Search results

This paper examines the socio-political affordances of metrics in research evaluation and the consequences of epistemic injustice in research practices and recorded knowledge.

First, the use of metrics is examined as a mechanism that promotes competition and social acceleration. Second, it is argued that the use of metrics in a competitive research culture reproduces systemic inequalities and leads to epistemic injustice. The conceptual analysis draws on works of Hartmut Rosa and Miranda Fricker, amongst others.

The use of metrics is largely driven by competition such as university rankings and league tables. Not only that metrics are not designed to enrich academic and research culture, they also suppress the visibility and credibility of works by minorities. As such, metrics perpetuate epistemic injustice in knowledge practices; at the same time, the reliability of metrics for bibliometric and scientometric studies is put into question.

As metrics leverage who can speak and who will be heard, epistemic injustice is reflected in recorded knowledge and what we consider to be information.

This paper contributes to the discussion of metrics beyond bibliometric studies and research evaluation. It argues that metrics-induced competition is antithetical to equality and diversity in research practices.

The purpose of this paper is to present the concept of institutions as compliant environments, using data to monitor and enforce compliance with a range of external policies and initiatives, using the particular example of UK higher education (HE) institutions. The paper differs from previous studies by bringing together a range of policies and uses of data covering different areas of HE and demonstrating how they contribute to the common goal of compliance.

The compliant environment is defined in this context and the author has applied the preliminary model to a range of policies and cases that use and reuse data from staff and students in HE.

The findings show that the focus on compliance with these policies and initiatives has resulted in a high level of surveillance of staff and students and a lack of resistance towards policies that work against the goals of education and academia.

This is the first study to bring together the range of areas in which policy compliance and data processing are entwined in HE. The study contributes to the academic literature on data and surveillance and on academic institutions as organisations.

The paper offers suggestions for resistance to compliance and data processing initiatives in HE.

This is the first study to bring together the range of areas in which policy compliance and data processing are entwined in HE. The study contributes to the academic literature on data and surveillance and on academic institutions as organisations.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the capabilities, functionalities and appropriateness of Altmetric.com as a data source for the bibliometric analysis of books in comparison to PlumX.

The authors perform an exploratory analysis on the metrics the Altmetric Explorer for Institutions, platform offers for books. The authors use two distinct data sets of books. On the one hand, the authors analyze the Book Collection included in Altmetric.com. On the other hand, the authors use Clarivate’s Master Book List, to analyze Altmetric.com’s capabilities to download and merge data with external databases. Finally, the authors compare the findings with those obtained in a previous study performed in PlumX.

Altmetric.com combines and orderly tracks a set of data sources combined by DOI identifiers to retrieve metadata from books, being Google Books its main provider. It also retrieves information from commercial publishers and from some Open Access initiatives, including those led by university libraries, such as Harvard Library. We find issues with linkages between records and mentions or ISBN discrepancies. Furthermore, the authors find that automatic bots affect greatly Wikipedia mentions to books. The comparison with PlumX suggests that none of these tools provide a complete picture of the social attention generated by books and are rather complementary than comparable tools.

This study targets different audience which can benefit from the findings. First, bibliometricians and researchers who seek for alternative sources to develop bibliometric analyses of books, with a special focus on the Social Sciences and Humanities fields. Second, librarians and research managers who are the main clients to which these tools are directed. Third, Altmetric.com itself as well as other altmetric providers who might get a better understanding of the limitations users encounter and improve this promising tool.

This is the first study to analyze Altmetric.com’s functionalities and capabilities for providing metric data for books and to compare results from this platform, with those obtained via PlumX.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical discussion of the Leiden Manifesto for libraries already engaged in bibliometric practices. It offers practical recommendations based on the work of the European Association for Research Libraries (LIBER) Working Group on Metrics. This work is in the beginning phase and summarizes literature on the topic, as well as the experiences of the members of the Working Group. The discussion reflects today's growing popularity of (quantitative) research assessment which is seen in enthusiasts introducing new metrics (i.e. altmetrics) and by critics demanding responsible metrics that increase objectivity and equity in evaluations.

This paper is the result of the Working Group on Metrics of the European Association for Research Libraries (LIBER) that critically discussed the practicality of the Leiden Manifesto for libraries.

Full compliance with the Manifesto is time-consuming, expensive and requires a significant increase in bibliometric expertise with respect to both staffing and skill level. Despite these apparent disadvantages, it is recommended that all libraries embrace the Manifesto’s principles. To increase practicality, it is advised that libraries collaborate with researchers, management and other libraries at home and around the world to jointly design and provide services that can be reused within the library community.

Libraries have increasingly been confronted with questions about research assessment, responsible metrics and the role of digital products in evaluations and funding decisions. Although a wide range of recommendations and initiatives are available (e.g. DORA San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment), many recommendations are not straightforward enough to be implemented from a library perspective. This paper provides assistance for libraries to implement these principles by acknowledging the heterogeneous backgrounds the libraries may stem from.

The purpose of the present analysis is to show that HR systems are not always designed in ways that consider the well‐being of employees. In particular, performance metric methods seem to be designed with organizational goals in mind while focusing less on what employees need and desire.

A literature review and multiple case‐study method was utilized.

The analysis showed that performance metrics should be revaluated by executives and HR professionals if they seek to develop socially responsible organizational cultures which care about the well‐being of employees.

The paper exposes the fact that performance appraisal techniques can be rooted in methodologies that ignore or deemphasize the value of employee well‐being. The analysis provides a context in which all HR practices can be questioned in relation to meeting the standards of a social justice agenda in the area of corporate social responsibility.

Measurement drives behavior. Unfortunately, most performance measurement initiatives overlook this fact. Implementations are performed top‐down with strategy as the starting‐point. There needs to be a better understanding of the cultural context of the metrics (What is driving the behaviors?) and a better understanding of what metrics are to define (How do we drive the right behaviors through measurement?). The purpose of this paper is to explore the notion of a context‐based approach to performance metrics – by examining an organization's negative values – and the notion of a content‐based approach – by introducing the concept of business interface metrics.

The article analyses business metrics.

The paper demonstrates the need to use interface metrics in order to better manager processes and deliver organizational values.

To get new insights, sometimes conventional wisdom needs to be challenged. Following best practices around metrics can prevent companies from reflecting on the effect of the metrics they are trying to put in place. By coming up with a different approach (business interface metrics and negative values), interesting insights can be gained. Moreover, taking a fresh approach ensures that new thinking takes place and that there are fewer conformist paths to fall back on.

Applications of comprehensive Quality Function Deployment (QFD) – or QFD in the broad sense – to strategic management have been known for some time, and its results have been discussed within the international community of QFD specialists. It is therefore tempting to investigate the contribution of combinatory metrics to strategy deployment. Combinatory metrics are constructed upon the capability of QFD to evaluate the deployment topics’ contribution to customers’ needs. They provide a practical means to explain business strategy by “local” metrics that are easily understood and applied by responsible people. Combinatory metrics also point to foundations of QFD that explain how to apply QFD for very complicated environments. This foundation provides techniques and means to work with various influencing factors and conflicting topics. This paper explains the theory as needed for strategy deployment and presents a sample case from a software company.

The purpose of this paper is to assess the availability of information in the USA for measuring the social and environmental performance of real estate portfolios.

A search is conducted for relevant indicator data sources using internet, library and government resources. Priority is placed on information that could be accessed on line, by any user, free of charge, from reputable sources, using available search parameters, for all types of properties and for any properties anywhere in the USA. Useful sources are identified and assessed using data quality indicators. Information gaps are also identified. A previously published method is adapted for comparing the social and environmental performance of properties and portfolios and data collected from identified sources are used to illustrate the construction of indices useful for making comparisons.

Nationwide data sources are available for most important dimensions with greater availability for the most important ones. There are, however, important data gaps related to such issues as water use, day light and ventilation, aesthetics and others. Most sources only require a property address for queries but do not support batch processing. There are no data quality problems for most data sources but a substantial minority of the sources does have at least one data quality issue. Available data can be used to construct indices useful for comparing properties and portfolios.

Fund managers can use these results to compile extra‐financial information on sustainability and corporate social responsibility and socially responsible investors can use them to evaluate investment opportunities.

This is the first effort to identify and assess data sources needed for creating responsible and sustainable metrics and indices and responds to demand for better metrics in the field of sustainable and responsible property investing.

To understand the use of metrics to attain alignment between the needs of the customer, strategic objectives, and the execution system. This paper examines the process by which metrics at the various levels are developed and the factors affecting this process.

The paper draws on a series of “deep” case studies and 45 interviews of key managers at various levels within three related businesses. Open and axial coding on the data was performed and themes reported.

The findings show how metrics can generate two types of synergy, financial, and strategic and that numerous factors affect metrics deployment and alignment. There also exists a tension between those metrics that encourage sales growth through innovation and market development (i.e. the so‐called top line metrics) and those metrics that reduce costs or asset investments (i.e. bottom line metrics).

Selective coding of the data to develop theoretical insight has yet to be performed.

Alignment is affected by both the goals used and the processes used in developing and implementing metrics. Furthermore, the study shows that those actions that foster cost reduction (e.g. through lean systems) may unintentionally hinder and limit those actions aimed at encouraging innovation.

The metrics alignment process is vital to effective management, yet the mechanisms of this process leading from understanding of the customer goals appropriate metrics for the execution system is effectively unexplored – a shortcoming that this paper begins to rectify.

This paper examines the role played by environmental issues during the new product design process. These issues are studied through an exploratory research project based on case studies of ten companies. The firms studied can be categorized into one of five major groups: innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards. These groups strongly parallel the model of new product acceptance initially developed in the computer industry, as presented by Moore (1991). Of interest is the gap that exists between the early adopters and early majority users. This gap forms a chasm. Those factors that account for acceptance of environmentally responsible manufacturing in the innovators and early adopters are significantly different from those factors observed in the early majority, late majority, and laggards. This paper examines these and other differences, and the impact of these differences on the acceptance and use of environmental concerns within the new product design process.