Search results

This paper aims to compare the nature of three different business and management education (BME) research streams (online/blended learning, entrepreneurship education and experiential learning), along with their citation sources to draw insights on their support and legitimacy bases, with lessons on improving such support and legitimacy for the streams and the wider BME research field.

The authors analyze the nature of three BME research streams and their citation sources through tests of differences across streams.

The three streams differ in research foci and approaches such as the use of managerial samples in experiential learning, quantitative studies in online/blended education and literature reviews in entrepreneurship education. They also differ in sources of legitimacy recognition and avenues for mobilization of support. The underlying literature development pattern of the experiential learning stream indicates a need for BME scholars to identify and build on each other’s work.

Identification of different research bases and key supporting literature in the different streams shows important core articles that are useful to build research in each stream.

Readers will understand the different research bases supporting the three research streams, along with their targeted audience and practice implications.

The discovery of different support bases for the three different streams helps identify the network of authors and relationships that have been built in each stream.

According to the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to uncover differences in nature and citation sources of the three continuously growing BME research streams with recommendations on ways to improve the support of the three streams.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the influence of the algorithm used on scholarly search engines (Garfield’s algorithm) and propose metrics to improve it so that science could be based on a more democratic way.

This paper used a snow-ball approach to collect data that allowed identifying the history and the logic behind the Garfield’s algorithm. It follows on excerpting the foundation of existing algorithm and databases of major scholarly search engine. It concluded proposing new metrics so as to surpass restraints and to democratize the scientific discourse.

This paper finds that the studied algorithm currently biases the scientific discourse toward a narrow perspective, while it should take into consideration several researchers’ characteristics. It proposes the substitution of the h-index by the number of times the scholar’s most cited work has been cited. Finally, it proposes that works in languages different than English should be included.

The broad comprehension of any phenomena should be based on multiple perspectives; therefore, the inclusion of diverse metrics will extend the scientific discourse.

The improvement of the existing algorithm will increase the chances of contact among different cultures, which stimulate rapid progress on the development of knowledge.

The value of this paper resides in demonstrating that the algorithm used in scholarly search engines biases the development of science. If updated as proposed here, science will be unbiased and bias aware.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the potential of altmetric and webometric indicators to aid with funding agencies’ evaluations of their funding schemes.

This paper analyses a range of altmetric and webometric indicators in terms of suitability for funding scheme evaluations, compares them to traditional indicators and reports some statistics derived from a pilot study with Wellcome Trust-associated publications.

Some alternative indicators have advantages to usefully complement scientometric data by reflecting a different type of impact or through being available before citation data.

The empirical part of the results is based on a single case study and does not give statistical evidence for the added value of any of the indicators.

A few selected alternative indicators can be used by funding agencies as part of their funding scheme evaluations if they are processed in ways that enable comparisons between data sets. Their evidence value is only weak, however.

This is the first analysis of altmetrics or webometrics from a funding scheme evaluation perspective.

The purpose of this study is to examine scholarly impact which is critical to universities in their aspiration to create, disseminate and apply knowledge. However, scholarly impact is an elusive concept. First, the authors present a conceptual model to clarify different dimensions of scholarly impact (i.e. theory and research, education, organizations and society) and four key stakeholders (i.e. other researchers, students, practitioners and policy makers). Second, the authors provide actionable recommendations for university administrators, researchers and educators on how to enhance impact. The scholarly impact model is flexible, expandable, scalable and adaptable to universities in different regions of the world and with different strategic priorities.

The authors conducted a general review of the literature and offered a multidimensional and multistakeholder model of scholarly impact to guide future actions aimed at enhancing scholarly impact.

The authors describe the multidimensional and multistakeholder nature of the critical and yet elusive concept of scholarly impact. The authors delineate multiple dimensions of impact, different stakeholders involved and recommendations for enhancing scholarly impact in the future.

The authors offer practical and actionable recommendations on how to enhance scholarly impact. For university administrators, the authors recommend aligning scholarly impact goals with actions and resource-allocation decisions; ensuring that performance management and reward systems are consistent with impact goals; being strategic in selecting a journal list; developing a strong doctoral program; and promoting practical knowledge and applications. For researchers and educators, the authors recommend developing a personal scholarly impact plan; becoming an academic decathlete; finding ways to affect multiple impact dimensions simultaneously; and leveraging social media to broaden impact on external stakeholders. Implementing these recommendations will benefit other researchers, students, practitioners (e.g. managers, consultants) and policy makers.

The authors provide an innovative way of conceptualizing scholarly impact. In turn, the conceptual analysis results in actionable recommendations for university administrators, researchers and educators to enhance impact.

This study aims to describe the development and validation of a scale that measures the self-reported sustainable behavior of students in higher education institutions (HEIs) regarding their knowledge on incorporating sustainability into education, research and outreach, mediated by the attitude toward the triple bottom line.

The scale was applied to students from HEIs, with a total of 759 valid cases and respondents from various countries. The technique used was structural equation modeling and multigroup analysis using the SmartPLS software.

Respondents’ self-reported sustainable behavior scale was affected by their economic attitude and the knowledge about sustainability that they assimilated. However, the economic dimension received more attention from the participating students. Both for the total sample and for respondents older than the study average, environmental attitude and social attitude did not affect the self-reported sustainable behavior.

The study’s limitations can offer opportunities for future research, as more constructs should be inserted into the model to check the existence of differences in relation to self-reported sustainable behavior, such as beliefs in the affective stage.

The practical implication is on the fact that HEIs can use the scale of self-reported sustainable behavior to evaluate the incorporation of sustainability in the students behavior. Thus, with appropriate guidelines, HEIs will be able to analyze the results looking for to achieve balance in the incorporation of sustainability in education, research and outreach in a transdisciplinary way, improving HEI program and preparing future decision-makers to collaborate for sustainable development.

The originality of the study is on the verification of the influence of sustainability teaching in higher institutions through self-reported sustainable behavior scale, based on the sustainable development goals in three dimensions – cognitive, affective and conative.

This paper undertakes a structured literature review to analyse the literature on performance management and measurement (PMM) in universities over the last four decades. Over that time, PMM has emerged as an influential force in universities that impacts their operations and redefines their identity.

A structured literature review approach was used to analyse a sample of articles on PMM research from a broad range of disciplines over four decades. This was undertaken to understand the impacts of PMM practices on universities, highlight changes over time and point to avenues for future research.

The analysis highlights the fact that research on PMM in universities has grown significantly over the 40 years studied. We provide an overview of published articles over four decades regarding content, themes, theories, methods and impacts. We provide an empirical basis for discussing past, present and future university PMM research. The future research avenues offer multiple provocations for scholars and policymakers, for instance, PMM implementation strategies and relationships with various government programs and external evaluation and the role of different actors, particularly academics, in shaping PMM systems.

Unlike a traditional literature review, the structured literature review method can develop insights into how the field has changed over time and highlight possible future research. The sample for this literature review differs from previous reviews in covering a broad range of disciplines, including accounting.