Private finance for the delivery of school projects in England

This paper analyses the use of the private finance initiative (PFI) approach to deliver school projects in England. The findings are based on case-study research in the Building Schools for the Future scheme (BSF), the largest single capital investment in SO years to rebuild and renew all of England's secondary schools. Up to half of the school infrastructure is to be procured by PFI contracts. A major concern has been the high cost associated with PFI procurement and any subsequent changes to scope. Furthermore, in some cases PFI-funded schools have been closed soon after completion; at great cost to the public sector. The aim of this research was therefore to understand the underlying reasons for these problems. The main conclusion is that the difficulties in BSF arise from not sorting out strategic issues and instituting appropriate organisational frameworks before engaging the private sector. The result of this is a lack of clarity about the long-term needs and end user aspirations. A brief outline of current programme management methods is given and it is suggested that this might be integral to the successful delivery of schools using private finance. A clear strategic vision that cascades into projects via programmes will ensure that the school infrastructure is appropriate for the anticipated strategic benefits and is aligned to the overall service delivery ambitions

The genre regime of research evaluation:Contradictory systems of value around academics' writing

This paper addresses how academics navigate different kinds of prestige and different systems of value around what 'counts' in academic writing, focusing particularly on the impact of the genre regime associated with research evaluation in the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF). It draws on data from an ESRC-funded project working with academics across different disciplines and different institutions in England. We interviewed people about their writing practices several times, exploring their practices, life histories, institutional contexts, and the tools and resources they draw on as they write. Academics' research writing is framed within explicit institutional and departmental strategies around the numbers and publication venues of research outputs, driven by institutions’ need to succeed in the national competitive research evaluation system. Such institutional strategies do not always map well onto other values systems in which academics have been trained and within which they locate themselves. The paper analyses the interviews we carried out, exploring how academics negotiate tensions between these systems of value and considering the implications of this for what is considered to be important in academic work and, therefore, what it means to be an academic

What do introduction sections tell us about the intent of scholarly work: A contribution on contributions

This paper presents empirical examination of the semantics of contribution claims in the introduction sections of journal articles, a significantly under-examined area of scholarly activity, which underpins the methodical act of communicating the value of research to an audience. The paper presents a systematic review of 538 papers in three leading industrial marketing journals, Industrial Marketing Management, the Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing and the Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing and uses a phased approach to categorize contribution claims made by authors in their introductions and abstracts. The paper identifies four main categories of contribution, defined as incremental, revelatory, replicatory and consolidatory, with sub-categorizations within them, and reports on the proportionality of these strategies in the sample while capturing the semantic games played by authors in pursuit of these claims. Specific findings are of interest to industrial marketers, but the conceptual framework and systematic methods presented in the paper are transferable to any discipline or body of work, and therefore have broader disciplinary appeal. Findings are also of interest to authors, reviewers and editors for coalescing fragmented understanding of contribution strategies into a coherent framework for action

Scholarly Impact: A Pluralistic Conceptualisation.

We critically assess a common approach to scholarly impact that relies almost exclusively on a single stakeholder (i.e., other academics). We argue that this approach is narrow and insufficient, and thereby threatens the credibility and long-term sustainability of the management research community. We offer a solution in the form of a broader and novel conceptual and measurement framework of scholarly impact: a pluralist perspective. It proposes actions that depart from the current win–lose and zero-sum views that lead to false trade-offs such as research versus practice, rigor versus relevance, and research versus service. Our proposed pluralist conceptualization can be instrumental in enabling business schools and other academic units to clarify their strategic direction in terms of which stakeholders they are trying to affect and why, the way future scholars are trained, and the design and implementation of faculty performance management systems. We argue that the adoption of a pluralist conceptualization of scholarly impact can increase motivation for engaged scholarship and design-science research that is more conducive to actionable knowledge as opposed to exclusive career-focused advances, enhance the relevance and value of our scholarship, and thereby help to narrow the much-lamented chasm between research and practice