Promoting a Culture of Scholarship in Higher Education

Increasing need for accountability combined with competition for educational resources necessitates movement toward a culture of scholarship at institutes of higher education Transitioning toward such a culture particularly for smaller institutions or those focused primarily on teaching can be challenging due to changing expectations on issues such as workload and productivity As part of a broader effort to build infrastructure at a single academic institution we describe a case study to inform a process of cultural change to promote scholarship We reviewed existing literature on scholarship and productivity and we interviewed 30 faculty and doctoral students at a transitioning college of social work regarding their scholarship Analyses were conducted using provisional axial and selective coding and MaxQDA software We identified five key themes for promoting a culture of scholarship including protecting time for research building staff supports engaging students developing research resources and cultivating professional growth and discourse Specific recommendations in the five areas and a checklist of strategies can be used to implement change at other institutions The suggested strategies are derived from faculty and student perspectives thereby allowing those held to expectations to take a lead role in building infrastructure within an evolving academic contex

Credit Where It’s Due: The Law and Norms of Attribution

The reputation we develop by receiving credit for the work we do proves to the world the nature of our human capital. If professional reputation were property, it would be the most valuable property that most people own because much human capital is difficult to measure. Although attribution is ubiquitous and important, it is largely unregulated by law. In the absence of law, economic sectors that value attribution have devised non-property regimes founded on social norms to acknowledge and reward employee effort and to attribute responsibility for the success or failure of products and projects. Extant contract-based and norms-based attribution regimes fail optimally to protect attribution interests. This article proposes a new approach to employment contracts designed to shore up the desirable characteristics of existing norms-based attribution systems while allowing legal intervention in cases of market failure. The right to public attribution would be waivable upon proof of a procedurally fair negotiation. The right to attribution necessary to build human capital, however, would be inalienable. Unlike an intellectual property right, attribution rights would not be enforced by restricting access to the misattributed work itself; the only remedy would be for the lost value of human capital. The variation in attribution norms that currently exists in different workplace cultures can and should be preserved through the proposed contract approach. The proposal strikes an appropriate balance between expansive and narrow legal protections for workplace knowledge and, in that respect, addresses one of the most vexing current debates at the intersection of intellectual property and employment law

Analysis and visualization of the dynamics of research groups in terms of projects and co-authored publications : A case study of library and information science in Argentina

Objective: The present study offers a novel methodological contribution to the study of the configuration and dynamics of research groups, through a comparative perspective of the projects funded (inputs) and publication co-authorships (output). Method: A combination of bibliometric techniques and social network analysis was applied to a case study: the Departmento de Bibliotecología (DHUBI), Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, for the period 2000-2009. The results were interpreted statistically and staff members of the department, were interviewed. Results: The method makes it possible to distinguish groups, identify their members and reflect group make-up through an analytical strategy that involves the categorization of actors and the interdisciplinary and national or international projection of the networks that they configure. The integration of these two aspects (input and output) at different points in time over the analyzed period leads to inferences about group profiles and the roles of actors. Conclusions: The methodology presented is conducive to micro-level interpretations in a given area of study, regarding individual researchers or research groups. Because the comparative input-output analysis broadens the base of information and makes it possible to follow up, over time, individual and group trends, it may prove very useful for the management, promotion and evaluation of scienceFacultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educació

Analysis and visualization of the dynamics of research groups in terms of projects and co-authored publications : A case study of library and information science in Argentina

Objective: The present study offers a novel methodological contribution to the study of the configuration and dynamics of research groups, through a comparative perspective of the projects funded (inputs) and publication co-authorships (output). Method: A combination of bibliometric techniques and social network analysis was applied to a case study: the Departmento de Bibliotecología (DHUBI), Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina, for the period 2000-2009. The results were interpreted statistically and staff members of the department, were interviewed. Results: The method makes it possible to distinguish groups, identify their members and reflect group make-up through an analytical strategy that involves the categorization of actors and the interdisciplinary and national or international projection of the networks that they configure. The integration of these two aspects (input and output) at different points in time over the analyzed period leads to inferences about group profiles and the roles of actors. Conclusions: The methodology presented is conducive to micro-level interpretations in a given area of study, regarding individual researchers or research groups. Because the comparative input-output analysis broadens the base of information and makes it possible to follow up, over time, individual and group trends, it may prove very useful for the management, promotion and evaluation of scienceFacultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educació

Collaboration and Gender Equity among Academic Scientists

Universities were established as hierarchical bureaucracies that reward individual attainment in evaluating success. Yet collaboration is crucial both to 21st century science and, we argue, to advancing equity for women academic scientists. We draw from research on gender equity and on collaboration in higher education, and report on data collected on one campus. Sixteen focus group meetings were held with 85 faculty members from STEM departments, separated by faculty rank and gender (i.e., assistant professor men, full professor women). Participants were asked structured questions about the role of collaboration in research, career development, and departmental decision-making. Inductive analyses of focus group data led to the development of a theoretical model in which resources, recognition, and relationships create conditions under which collaboration is likely to produce more gender equitable outcomes for STEM faculty. Ensuring women faculty have equal access to resources is central to safeguarding their success; relationships, including mutual mentoring, inclusion and collegiality, facilitate women’s careers in academia; and recognition of collaborative work bolsters women’s professional advancement. We further propose that gender equity will be stronger in STEM where resources, relationships, and recognition intersect—having multiplicative rather than additive effects

Research Productivity on Manuscripts in the field of Social Science (2010-2020). Scopus Database

The study aimed to assess and analyze the research productivity on manuscripts in the field of social science on a set of quantitative and qualitative metrics to discover underlying research trends at global, national, organizational and individual level. The study is based on 11 years’ global research data (N=1136) on the topic sourced from Scopus database for the time span 2010-2020. The scientometric analysis used to assess the research productivity. The research productivity on manuscripts registered 17.21 per cent annual average growth and 6.36 per cent compound annual growth rate with an average citation impact of 1.42 citations per paper. The average number of authors per paper was 1.29 and the average productivity per author was 0.79. The resultant data indicates that the degree of collaboration ranges between 0.13≥0.24 and the overall degree of collaboration was 0.17. The Pearson correlation analysis inferred a significant and positive relationship (r = 0.889, N = 11, p =0.000) between number of articles and the number of authors

What is systemic innovation?

The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system. A second, less frequent use of the term makes reference to the development of policies and governance at a local, regional or national scale to create an enabling environment for the above kind of synergistic, multi-organizational innovations. Here, ‘systemic’ means recognition that innovation systems can be enabled and/or constrained by a meta-level policy system. The third use of the term, which is growing in popularity, says that an innovation is ‘systemic’ when its purpose is to change the fundamental nature of society; for instance, to deliver on major transitions concerning ecological sustainability. What makes this systemic is acknowledgement of the existence of a systems hierarchy (systems nested within each other): innovation systems are parts of economic systems, which are parts of societal systems, and all societies exist on a single planetary ecological system. Collaboration is required across organizational and national boundaries to change the societal laws and norms that govern economic systems, which will place new enablers and constraints on innovations systems in the interests of sustainability. The fourth use of the term ‘systemic innovation’ concerns how the people acting to bring about an innovation engage in a process to support systemic thinking, and it is primarily this process and the thinking it gives rise to that is seen as systemic rather than the innovation system that they exist within or are trying to create. It is this fourth understanding of ‘systemic’ that accords with most of the literature on systems thinking published between the late 1970s and the present day. The paper offers an overview of what systems thinkers mean by ‘systemic’, and this not only enables us to provide a redefinition of ‘systemic innovation’, but it also helps to show how all three previous forms of innovation that have been described as systemic can be enhanced by the practice of systems thinking

A theoretical framework for constructive interpersonal leadership relations in knowledge-based organisations

Text in English with abstracts in English, Afrikaans and VendaIn this qualitative study, the research objective was to present a theoretical framework for the phenomenon of interpersonal leadership relations (denoting both the dyadic relationship between two leader/followers and the leadership communication taking place in the dyad) in knowledge-based organisational contexts. It is posited that the interpersonal leader-follower dyad (LFD) may be viewed from a systems theory perspective as a system consisting of two system parts (individuals). These individuals are labelled ‘leader/followers’ to emphasise their mutual interdependence, and to indicate that these roles may be interchangeable, based on the knowledge needs in a particular situation (in line with the tenets of shared leadership). The dyadic system is influenced by its environment, the organisational context. However, the primary focus of this study is on interpersonal leadership communication as symbolic interaction between the leader/followers in the LFD. These three systemic levels are represented as major themes in the model resulting from this study: Theme 1 – an organisational environment that supports constructive interpersonal leadership relations (ILR); Theme 2 – symbolic interaction in the LFD; and Theme 3 – personal attributes that enhance ILR. The data were collected from two convenience samples. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants in Sample 1, while questionnaires were used to collect data from Sample 2. In both cases, thematic analysis was used to analyse and interpret the data. The major contribution of the study is the resulting theoretical framework of ILR, which comprises a theoretically based definition of ILR; a generic model of ILR; and current guidelines for fostering constructive ILR in knowledge-based contexts, with reference to the three systemic levels. The following definition was phrased based on the study: Constructive interpersonal leadership relations (ILR) in a knowledge-based organisational context is a dyadic process of symbolic communication between two expert leader/followers who mutually influence each other and share meaning to strengthen their relationship and to collaboratively transfer and apply knowledge to achieve organisational goals. In terms of the environment, it was found that organisational leaders should actively model and promote the following: a collaborative leadership concept, workplace spirituality, cultural inclusivity, and adaptation to advancing communication technologies. Regarding symbolic interaction in the LFD, the following communication practices were found to be central to constructive ILR: active listening, supporting followers as unique individuals, respectful communication, considering followers’ input, facilitating constructive redefinition of the other leader/follower’s self, role-taking (taking the perspective of the other leader/follower’s role), awareness of attribution, conflict management through non-threatening, respectful and preferably face-to-face discussion, facilitating a sense of meaning or purpose at work for the other leader/follower, and fostering constructive relationship properties such as trust. It was found that ILR may produce system outputs into the organisation that contribute to the organisational culture and climate, job performance, employee morale and engagement, and staff retention. Personal attributes were organised into personal values and competencies that support ILR. The most important personal values were identified as honesty, love or supportiveness, respect, relationships or engagement, trust, and professional excellence. Essential competencies were identified as listening skills, emotional communication competencies (particularly self-awareness, self-reflection and attending to others’ emotions), engagement skills, conflict management skills, and multicultural competency (including generational skills).In hierdie kwalitatiewe studie word ’n teoretiese raamwerk voorgelê vir die verskynsel ‘interpersoonlike leierskapsverhoudings‘ (verwysende na beide die diadiese verhouding tussen twee leier/volgelinge en die leierskapskommunikasie wat in die diade plaasvind) in kennisgebaseerde organisatoriese kontekste. Die uitgangspunt is dat die interpersoonlike leier-volgeling-diade (LVD) vanuit ‘n sisteemteoretiese perspektief beskou kan word as ‘n sisteem wat uit twee sisteemdele (individue) bestaan. Hierdie individue word ‘leier/volgelinge‘ genoem om hulle wedersydse interafhanklikheid te beklemtoon; en om aan te toon dat hierdie rolle uitruilbaar mag wees, afhangende van die kennisbehoeftes in ’n gegewe situasie (met verwysing na die teorie van gedeelde leierskap). As ’n sisteem word die LVD ook deur die omringende omgewing of organisatoriese konteks beïnvloed. Die primêre fokus van hierdie studie is egter op interpersoonlike leierskapskommunikasie as simboliese interaksie tussen die leier/volgelinge in die LVD. Hierdie drie sistemiese vlakke word in hierdie studie deur die hooftemas in die studie verteenwoordig en ook as sulks in die voortvloeiende model uitgebeeld: Tema 1 – ’n organisatoriese omgewing wat konstruktiewe interpersoonlike leierskapsverhoudings (ILV) ondersteun; Tema 2 – simboliese interaksie in die LVD; en Tema 3 – persoonlike eienskappe wat ILV bevorder. Die teoretiese raamwerk van ILV bestaan uit die volgende: ’n teoreties gefundeerde definisie van ILV; ’n generiese model van ILV; en ’n raamwerk van huidige riglyne vir die kweek van konstruktiewe ILV in kennisgebaseerde kontekste, met verwysing na die drie sistemiese vlakke van omgewing, diade en individuele leier/volgelinge. Die volgende definisie is op grond van die navorsingsresultate geformuleer: Konstruktiewe interpersoonlike leierskapsverhoudings (ILV) in ’n kennisgebaseerde organisatoriese konteks is ’n diadiese proses van simboliese kommunikasie tussen twee kundige leier/volgelinge wat mekaar wedersyds beïnvloed en betekenis deel om hulle verhouding te versterk en kennis samewerkend oor te dra en aan te wend om organisatoriese doelwitte te bereik. In terme van die organisatoriese omgewing is bevind dat organisatoriese leiers, veral senior leiers, die volgende aktief moet modelleer en bevorder in die organisasie: ’n samewerkende leierskapskonsep, spiritualiteit in die werkplek, kulturele insluiting, en aanpassing by vooruitgang in kommunikasietegnologie. Met verwysing na simboliese interaksie in die LVD is die volgende praktyke bevind as sentraal tot konstruktiewe ILV: aktiewe luistergedrag, die ondersteuning van volgelinge as unieke individue, respekvolle kommunikasie, die inagneming van volgelinge se insette, die fasilitering van die konstruktiewe herdefiniëring van die ander leier/volgeling se self, rol-inneming (die inneem van die rolperspektief van die ander leier/volgeling), bewustheid van attribusie, die bestuur van konflik deur nie-bedreigende, respekvolle en – waar moontlik – aangesig-tot-aangesig bespreking, die fasilitering van ’n sin van doel of betekenis by die werk vir die ander leier/volgeling, en die kweek van konstruktiewe verhoudingseienskappe (vertroue, uitruilbare leier/volgeling-rolle en wedersydse invloed is geïdentifiseer as belangrik). Dit is ook bevind dat ILV sisteemuitsette in die organisasie mag genereer wat bydra tot die organisatoriese kultuur en klimaat, werkprestasie, werknemers se moreel en betrokkenheid, en personeelbehoud. Persoonlike eienskappe is verdeel in waardes en vaardighede wat ILV ondersteun. Die belangrikste waardes is geïdentifiseer as eerlikheid, liefde, respek, verhoudings, vertroue, en professionele uitnemendheid. Die volgende vaardighede is geïdentifiseer as noodsaaklik: luistervaardighede, emosionele kommunikasievaardighede (met spesifieke verwysing na selfbewussyn, selfrefleksie en aandag aan ander se emosies), betrekkingsvaardighede, konflikbestuursvaardighede, en multi-kulturele vaardighede (wat generasievaardighede insluit). Die date is ingesamel uit twee gerieflikheidsteekproewe. Indiepte-, semi-gestruktureerde onderhoude is gevoer met Steekproef 1 (kundiges op gebiede verwant aan ILV in kennisgebaseerde kontekste), terwyl vraelyste gebruik is om data te verkry by Steekproef 2 (leier/volgelinge in kennisgebaseerde kontekste). Tematiese ontleding is in beide gevalle gebruik om die data te ontleed en te interpreteer.Kha iyi ngudo ya u tandula ‘qualitative’, ndivho ya ṱhoḓisio yo vha u ṋetshedza mutheo wa thiyori kha sia ḽa vhushaka ha vhurangaphanḓa vhukati ha vhathu (zwine zwa amba vhushaka ha tshumisano vhukati ha vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli vhavhili na vhudavhidzani kha vhurangaphanḓa vhune ha khou bvelela nga kha tshumisano yeneyo) kha nyimele ya tshiimiswa yo ḓitikaho nga nḓivho. Zwo sumbedziswa uri tshumisano ya murangaphanḓa-mutevheli vhukati ha vhathu (leader-follower dyad (LFD)) i nga lavheleswa u bva kha sia ḽa sisiṱeme ya thyori sa sisiṱeme ine ya vha na zwipiḓa zwivhili (vhathu). Vhathu avha vha vhidzwa ‘vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli’ hu u itela u khwaṱhisedza u ḓitika havho nga muṅwe, na u sumbedza uri mishumo iyi i nga imelelana, zwo ḓitika nga ṱhoḓea dza nyimele yeneyo. (zwi tshi tevhedza vhatevheli vha vhurangaphanḓa uvho). Sisiṱeme ya tshumisano i ṱuṱuwedzwa nga nyimele yayo, nyimele ya tshiimiswa. Fhedziha zwa ndeme kha ngudo iyi ndi nga vhudavhidzani ha vhurangaphanḓa vhukati ha vhathu sa tshiga tsha tshumisano vhukati ha vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli kha LFD. Maga aya mararu a sisisṱeme a imelelwa nga ṱhoho khulwane kha nḓila yo livhisaho kha ngudo iyi: Ṱhoho 1 – mupo/nyimele ya tshiimiswa i ṱuṱuwedzaho vhushaka ha vhurangaphanḓa vhu vhuedzaho vhukati ha vhathu (interpersonal leadership relations (ILR)); Ṱhoho 2 – Tshiga tsha tshumisano kha LFD; na Ṱhoho 3 – Vhuvha ha muthu vhune ha konisa ILR. Data yo kuvhanganywa u bva kha sambula dzine dza vha dza tsinisa. Mbudziso dzo ṱanḓavhuwaho, dzi sa langiho kufhindulele kha vhavhudziswa dzo itwa hu na vhadzheneli kha Sambula ya u thoma (1), ngeno khwesheya dzo shumiswa u kuvhanganya data kha Sambula 2. Kha nyimele dzoṱhe ho shumiswa ṱhaṱhuvho i re na vhushaka na ṱhoho u itela u ṱhaṱhuvha na u ṱalutshedza data. Zwine ngudo iyi ya vhuedza khazwo ndi mvelelo ya mutheo wa thyori wa ILR, ine ya vha na ṱhalutshedzo yo ḓitikaho nga thyori ya ILR, nḓila ya u angaredza ya ILR; na tsumbanḓila dza zwino u itela mbuelo ya ILR kha nyimele yo ḓitikaho nga nḓivho, zwo lavhelesa kha maga a sisiṱeme. Ṱhalutshedzo i tevhelaho yo vhekanywa zwi ḓitika nga ngudo: Vhushaka ha vhurangaphanḓa Vhuvhedzaho vhukati ha vhathu (ILR) kha nyimele ya tshiimiswa yo ḓitikaho nga nḓivho ndi maitele a tshumisano ya tshiga tsha vhudavhidzani vhukati ha vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli vha re na nḓivho vhane vha ṱuṱuwedzana na u kovhekana zwine zwa amba u itela u khwaṱhisa vhushaka havho khathihi na u fhirisa na u shumisa nḓivho u itela u zwikelela zwipikwa zwa tshiimiswa. Zwi tshi ya nga nyimele, zwo wanala uri vharangaphanḓa vha tshiimiswa vha tea u vhumba na u ṱuṱuwedza zwi tevhelaho: muhumbulo wa tshumisano kha vhurangaphanḓa, zwa tshimuya mushumoni, u katela zwa mvelele, na u ṱanganedza u shumiswa ha thekhinoḽodzhi ya vhudavhidzani. Maelana na tshumisano nga tshiga kha LFD, maitele a vhudavhidzani a tevhelaho a wanala a one a ndeme kha ILR ire na mbuelo: u thetshelesa nga vhuronwane, u tikedza vhatevheli hu na kupfesesele kwa uri vhathu vho fhambana, vhudavhidzani ha ṱhonifho, u dzhiela nṱha mihumbulo ya vhatevheli, u ṱuṱuwedza u ṱhalutshedza nga nḓila yo fhambanaho i vhuedzaho ya vhaṅwe vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli vha shumaho u ya nga vhone vhaṋe, u dzhia dzhenelela (u vhona nga nḓila ine vhaṅwe vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli vha vona ngayo), u tangnedza nḓivho, ndaulo ya phambano nga kha nyambedzano i sa shushedziho, ya ṱhonifho, nga maanḓa nga nyambedzano vhathu vho livhana zwifhaṱuwo, u ṱuṱuwedza nḓivho ya ṱhalutshedzo kana ndivho ya mushumo kha vhaṅwe vharangaphanḓa/vhatevheli, u ṱuṱuwedza zwithu zwi fhaṱaho vhushaka vhu vhuedzaho u fana na u fulufhedzana. Zwo tumbulwa uri ILR i bveledza sisiṱeme ya mvelelo u vha tshiimiswa tshine tsha dzhenelela kha mvelele na vhuḓipfi, kushumele kwa mushumo, u ṱuṱuwedzea na u dzhenelela ha vhashumi, nauri vhashumi vha sa ṱuwe. U ṱanganedzea ha muthu zwo vheekanywa zwi tshi ya nga mikhwa ya muthu ene muṋe na vhukoni zwine zwa tikedza ILR. Mikhwa ya muthu ya ndemesa yo topolwa sa u fulufhedzea, lufuno, ṱhonifho kana u dzhenelela, fulufhelo, na vhukoni kha zwa phurofeshinaḽa. Vhukoni ha ndeme ho sumbedzwa sa vhukoni ha u thetshelesa, vhukoni ha vhudavhidzani ha muhumbulo (nga maanḓa u ḓiḓivha, u ḓilingulula/sedzulusa na u dzhiela nzhele vhuḓipfi ha vhaṅwe vhathu), vhukoni ha u dzhenelela, vhukoni ha ndaulo ya phambano, na vhukoni ha u dzhenelela kha mvelele nnzhi (zwi tshi katela vhukoni ha zwa murafho).Communication ScienceD. Litt. et Phil. (Communication

Interpersonal Status Systems. An Inquiry into Social Networks and Status Dynamics in Schools, Science, and Hollywood

Status systems—vertical orders among persons according to differences in social recognition—are a ubiquitous feature of human societies. Vast streams of research developed to explore how status structures social life. This thesis proposes a unified framework for studying the interplay between social status and social networks. The framework highlights the importance of contextual characteristics for the emergence of status systems in various settings and complements approaches that focus on how individuals gain and perpetuate status. Theoretical expectations derived from this perspective are tested by applying a combination of exponential random graph models and other network-analytical tools to three different empirical settings. The first application investigates whether the structure of friendships and status ascriptions among more than 23,000 adolescents is sensitive to contextual characteristics such as the size or demographic composition of classrooms and grade levels. The second study examines collaboration networks among more than 7,000 neuroblastoma researchers over 40 years. Here, the investigation focuses on changes in the stratification and segregation of collaboration networks as a scientific field grows and matures. Similarly, the third study investigates the interplay between culture, status, and networks among Hollywood filmmakers from 1930 through 2000 by using information on artistic references and collaborations of more than 13,000 filmmakers retrieved from the Internet movie database (IMDb). The results illustrate that the link between status and networks intensifies under certain contextual conditions. One key finding is that larger contexts exhibit networks marked by status recognition in all empirical settings: larger school classes and grade levels produce leading crowds more often than smaller ones, the scientific field of neuroblastoma research developed an elite of researchers as it grew, and social recognition is distributed increasingly unequal during periods in which Hollywood attracted more filmmakers. The thesis closes by comparing the different settings in greater detail and by discussing directions for future research

“Formal and informal networkedness among German Academics”: exploring the role of conferences and co-publications in scientific performance

This paper builds on the established finding that the performance of scholars depends on their interpersonal networks. Until now, these networks have largely been measured by analysing the credits and acknowledgements on their publications, especially their co-authorships. First, it seeks to clarify inconsistencies in existing findings by providing a comprehensive analysis of the effects of co-authorship among the overall population of actively publishing researchers from Germany. Second, it acknowledges that co-publication is only one very formal and explicit form of academic networking and develops a new indicator based on an academic’s inferred co-presence at conferences. Comparing the impact of these two different aspects of networkedness, we find that hierarchy and influence play a stronger role in determining a scientist’s performance in the context of informal networks than they do when considering formal co-publication networks