Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the research obstacles facing Zarqa University (ZU) faculty members, and the ways of overcoming them according to their points of view.

The study attempted to investigate the research obstacles facing ZU faculty members and how to overcome them according to the points of view among the staff. This was carried out through answering four key research questions: What are the research obstacles facing ZU faculty members according to their points of view?; Are there any statistical differences between the trends among ZU faculty members regarding research obstacles attributed to the type of faculty (scientific or humanity), gender and academic rank?; What are the ways of overcoming research obstacles facing ZU faculty members, from their points of view?; and Are there any statistical differences between the points of view among ZU faculty members regarding the ways of overcoming research obstacles attributed to the type of faculty (scientific or humanity), gender and academic ranks? The principal research tool used was a questionnaire, designed and developed by the researcher and based on his personal academic experience, intuitive hints gathered from discussions with ZU faculty members, related literature, and consultation with academic referees specialising in library and information science. The questionnaire was modified where necessary. The final version included a set of questions on the research obstacles facing ZU faculty members and the ways of overcoming research obstacles according to their points of view. In order to verify the reliability of the study, the initial questionnaire was reviewed by four referees to solicit their opinions on clarity and the extent to which each phrase met the study objectives: two university professors and two university associate professors. The researcher also applied Cronbach alpha (α) to the responses using a statistical package (SPSS), and the stability coefficient of the tool was 0.631, acceptable for the educational purposes of the study.

The study revealed that the means of the respondents' trends towards the ways of overcoming research obstacles were higher than the means of the trends towards research obstacles. The means of the responses towards the ways of overcoming research obstacles ranged from 2.91 to 4.49, while the means of the responses towards research obstacles ranged from 1.79 to 4.01. It also revealed that in spite of ZU faculty members having good motivation as well as research and statistical skills, as demonstrated in their responses, the financial and moral support required were the main problems. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the trends among faculty members towards research obstacles and the ways of overcoming them attributed to dependent variables, such as type of faculty (scientific or humanity), academic ranks and gender.

The study limitation was the trends among ZU faculty members, who were in the first semester of the academic year 2008/2009.

The importance of the study comes from its results by finding out the trends among ZU faculty members towards the research obstacles at the university and ways of overcoming them. It is an important tool to inform ZU's administrators of the study results in order to try to avoid research obstacles and support the ways of overcoming them whilst encouraging faculty members to perform more research in different fields.

Faculty unionization is growing, and library faculty members are included in many collective bargaining units. Yet there is a dearth of information on how well collective bargaining contracts address the sometimes unique nature of library faculty work. This article explores contracts in a number of Ohio universities and from selective institutions around the country to see how well they accommodate the professional and work-related needs of librarians. Major contractual issues addressed include governance, academic freedom, workload, salary, and the retention, tenure, and promotion (RTP) of faculty, among others.

Department chairs represent one of the most intriguing, complex, and important leadership roles in higher education. Despite the important role chairs play, there is limited research about ongoing dynamics and how they manage the complexities that come along with the position. The tension between the academic and administrative cores creates inherent stress in the position. What stresses department chairs? Has it changed over time? The theoretical construct used to investigate these questions is based on the four-stage chair stress cycle (identification, perception, response, and consequences), and in particular the first two stages of identification and perception. The data for this study are derived from two data sets collected in 1991 and 2016 surveying 800 and 982 department chairs respectively. Each survey assessed personal profiles, professional and organizational variables, and two validated stress and role instruments. Findings collected 25 years apart suggested some shifts in chair gender, motivation to serve, professional identity, preparation, tenure status, and ethnicity. When comparing top stressors from 1991 to 2016, more stress emanated from chairs trying to balance scholarship and leadership as well as work-life balance. Top department chair stressors underscored the difficulty to find some balance between professional and personal roles. Many of these imbalances appeared to be more structural and inherent in the position while others fall within the chairs' control to be personally managed. Female chairs experienced higher stress than men from having insufficient time to stay current in their academic fields and balancing administrative and scholarly demands. The researchers expected to find significant differences according to marital status, ethnicity, and age, but no significant trends emerged. Ultimately, higher education institutions will continue to have a leadership crisis if the conditions for chairing departments remain unmanageable.

This study applies D3.js and social network analysis (SNA) to examine the impact of collaboration patterns, research productivity patterns and publication patterns on the Ministry of Education (MOE) evaluation policies across all Management Information Systems (MIS) departments in Taiwan.

This study first retrieved data from the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan (MOST) website from 1982 to 2015, the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) website, the Web of Science (WOS) website and Google Scholar. Then it applied power-law degree distribution, cumulative distribution function, weighted contribution score, exponential weighted moving average and network centrality score to visualize the MIS collaborations and research patterns.

The analysis concluded that most MIS professors focused primarily on SCIE-/SSCI-/TSSCI-/core indexed journals after 2005. Professors from public universities were drawn to collaboration and publishing in high-quality-based journals, while professors from private universities focused more on quantity-based publications. Female professors, by contrast, have a slightly higher single-authorship publication rate in SCIE-/SSCI-/TSSCI-indexed journals than do male professors. Meanwhile, professors in northern Taiwan emphasized quantity-based journal publications, while a focus on quality was more typical in the south. Furthermore, National Cheng Kung University has the most single-authorship or intrauniversity publications in SCIE-/SSCI-/TSSCI-/core journals, and National Sun Yat-Sen University published more SSCI-indexed articles than SCIE-indexed articles. All of these findings show that there is an explicit relation between MOE evaluation policies and MIS faculty members' collaboration/publication strategies.

The above findings explain how MOE evaluation policies affected MIS faculty members' collaboration and publication strategies in Taiwan, and the authors hope that such findings can constitute a resource for understanding and characterizing networking with MIS departments in Taiwan.

The purpose of this paper is to explore actual interlibrary loan (ILL) usage patterns as a way to improve ILL services and assist in library liaison work.

The study assesses ILL services at a mid‐size comprehensive college library in order to see who is utilizing the current service. Usage patterns are constructed and explored based on data collected over a three‐year period. The requested materials' publication date and Library of Congress subject heading, as well as the requestor's academic status (faculty, graduate student, undergraduate student) and department are addressed.

Usage patterns can accurately illustrate trends in the borrowing behavior of patrons in order to gain a better understanding of their needs. The majority of users were faculty members from a limited number of academic departments. Usage patterns can be very helpful in constructing and focusing liaison work. A thorough study of ILL usage patterns is a viable undertaking worthwhile for any institution looking to improve and expand its ILL and liaison services.

This paper recommends that The College of Staten Island Library utilize ILL statistics to improve and redesign Liaison activities to under‐represented departments. Assessing ILL usage patterns can enable a quick and accurate overview of actual use for improving ILL and liaison services.

Previous research has linked Interlibrary Loan services to collection development. The current study links the assessment of actual ILL usage patterns with liaison activities beyond collection development.

In two surveys of focussed segments of the field of practice and library and information science (LIS) faculty, skill requirements for today's LIS graduates in the commercial sector are explored. Findings indicate that while faculty understands the trends and issues in the industry and believe their programmes are addressing the requisite skills, practitioners remain to be convinced that graduates gain the required skills during course instruction. Additionally, changes made over the last eight years in LIS curricula to address these needs have not totally accomplished the objective of adequately preparing graduates for immediate absorption into the workforce. Three recommendations: more effective positioning of LIS courses to students, change in attitude toward a more business focussed perspective, and the need to offer more practical experience, are suggested as possible solutions to the problems.

The article seeks to provide an overview of 55 recent books (2009‐2011) on higher education, with special emphasis on the authoritative overview edited Altbach et al., American Higher Education in the Twenty‐First Century (Johns Hopkins, 3rd Edition, June 2011, 511 pp.).

Books are grouped in nine categories: Global trends, Losing autonomy, Faculty, Students, Finance, Digitization, Curriculum, Diversity, and Moving forward. A concluding Coda discusses an important new paradigm of four types of scholarship, proposed in the seminal 1990 report on Scholarship Reconsidered, and the two types of scholarship that continue to be badly lacking in the academy, to the detriment of the world, the nation, and higher education itself.

American higher education is undergoing many changes and stresses, and all of the books considered here point to a “bleak horizon” in various ways, in part caused by the outdated structure of higher education. Altbach issues a timely call for a new “sense of academic mission,” which is discussed in the Coda.

This uniquely broad and up‐to‐date “frontier frame” overview, enabled by the GlobalForesightBooks.org web site on current affairs books, emphases the many perspectives on higher education, provides a broad frame to appreciate current thinking, and encourages more synthesis that seriously addresses the “Knowledge for What?” question.

This study aims to explore the status of collaborative research productivity, major library and information sciences (LIS) research trends and the level of research among the LIS academicians as principal authors in Pakistan during 1975–2021 (47 years).

A quantitative research method was adopted to collect the required data using bibliometric patterns. The data of all faculty members working in LIS schools of Pakistan was collected from the official website of their employers/institutions. Different strategies were used to acquire respondents’ bibliographic/publication records such as faculty members’/employers’ official websites and faculty members’ Google Scholar profiles; advanced searching techniques were also used to retrieve their bibliographic records.

The results revealed that a total of 74 regular faculty members comprising 78.38% males and 21.62% females are working in 12 LIS Pakistani schools. A total of 1,787 papers were produced by LIS faculty, among which 702 were written by Pakistani LIS faculty as principal authors during the selected period. The results revealed that 60.72% of the principal authors’ work was produced in collaboration. The collaboration between faculty members and other faculty was 81%, while two authors' work productivity was on the top. No attention has been given to produce research in collaboration with international/foreign LIS experts, especially from developed countries.

The findings of this study are useful for faculties to have a richer understanding of the various elements of collaboration at national as well as international levels, and then discover the ways to begin and maintain effective partnerships to research emerging trends in LIS.

This study is a unique bibliometric study that systematically and quantitatively combined the research productivity of LIS academicians in Pakistan and provided a holistic sketch of the literature produced on various themes of LIS during 1975–2021.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into institutions of higher education (IHE) on how to support faculty in the integration of digital technologies. The research explores faculty interest in types of digital technology information and training, and the types of support faculty are likely to participate in related to digital technology integration. The association of demographic factors of primary teaching method, and experience teaching online or hybrid is provided.

A sample of 247 faculty from 53 institutions in the USA completed an online survey related to information, training and support for digital technology integration. The analysis included exploring the descriptive ratings overall and by demographic variable and conducting the one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) with reported effect sizes and Scheffe post-hoc tests.

From a list of digital technologies that included the LMS, Collaboration Tools (social media and online meeting tools), Audio-Visual Tools (video creation and podcasts), and Technology Trends (mobile learning, games and adaptive learning), faculty ranked LMS highest in interest for training and information. Faculty who have taught hybrid are most interested in collaboration tools and trend tools. For support type, faculty ranked web resources slightly higher than other types of support.

IHE units involved in faculty development can use the findings to plan faculty support initiatives for future institutional needs.

This paper gathers insight from faculty on their preferences for information, training, and support for integrating digital technologies.

This article examines whether the field of entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly institutionalized by examining market trends, AACSB jobs, and salaries. The findings indicate that the field is becoming increasingly institutionalized through market trends. During 2014/15, there were 471 advertised positions and 163 candidates in Schools of Business and Management. The number of tenure track positions (261) was significantly higher than the number of tenure track candidates (161) for a ratio of 1.62. This is the highest ratio of tenure track positions to candidates since 2005/06 (2.1). Out of the 261 tenure track positions, 174 were at AACSB institutions.The ratio of tenure track positions at AACSB schools per tenure track candidate was 1.08. The study also looked at average salaries at AACSB schools and found them to be competitive with other mainstream areas. Average salaries were: full professors ($162,000), associate professor ($131,400), assistant professor ($113,600), instructor ($85,800), and new doctorates ($97,800).