El capital intelectual y su relación con la innovación en la universidad CES

En la sociedad actual del conocimiento las universidades tienen la responsabilidad de generar conocimiento e innovaciones para ofrecer soluciones a problemas de comunidades de interés. Para lograrlo las universidades deben enfocarse en su activo más importante, su capital intelectual. Hasta ahora las investigaciones relacionadas con el capital intelectual y la innovación en las universidades, son limitadas a pesar de ser un elemento estratégico para la dirección de estas organizaciones, ya que estos aspectos le representan valor en el tiempo, por tanto esta investigación busca establecer cuál es la relación que existe entre el capital intelectual y la innovación en la Universidad CES. El objetivo de esta investigación era identificar el grado de relación entre capital intelectual e innovación en la Universidad CES. La metodología del estudio, es un estudio cuantitativo, de tipo descriptivo explicativo, con un diseño transversal, que permitió establecer el efecto del capital intelectual sobre la innovación de la Universidad CES. La población del fueron los directivos, líderes de los grupos de investigación y los coordinadores de investigación de la Universidad CES. Según los resultados obtenidos, este estudio determinó que el capital intelectual no tiene una relación estadísticamente significativa con la innovación personal de la Universidad CES y se determinó también que las tres dimensiones del capital intelectual tienen una relación estadísticamente significativa con los resultados de la innovación en la Universidad CES. El principal aporte de este estudio fue ofrecer evidencias sobre el capital intelectual como una de las principales fuentes de innovación para la Universidad.

Knowledge Management: Creating Competitive Intelligence for the Future

In this knowledge era, the value of corporations, academic organizations and individuals is directly related to their knowledge and intellectual capital(IC). A newand potentially paradigm shift focus in the intersection between knowledge and intelligence is the recognition of the importance of understanding the intellectual capital of organizations. This paper explains how Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) is identifying and managing its intellectual capital for creating competitive advantage for the future. This paper also explores the different cost effective knowledge management strategies applied at CUSAT for managing its intellectual capital

The challenges of creating actionable knowledge: an action research perspective

Academia has a critical role in developing new knowledge which construction industry practitioners need to envision, undertake and sustain successful innovation. The new knowledge produced by academia, however, often does not satisfy the needs of practitioners. This unsatisfactory state of affairs is frequently taken to be the consequence of the cultural, motivational and operational differences between the two communities. Actionable knowledge is presented as a useful concept which can fuse the expectations, contributions and outputs of academia and practitioners. Within this context, action research is argued to be an appropriate methodology to develop successful actionable knowledge. Results from an action research project are given which provide researchers and practitioners greater understanding of the key factors that shape the degree to which action research produces actionable knowledge: change focus, collaboration capabilities and systematic process. The criteria intrinsic to Mode 2 research (Gibbons et al., 1994) are demonstrated to have utility in evidencing actionable knowledge. The implication for policy is that there is a need to develop and use appropriate actionable knowledge frameworks and measures to design funding calls, and to evaluate research proposals and outputs.

Building Leadership: The Knowledge of Principals in Creating Collaborative Communities of Professional Learning

Research literature is replete with the importance of collaboration in schools, the lack of its implementation, the centrality of the role of the principal, and the existence of a gap between knowledge and practice--or a "Knowing-Doing Gap." In other words, there is a set of knowledge that principals must know in order to create a collaborative workplace environment for teachers. This study sought to describe what high school principals know about creating such a culture of collaboration. The researcher combed journal articles, studies and professional literature in order to identify what principals must know in order to create a culture of collaboration. The result was ten elements of principal knowledge: Staff involvement in important decisions, Charismatic leadership not being necessary for success, Effective elements of teacher teams, Administrator‘s modeling professional learning, The allocation of resources, Staff meetings focused on student learning, Elements of continuous improvement, and Principles of Adult Learning, Student Learning and Change. From these ten elements, the researcher developed a web-based survey intended to measure nine of those elements (Charismatic leadership was excluded). Principals of accredited high schools in the state of Nebraska were invited to participate in this survey, as high schools are well-known for the isolation that teachers experience--particularly as a result of departmentalization. The results indicate that principals have knowledge of eight of the nine measured elements. The one that they lacked an understanding of was Principles of Student Learning. Given these two findings of what principals do and do not know, the researcher recommends that professional organizations, intermediate service agencies and district-level support staff engage in systematic and systemic initiatives to increase the knowledge of principals in the element of lacking knowledge. Further, given that eight of the nine elements are understood by principals, it would be wise to examine reasons for the implementation gap (Knowing-Doing Gap) and how to overcome it.

Rituals and Knowledge Construction: Ethical Dilemmas on Creating Oppositions

What is knowledge construction for? Mesopotamian rituals were practiced in order to grasp the future and guide war strategies. Nowadays, scientific rules are developed to avoid mysticism-constructing more accurate laws to explain the reality. Both rituals and science were, and usually are, grounded in a conception that to know is to decipher the correct meaning behind the expressive relief of the world. Contemporary studies on anthropology have shown that the opposition between nature and culture is the basis of a number of problems in human sciences aiming to comprehend the intricate relation between body and violence and overcome ethical dilemmas.