Search results

The subject of this paper is the phenomenon of social media aesthetics, which can be perceived as a tool for promoting and building the image of libraries, especially in terms of merchandising. The aim of this paper is to analyse the potential of the dark academia social media trend in the promotion of academic libraries.

The article is based on a review of the social networking sites YouTube and Instagram and an analysis of network resources using the Brand24 tool.

Resources that are described by Internet users as “dark academia” are popular in social media. Dark academia as an aesthetic concept creates potential for the promotion of academic libraries, especially those that are more traditional in terms of their architecture, décor or how they offer their services.

The paper concerns a phenomenon which, although popular socially, has not yet been scientifically analysed in the literature on the subject. Since the topic is new and there is no scientific literature on it, the author had to base the paper on less standard sources of information (e.g. analysis of the content of social media). The article is a review, an introduction, as well as an invitation to further discussion. The author's aim is not to comprehensively cover this topic but only to draw attention to an interesting and rarely discussed issue that has great potential for practical activities.

The topic has great potential for the practical improvement of the promotional activities of libraries, especially older, more traditional libraries, to create a strong and positive image on the basis of characteristics often perceived as weaknesses.

Social media services are powerful social impact tools. Showing the potential role of social media aesthetics for cultural institutions could serve to make the public more aware of the role of the proper use of social media for promotion and image building.

The use of social media aesthetics is very rarely discussed in the subject literature.

The purpose of this study comprises the following three: (1) to ascertain the purpose of university module evaluation questionnaires (MEQs) and its reliability; (2) to evaluate University X's MEQ; and (3) to offer how Universities may be able to support their teaching staff with scholarship activities using the MEQ project.

University MEQ purposes and its reliability were investigated using literature reviews. The University X's MEQ seven statements were evaluated by three university academic staff. The study was conducted at a British university in South East of England. The duration of this interdisciplinary project was for two months which was a university interdisciplinary project between 14/07/20 and 13/10/20.

The purpose for MEQs includes (1) students’ satisfaction; (2) accountability for university authority and (3) teaching feedback and academic promotions for teaching staff. The evaluation of University X's MEQ indicated that MEQ questions were unclear which do not serve reliable student evaluation results. This topic may be of interest to University MEQ designers, lecturers, University Student Experience team, University Executive Board, University administrators and University HR senior management teams.

The following three points are considered original to this study: (1) MEQ purposes are summarised by students, university authority and teaching staff; (2) the evaluation of a British University MEQ; (3) provides suggestions on how lecturers' scholarship activities can be supported by the university-wide initiative and umbrella network. These are practical knowledge for the faculty and administrators of higher education institutions which may be of use.

The major purpose of this paper is to examine the influence of openness to change on research publication in higher education institutions (HEI) in Tanzania.

With a sample of 247 academics, a cross-sectional survey design was used and questionnaires were the primary data collection tool. The collected data were tested using mean and standard deviations, and the causal–effect relationship between the independent and dependent variables was tested using simple linear regression.

The findings of this study revealed that openness to change positively and significantly influence research publication in higher education (β = 0.598 and p < 0.001).

The study recommends that HEI should consider openness to change value as one among criteria for hiring academics as well as developing good programs that will help academics develop the academics' self-awareness with regard to what takes for one to be a productive researcher.

This is the first study to examine the influence of openness to change as a personal value on academics’ research publication in Tanzanian HEI. In this instance, the study contributes to the existing literature on the influence of academics' personal values in terms of openness to change on research publication.

Gender competence as part of engineering education can better prepare men and women to work on sustainable solutions that benefit entire societies. This chapter describes the framework and lessons learned of a community of practice (CoP) for gender equality facilitated by the Mediterranean Engineering Schools Network. Faculty and students from Mediterranean European, North African and Middle Eastern countries came together in this CoP, which was supported by the TARGET project, to develop a practical plan using a reflexive approach. The transfer of knowledge between generations is achieved by using participatory learning processes, facilitating mindful awareness, widening experiences, deepening understandings and building a gender-sensitive mindset. Students embarked on the journey to become change agents. The process led to the consolidation of gender equality knowledge, competence building and the development of change agents for gender equality. This CoP can inspire other institutions to undertake a participatory path towards gender equality – at local, regional, or global level.

This paper presents a co-authorship study of authors who published in Digital Humanities journals and examines the apparent influence of gender, or more specifically, the quantitatively detectable influence of gender in the networks they form.

This study applied co-authorship network analysis. Data has been collected from three canonical Digital Humanities journals over 52 years (1966–2017) and analysed.

The results are presented as visualised networks and suggest that female scholars in Digital Humanities play more central roles and act as the main bridges of collaborative networks even though overall female authors are fewer in number than male authors in the network.

This is the first co-authorship network study in Digital Humanities to examine the role that gender appears to play in these co-authorship networks using statistical analysis and visualisation.

Despite the general recommendation of using a combination of multiple criteria for research assessment and faculty promotion decisions, the raise of quantitative indicators is generating an emerging trend in Business Schools to use single journal impact factors (IFs) as key (unique) drivers for those relevant school decisions. This paper aims to investigate the effects of using single Web of Science (WoS)-based journal impact metrics when assessing research from two related disciplines: Business and Economics, and its potential impact for the strategic sustainability of a Business School.

This study collected impact indicators data for Business and Economics journals from the Clarivate Web of Science database. We concentrated on the IF indicators, the Eigenfactor and the article influence score (AIS). This study examined the correlations between these indicators and then ranked disciplines and journals using these different impact metrics.

Consistent with previous findings, this study finds positive correlations among these metrics. Then this study ranks the disciplines and journals using each impact metric, finding relevant and substantial differences, depending on the metric used. It is found that using AIS instead of the IF raises the relative ranking of Economics, while Business remains basically with the same rank.

This study contributes to the research assessment literature by adding substantial evidence that given the sensitivity of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and too simplistic. This research shows that biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and traditions.

Consistent with the literature, given the sensibility of journal rankings to particular indicators, the selection of a single impact metric for assessing research, assigning research funds and hiring/promotion and tenure decisions is risky and simplistic. However, this research shows that risks and biases may be larger when assessment involves researchers from related disciplines – like Business and Economics – but with different research foundations and trajectories. The use of multiple criteria is advised for such purposes.

This is an applied work using real data from WoS that addresses a practical case of comparing the use of different journal IFs to rank-related disciplines like Business and Economics, with important implications for faculty tenure and promotion committees and for research funds granting institutions and decision-makers.