There is a considerable discrepancy between official rhetoric and reality in the Hungarian higher education system. Based on a series of personal interviews conducted with the actors of Hungarian higher education, this article offers an analysis of the positions and strategies of the key players. Using the Matrix of Alliances and Conflicts: Tactics, Objectives and Recommendations (MACTOR) method, the actors of the higher education system are analysed in terms of direct and indirect reciprocal influences, and their positions with regard to a generic set of possible objectives. It is argued that there is an urgent need for concentrating resources and for re-defining the higher education strategy based on the long-term demands of a globalising world.
This article demonstrates the idiosyncrasies of the Hungarian public educational system (primary, secondary and adult education) through regional and global comparisons. The main sources for comparison are data from the OECD and Eurostat as well as empirical research in Hungary. The research focused on educational attainment and the structure of the educational system, inequalities within the Hungarian educational system, educational attainment and employment, teacher salaries and teacher selection policy issues. The article proved that Hungary’s public education system is the most unequal among the OECD countries, the structures of the secondary programs are biased, employment is relatively low, the rate of adult education is among the lowest, and the quality of teachers is below average because of counter-selection processes. Most of these problems can be traced to the lack of resources and the processes generated by demographic and social changes that have not been followed by adequate policy changes. The study deals with the educational disadvantages for Roma children as well. While this phenomenon affects Europe as a whole, it affects Hungary to a much greater extent.
Drawing on a database of the competitive research funds in the Japanese academia, this study examines the distribution of research grants at the university and individual levels. The data indicates high inequality at the university level and slightly lower inequality at the individual level. Over the last three decades, the total grant budget has greatly increased and an increasing number of researchers have received the funds. Simultaneously, large-size grants have become more common and multiple awarding (i.e., one researcher receives more than one grant simultaneously) has become more frequent. These changes taken together, the level of inequality has not been changed substantially. The extent of inequality largely differs between scientific fields; especially high in basic natural sciences and relatively low in social sciences. A close examination of inequality over researchers’ career indicates different patterns of transition between fields and cohorts. Finally, both at the university and individual levels, the funding distribution is found more unequal than the distribution of publications as an output indicator.
This paper offers some ammunition to better understand Hungary’s position in the IMD World Talent Report 2015 (IMD WTR 2015). First, it gives a brief overview of the methodology of the IMD WTR by highlighting its main features. Second, it presents the 2015 ranking and puts the focus on Hungary’s withering talent competitiveness. The paper conveys the message that an overarching and consistent reform package is a must in the education system to foster talent utilisation. However, such a package is likely to be insufficient unless economic policy addresses the relevant shortcomings of the Hungarian innovation ecosystem.
The hegemony of the Western higher education institutions in the global university market is being challenged by China. The top Chinese universities have significantly improved their international ranking positions. When it comes, however, to the ability of universities to attract foreign students and faculty, the Chinese higher education institutions' performance raises questions. The International Outlook scores of these universities, although showing an increasing trend, are still lacking behind the U.S. or Western European top universities. China is primarily a student ‘exporter.’ It also became a leading destination country for students from Asia or Africa, but it is still far from reaching the ‘international openness’ level of the U.S. or the UK universities. The publication networks of the top Chinese higher education institutions indicate that these universities prefer to publish with other Chinese institutions or the U.S. universities.
There is increasing interest in assessing how sponsored research funding influences the development and trajectory of science and technology. Traditionally, linkages between research funding and subsequent results are hard to track, often requiring access to separate funding or performance reports released by researchers or sponsors. Tracing research sponsorship and output linkages is even more challenging when researchers receive multiple funding awards and collaborate with a variety of differentially-sponsored research colleagues. This article presents a novel bibliometric approach to undertaking funding acknowledgement analysis which links research outputs with their funding sources. Using this approach in the context of nanotechnology research, the article probes the funding patterns of leading countries and agencies including patterns of cross-border research sponsorship. We identify more than 91,500 nanotechnology articles published worldwide during a 12-month period in 2008–2009. About 67% of these publications include funding acknowledgements information. We compare articles reporting funding with those that do not (for reasons that may include reliance on internal core-funding rather than external awards as well as omissions in reporting). While we find some country and field differences, we judge that the level of reporting of funding sources is sufficiently high to provide a basis for analysis. The funding acknowledgement data is used to compare nanotechnology funding policies and programs in selected countries and to examine their impacts on scientific output. We also examine the internationalization of research funding through the interplay of various funding sources at national and organizational levels. We find that while most nanotechnology funding is nationally-oriented, internationalization and knowledge exchange does occur as researchers collaborate across borders. Our method offers a new approach not only in identifying the funding sources of publications but also in feasibly undertaking large-scale analyses across scientific fields, institutions and countries.