The HE-RISE Model For Future-Ready Research Management In Higher Education Application At Middle East Technical University (Tr) And A Research Intermediary (Ie)

Leonardo Piccinetti¹, Mecit Halil Oztop², Jeny Edward³, Gustavo Perez⁴, Trevor Uyi Omoruyi³ and Mohamed Ramadan A. Rezk^5,

¹Sustainable Innovation Technologies Ltd (SITES), United Kingdom

²Department of Food Engineering, Middle East Technical University (METU), Ankara, Türkiye

³University of Chester, Chester, United Kingdom

⁴Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona, Spain

⁵Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Cairo, Egypt

Cite this paper:
Leonardo Piccinetti, Mecit Halil Oztop, Jeny Edward, Gustavo Perez, Trevor Uyi Omoruyi and Mohamed Ramadan A. Rezk. The HE-RISE Model For Future-Ready Research Management In Higher Education Application At Middle East Technical University (Tr) And A Research Intermediary (Ie). Journal of Business and Management Sciences. 2026; 14(3):67-85. doi: 10.12691/jbms-14-3-3

Abstract

Research management has become an increasingly important institutional capability in higher education, driven by intensified competition for research funding, expanding interdisciplinary collaboration, growing regulatory requirements, and stronger expectations for societal impact. However, it remains theoretically fragmented and is frequently treated as a collection of administrative services rather than as an integrated governance function. This study develops the HE-RISE Model (Higher Education - Research, Innovation, Society, and Ecosystem), as a framework for organizing future-ready research-management capability. The model synthesizes six complementary bodies of scholarship, namely the helix tradition, modes of knowledge production, open innovation, responsible research and innovation, participatory approaches including living labs and citizen science, and mission-oriented innovation. These perspectives are reorganized into four interdependent functional dimensions, Research, Innovation, Society, and Ecosystem, supported by Digital Enablement as a cross-cutting institutional capability. The preliminary framework was evaluated through a two-round modified Delphi study that examined indicator relevance, clarity, measurability, and overall expert acceptability. Fifteen experts completed Round 1, and 13 participated in Round 2, yielding a retention rate of 86.7%. In Round 1, all 29 indicators met the predefined relevance threshold. The overall scale level content validity indices were 0.929 for relevance, 0.841 for clarity, and 0.770 for measurability. Following the combined analysis of quantitative ratings and qualitative comments, 11 indicators were materially revised and reassessed in Round 2 for relevance and clarity. Across these indicators, mean relevance increased from 0.861 to 0.958, while mean clarity increased from 0.739 to 0.881. All final framework-level statements met the predefined consensus criteria. Nevertheless, the panel identified continuing implementation challenges relating to dimensional overlap, context-sensitive interpretation, and the specification of observable evidence for institutional capability. The refined framework was subsequently applied illustratively to two contrasting food-technology research settings, Middle East Technical University, a research-intensive university, and SITES, a private research-and-innovation intermediary. They do not provide comparative performance assessments or evidence of causal effectiveness. Further research involving cognitive testing, pilot implementation, independent multi-institutional samples, and confirmatory measurement analysis is required to establish reliability, construct validity, contextual adaptability, and relationships with institutional research outcomes.

Keywords:
research management higher education institutional capability research governance responsible research and innovation Delphi study digital enablement food technology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References:

[1]	Poli, S., Kerridge, S., Ajai-Ajagbe, P., & Zornes, D. (2023). Research management as labyrinthine-How and why people become and remain research managers and administrators around the world.
[2]	Sá, C. M. (2008). ‘Interdisciplinary strategies’ in U.S. research universities. Higher Education, 55(5), 537-552.
[3]	Kirkland, J. (2010). The management of university research. Elsevier eBooks, 316-321.
[4]	Kienast, S. (2023). How do universities’ organizational characteristics, management strategies, and culture influence academic research collaboration? A literature review and research agenda. Tertiary Education and Management, 29(2), 139-160.
[5]	Barringer, S. N., Leahey, E., & Salazar, K. (2020). What catalyzes research universities to commit to interdisciplinary research? Research in Higher Education, 61(6), 679-705.
[6]	Henderson, D., Morgan, K., & Delbridge, R. (2024). Putting missions in their place: Micro-missions and the role of universities in delivering challenge-led innovation. Regional Studies, 58(1), 208-219.
[7]	Research England. (2023). Research Excellence Framework 2029: Initial decisions and issues for further consultation. Research England and UK funding bodies.
[8]	Jörg, B. (2010). CERIF: the Common European Research Information Format Model. Data Science Journal, 9, CRIS24-CRIS31.
[9]	Wilkinson, M. D., Dumontier, M., Aalbersberg, I. J., Appleton, G., Axton, M., Baak, A., Blomberg, N., Boiten, J., Da Silva Santos, L. B., Bourne, P. E., Bouwman, J., Brookes, A. J., Clark, T., Crosas, M., Dillo, I., Dumon, O., Edmunds, S., Evelo, C. T., Finkers, R., Mons, B. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data, 3(1), 160018.
[10]	Benavides, L., Arias, J. T., Serna, M. A., Bedoya, J. B., & Burgos, D. (2020). Digital transformation in higher education institutions: A systematic literature review. Sensors, 20(11), 3291.
[11]	Vicente-Saez, R., & Martinez-Fuentes, C. (2018). Open Science now: A systematic literature review for an integrated definition. Journal of Business Research, 88, 428-436.
[12]	Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen Science: A Study of People, Expertise and Sustainable Development. Routledge.
[13]	Eitzel, M. V., Cappadonna, J. L., Santos-Lang, C., Duerr, R. E., Virapongse, A., West, S. E., et al. (2017). Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1), Article 1.
[14]	Vohland, K., Land-Zandstra, A., Ceccaroni, L., Lemmens, R., Perelló, J., Ponti, M., Samson, R., & Wagenknecht, K. (Eds.). (2021). The science of citizen science. Springer.
[15]	Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2013). Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(9), 1568-1580.
[16]	Shelley-Egan, C., Gjefsen, M. D., & Nydal, R. (2020). Consolidating RRI and Open Science: Understanding the potential for transformative change. Life Sciences Society and Policy, 16(1), 7.
[17]	Owen, R., von Schomberg, R., & Macnaghten, P. (2021). An unfinished journey? Reflections on a decade of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 8(2), 217-233.
[18]	Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple Helix, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41-69.
[19]	Rezk, M. R. A., Piccinetti, L., Santoro, D., Salem, N., Omoruyi, T. U., Uhunamure, S. E., Hassan, M. M., & El-Bary, A. A. (2026). Scaling living labs in Egypt through the Quintuple Helix: Future policy options from a fuzzy Delphi study. Insights Into Regional Development, 8(1), 139-162.
[20]	Knudsen, M. P., Frederiksen, M. H., & Goduscheit, R. C. (2021). New forms of engagement in third mission activities: A multi-level university-centric approach. Innovation, 23(2), 209-240.
[21]	Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., De Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431.
[22]	Godonoga, A., & Sporn, B. (2023). The conceptualisation of socially responsible universities in higher education research: A systematic literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 48(3), 445-459.
[23]	Rushforth, A. (2025). Beyond impact factors? Lessons from the Dutch attempt to transform academic research assessment. Research Evaluation, 34.
[24]	Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university-industry-government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109-123.
[25]	Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201-234.
[26]	Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). The Quintuple Helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 1-12.
[27]	Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage.
[28]	Carayannis, E. G., & Morawska-Jancelewicz, J. (2022). The futures of Europe: Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 as driving forces of future universities. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 13(4), 3445-3471.
[29]	Schneider, F., Patel, Z., Paulavets, K., Buser, T., Kado, J., & Burkhart, S. (2023). Fostering transdisciplinary research for sustainability in the Global South: Pathways to impact for funding programmes. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1).
[30]	Markauskaite, L., Schwarz, B., Damşa, C., & Muukkonen, H. (2024). Beyond disciplinary engagement: Researching the ecologies of interdisciplinary learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 33(2), 213-241.
[31]	Newman, J. (2023). Incentivising interdisciplinary research collaboration: Evidence from Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 46(2), 146-165.
[32]	Bogers, M. L. A. M., Chesbrough, H., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. J. (2023). Creating and capturing value from open innovation: Humans, firms, platforms, and ecosystems. California Management Review, 65(2), 5-21.
[33]	Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-709.
[34]	Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9(4), 259-280.
[35]	Perkmann, M., Tartari, V., McKelvey, M., Autio, E., Broström, A., D’Este, P., Fini, R., Geuna, A., Grimaldi, R., Hughes, A., Krabel, S., Kitson, M., Llerena, P., Lissoni, F., Salter, A., & Sobrero, M. (2013). Academic engagement and commercialisation: A review of the literature on university-industry relations. Research Policy, 42(2), 423-442.
[36]	Geuna, A., & Muscio, A. (2009). The governance of university knowledge transfer: A critical review of the literature. Minerva, 47(1), 93-114.
[37]	Murga Pinillos, A. Y. (2024). University-industry open innovation: Main enablers and practices based on a scoping review. International Journal of Innovation Science, 17(6), 1301-1335.
[38]	Owen, R., Macnaghten, P., & Stilgoe, J. (2012). Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 751-760.
[39]	von Schomberg, R. (2013). A vision of responsible research and innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant, & M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 51-74). Wiley.
[40]	Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: Experiences from living labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(1), 19-25.
[41]	Leminen, S., Westerlund, M., & Nyström, A.-G. (2012). Living Labs as open-innovation networks. Technology Innovation Management Review, 2(9), 6-11.
[42]	Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977-984.
[43]	Mazzucato, M. (2018). Mission-oriented innovation policies: Challenges and opportunities. Industrial and Corporate Change, 27(5), 803-815.
[44]	Janssen, M. J., Torrens, J., Wesseling, J. H., & Wanzenböck, I. (2021). The promises and premises of mission-oriented innovation policy—A reflection and ways forward. Science and Public Policy.
[45]	Wittmann, F., Hufnagl, M., Lindner, R., Roth, F., & Edler, J. (2021). Governing varieties of mission-oriented innovation policies: A new typology. Science and Public Policy, 48(5), 727-738.
[46]	Al-Jayyousi, O., Amin, H., Al-Saudi, H. A., Aljassas, A., & Tok, E. (2023). Mission-oriented innovation policy for sustainable development: A systematic literature review. Sustainability, 15(17), 13101.
[47]	Pfeifer, L., & Helming, K. (2024). Effective mission-oriented research: A new framework for systemic research impact assessment. Research Evaluation, 33.
[48]	Smirnov, D. S., & Willoughby, K. W. (2023). How can business schools create and appropriate value in university-based technological innovation?. International Journal of innovation and technology management, 20(08), 2350052.
[49]	COST Association. (2025). CA24111: ENFiber. https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA24111
[50]	Polit, D. F., Beck, C. T., & Owen, S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 30(4), 459-467.
[51]	Alexander, A. T., & Martin, D. P. (2013). Intermediaries for open innovation: A competence-based comparison of knowledge transfer office practices. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(1), 38-49.