Paper Status Tracking

Article
Author(s)

Marek Cieślak, Remigiusz Napiecek

Affiliation(s)

Marek Cieślak, Doctor of Social Science (Economics), Faculty of Management, Poznan University of Economics.
Remigiusz Napiecek, Doctor of Social Science (Economics), Faculty of Management, Poznan University of Economics.

ABSTRACT

The concept of higher education development allowing universities to make full contribution to the Lisbon Strategy, assumes an increased competitiveness of European universities. Such increase should result in making them more attractive to students, improving teaching quality, and finally ensuring higher levels of research and innovation. Universities will not become innovative and responsive to change unless they are given real autonomy and accountability. This requires new internal governance systems based on strategic priorities and on professional management of human resources, investment, and administrative procedures. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the relationship between education and scientific activities of universities. The said interrelation was analyzed both from the perspective of the university’s main sources of revenues (i.e., subsidies), as well as from the perspective of financial results generated by the university’s internal units. The paper’s objective determines the choice of research methods, based on critical, comparative, and descriptive analysis. The paper contains elements of deductive reasoning. The authors’ analysis showed a strongly negative correlation of research performance to educational performance. The structure of algorithms used to calculate the subsidy paid to a given university may suggest a negative correlation between its revenues from educational activity and those from research. However, by analyzing the variability of revenues vis-a-vis the main components of algorithms used to calculate the subsidy one can conclude that revenues from research and from education are not interrelated. This lack of any relationship could be explained by considerable inertia of the subsidies. Changes in key algorithm components do not have a proportional effect on the amount of available subsidy.

KEYWORDS

university, revenues, educational activity, research activity, correlation

Cite this paper

References
Arcelus, F. J., & Coleman, D. F. (1997). An efficiency review of university departments. International Journal of System Science, 28, 721-729.
Armstrong, J. (1983). The Ombudsman: Learner responsibility in management education, or ventures into forbidden research. Interfaces, 13(2), 26-38.
Armstrong, J. (1995). The devils advocate responses to an MBA students claim that research harms learning. Journal of Marketing, 59, 101-106.
Bauerlein, M. (2009). Professors on the production line, students on their own. Future of American Education Project, AEI-Working Paper.
Collopy, F. (1992). The Ombudsman: Factors influencing academic research productivity: A survey of management scientists. Interfaces, 22(5), 35-38.
Czechowski, L. (1997). Multidimensional evaluation of a company efficiency. Gdansk: The University of Gdansk Publishing House.
Drucker, P. (1976). Managing for results. Warsaw: PWN.
Eurostat. (2013). Retrieved November 24, 2013, from http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=tec00114
EY. (2010). Scientific productivity of public higher education institutions in Poland: A comperative bibliometric analysis. Warsaw: Ernst &Young.
Feldman, K. (1987). Research productivity and scholarly accomplishment of college teachers as related to their institutional effectiveness. Research in Higher Education, 26, 227-298.
Fender, B. F., Taylor, S. W., & Burke, K. G. (2005). Making the big leagues: Factors contributing to publication in elite economics journals. Atlantic Economic Journal, 33(1), 93-103.
Fox, K. J., & Milbourne, R. (1999). What determines research output of academic economists?. Economic Records, 75(3), 256-267.
Fox, M. F. (1992). Research, teaching, and publication productivity: Mutuality versus competition in academia. Sociology of Education, 65, 293-305.
Franke, R., & Edlung, T. (1992). Development and application of a longitudinal procedure for quantitative case analysis. In H. Klein (Ed.), Forging new partnerships with cases, simulations, games and other interactive methods (pp. 361-372). WACRA, Needham.
Franke, R., Edlung, T., & Oster, F. (1990). The development of strategic management: Journal quality and article impact. Strategic Management Journal, 45(6), 243-253.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (1996). The relationship between research and teaching: A meta analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 507-542.
Hattie, J., & Marsh, H. W. (2002). The relation between research productivity and teaching effectiveness—Complementary, antagonistic, or independent constructs?. Journal of Higher Education, 73(5), 603-641.
Kao, C., & Hung, H. T. (2008). Efficiency analysis of university departments: An empirical study. Omega, 36, 653-664.
Katz, E., & Coleman, M. (2001). The growing importance of research at academic colleges of education in Israel. Education Plus Training, 43(2), 82-93.
King, W. D. (1997). Input and output substitution in higher education. Economic Letters, 57, 107-111.
Korhonen, P., Tainio, R., & Wallenius, J. (2001). Value efficiency analysis of academic research. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(1), 121-132.
Lapsley, I., & Miller, P. (2004). Transforming universities: The uncertain, erratic path. Financial Accountability and Management, 20(2), 103-106.
MniSW. (2011). The reform of Polish science: Building on knowledge. Retrieved September 1, 2012, from https://www.nauka.gov.pl
Murphy, F. (1994). Don’t let shallow reporters set the agenda. Interfaces, 24(2), 13-17.
Napiecek, R. (2013). Cost accounting in balanced evaluation of universities achievements. Poznan: UEP Publishing House.
Reich, R. (1991). The work of nations: Preparing ourselves to 21st century capitalism. New York: Knopf.
Richardson, P., Parker, R. S., & Udell, G. G. (1992). Does research enhance or inhibit teaching? A exploratory study. Journal of Education for Business, 68(2), 79-83.
Sarrico, C. S., & Dyson, R. G. (2000). Using DEA for planning in UK universities: An institutional perspective. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(7), 789-800.
Sellers-Rubio, R., Mas-Ruiz, F. S., & Casado-Díaz, A. B. (2010). University efficiency: Complementariness versus trade-off between teaching, research and administrative activities. Higher Education Quarterly, 64(4), 373-391.
Sinuany-Stern, Z., Mehrez, A., & Barboy, A. (1994). Academic departments efficiency via DEA. Computers & Operations Research, 21, 543-556.
Tauer, L. W., Fried, H. O., & Fry, W. E. (2007). Measuring efficiencies of academic departments within a college. Education Economics, 15, 473-489.
Townley, B. (1997). The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization Studies, 18(2), 261-285.
UEP. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.ue.poznan.pl/study-at-poznan-university-of-economics /university/

About | Terms & Conditions | Issue | Privacy | Contact us
Coryright © 2015 David Publishing Company All rights reserved, 3 Germay Dr., Unit 4 #4651, Wilmington DE 19804
Tel: 1-323-984-7526, 323-410-1082; Fax: 1-323-984-7374, 323-908-0457 , www.davidpublisher.com, Email: order@davidpublishing.com