversity in the work patterns of Australian academics.” Higher Education Management 8(2):105–117.
153. McKay, Stephen. 2003. “Quantifying quality: Can quantitative data (‘metrics’) explain the 2001 RAE ratings for social policy and administration?” Social Policy and Administration 37(5):444–467.
154. McNay, Ian. 1995. “From the collegial academy to the corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities.” in The changing university, edited by Tom Schuller, 105–115. Buckinghamshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
155. McNay, Ian. 1997. The impact of the 1992 RAE on institutional and individual behaviour in English higher education: The evidence from a research project. London: HEFCE.
156. McNay, Ian. 2007. “Research assessment; researcher autonomy.” in Autonomy in social science research: The view from the United Kingdom and Australian universities, edited by Carole Kayrooz, Gerlese S. Åkerlind, and Malcom Tight, 183–216. Oxford: Elsevier.
157. McPherson, J. Miller, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 1987. “Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups.” American Sociological Review 52(3):370–379.
158. Meadows, Arthur J. 1974. Communication in Science. London: Butterworths.
159. Melin, Göran. 2000. “Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level.” Research Policy 29:31–40.
160. Merton, Robert K. 1973. The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
161. Mok, Kaho. 2003. “Globalisation and higher education restructuring in Hong Kong, Taiwan and mainland China.” Higher Education Research and Development 22(2):117–129.
162. Morgan, Keith J. 2004. “The research assessment exercise in English universities, 2001.” Higher Education 48:461–482.
163. Morley, Louise. 2003. Quality and power in higher education. Maidenhead: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
164. Müller, Christoph, Barry Wellman, and Alexandra Marin. 1999. “How to use SPSS to study ego-centered networks.” Bulletin de méthodologies sociologiques (BMS) 64:63–76.
165. Nahapiet, Janine, and Sumantra Ghoshal. 1998. “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage.” Academy of Management Review 23(2):242–266.
166. Najman, Jake M., and Belinda Hewitt. 2003. “The validity of publication and citation counts for sociology and other selected disciplines.” Journal of Sociology 39(1):62–80.
167. Newman, Mark E. J. 2001. “Scientific collaboration networks: I. network construction and fundamental results.” Physical Review E 64:016131/1–016131/8.
168. NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council). 2012. “NHMRC grants.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants.
169. NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada). 2012. “Grant programs overview.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.nserccrsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/Grants-Subs/index_eng.asp.
170. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) 2008. Science, technology and industry outlook 2008. Paris: OECD.
171. Osterloh, Margit, and Bruno S. Frey. 2009. Research governance in academia: Are there alternatives to academic rankings? Working paper no. 423. Zurich: Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.
172. Paradeise, Catherine, Emanuela Reale, Ivar Bleiklie, and Ewan Ferlie. 2009 (edi-tors). University governance: Western European comparative perspectives. Milton Keynes UK: Springer.
173. Peters, Michael A. 2006. “The rise of global science and the emerging political economy of international research collaboration.” European Journal of Education 41(2):225–244.
174. Pilbeam, Colin. 2006. “Generating additional revenue streams in UK universities: An analysis of variation between disciplines and institutions.” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 28(3):297–311.
175. Pollitt, Christopher. 1987. “The politics of performance assessment: Lessons for higher education.” Studies in Higher Education 12(1):87–98.
176. Pollitt, Christopher, and Geert Bouckaert. 2000. Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
177. Rambur, Betty. 2009. “Creating collaboration: An exploration of multinational research partnerships.” in Academic research and researchers, edited by Angela Brew and Lisa Lucas, 80–95. Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
178. Ramsden, Paul. 1999. “Predicting institutional research performance from published indicators: A test of a classification of Australian university types.” Higher Education 37(4):341–358.
179. RCUK (Research Councils UK). 2012. “Research Councils UK home page.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/pages/home.aspx.
180. REF (Research Excellence Framework). 2011. “Assessment framework and guidance on submissions, July 2011.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2011–02/.
181. REF (Research Excellence Framework). 2012. “Research excellence framework.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.ref.ac.uk/.
182. Rhodes, Roderick A. W. 1996. “The new governance: Governing without government.” Political Studies XLIV:652–667.
183. Rhodes, Roderick A. W. 1997. Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
184. Rigby, John and Jakob Edler. 2005. “Peering inside research networks: Some observations on the effect of the intensity of collaboration on the variability of research quality.” Research Policy 34(6):784–794.
185. Roberts, Gareth. 2003. Review of research assessment. Oxford: UK Higher Education Funding Councils.
186. Roberts, Peter. 2007. “Neoliberalism, performativity and research.” Review of Education 53:349–365.
187. Rossman, Joseph. 1931. “The motives of inventors.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 45(3):522–528.
188. Rothstein, Mitchell G. and Liane M. Davey. 1995. “Gender differences in network relationships in academia.” Women in Management Review 10(6):20–25.
189. Russell Group. 2012. “The Russell Group.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.russellgroup.ac.uk/.
190. Ryan, Richard M. and Edward L. Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25:54–67.
191. Sá, Creso M. 2008. “‘Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities.” Higher Education 55:537–552.
192. Scharpf, Fritz. 1997. Games real actors play: Actor-centred institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
193. Scott, Alan and Alan Harding. 2007. “Introduction: Universities, ‘relevance’ and scale.” in Bright satanic mills: Universities, regional development and the knowledge economy,edited by Alan Harding, Alan Scott, Stephan Laske, and Christian Burtscher, 1–22. Aldershot: Ashgate.
194. Scott, Peter. 2009. “Foreword.” in Academic research and researchers, edited by Angela Brew and Lisa Lucas, xiii–xviii. Berkshire: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
195. Shanghai Jiao Tong University. 2012. “Academic ranking of world universities.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.shanghairanking.com/index.html.
196. Sharp, Stephen, and Simon Coleman. 2005. “Ratings in the Research Assessment Exercise 2001—the patterns of university status and panel membership.” Higher Education Quarterly 59(2):153–171.
197. Sikes, Pat. 2006. “Working in a ‘new’ university: In the shadow of the Research Assessment Exercise?” Studies in Higher Education 31(5):555–568.
198. Slaughter, Sheila and Larry L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politics, policies and the entrepreneurial university. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
199. Smart, Warren. 2005. The measurement of the research performance of tertiary education organisations. An analysis of the impact of weightings in the performance-based research fund. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.
200. Smith, Simon, Vicky Ward and Allan House. 2011. “‘Impact’ in the proposals for the UK’s Research Excellence Framework: Shifting the boundaries of academic autonomy.” Research Policy 40:1369–1379.
201. Snow, Charles Percy. 1959. The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.
202. Sonnenwald, Diane H. 2008. “Scientific collaboration.” Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 14(1):643–681.
203. Sørensen, Eva and Jacob Torfing. 2007. Theories of democratic network governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.
204. SSHRC (Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council). 2012. “Funding.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-fi nancement/index-eng.aspx.
205. Stern, Scott. 2004. “Do scientists pay to be scientists?” Management Science 50:835–853.
206. Strachan, Glenda. 2008. “Challenges to gender equity for university staff.” NTEU Advocate, April 2008:24–25.
207. Talib, Ameen Ali. 2003. “The offspring of new public management in English universities: ‘Accountability’, ‘performance measurement’, ‘goal-setting’ and the prodigal child—the RAE.” Public Management Review 5(4):573–583.
208. Tapper, Ted, and Brian Salter. 2003. “Interpreting the process of change in higher education: The case of the Research Assessment Exercises.” Higher Education Quarterly 57(1): 4–23.
209. TEC (Tertiary Education Commission). 2007. “Performance-based research fund evaluating research excellence: The 2006 assessment.” Wellington: Tertiary Education Commission.
210. TEC (Tertiary Education Commission). 2012a. “Performance based research fund.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.tec.govt.nz/templates/standard.aspx?id=588.
211. TEC (Tertiary Education Commission). 2012b. “Funding.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.tec.govt.nz/Funding/.
212. THE (Times Higher Education). 2012. “THE world university rankings.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-universityrankings/.
213. Thompson, Graham F., Jennifer Frances, Rosalind Levacic, and Jeremy Mitchell, eds. 1991. Markets, hierarchies and networks: The coordination of social life. London: Sage.
214. Thorsteinsdóttir, O. Halla. 2000. “External research collaboration in two small science systems.” Scientometrics 49(1):145–160.
215. Traore, Namatie, Benoît Godin, and Réjean Landry. 1996. “An econometric analysis of the effect of collaboration on academic research productivity.” Higher Education 32(3):283–301.
216. Traynor, Michael, and Anne Marie Rafferty. 1999. “Nursing and the Research Assessment Exercise: Past, present and future.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 30(1):186–192.
217. Turner, Stephen. 2000. “What are disciplines? and how is interdisciplinary different?” in Practising interdisciplinarity, edited by Peter Weingart and Nico Stehr, 46–65. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
218. UNESCO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization). 1998. “World declaration on higher education for the twenty-first century: Vision and action and framework for priority action for change and development in higher education.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/strengthening-education-systems/higher-education/reform-andinnovation/1998-world-conference/
219. Universitas 21. 2012. “Universitas 21 website.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.universitas21.com/.
220. University of Auckland. 2012. “University of Auckland website.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/.
221. University of Birmingham. 2012. “University of Birmingham website.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/index.aspx.
222. University of Melbourne. 2012. “University of Melbourne website.” Accessed December 29, 2012. http://www.unimelb.edu.au/.
223. van Rijnsoever, Frank J., and Laurens K. Hessels. 2011. “Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration.” Research Policy 40:463–472.
224. Visser, Gustav. 2009. “Tourism geographies and the South African National Research Foundation’s researcher rating system: International connections and local disjunctures.” Tourism Geographies 11(1):43–72.
225. Von Stumm, Sophie, Benedikt Hell, and Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic. 2011. “The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 6:574–588.
226. Wagner, Caroline S., and Loet Leydesdorff. 2005. “Network structure, selforganization, and the growth of international collaboration in science.” Research Policy 34(10):1608–1618.
227. Whitley, Richard. 2010. “Reconfiguring the public sciences: The impact of governance changes on authority and innovation in public science systems.” in Reconfiguring knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation, edited by Richard Whitley, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall, 3–47. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
228. Whitley, Richard, and Jochen Gläser. 2007 (editors). The changing governance of the sciences: The advent of research evaluation systems. Dordrecht, Nether-lands: Springer.
229. Whitley, Richard, Jochen Gläser, and Lars Engwall. 2010 (editors). Reconfi gur-ing knowledge production: Changing authority relationships in the sciences and their consequences for intellectual innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
230. Yin, Robert K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods, revised edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
231. Ziguras, Stephen. 2004. “Australian social security policy and job-seekers’ motivation.” Journal of Economic and Social Policy 9(1):1–25.