Collaborative Research: Policy and the Management of Knowledge Creation in UK Universities

Collaboration in research activity is now the rule not the exception. It is encouraged by government, funding bodies and research councils. However, the concept of collaboration is difficult to define. It occurs at many different levels, driven by a complex research system-policy dynamic. Three different models of collaboration – inter-personal, team and corporate – are identified, each with their own rationale, structure, benefits and costs. The paper examines the institutional implications of these models. It argues that institutions and individual researchers conceptualise and operationalise research collaboration in different ways. Although vital to institutional mission, collaborative research is rarely mapped by senior managers with any precision. In general, institutional approaches to the management of collaborative research lag behind the policy rhetoric. The paper concludes with an overview of the key dilemmas for institutional strategists and policy makers posed by the shift towards more collaborative approaches to research.     

Expectations,observations, and violations: Comparing their effects on course ratings

Knowledgeable observers generally agree that students can give reasonably unbiased assessments of their classes, as long as proper instruments and procedures are used. These same observers agree, however, that more research is needed to understand the subtle dynamics which affect evaluations. Students' expectations (obtained on the first day) and the violation of these expectations are two possible factors. Their effects on students' final interest and future intentions are compared with students' actual reports of the class given at the end of the semester (n=196). Regression analysis using a simultaneous entry of expectations, expectancy violations, and final reports shows that students' reports at the end of the course account for almost all of the explained variance in the course rating items.     

A comparison of the anthropometric, strength, endurance and flexibility characteristics of female elite and recreational climbers and non-climbers.

There is limited information on the anthropometry, strength, endurance and flexibility of female rock climbers. The aim of this study was to compare these characteristics in three groups of females: Group 1 comprised 10 elite climbers aged 31.3 +/- 5.0 years (mean +/- s) who had led to a standard of 'hard very severe'; Group 2 consisted of 10 recreational climbers aged 24.1 +/- 4.0 years who had led to a standard of 'severe'; and Group 3 comprised 10 physically active individuals aged 28.5 +/- 5.0 years who had not previously rock-climbed. The tests included finger strength (grip strength, finger strength measured on climbing-specific apparatus), flexibility, bent arm hang and pull-ups. Regression procedures (analysis of covariance) were used to examine the influence of body mass, leg length, height and age. For finger strength, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values (P < 0.05) than the recreational climbers and non-climbers (four fingers, right hand: elite 321 +/- 18 N, recreational 251 +/- 14 N, non-climbers 256 +/- 15 N; four fingers, left hand: elite 307 +/- 14 N, recreational 248 +/- 12 N, non-climbers 243 +/- 11 N). For grip strength of the right hand, the elite climbers recorded significantly higher values than the recreational climbers only (elite 338 +/- 12 N, recreational 289 +/- 10 N, non-climbers 307 +/- 11 N). The results suggest that elite climbers have greater finger strength than recreational climbers and non-climbers.