Search results

The purpose of this study is to target utilizing Human resources (HRs) data analytics that may enhance strategic business, but little study has examined how it affects components. Data analytics, HRM and strategic business require empirical investigations and how to over come HR data analytics implementation issues.

A semi-systematic methodology for its evaluation allows for a more complete examination of the literature that emerges theoretical framework and a structured survey questionnaire for quantitative data collection from IT sector personnel. SPSS analyses data.

Future research is essential for organisations to exploit HR data analytics’ performance-enhancing potential. Data analytics should complement human judgment, not replace it. This paper details these transitions, the important contributions to theory and practice and future research.

Data analytics has grown rapidly and might make HRM practices faster, more efficient and data-driven. HR data analytics may improve strategic business. HR data analytics on employee retention, engagement and organisational success is insufficient. HR data analytics may boost performance, but there is limited proof. The authors do not know how HRM data analytics influences firms and employees.

Data analytics offers HRM new opportunities, along with technical and ethical challenges. This study makes a significant contribution to HR data analytics, evidence-based practice and strategic business literature. In addition to estimating turnover risk, identifying engagement factors and planning interventions to increase retention and engagement, HR data analytics can also estimate the risk of employee attrition.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evidence-based research strategy (EBRS) used to evaluate eight projects that applied the neighborhood approach for disaster risk reduction (NA-DRR) in informal urban settlements in Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica and Peru, between 2012 and 2017.

The study covers the first five of the seven EBRS stages: first, identify relevant interventions; second, prepare evaluation questions; third, select evidence sources and implement a search strategy; fourth, appraise evidences and identify gaps; fifth, create an evaluation design to include an extensive literature review, followed by a mixed research method with surveys, focus groups and interviews; disaster risk modeling; georeferencing analysis; and engineering inspections. The last two stages: sixth, apply the evidence, and seventh, evaluate the evidence application, will be addressed in a near future.

Even though the reference to “evidence” is frequent in the DRR field, it is largely based on descriptive processes, anecdotal references, best practices, lessons learned and case studies, and particularly deficient on the subject of informal and precariousness settlements. The evaluation allowed a deep and broad analysis of NA-DRR in urban informal settlements, comparing it with other DRR strategies implemented by different stakeholders in fragile urban settings, assessing the effectiveness and sustainability of the various DRR interventions.

The abundant data, information and knowledge generated will serve as foundation for forthcoming thematic peer-reviewed publications informing evidence-based DRR research, policy and practice, with emphasis on informal and precariousness settlements in particular.

While known by many names, qualifying exams function as gatekeepers to graduate student advancement to PhD candidacy, yet there has been little formal study on best qualifying exam practices particularly in biomedical and related STEM PhD programs. The purpose of this study is to examine the current state of qualifying exams through an examination of the literature and exploration of university-wide policies.

The authors conducted a literature review of studies on qualifying exams and completed an external evaluation of peer institutions’ and internal institutional qualifying exam requirements to inform our discussion of qualifying exams practices in PhD training at a research-intensive US institutions.

This study identified the need for more research on qualifying exams to establish evidence-based best practices. The authors found a wide variety of qualifying exam formats, with little evidence in support for specific formats. The authors also found little evidence that student expectations are made clear. The lack of evidence-based best practices coupled with insufficient clarity for students has a real potential to disadvantage PhD students, particularly first generation, underrepresented minority, international and/or other trainees who are not privileged or socialized to navigate training environments with vague landmarks such as the qualifying exams.

There are very few studies that evaluate qualifying exams in US doctoral education, particularly in STEM fields, and to the authors’ knowledge, there has been no analysis of campus-wide policies on qualifying exams reported. The lack of evidence for best practices and the need for to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of qualifying exams are discussed.