Qualitative analysis of faculty opinions on and perceptions of research impact metrics

College and Research Libraries

Volumn 81, Issue 6, 2020, Pages 896-912

  Bakker, Caitlin ^a   Cooper, Kristen ^a   Langham Putrow, Allison ^a   McBurney, Jenny ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85090651146     PISSN: 00100870     EISSN: 21506701     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5860/crl.81.6.896     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Eugene Garfield, “Citation Indexes for Science: A New Dimension in Documentation through Association of Ideas,” Science 122, no. 3159 (1955): 108–11, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.122.3159.108.
2. Robin Chin Roemer and Rachel Borchardt, Meaningful Metrics: A 21st Century Librarian’s Guide to Biblio-metrics, Altmetrics, and Research Impact (Chicago, IL: Association of College and Research Libraries, 2015), 28.
3. I. Diane Cooper, “Bibliometrics Basics,” Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 103, no. 4 (October 2015): 217–18, https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.4.013.
4. Jason Priem et al., “Altmetrics: A Manifesto,” Altmetrics (2010), http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/.
5. Roemer and Borchardt, Meaningful Metrics, 106–14.
6. James Wilsdon et al., “The Metric Tide: Report of the Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management” (Bristol, UK: Higher Education Funding Council for England, n.d.), https://doi. org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4929.1363.
7. Kylie M. Smith, Ellie Crookes, and Patrick A. Crookes, “Measuring Research ‘Impact’ for Academic Pro-motion: Issues from the Literature,” Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35, no. 4 (August 1, 2013): 410–20, https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2013.812173.
8. Wilsdon et al., “The Metric Tide.”
9. David Matthews, “A New Model for Professors in the Netherlands,” Inside Higher Ed (December 7, 2018), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2018/12/07/netherlands-considers-creating-faculty-positions-based-teaching-not-research-metrics.
10. Wilsdon et al., “The Metric Tide.”
11. Kathryn E.R. Graham et al., “Evaluating Health Research Impact: Development and Implementation of the Alberta Innovates: Health Solutions Impact Framework,” Research Evaluation 21, no. 5 (December 1, 2012): 354–67, https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvs027, 355.
12. Steven Braun, “Supporting Research Impact Metrics in Academic Libraries: A Case Study,” portal: Libraries and the Academy 17, no. 1 (2017): 111–27, https://doi.org/10.1353/pla.2017.0007; B. Ian Hutchins et al., “Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level,” David L Vaux, ed., PLOS Biology 14, no. 9 (September 6, 2016): e1002541, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541.
13. Alison Abbott et al., “Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?” Nature News 465, no. 7300 (2010): 860–62, 861.
14. Abbott et al., “Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?” 861.
15. Dan DeSanto and Aaron Nichols, “Scholarly Metrics Baseline: A Survey of Faculty Knowledge, Use, and Opinion about Scholarly Metrics,” College & Research Libraries 78, no. 2 (February 2017): 150–70, https://doi. org/10.5860/crl.78.2.150, 163.
16. DeSanto and Nichols, “Scholarly Metrics Baseline,” 158.
17. Abbott et al., “Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?”
18. Abbott et al., “Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?”860.
19. Abbott et al., “Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?”861.
20. Abbott et al., “Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?”
21. Mindy Thuna and Pam King, “Research Impact Metrics: A Faculty Perspective,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 12, no. 1 (August 29, 2017): 20, https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v12i1.3906.
22. DeSanto and Nichols, “Scholarly Metrics Baseline”; Marc Vinyard and Jaimie Beth Colvin, “How Research Becomes Impact: Librarians Helping Faculty Use Scholarly Metrics to Select Journals,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 25, no. 2 (April 3, 2018): 187–204, https://doi.org/10.1080/10691316.2018.1464995.
23. Htet Htet Aung, Mojisola Erdt, and Yin-Leng Theng, “Awareness and Usage of Altmetrics: A User Survey,” Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 54, no. 1 (2017): 18–26, https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2017.14505401003.
24. Thuna and King, “Research Impact Metrics,” 19.
25. Karen Elizabeth Gutzman et al., “Research Evaluation Support Services in Biomedical Libraries,” Journal of the Medical Library Association 106, no. 1 (January 12, 2018): 1–14, https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.205.
26. Ruth Lewis, Cathy Sarli, and Amy M. Suiter, Scholarly Output Assessment Activities, SPEC Kit 346 (Wash-ington, DC: Association of Research Libraries, 2015).
27. Christine Wolff, Alisa B. Rod, and Roger C. Schonfeld, “Ithaka S+R US Faculty Survey 2015” (2016), 52, https://sr.ithaka.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SR_Report_US_Faculty_Survey_2015040416.pdf.
28. Bakker, C. et al. 2019. “How Faculty Demonstrate Impact: A Multi-Institutional Study of Faculty Under-standings, Perceptions, and Strategies Regarding Impact Metrics.” In ACRL 2019 Proceedings: Association of College and Research Libraries, Cleveland, Ohio, April 10-13, 2019, 556-568. www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/ files/content/conferences/confsandpreconfs/2019/HowFacultyDemonstrateImpact.pdf.
29. Kathy Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory (London, UK; Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006); Juliet M. Corbin and Anselm L. Strauss, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd ed. (Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, 2008); Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet M. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (Newbury Park, CA; London, UK: Sage, 1990).
30. Corbin and Strauss, Basics of Qualitative Research, 25.
31. Strauss and Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research, 23.
32. Abbott et al., “Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?”; DeSanto and Nichols, “Scholarly Metrics Baseline”; Vinyard and Colvin, “How Research Becomes Impact.”
33. Bakker et al., “How Faculty Demonstrate Impact.”
34. DeSanto and Nichols, “Scholarly Metrics Baseline.”
35. Kirsti Malterud, Volkert Dirk Siersma, and Ann Dorrit Guassora, “Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies: Guided by Information Power,” Qualitative Health Research 26, no. 13 (2016): 1753–60, https://doi. org/10.1177/1049732315617444, 1759.
36. Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory; Strauss and Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research; Corbin and Strauss, Basics of Qualitative Research. NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Ver-sion 12, 2018.
37. Michael Quinn Patton, Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002).
38. DeSanto and Nichols, “Scholarly Metrics Baseline.”
39. Abbott et al., “Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?”
40. Thuna and King, “Research Impact Metrics.”
41. Abbott et al., “Metrics: Do Metrics Matter?”; Kai Simons, “The Misused Impact Factor,” Science 322, no. 5899 (October 10, 2008): 165, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165316; Guang Yu, Dong-Hui Yang, and Wang Liang, “Reliability-Based Citation Impact Factor and the Manipulation of Impact Factor,” Scientometrics 83, no. 1 (2010): 259–70, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0083-1.
42. DeSanto and Nichols, “Scholarly Metrics Baseline”; Thuna and King, “Research Impact Metrics.”
43. Bakker et al., “How Faculty Demonstrate Impact.”
44. DeSanto and Nichols, “Scholarly Metrics Baseline”; Thuna and King, “Research Impact Metrics.”
45. Malterud, Siersma, and Guassora. “Sample Size in Qualitative Interview Studies”; Margarete Sandelowski, “Sample Size in Qualitative Research,” Research in Nursing & Health 18, no. 2 (1995): 179–83, https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.4770180211.
46. Lawrence Leung, “Validity, Reliability, and Generalizability in Qualitative Research,” Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 4, no. 3 (2015): 324–27, https://doi.org/10.4103/2249-4863.161306; Denise F. Polit and Cheryl Tatano Beck, “Generalization in Quantitative and Qualitative Research: Myths and Strategies,” International Journal of Nursing Studies 47, no. 11 (November 1, 2010): 1451–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2010.06.004; Sandelowski, “Sample Size in Qualitative Research.”