ReseaRch Quality assuRance foR the futuRe a ... - Lund University

Panel 7 – ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT (LUSEM)
that the group covers a range of functional areas, with only limited
overlap and/or synergies, so that in each functional area the research
group working with it seems to be of limited size. It was not possible to
get precise aggregate information on how much of the staff time can be
devoted to research; the minimum requirements of 10–20% are very
low by international standards. If one multiplies the full time equivalent
of professors and senior lectures with 0.3 one gets the equivalent of 10
research man years, which is very little giving the broad range of fields
to be covered, and the large number of students (e.g. about 300 per year
already on the B.Sc. program, which is only one of the programs).
The self-evaluation mentions the dependence on external funds (mainly
to free research time); however, for 2007 only a minor sum of 754 kSEK
is listed as external research grants. The panel assumes that the research
funding is mostly located at LRI and therefore not listed here. The actual
volume of external grants is therefore not known.
4.2 Research infrastructure
The panel has not given any specific comments. (Information added by the
RQ08 Project Office.)
4.3 Research
Quality. Corresponding to the diversity of topics dealt with there is also
a wide range of publications, but it is also clear that some of the focus
areas account for the bulk of high impact output. The KLIO group, the
entrepreneurship group and the marketing group have a number of high
level publications. Several publications from the KLIO group are in absolute
top journals, like the Academy of Management Review and Human
Relations, and can be expected to have a strong impact on the field. The
publication list contains a very high number of dissertations (though the
exact number is unclear, see below), but most of these seem to be in the
form of monographs with little direct impact on the research community.
Productivity. The lack of information on actual amount of time that can
be devoted to research makes an evaluation difficult. Also, the publication
list obtained contains 148 items, whereas the self-evaluation report
suggests 356 items. All of this makes an evaluation here highly tentative.
Of the 148 items on the publication list, 70 (!) are PhD dissertations and
199