Conceptualizing academic intellectual capital: definition and proposal of a measurement scale
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JIC-09-2018-0152 |
| Pages | 306-334 |
| Published date | 03 April 2019 |
| Date | 03 April 2019 |
| Author | Jesús de Frutos-Belizón,Fernando Martín-Alcázar,Gonzalo Sánchez-Gardey |
| Subject Matter | Behavioural accounting,Hr & organizational behaviour,Knowledge management,Organizational structure/dynamics |
Conceptualizing academic
intellectual capital: definition and
proposal of a measurement scale
Jesús de Frutos-Belizón, Fernando Martín-Alcázar and
Gonzalo Sánchez-Gardey
Department of Business Management, Universidad de Cadiz, Cadiz, Spain
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to describe the development and validation of an instrument for
measuring intellectual capital in the academic research context. The current research context describes a new
paradigm of scientific production characterized by interdisciplinarity, heterogeneity and the intensification of
the relations between the generators of knowledge. In this scenario, traditional measures of intellectualcapital
do not capture all the variables that make up the environment in which the research activities are carried out.
This transformation of research processes suggests the need to bring theories of organizational behavior,
more appropriate to an organizational context, to the study of scientific context. Thus, the paper
contextualizes the intellectual capital approach, thereby explaining how the different attributes that build it
influence scientific productivity and providing a measurement instrument to evaluate relative levels of
intellectual capital in an academic research context.
Design/methodology/approach –Thescalewasdesignedthroughadoublequalitative–quantitative
scale development process. The literatureon intellectual capital does not provide strong theoretical support
for the definition of a specific set of items to be applied in the specific academic research context.
Consequently, the sca le constructs and observable varia bles were initially conceptualiz ed through a Delphi
panel. This initial se t of indicators was emp irically validated th rough a second quantit ative stage to a
sample of 1,798 Spanish academics. Given that no prior published studi es have examined the cons truct
validity of the propos ed scale, and the propo sed scale is not based on ot her previously valid ated scales,
the authors used explor atory and confirmato ry factor analysis to as sess the internal cons istency, using
Cronbach’sαto determine reliabilit y.
Findings –Drawing on the evidenc e obtained from a double qua litative–quantitative process, a scale
consisting of 47 items w as proposed to measur e the three dimensions o f intellectual capit al, namely, the
researcher’s human capital, as well as the nat ure of the social capital and o rganizational capit al of the
team in which the schola r is integrated. The proce ss of identifying and v alidating indicator s of
intellectual capita l allowed the authors to identify certai n intangible elements that are key in the res earch
process and that, therefore, determine scientific productivity. Thus, the proposed scale contributes by
conceptualizing new va riables that could be used to deepen and broade n the study of the determinants of
research performance. The contextualization of intellectual capital approach can also help to assess the
value of intangibles, o ffering an external reporting too l and making universities’social con tributions more
visible to public and priv ate stakeholders, jus tifying the efforts ma de by societies in the gene ration of
academic knowledge.
Research limitations/implications –The empirical analysis was carried out with an initial sample of
1,798 Spanish scholars. The validation of the scale should therefore be confirmed in different national
contexts, with larger data sets. Likewise, the use of longitudinal data sets could help to study the effects of
intellectual capital in academic research, thereby contributing to the ongoing debate on the determinants of
research performance.
Originality/value –From a practical perspec tive, the instrument cou ld be considered both as a
management and an external reporting tool, providing a self-assessment instrument of the levels of
intellectual capita l. As a management tool, a specific measure of i ntellectual capital in an academic cont ext
could help to identify tr aining needs, the imple mentation of practic es that encourage the ca pability for
building research net works and the developme nt of reports with intell ectual capital-rel ated inputs for
Journal of Intellectual Capital
Vol. 20 No. 3, 2019
pp. 306-334
© Emerald PublishingLimited
1469-1930
DOI 10.1108/JIC-09-2018-0152
Received 7 September 2018
Revised 6 December 2018
Accepted 20 February 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1469-1930.htm
The authors appear in alphabetical order and have contributed equitably to this work. No potential
conflict of interest was reported by the authors. This study has benefited from financing from the
Research Project ECO2014-56580-R of the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitively, and the
Research Projects P12-SEJ-1810 and P12-SEJ-1618 from the Andalusia Government (Spain) and
PR2016-018 (Research Projects University of Cadiz).
306
JIC
20,3
the justification of th e resources received. At an instituti onal level, the propose d set of indicators als o
identifies the attribu tes of scholars linked to higher scient ific performance, and the scale could be us ed as
an instrument for selection processes in academic institutions, to develop practices related to the
distribution of work load or the publication of intellectual capital indicators of its resea rchers in a healthy
exercise of transparency.
Keywords Intellectual capital, Delphi panel, University, Measurement scale, Academic research,
Scientific team
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In the context of a knowledge-based economy, university research is fundamental for the
generation of scientific knowledge as a resource for competitive advantage and social
progress (Fullwood et al., 2013). In fact, the European Commission (2010) considers
universities to be key actors in the achievement of the objective of Europe 2020, which
engaged Europe in the quest to become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based
market in the world by 2020. Consequently, the capacity of universities for managing and
valorizing their knowledge assets or intellectual capital will influence the competitiveness of
individuals, organizations and the regions in which they are located (Vinig and Lips, 2015).
Over the last few decades, the European university system has undergone a significant
transformation, caused by the structural transformations of the Bologna Process and
intended to increase research quality and make academic institutions more comparable,
competitive, flexible and transparent (Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011; Secundo et al., 2016).
In view of this situation, the information transparency of higher education institutions
obtains a greater transcendence, placing more emphasis on the disclosure of their intangible
assets and processes. This paper starts from the premise that the intellectual capital
approach can help to assess this intangible value, making universities’social contributions
more visible to public and private stakeholders and justifying the efforts made by societies
in the generation of academic knowledge (Ramírez-Córcoles et al., 2011).
On the other hand, the current research context describes a new paradigm of scientific
production characterized by the interdisciplinarity, the heterogeneity and the intensification
of the relations between the generators of knowledge, for which it demands a specific
analysis of the intangibles that participate in the generation of scientific knowledge.
Different works affirm that in order to respond to this new context, the institutions
dedicated to scientific research must articulate new types of resources and different forms of
management that favor their contribution to the processes of socioeconomic development.
In addition, nowadays, the scientific work is organized and developed more and more in a
context that resembles a purely organizational environment (Shrum et al., 2007; Walsh and
Lee, 2015; Lee et al., 2015; Murayama et al., 2015; Shibayama et al., 2015). As some works in
the literature point out, this transformation of work and research processes suggests the
need to bring theories of organizational behavior and more appropriate to an organizational
context to the study of the scientific context (Cummings et al., 2013; Walsh and Lee, 2015;
Lee et al., 2015).
Besides, given that scientific productivity is an engine of success in the academic career
(White et al., 2012; Seibert et al., 2017), the application and contextualization of new
approaches that help to understand the determinants of the generation of knowledge and
facilitate new science management tools make important contributions (Van den Brink et al.,
2013; Seibert et al., 2017). In this sense, the application of the intellectual capital approach
involves the conceptualization of new variables that allow deepening the study of
the determinants of research performance. In addition, with the contextualization of the
intellectual capital approach to the research environment, we respond to the call for more
research on this topic in a specific context, something that facilitates the practical
application of intellectual capital approaches (Chiucchi, 2013; Veltri and Bronzetti, 2015).
307
Academic
intellectual
capital
To continue reading
Request your trial