Top

Published in:

2021 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

4. Managing Minds: The Challenges of Current Research Information Systems for Improving University Performance

Author : Gad Yair

Published in: Handbook of Operations Research and Management Science in Higher Education

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This chapter describes the failure of Current Research Information Systems (CRIS) to modernize routine managerial tasks involved in academic administration. It argues that most universities maintain traditional decision-making procedures in regards to hiring, promotions, preparation of annual reports, and submission of portfolios for accreditation and assessment. I argue that developers of CRIS programs failed to appreciate the tasks of academic management. At the same time, management teams seem reluctant to change traditional academic practices. I discuss reasons for this disconnect and suggest ways to close the gap so as to modernize academic decision-making in universities.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

previous chapter Overview of Simulation in Higher Education: Methods and Applications

next chapter Forecasting Methods in Higher Education: An Overview

As a developer of a CRIS program I had the opportunity to follow Israeli University presidents and rectors drag the process for more than a decade. First attempts for national implementation took place in 2008. Only in 2017 has PURE by Elsevier won a bid. We are at the verge of 2020—and we are yet to see implementation (checked with the bidding agency, Machba, November 2019).

These are but prominent examples. The field contains many other platforms. Readers are advised to see a taxonomy of those programs and their features here (extracted December 21, 2019): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_research_networking_tools_and_research_profiling_systems.

Some administrators boast that they moved to Dropbox sharing CV documents rather than using printed papers. This is hardly a technological advance.

The organizational challenges I describe and my suggestion for software development are set from a bird’s eye. Each should be carefully studied with possible adaptations to local institutional variations.

Bibliometrics and scientometrics are fields of study that focus on scientific productivity and impact—which constitute the two main measures for ranking individuals, journals, and institutions in terms of success and prestige.

Measures of impact factor (IF) denote the number of expected citations for publications in Journal X in the following year or two. The higher the IF, the more citations garnered by papers. This measure serves as a proxy for journal quality and its prestige. It is also a proxy for the centrality of journals in research fields.

Some administrators use Publish or Perish, a software that collects publication data from Google Scholar. Many fail to appreciate problems in Google Scholar. See the rich website of P&P developer, Anne-Wil Harzing in: https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish (extracted December 21, 2019).

The H-Index measures productivity (number of publications) and impact (number of citations) with a single number that makes it highly popular and effective.

PlumX measures number of mentions in social network platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Mendeley. See: https://plumanalytics.com/learn/about-metrics/ (extracted December 21, 2019).

https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/ (extracted December 21, 2019).

https://duraspace.org/vivo/ (extracted December 21, 2019).

(extracted December 21, 2019).

https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/pure (extracted December 21, 2019).

https://orcid.org/ (extracted December 21, 2019).

Marketization of CRIS program faces another organizational problem. Universities provide units—departments, research centers, faculty units—with autonomy. Those units create their own websites. They are at times responsible for integrating digital platforms through their own discretion and with their internal budgets. Market strategies should allow flexible specifications of service.

In appraising “who needs to change,” CRIS developers need to appreciate that universities are heavily regulated by ordinances and collective agreements. Academic decision-making procedures are resistant. It is therefore the task of information giants to adapt their products to the realities and regulations of academic life.

In 2012 I conducted an Israeli faculty survey with more than 1400 academics replying. 47% said the promotion criteria are opaque; 33% stated that promotion criteria are not applied equally; 34% replied that promotion procedures are unfair. These are troubling statistics.

Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Open University Press/SRHE.

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Clemens, E. S., Powell, W. W., McIlwaine, K., & Okamoto, D. (1995). Careers in print: Books, journals, and scholarly reputations. American Journal of Sociology, 101(2), 433–494.CrossRef

Diamond, A. M. (1996). The economics of science. Knowledge and Policy, 9(2–3), 6–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02696298 CrossRef

Fortunato, S., Bergstrom, C. T., Börner, K., Evans, J. A., Helbing, D., Milojević, S., Petersen, A. M., et al. (2018). Science of science. Science, 359(6379). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao0185

Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.178.4060.471 CrossRef

Garfield, E. (1970). Citation indexing for studying science. Science, 227, 669–671.

Garfield, E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 295(1), 90–93. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.1.90 CrossRef

Garfield, E. (2009). From the science of science to Scientometrics visualizing the history of science with HistCite software. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2009.03.009 CrossRef

Gates, A. J., Ke, Q., Varol, O., & Barabási, A.-L. (2019). Nature’s reach: Narrow work has broad impact. Nature, 575(7781), 32–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03308-7 CrossRef

Gates, B. (1995). The road ahead. Longman.

Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an Individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.CrossRef

Lotka, A. (1929). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of Washington Academy of Sciences, 16, 317–323.

Mistele, T., Price, T., & Hossenfelder, S. (2019). Predicting authors’ citation counts and H-indices with a neural network. Scientometrics, 120(1), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03110-2 CrossRef

Praus, P. (2019). High-ranked citations percentage as an indicator of publications quality. Scientometrics, 120(1), 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03128-6 CrossRef

Price, d. S. D. J. (1963). Little science, big science. Columbia University Press.CrossRef

Sent, E.-M. (1999). Economics of science: Survey and suggestions. Journal of Economic Methodology, 6(1), 95–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501789900000005 CrossRef

Shulman, L. S. (2004). Visions of the possible: Models for campus support for the scholarship of teaching. In W. E. Becker & M. L. Andrews (Eds.), Scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: Contributions of research universities (pp. 9–24). Indiana University Press.

Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354(6312). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf5239

Stephan, P. (2012). How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press.CrossRef

Yair, G. (2019b). Culture Counts More Than Money: Israeli Critiques of German Science. Social Studies of Science, September. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719878788

Yair, G. (2019a). Hierarchy versus symmetry in German and Israeli science (pp. 1–32). American Journal of Cultural Sociology. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41290-019-00069-8 CrossRef

Yair, G., Gueta, N., & Davidovitch, N. (2017). The law of limited excellence: Publication productivity of Israel prize laureates in the life and exact sciences. Scientometrics, 113(1), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2465-0 CrossRef

Title: Managing Minds: The Challenges of Current Research Information Systems for Improving University Performance
Author: Gad Yair
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Book: Handbook of Operations Research and Management Science in Higher Education
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-74049-8

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-74051-1

Copyright Year: 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74051-1_4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Premium Partner