IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oec/edukaa/5ksb3fn241np.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Allocating time resources for research between academic staff: The case of Norwegian university colleges

Author

Listed:
  • Svein Kyvik

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to explore how time resources for research are allocated among academic staff members in institutions where research qualifications differ much between individuals. Norwegian university colleges are used as a case. These resources, which can be regarded as scarce goods, are of two kinds: the share of working hours that can be used for research, and definitive periods during which one is free to dedicate work hours to research. Of the many factors to consider when allocating scarce resources between individuals, the article distinguishes between the following: a) type of good; b) decision-making levels; c) size of the good; d) circle of recipients; e) allocation principles; f) allocation criteria; and g) allocation procedures. The article concludes that the allocation of time resources for research among individual staff members is to a large extent made up of compromises between different allocation principles, allocation criteria and allocation procedures, and can be understood only in reference to the historical and social context of each institution and its various departments. L’affectation des ressources temporelles pour la recherche entre membres du personnel enseignant : le cas des instituts universitaires norvégiens Cet article analyse la méthode d’affectation des ressources temporelles entre les différents chercheurs dans les établissements où ceux-ci ont des degrés de qualification différents. Ce rapport est illustré par l’étude de cas des instituts universitaires norvégiens. Ces ressources temporelles, que l’on peut considérer comme des ressources rares, sont de deux types : elles peuvent tout aussi bien désigner la répartition des heures de travail utilisables pour la recherche que des périodes déterminées durant lesquelles l’individu est libre de consacrer son temps à la recherche. De tous les facteurs dont il faut tenir compte, lorsqu’il s’agit de répartir des ressources rares entre plusieurs individus, l’article distingue les différents aspects du processus de décision : a) le type de bien ; b) les niveaux de prise de décision ; c) la taille du bien ; d) le groupe de destinataires ; e) les principes d’affectation ; f) les critères d’affectation ; et g) les procédures d’affectation. L’article parvient à la conclusion que l’affectation des ressources temporelles pour la recherche au sein d’une équipe est, dans une large mesure, faite de compromis entre différents principes, critères et procédures, et ne peut être comprise qu’à la lumière du contexte historique et social d’un établissement et des départements qui le composent.

Suggested Citation

  • Svein Kyvik, 2009. "Allocating time resources for research between academic staff: The case of Norwegian university colleges," Higher Education Management and Policy, OECD Publishing, vol. 21(3), pages 1-14.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:edukaa:5ksb3fn241np
    DOI: 10.1787/hemp-21-5ksb3fn241np
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/hemp-21-5ksb3fn241np
    Download Restriction: Full text available to READ online. PDF download available to OECD iLibrary subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/hemp-21-5ksb3fn241np?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter James Bentley, 2015. "Cross-country differences in publishing productivity of academics in research universities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(1), pages 865-883, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oec:edukaa:5ksb3fn241np. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/oecddfr.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.