Pär Mårtensson

Organizations increasingly demand managers who can thrive in the growing complexity not only of their organizations but also of the broader marketplace. These demands have led educational institutions to search for ways to prepare business school students for an uncertain and dynamic future, efforts that have led to a need for a broader education beyond traditional business-oriented subjects. In this chapter, we outline the conceptualization, development, and learnings arising from the introduction of a tutorial program at Stockholm School of Economics to address the need for students to be more self-reflective and self-aware about their own education and personal growth. By outlining the process of implementing this program, we manifest: (1) the institutional factors and cultural changes that were antecedents of the tutorial program’s development; (2) the structural transformations and pedagogical goals associated with the tutorial program; and (3) the feedback received regarding the tutorial program. The chapter provides handholds, pitfalls, and potential benefits associated with the development of a tutorial program to guide educators and institutions to recognize similar needs in developing reflective and self-aware students - individuals who can effectively lead themselves and grapple with increasingly wicked problems in their educational journey and careers to come.

Change can be challenging!

This applies equally whether you are leading a change process, or you are a member of an organization seeking to navigate new changes. This book is about a model - the Y model - a powerful tool for bringing about successful change by giving structure and focus to change processes. The Y model helps you manage change projects, no matter what role you have in the process.

Over the years, the Y model has proven to be very useful to many managers working through change projects in their organization. That is why the Y model features prominently when scholars at the Stockholm School of Economics coach students in Executive MBA and other academic programs. This book describes the Y model and demonstrates how people apply it in organizations when leading change projects.

There are few acknowledged multidisciplinary quality standards for research practice and evaluation. This study evaluates the face validity of a recently developed comprehensive quality model that includes 32 defined concepts based on four main areas (credible, contributory, communicable, and conforming) describing indicators of research practice quality. Responses from 42 senior researchers working within 18 different departments at three major universities showed that the research quality model was–overall–valid. The vast majority believed all concepts in the model to be important, and did not indicate the need for further development. However, some of the sub-concepts were indicated as being slightly less important. Further, there were significant differences concerning ‘communicable’ between disciplines and academic levels, and for ‘conforming’ between genders. Our study indicates that the research quality model proposes the opportunity to move to a more systematic and multidisciplinary approach to research quality improvement, which has implications for how scientific knowledge is obtained.

There are few acknowledged quality standards for research practice and evaluation, even though universities are increasingly judged on research impact. This dataset contains questionnaire responses from 42 senior researchers working (within 18 different departments) at three major universities in Sweden about the importance of 32 defined criteria based on four main areas (credible, contributory, communicable, and conforming) describing indicators of research practice quality.
I studien har 42 forskare (från 18 avdelningar) vid tre större universitet i Sverige svarat på en rad enkätfrågor om forskningskvalitet och forskningsutvärdering.

The quality of research is central to scientific organizations. But how to evaluate research practice and quality when managing research? There is not one standard for what “good research” is. In a recent study, we developed a model for evaluating research practice and quality and in this model, there are four core concepts: Credible, Contributory, Communicable, and Conforming. Based on these concepts a model including 32 sub-concepts was developed. The aim of this article is to explore implications and applications of the model using three fundamental perspectives of research management; the process, the organization, and the governance.