Edited by Alfred Anate Bodurin Mayaki, Saturday, 19 Apr 2025, 14:13
Having read the first few pages of Gubbins and Rousseau (2015), the premise of the paper is starting to become more interesting to me. Gubbins and Rousseau refer to a coupled concept of translational research: T1 (research focused on science and inference) and T2 (research focused on implementing outcomes from T1). Both concepts are distinct and separate. T2 is ultimately focused on strategizing new models of T1 in practice which Gubbins and Rousseau (2015) readily attribute to the medical field and management field.
In my opinion, a Ministerial policy briefing is very implicated in this undertaking of Gubbins and Rousseau (2015). A recent conference I attended in 2024 on bridging research and policy demonstrated how scientific research is in Government used by civil servants and converted into policy for Ministers of various Departments. This is very much a summary task which takes place after research has been peer-reviewed and published.
While I like to think my arXiv papers on Nash theory are scientific (or at least mathematical), in the attached we find a paper by Prof. Barbara Sahakian who speaks eloquently in a T2 format on how risk and the psychology of decisions lead to new models of thinking. This article was first offered to me on a visit to Enterprise Tuesday at Cambridge, and typifies the value of T2 research outputs. By this reckoning it’s probably agreeable that T1 and T2 aren't compatible in forming a single paper.
Aside from being accredited by independent organisations, business schools are subject to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) and of course the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), but while not reflective of what Gubbins and Rousseau refer to as "purpose" and value for money" (pp.109), can be interpreted as being important to answering such questions of existence and impact. Sahakian's research, which was promoted by the Judge Business School, is an example of Gubbins and Rousseau's (2015) central and distinctive argument.
Right now, I'm led to believe that a strategy that withdraws funding from low-scoring business schools and rewards high-scoring schools is a highly appropriate way of gauging the value for money provided by the Government to business schools in HE institutions.
References
Gubbins, C., and Rousseau, D. M. (2015). Embracing Translational HRD Research for Evidence-Based Management: Let’s Talk About How to Bridge the Research-Practice Gap. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 26(2), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21214
Embracing Translational HRD Research for EBM
Having read the first few pages of Gubbins and Rousseau (2015), the premise of the paper is starting to become more interesting to me. Gubbins and Rousseau refer to a coupled concept of translational research: T1 (research focused on science and inference) and T2 (research focused on implementing outcomes from T1). Both concepts are distinct and separate. T2 is ultimately focused on strategizing new models of T1 in practice which Gubbins and Rousseau (2015) readily attribute to the medical field and management field.
In my opinion, a Ministerial policy briefing is very implicated in this undertaking of Gubbins and Rousseau (2015). A recent conference I attended in 2024 on bridging research and policy demonstrated how scientific research is in Government used by civil servants and converted into policy for Ministers of various Departments. This is very much a summary task which takes place after research has been peer-reviewed and published.
While I like to think my arXiv papers on Nash theory are scientific (or at least mathematical), in the attached we find a paper by Prof. Barbara Sahakian who speaks eloquently in a T2 format on how risk and the psychology of decisions lead to new models of thinking. This article was first offered to me on a visit to Enterprise Tuesday at Cambridge, and typifies the value of T2 research outputs. By this reckoning it’s probably agreeable that T1 and T2 aren't compatible in forming a single paper.
Aside from being accredited by independent organisations, business schools are subject to the Research Excellence Framework (REF) and of course the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), but while not reflective of what Gubbins and Rousseau refer to as "purpose" and value for money" (pp.109), can be interpreted as being important to answering such questions of existence and impact. Sahakian's research, which was promoted by the Judge Business School, is an example of Gubbins and Rousseau's (2015) central and distinctive argument.
Right now, I'm led to believe that a strategy that withdraws funding from low-scoring business schools and rewards high-scoring schools is a highly appropriate way of gauging the value for money provided by the Government to business schools in HE institutions.
References