Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change

Berlemann, Michael; Haucap, Justus

doi:10.1016/j.respol.2014.12.002

Cited by 23 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A lack of experience and commitment of participants (e.g., Barnes et al, 2002 ; Gaskill et al, 2003 ; Bozeman et al, 2016 ) and unprofessional or inefficient leadership and management (e.g., Adler et al, 2009 ; Bozeman et al, 2016 ; Volk, 2021 ) are further recurrent problems. Less frequently named examples are a lack of sustainability in funding (Goddard et al, 2006 ; Adler et al, 2009 ; Volk, 2021 ), the relation between individual costs and benefits (Berlemann and Haucap, 2015 ), geographical distance (Goddard et al, 2006 ; Cummings and Kiesler, 2008 ; Volk, 2021 ), the size of the research team (e.g., Cummings and Kiesler, 2008 ; Cummings et al, 2013 ), a high level of bureaucracy in institutions (e.g., Muriithi et al, 2018 ), or unforeseeable risks like the premature disclosure of results by participants (e.g., Hoecht, 2004 ; Hackett et al, 2017 ; Garcia et al, 2019 ).…”

Section: State Of Research: Problems and Solutions In The Context Of ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Whenever this is not the case, one or several problems may occur. For example, the recurrent collaboration problem of fairness (e.g., Berlemann and Haucap, 2015 ; Bozeman et al, 2016 ; Johann et al, 2020 ) can be well-explained in terms of club theory: In the production and use of the club good, an appropriate reciprocity of input and output by and for everyone must be guaranteed. However, in a research team, there are also incentives for participants to limit their input at the expense of others or to take advantage of others.…”

Section: Theoretical Background: Club Theory and Commons Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding and Addressing Problems in Research Collaboration: A Qualitative Interview Study From a Self-Governance Perspective

Meißner

Weinmann

Vowe

2022

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For collaborative research to be successful, understanding and solving collaboration problems is of paramount importance. However, theory-driven research on this issue at a general level is scarce. Drawing from two micro-oriented approaches (i.e., club theory and commons theory) and relying on self-governance as the basic principle for addressing collaboration problems, we aim to develop theoretically informed, concise and generalizable catalogs of problems and solutions based on the experiences and expectations of research collaboration participants. A series of expert interviews (N = 18) were conducted with leading researchers in Germany. Seven typical problems (e.g., lack of commitment or fairness) and 12 possible solutions (e.g., continuous evaluation or creating cognitive common ground) that can be applied within the self-regulatory framework were identified. The results provide a useful framework to further investigate problems and solutions as well as interlinkages between the two, and to improve research collaboration.

show abstract

Section: State Of Research: Problems and Solutions In The Context Of ...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Theoretical Background: Club Theory and Commons Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and Addressing Problems in Research Collaboration: A Qualitative Interview Study From a Self-Governance Perspective

Meißner

Weinmann

Vowe

2022

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Less than half of the professoriate in the UK and USA had these profiles. This participation rate can perhaps be related to Berlemann and Haucap's (2015) finding of German business scholars disengagement with quantification of their research outputs can to some extent be related to their security of full professorship, however further research across academic levels would be needed to determine if this holds currency in relation to the education professoriate in AU, the UK and the US. As GS use in the education professoriate cannot be viewed as widespread, the pool of participating professors could be skewed toward the more highly research-active and those who will appear in a positive light (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the neoliberal environment of contemporary academia, an individual’s research rankings and outputs can shape their career security and progression. When applying for ongoing employment and promotional opportunities, academics may benchmark their performance against that of superior colleagues to demonstrate their performance in relation to their discipline. The H-index and citation rates are commonly used to quantify the value of an academic’s work, and they can be used comparatively for benchmarking purposes. The focus of this paper is to critically consider if Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education, by weighting up issues of data reliability and participation. The Google Scholar profiles of full professors at top ranked universities in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America are analysed to explore how widespread Google Scholar use is in the education professoriate. Quartiles of impact are established in relation to H-index, with exploration of how gender is distributed across these quartiles. Limitations of using Google Scholar data are highlighted through a taxonomy of quality confounders, and the utility of Google Scholar as a legitimate tool for benchmarking against the professoriate in education is strongly challenged. As metrics continue to rise in their importance for academics’ job security and promotional prospects, reliance on metrics of dubious quality and uneven participation must be questioned.

show abstract

“…Diem & Wolter, ). ECRs who are seeking to secure tenure and vocational security cannot be blind to the role academic publications play in an environment characterized by ‘increasing attempts to quantify and compare research output’ (Berlemann & Haucap, , p. 1109).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Early career experiences of navigating journal article publication: Lessons learned using an autoethnographic approach

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The successful publication of peer reviewed academic journal articles is an essential achievement for early career researchers (ECRs) seeking to establish themselves in their profession. However, this journey can pose several significant challenges for ECRs. We use an autoethnographic approach that draws deeply on our lived experience as ECRs to capture our recent and current experiences of negotiating the academic journal article publication journey to explore the tensions, contradictions, and benefits encountered in the journey. We critically examine challenges we experienced in choosing a target journal and negotiating the follow-up process; undertaking revisions; and our experiences of limitations and possibilities in peer review and editorial support. While the peer review journal writing process has played a significant role in supporting us to become more effective ECRs, we also highlight challenges we faced negotiating ethical quandaries in this space, as well as illustrate how our preconceptions of a simple publication journey were confounded by subsequent experience of the complex realities of the space. We also suggest that educational interventions are indicated to provide ECRs support in foundational knowledge about what constitutes valuable revisions, an effective paper, and the scope of issues that can be addressed to make a paper more effective, with reference to the possibility of academic mentoring to support this need. Finally, we explore our findings in light of the tensions imposed by the relative inexperience and lack of power yielded by ECRs.

show abstract

Which factors drive the decision to opt out of individual research rankings? An empirical study of academic resistance to change

Cited by 23 publications

References 44 publications

Understanding and Addressing Problems in Research Collaboration: A Qualitative Interview Study From a Self-Governance Perspective

Understanding and Addressing Problems in Research Collaboration: A Qualitative Interview Study From a Self-Governance Perspective

Should Google Scholar be used for benchmarking against the professoriate in education?

Early career experiences of navigating journal article publication: Lessons learned using an autoethnographic approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About