实质性:衡量大学科研绩效的研究卓越性结构

Masashi Shirabe, A. Koizumi
{"title":"实质性:衡量大学科研绩效的研究卓越性结构","authors":"Masashi Shirabe, A. Koizumi","doi":"10.2478/jdis-2021-0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Purpose The adequacy of research performance of universities or research institutes have often been evaluated and understood in two axes: “quantity” (i.e. size or volume) and “quality” (i.e. what we define here as a measure of excellence that is considered theoretically independent of size or volume, such as clarity in diamond grading). The purpose of this article is, however, to introduce a third construct named “substantiality” (“ATSUMI” in Japanese) of research performance and to demonstrate its importance in evaluating/understanding research universities. Design/methodology/approach We take a two-step approach to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed construct by showing that (1) some characteristics of research universities are not well captured by the conventional constructs (“quantity” and “quality”)-based indicators, and (2) the “substantiality” indicators can capture them. Furthermore, by suggesting that “substantiality” indicators appear linked to the reputation that appeared in university reputation rankings by simple statistical analysis, we reveal additional benefits of the construct. Findings We propose a new construct named “substantiality” for measuring research performance. We show that indicators based on “substantiality” can capture important characteristics of research institutes. “Substantiality” indicators demonstrate their “predictive powers” on research reputation. Research limitations The concept of “substantiality” originated from IGO game; therefore the ease/difficulty of accepting the concept is culturally dependent. In other words, while it is easily accepted by people from Japan and other East Asian countries and regions, it might be difficult for researchers from other cultural regions to accept it. Practical implications There is no simple solution to the challenge of evaluating research universities’ research performance. It is vital to combine different types of indicators to understand the excellence of research institutes. Substantiality indicators could be part of such a combination of indicators. Originality/value The authors propose a new construct named substantiality for measuring research performance. They show that indicators based on this construct can capture the important characteristics of research institutes.","PeriodicalId":92237,"journal":{"name":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","volume":"6 1","pages":"76 - 89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Substantiality: A Construct Indicating Research Excellence to Measure University Research Performance\",\"authors\":\"Masashi Shirabe, A. Koizumi\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/jdis-2021-0029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Purpose The adequacy of research performance of universities or research institutes have often been evaluated and understood in two axes: “quantity” (i.e. size or volume) and “quality” (i.e. what we define here as a measure of excellence that is considered theoretically independent of size or volume, such as clarity in diamond grading). The purpose of this article is, however, to introduce a third construct named “substantiality” (“ATSUMI” in Japanese) of research performance and to demonstrate its importance in evaluating/understanding research universities. Design/methodology/approach We take a two-step approach to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed construct by showing that (1) some characteristics of research universities are not well captured by the conventional constructs (“quantity” and “quality”)-based indicators, and (2) the “substantiality” indicators can capture them. Furthermore, by suggesting that “substantiality” indicators appear linked to the reputation that appeared in university reputation rankings by simple statistical analysis, we reveal additional benefits of the construct. Findings We propose a new construct named “substantiality” for measuring research performance. We show that indicators based on “substantiality” can capture important characteristics of research institutes. “Substantiality” indicators demonstrate their “predictive powers” on research reputation. Research limitations The concept of “substantiality” originated from IGO game; therefore the ease/difficulty of accepting the concept is culturally dependent. In other words, while it is easily accepted by people from Japan and other East Asian countries and regions, it might be difficult for researchers from other cultural regions to accept it. Practical implications There is no simple solution to the challenge of evaluating research universities’ research performance. It is vital to combine different types of indicators to understand the excellence of research institutes. Substantiality indicators could be part of such a combination of indicators. Originality/value The authors propose a new construct named substantiality for measuring research performance. They show that indicators based on this construct can capture the important characteristics of research institutes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":92237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"76 - 89\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of data and information science (Warsaw, Poland)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/jdis-2021-0029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

摘要目的大学或研究机构研究业绩的充分性通常从两个方面进行评估和理解:“数量”(即规模或体积)和“质量”(即我们在这里定义的卓越程度,在理论上被认为与规模或体积无关,如钻石分级的清晰度)。然而,本文的目的是引入第三个名为“实质性”(日语中为“ATSUMI”)的研究绩效结构,并证明其在评估/理解研究型大学中的重要性。设计/方法论/方法我们采用两步走的方法来证明所提出的结构的有效性,方法是:(1)基于传统结构(“数量”和“质量”)的指标不能很好地捕捉研究型大学的一些特征,以及(2)“实质性”指标可以捕捉这些特征。此外,通过简单的统计分析表明,“实质性”指标似乎与大学声誉排名中出现的声誉有关,我们揭示了该结构的额外好处。研究结果我们提出了一个名为“实质性”的新结构来衡量研究绩效。我们表明,基于“实质性”的指标可以捕捉研究机构的重要特征。“实质性”指标展示了它们对研究声誉的“预测能力”。研究局限性“实体性”概念起源于IGO游戏;因此,接受这个概念的难易程度取决于文化。换句话说,尽管它很容易被日本和其他东亚国家和地区的人接受,但其他文化地区的研究人员可能很难接受。将不同类型的指标结合起来以了解研究机构的卓越性至关重要。实质性指标可以是这种指标组合的一部分。原创性/价值作者提出了一个新的衡量研究绩效的结构,名为实质性。他们表明,基于这一结构的指标可以反映研究机构的重要特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Substantiality: A Construct Indicating Research Excellence to Measure University Research Performance
Abstract Purpose The adequacy of research performance of universities or research institutes have often been evaluated and understood in two axes: “quantity” (i.e. size or volume) and “quality” (i.e. what we define here as a measure of excellence that is considered theoretically independent of size or volume, such as clarity in diamond grading). The purpose of this article is, however, to introduce a third construct named “substantiality” (“ATSUMI” in Japanese) of research performance and to demonstrate its importance in evaluating/understanding research universities. Design/methodology/approach We take a two-step approach to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed construct by showing that (1) some characteristics of research universities are not well captured by the conventional constructs (“quantity” and “quality”)-based indicators, and (2) the “substantiality” indicators can capture them. Furthermore, by suggesting that “substantiality” indicators appear linked to the reputation that appeared in university reputation rankings by simple statistical analysis, we reveal additional benefits of the construct. Findings We propose a new construct named “substantiality” for measuring research performance. We show that indicators based on “substantiality” can capture important characteristics of research institutes. “Substantiality” indicators demonstrate their “predictive powers” on research reputation. Research limitations The concept of “substantiality” originated from IGO game; therefore the ease/difficulty of accepting the concept is culturally dependent. In other words, while it is easily accepted by people from Japan and other East Asian countries and regions, it might be difficult for researchers from other cultural regions to accept it. Practical implications There is no simple solution to the challenge of evaluating research universities’ research performance. It is vital to combine different types of indicators to understand the excellence of research institutes. Substantiality indicators could be part of such a combination of indicators. Originality/value The authors propose a new construct named substantiality for measuring research performance. They show that indicators based on this construct can capture the important characteristics of research institutes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信