Search results

Implementation of research evaluation policies based on neoliberal orientations of performativity has transformed higher education institutions globally, reshaping academic work and the academic profession. Most lately, the mantra of “publish or no degree” has become the norm in many contexts. There has been little empirical research into the unintended consequences of this neoliberal academic performativity for inexperienced researchers. This article focuses on the role institutional research evaluation policies play on doctoral students and early-career doctoral graduates’ publication practices and on their decision to sometimes publish in journals with ethically “questionable” publishing standards in particular through the concept of figured worlds.

The study was conducted in a higher education setting employing a variety of research incentive schemes to boost research productivity where “publish or no degree” policy is the norm. It employs qualitative approach and involves in-depth interviews with nine doctoral students and seven early career academics who have been working part-time or full-time for five years following PhD completion.

Findings demonstrate publishing in journals with ethically “questionable” publishing standards is not always simply the result of naivety or inexperience. Some authors choose these journals in order to retain a sense of self-efficacy in the face of rejection by more highly ranked journals. Under institutional pressure to publish, they are socialized into this “shadow academia” through (existing) academic networks, conferences and journal special issues.

It is often assumed that scholars are trapped into “questionable” journals through the use of unsolicited emails. This paper challenges this assumption by demonstrating the crucial role research evaluation policies based on neoliberal orientations of performativity and contextual dynamics play on the publication practices of doctoral students and early-career doctoral graduates on their decision to submit to journals with “questionable” publication practices. It introduces the concept of unethical publication brokering, an informal network of ties promising fast and easy publication in outlets that “count”.

Scholarly interest in carrying out impactful research continues to remain high. Yet, given that citations of scholarly work can never decrease with time, traditional measures of research impact (such as raw counts of citations) unwittingly discriminate against early career researchers and also make it hard to identify future high impact scholars. In the current study, the paper compares several commonly used measures of research impact to identify one that best normalizes for the effect of career stage. The measure thus applies equally across most career stages, providing a usable impact benchmark for logistics scholars irrespective of seniority level. The paper also aims to present benchmarks on that metric to help logistics scholars identify their research impact vis-à-vis their peers.

Bibliometric data on the research of 702 logistics scholars were collected and analyzed by dividing the scholars into different cohorts based on seniority. Comparisons of different citation metrics were then made.

The h-rate provides the most appropriate basis for comparing research impact across logistics scholars of various career stages. Benchmark h-rates are provided for scholars to identify their research impact.

The authors are unaware of any other work in the logistics field that measures the research impact of logistics scholars in this manner.

Researcher development is an important but underexplored topic with implications for knowledge production, graduate education, faculty development and equity in higher education. The purpose of this constructivist instrumental case study was to understand how the process of writing and publishing from qualitative dissertations sparked researcher development among two pre-tenure faculty members in higher education.

Two researchers and seven data sources (i.e. six essays and one dialogue transcript) were used to construct the case. Researchers first inductively and independently coded the data sources. Researchers then collectively used the constant comparative technique (Charmaz, 2014) for data analysis.

Data analysis uncovered an iterative, three-phase process of seeking “better ways” (Evans, 2011) to translate dissertations into publications. This process included (1) recognizing one or more issues in the research design or conveyance of data, (2) rallying in a multitude of ways to seek better ways to address the issue(s) and (3) resolving the issue(s) by following internal voices and finding “better ways”.

Findings offer implications for faculty members’ approaches to mentoring and graduate preparation, and for postdoctoral and early career scholars’ agentic approaches to publishing, teaching and reflecting on one’s own researcher development.

This paper aims to explore the contrast between stable and dynamic labour markets in academe in light of career theories that were originally developed for business environments.

A conceptual design, offering the eco‐system as a framework.

It evaluates their relevance and applicability to dynamic and global academic labour markets using the emerging novel eco‐system theory. Lessons are drawn for individual scholars employed in the higher education sector as well as to institutions.

The paper suggests practical indications for people‐management within academe. It integrates human capital theory, psychological‐contract concepts and career perspectives about people‐management with practical career advice for the sector.

The paper offers a conceptual framework to better understand labour markets, in particular academic labour markets, using eco‐system as a strong explanatory power.

This conversation presents the reflections from four inspirational early career disaster scholars on the opportunities and challenges associated with post-disaster research and disaster studies in general.

This paper is based on the conversations that took place on Disasters: Deconstructed Podcast livestream on the 15th September 2021.

The prominent themes in this conversation include representation, power imbalances and research extractivism and reciprocity.

The conversation contributes to the ongoing discussions around how research is conducted immediately following disasters.

This paper aims to use the technology acceptance model 2 (TAM2) to investigate the perceived ease of use, perceived benefits, barriers to use and acceptance of Arab scholars of informal communication tools in research writing.

This study adopted a quantitative approach using a questionnaire distributed among Arab scholars in Jordan, Egypt and Oman. The questionnaire based on the TAM2 model aimed to measure the acceptance of the sample of informal scholarly communication tools.

The study’s findings confirmed that the sample is considering informal scholarly communication tools are useful for their research. Informal scholarly communication tools increase the papers’ visibility, leading to a higher number of citations, building scholars’ reputation, creating new collaboration opportunities and maintaining the established collaboration.

The study’s findings can only be generalized on Arab scholars. The sample size could be one of the limitations, and the sample’s distribution was limited to three Arab universities in Jordan, Oman and Egypt. The authors recommend that future researchers use TAM2 model as a framework for studying the adoption of informal scholarly communication tools in different cultural contexts to achieve a better understanding of factors influencing the adoption of such tools.

A practical implication of this research is in drawing the attention of higher education institutions for the potentials of these scholarly communication tools in increasing the availability of publications of their scholars and increasing the citation of these publications, which would help in increasing the ranking of scholars, and the rank of these institutions which opens new opportunities of international research collaboration.

The outcomes of this research have several implications for the successful adoption of the TAM2 model. This study brings new knowledge to the literature related to informal scholarly communication adoption by the application of TAM2 constructs to determine the adoption behavior; the findings offered evidence of the TAM2 success in predicting adoption of such tools.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, adopting TAM2 in this research will add to knowledge by being one of the first studies to adopt TAM2 to measure acceptance of informal scholarly communication tools.

This paper is the result of a collaboration and sharing of experiences of two postdoctoral researchers. The purpose of this paper is to put these experiences into perspective by cross-referencing our respective personal narratives with an analysis of the existing literature on the postdoctoral experience in the social sciences.

The authors conducted a non-exhaustive systematic literature review using the database PsycInfo and the multidisciplinary Web of Science Catalogue database to find relevant articles published from 2000 to today. Of the 946 articles identified from the database, only 12 were included in the literature review. The authors also included four articles identified from other sources, such as Google Scholar. Secondly, the authors used a method inspired by reflexive personal narrative writing, which allowed us to share our postdoctoral experience and examine how it compares or complements the existing literature on postdoctoral experience in the social sciences.

The literature highlights three significant criteria that play a major role in the postdoctoral experience across disciplines: professional identity, work–life balance and relationship with supervisor. While the majority of the current literature seems to highlight the importance of career prospects in the daily lives of postdoctoral researchers, the other two aspects seem to be somewhat less explored. However, personal factors as well as the relationship with the supervisor appear to be of major importance in the search for work–life balance, feelings of competency and overall satisfaction among postdoctoral researchers.

At the theoretical level, this paper allows a better understanding of the experiences of postdoctoral students in the social sciences, which seem to be less documented than those in scientific fields (e.g., Science, technology, engineering and mathematics postdoctoral fellow).

On a practical level, it constitutes a tool for reflection for postdoctoral researchers in the social sciences as well as for academic actors working to support and develop the well-being of these researchers (e.g. teachers, supervisors, administrators), all with the aim of optimising academic practices.

These results are discussed with respect to the specificity that our subjective personal narratives can offer to understand postdoctoral experiences, particularly in the social sciences, and thus offer reflections on ways to attend to individual psychosocial and relational needs that can foster an improved personal and professional training.

The study examines the benefits and potential challenges of the mentoring circle as an innovative approach to mentoring among four cisgendered women faculty situated at 4-year universities in various geographic locations in the United States.

Utilizing collaborative autoethnography, we ask: How can mentoring circles be beneficial for diverse early- and mid-career faculty women in higher education? Given our varying positionalities and the development of our sustained mentoring relationships, we drew on the concepts of intersectionality and sisterhood as a framework to understand our individual and collective experiences in the circle. Through a collaborative autoethnographic design, we examined data from four 3-h online video reflective discussions as well as relevant documents and communication, such as emails and texts.

The power dynamics within the circle, fluidity of its borders and how it provided us with a unique ability to read the world contributed to a sense of community and empowerment that were key factors to the circle's success. We created an inclusive space with a defined purpose where trust, authenticity, reciprocity and the expectation for vulnerability served as the solid foundation for relationships. We became sources of holistic support, sharing advice and resources to support our growth as teachers, scholars and community members within our field and beyond.

Our mentoring circle disrupts conventional mentoring structures and highlights the power of a sustainable circle among diverse women faculty rooted in adaptive, flexible and responsive relationships.

The authors' purpose is to illuminate ways in which care within the mentor–mentee relationship influences the efficacy of mentoring for/in the professoriate, within and beyond the novel circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A narrative inquiry design drew on the authors' distinct positionalities and experiences of mentoring and being mentored by one another to provide a multi-layered analysis of mentor–mentee relationships. Utilizing care theory, we paid particular attention in our narratives and analysis to the affective dimensions of mentoring within the distinct context created by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Our data analysis revealed three themes: (1) mentor humility was relevant to mentees' success, (2) relationship longevity mattered, and (3) caring mentoring relationships were affectively and empirically generative.

Narrative inquiry, generally, is limited in its generalizability but can be a powerful tool to facilitate knowledge sharing. Our analysis suggests areas which merit further research and may have broader implications. Namely, during trying times the normalization of professor humility may enhance the quality and generativity of the mentoring relationships, especially when combined with networking support.

We make seven recommendations to enhance the efficacy of professors as mentors and mentees in need of mentorship.

Mentors who practice care-for their mentees, as opposed to care-about, enhance the efficacy of the mentoring relationship.

This paper takes seriously the feminist adage that “the personal is political” by critically exploring my experiences as an early career scholar of gender and entrepreneurship studies to offer vital context for the contributions of my work and future research agenda, in light of the current historical moment of interconnected political, public health and environmental calamity.

The author presents reflections on her positionality, philosophical and political commitments, and theorises from her experiences of racist distraction and intersectional marginality in contemporary academia, considering their implications for incoming and aspiring gender and entrepreneurship scholars whose research agendas are still in development.

Racism functions as a persistent distraction from overall research agendas and activities, and delimits the lane of perceived contributions. However, collectively challenging it in work and study presents a vehicle by which intellectual and affective experiences of academic work may be enriched, and a spacious and expansive legacy of critical scholarship built that will be resonant for years to come.

The paper argues that although racism will doubtlessly continue to cause immense distraction, it presents an invitation to create positive social change, through collectivising with a community that aims to shape a liveable, equitable and imaginative academic future.