Identifying the MERN and analyzing the contents of the fora Rachel. W. Roh
Introduction Purpose Methodology Qualitative analysis Quantitative analysis Research category 1,2,3 The MERN, a think tank or a network? Type of Think Tank by McGann (2007) Type of Network by Goldsmith and Eggers (2004) Triple Helix Model by Etzkowitz (2002) Characteristics of the MERN Findings Discussions Conclusion Q & A
The Manitoba Educational Research Network (the MERN) Found in 2002 Since 2003 Twenty Fora Three journals One monograph Website To connect the government, academics, practitioners
A preliminary research before studying effectiveness of the organization To identify What the MERN is. What resource, presented in the fora, could be provided.
Qualitative analysis Quantitative research Sample: the research from the 1 st forum to 20 th forum Categorizing ▪ By target groups and subjects ▪ By affiliated group ▪ By type Titles and contents
By Affiliated groups The government departments Academia School Divisions, and schools Others
By type Exploring Describing Evaluating Consulting
Type of Think Tank by McGann (2007) Independent think thinks ▪ Academic-diversified think tanks ▪ Academic-specialized think tanks ▪ Contract research organizations ▪ Advocacy think tanks ▪ Policy enterprise organization Affiliated think tanks ▪ Party-affiliated ▪ Government sponsored ▪ Private, for-profit ▪ University based
Type of Network by Goldsmith and Eggers (2004) Service contract Supply chain Ad hoc Channel partnership Civic switchboard Information dissemination
Triple Helix Model by Etzkowitz (2002) Tri-lateral networks and hybrid organization The MERN source: Etzkowitz, H. (2002). Incubation of incubators:Innovation as as a triple helix of university-industry-goverment networks. Science and Public Policy, 29 (2), p.118
A space Independent Nonprofit No budget Researchers from affiliations Informal network
Community related studies – Five times Rural area Low-income communities Aboriginal communities Science and Mathematics – three times Research to Practice – two times
Targeting groups local community – 22%; The government – 17% Subjects Aboriginal Education – 24%; Low-Income communities – 3% Subjects by Target Government : Sustainable development – 24% Rest targets : Aboriginal Education
Academia – 57% Cooperated research – 43% Focus targets Departments of government Government Schools Division, schools Local communities Academia teaching skills and classroommanagements.
Different sampling : 148 research Describing – 55% Exploring – 30% The research targeting the government More consultative research Less descriptive research (Comparing with other targeting groups)
The position of the MERN Not a think tank, but containing similarities of the think tank A unique type of research network A place to share educational information, not to consult policies
Achievement Providing “the meeting place” Well balanced research target area Research in the priority subjects of the department of education Accommodating various affiliated groups.
Challenges Providing better quality research ▪ Creating the environment for follow-up research ▪ Long-term plans ▪ Balancing of research types and subjects ▪ Increasing the possibility of utilizing the research Offering better access to the research ▪ Providing detail research information through online and offline (present: only 47% accessible) Building structured data base
Limitations Analyze within accessible research data Mainly research title and abstract were criteria to classify research. Further research suggestions Surveys Measuring effectiveness
The MERN, a network For the government ▪ Promoting their policy plans ▪ Obtaining feedbacks For schools and school division ▪ Sharing information with similar groups ▪ Appeal the opinions to other groups For Academia ▪ Obtaining practical feedbacks ▪ Reducing the gap between research and practice ▪ Getting the research topic idea Two ways of future choices for the MERN Horizontal improvement as a network Vertical improvement as a think tank
Thank you