Evaluating research performance in tourism and hospitality: The perspective of university program heads

Abstract

In spite of the consensus on the importance of research and its close relationship to academic promotion and tenure, the existing tourism and hospitality literature has no published article that examine the importance of various researchrelated activities. While counting published articles in selected journals or citation frequency can serve as a proxy for research achievement, these methods are subject to bias and incomplete definition. Specifically, these counting methods do not consider the effort that academic staff have devoted to input, service, and other output types that are also an essential part of academic research. To bridge this gap, this paper reports on the findings of a study that investigated the perceived importance of 31 research-related items from the perspective of university program heads in tourism and hospitality departments. Empirical findings from the respondents of 78 universities around the world show that only seven items were viewed as important or very important.

Themes and Trends in Australian and New Zealand Tourism Research: A Social Network Analysis of Citations in Two Leading Journals (1994–2007)

“…The interest in measuring and evaluating research output has a long history in North America, where individuals have been required to demonstrate their research prowess in order to secure tenured positions (Jogaratnam, Chon et al, 2005). Several studies also indicate that publication in top tier journals is perceived to be the most important factor for career progression in academia (Beed & Beed, 1996;Law & Chon, 2007;Weber & Ladkin, 2008). The ranking of journals has also been found to influence researchers' decisions about where to publish their work (Zehrer, 2007).…”

An insight into research performance through a citation counting analysis

“…A few researchers may even produce multiple papers, with each paper describing only a portion of the full study. Law and Chon (2007) thus criticized research assessment methods, arguing that most methods are primarily output oriented, largely ignoring other scholarly activities. In other words, counting publications could be biased and narrowly defined, if not misleading.…”

“…In the U.K.'s research assessment exercise, universities are required to submit several different types of metrics, such as research output, research grants, indicators of esteem, and research student supervision for evaluation (Law & Chon, 2007). Because citation counts also contribute to knowledge transfer and development, governments or senior university administrators may need to include citations when making judgmental decisions.…”

“…Based on a global survey of university program heads in hospitality and tourism, Law and Chon (2007) argued that publication in first-tier journals is the most important among various research metrics. Although their study did not provide a list of first-tier journals, other recent studies pointed to six hospitality and tourism journals that are generally considered to be leading journals (McKercher et al, 2006;Park, Philips, Canter, & Abbott, 2011).…”

“…Law and van der Veen (2008) introduced an approach that ranked eight highly regarded hospitality journals based on their citation counts on GS and called the approach as "popularity of prestigious journals". In their study, Law and Chon (2007) grouped 31 research activities into seven dimensions and conducted a global survey of university program heads. They found that department heads view that research output in firsttier journals and securing external grants are the most important factors for determining research performance.…”