Revisão Sistemática sobre a Influência dos Executivos no Desempenho das Empresas na Perspectiva da Teoria do Alto Escalão

Source: https://futurejournal.org/FSRJ/article/view/442

Revisão Sistemática sobre a Influência dos Executivos no Desempenho das Empresas na Perspectiva da Teoria do Alto Escalão

Julio Cesar Volpp Sierra, Fernando Antonio Ribeiro Serra, Luiz Antonio de Camargo Guerrazzi, José Eduardo Teixeira

Abstract

O objetivo, neste artigo, foi apresentar as frentes e agenda futura da pesquisa sobre a influência dos executivos no desempenho das empresas na perspectiva da Teoria do Alto Escalão. Para atingir este objetivo, realizamos uma revisão sistemática de 59 artigos, procedentes de um estudo bibliométrico de pareamento.Os resultados da pesquisa indicam que, a partir do trabalho seminal de Hambrick e Mason (1984), os estudos atuais, além de considerarem as características demográficas do CEO (Chief Executive Officer), têm dado ênfase à influência da diversidade do TMT (Top Management Team) sobre os conflitos entre executivos e conselheiros, aos efeitos do comportamento e relações sociais e a análises semelhantes em outros níveis organizacionais. A partir destas análises, é proposta uma agenda de pesquisa.

Keywords

Teoria do Alto Escalão; Características dos Executivos; Desempenho Organizacional; Estudos Bibliométricos

Full Text:

PDF (Português (Brasil))

References

Acar, F. P. (2010). Analyzing the effects of diversity perceptions and shared leadership on emotional conflict: a dynamic approach, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(10), 1733-1753.
Acedo, F., Barroso, C., & Galan, J. (2006). The resource-based theory: Dissemination and main trends. Strategic Management Journal, 27(7), 621–636.
Barkema, H. G. & Shvyrkov, O. (2007). Does Top Management Team Diversity Promote or Hamper Foreign Expansion? Strategic Management Journal. 28: 663-680.
Barr, P. S. (1998). A dapting to Unfamiliar Environmental Events: A Look at the Evolution of Interpretation and Its Role in Strategic Change. Organization Science 9(6):644-669.
Bazeley, P. (2013). Comparative analyses as a means of furthering analysis. Qualitative Data Analysis: Practical Strategies. London: Sage.
Bell, S. T., Villado, A. J., Lukasik, M. A., Belau, L., & Briggs, A. L. (2011). Getting Specific about Demographic Diversity Variable and Team Performance Relationships: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management, 37(3), 709–743.
Bernard, H. R., & Ryan, G. W. (2010). Conceptual Models. Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systemic Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bergh, D., Aguinis, H., Heavey, C., Ketchen, D., Boyd, B., Su, P., Lau, C. & Joo, H. (2016). Using meta-analytic structural equation modeling to advance strategic management research: Guidelines and an empirical illustration via the strategic leadership-performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 477–497.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G. & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing Social Networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bradley, R. V., Byrd, T., Pridmore, J., Thrasher, E. H. & Pratt, R. M. E. (2012). An empirical examination of antecedents and consequences of its governance in US Hospitals. Journal of Information Technology, 27(2): 156-177.
Carmeli, A. (2008). Top Management Team Behavioral Integration and the Performance of Service Organizations. Group & Organization Management, 33(6), 712–735.
Carmeli, A. & Halevi, M. Y. (2009). How top management team behavioral integration and behavioral complexity enable organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of contextual ambidexterity. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(2): 207-218.
Carmeli, A., Sheaffer, Z. & Halevi, M. Y. (2009) Does participatory decision‐making in top management teams enhance decision effectiveness and firm performance? Personnel Review, 38(6), 696-714.
Carmeli, A., Tishler, A., & Edmondson, A. C. (2012). CEO relational leadership and strategic decision quality in top management teams: The role of team trust and learning from failure. Strategic Organization, 10(1), 31–54.
Carpenter, M. A., Geletkanycz, M. A. & Sanders, W. G. (2004). Upper Echelons Research Revisited: Antecedents, Elements, and Consequences of Top Management Team Composition. Journal of Management. 30(6): 749-778.
Castanias, R. & Helfat, C. (2001). The managerial rents model: Theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Management, 27: 661–678.
Charvet, F. F., Cooper, M. C. & Gardner, J. T. (2008). The intellectual structure of supply chain management: a bibliometric approach. Journal of Business Logistics, 29(1): 47-73.
Chatterjee, A., & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Executive Personality, Capability Cues, and Risk Taking: How Narcissistic CEOs React to Their Successes and Stumbles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(2), 202–237.
Chattopadhyay, P., Glick, W., Miller, C., & Huber, G. (1999). Determinants of Executive Beliefs: Comparing Functional Conditioning and Social Influence. Strategic Management Journal, 20(8): 763-789.
Chen, D. Q., Mocker, M., Preston, D. S. & Teubner, A. (2010). Information systems strategy: reconceptualization, measurement, and implications. MIS Quarterly. 34 (2): 233-259.
Chen, D. Q., Preston D. S. & Xia, W. (2010). Antecedents and Effects of CIO Supply-Side and Demand-Side Leadership: A Staged Maturity Model. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 231–271.
Chi, N.-W., Huang, Y.-M., & Lin, S.-C. (2009). A Double-Edged Sword? Exploring the Curvilinear Relationship Between Organizational Tenure Diversity and Team Innovation: The Moderating Role of Team-Oriented HR Practices. Group & Organization Management, 34(6), 698–726.
Child, J. (1972). Organizational Structure, Environment and Performance: The Role of Strategic Choice. Sociology, 6(1): 1-22.
Crossland, C., & Hambrick, D. (2007). How National Systems Differ in Their Constraints on Corporate Executives: A Study of CEO Effects in Three Countries. Strategic Management Journal, 28(8), 767-789.
Crossland, C. & Hambrick, D. C. (2011). Differences in managerial discretion across countries: how nation-level institutions affect the degree to which CEO matters. Strategic Management Jounal, 32 (8), 797-819.
Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
De Wit, F. R. C.; Greer, L. L. & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The Paradox of Intragroup Conflict: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97 (2), 360-390.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review. 48, 147-160.
Eisenhardt, K. M. & Bourgeois, L. J. (1988). Politics of Strategic Decision Making in High-Velocity Environments: Toward a Midrange Theory. The Academy of Management Journal. 31(4): 737-770.
Elbanna, S. & Child, J. (2007). The Influence of Decision, Environmental and Firm Characteristics on the Rationality of Strategic Decision‐Making. Journal of Management Studies, 44: 561-591.
Ferreira, M. A. S. P. V., Pinto, C. S. F., Serra, F. A. R. & Santos, J. C. (2013). A bibliometric study of John Dunning’s contribution to international business research. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 15(46): 56-75.
Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top management team tenure and organizational outcomes: the moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35: 484–503.
Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper Echelons Theory: An Update. The Academy of Management Review. 32(2): 334-343.
Hambrick, D. C., & Finkelstein, S. (1987). Managerial discretion: a bridge between polar views of organizations. 369-406. in: Cummings, L. L., & Staw, B. M. (eds). Research in organizational behavior. V.9. Greenwich. JAI Press.
Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S. & Mooney, A. (2005). Executive job demands: new insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 30(3): 472–491.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. (1984). Upper Echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9: 193–206.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology model of organizations. American Journal of Sociology. 82: 929-964.
Hjertø, K.B., Kuvaas, B. (2009). Development and empirical exploration of an extended model of intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management (20)1, 4-30.
Horwitz, S. K. & Horwitz, I. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33 (6), 987-1015.
Jehn, K. A., Rispens, S., & Thatcher, S. M. B. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 596-616.
Joshi, A., Liao, H., & Roh, H. (2011). Bridging Domains in Workplace Demography Research: A Review and Reconceptualization. Journal of Management, 37(2), 521–552.
Karaevli, A. (2007), Performance consequences of new CEO ‘Outsiderness’: Moderating effects of pre‐ and post‐succession contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 28: 681-706.
Kearns, G. S. & Sabherwal, R. (2007). Antecedents and Consequences of Information Systems Planning Integration. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54 (4): 628-643.
Kessler, M.M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. American Documentation, 14: 10–25.
Kidwell, R.E., Kellermanns, F.W. & Eddleston, K.A. (2012). Harmony, Justice, Confusion, and Conflict in Family Firms: Implications for Ethical Climate and the “Fredo Effect”. Journal of Business Ethics, 106 (4): 503-517.
Kleinbaum, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2007), Building bridges: the social structure of interdependent innovation. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 103-122.
Korsgaard, M. A., Soyoung Jeong, S., Mahony, D. M. & Pitariu, A. H. (2008). A Multilevel View of Intragroup Conflict. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1222–1252.
Kunze, F., & Bruch, H. (2010). Age-Based Faultlines and Perceived Productive Energy: The Moderation of Transformational Leadership. Small Group Research, 41(5), 593–620.
Lau, D.C. & Murnighan, J.K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: the compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23: 325–340.
Lawrence, B.S. (1997). The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8(1): 1–22.
Leidner, D. E., Preston, D. & Chen, D. (2010). An eximination of antecedents and consequences of organizational IT innovation in hospitals. The Journal of Strategis Information Systems, 19 (3): 154-170.
Lin, T. & Cheng, Y. (2010). Exploring the knowledge network of strategic alliance research: A co-citation analysis. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 8(2): 152–160.
Lin, W-T., Cheng, Y. & Liu, Y. (2009). Organizational slack and firm’s internationalization: a longitudinal study of high-technology firms. Journal of World Business, 44: 397-406.
Lin, W-T. & Liu,Y. (2011). The impact of CEO sucession on top management teams and the degree of firm internationalization. European Journal International Management, 5(3): 253-270.
Lin, W-T. & Liu,Y. (2012). Successor characteristics, organisational slack, and change in the degree of firm internationalization. International Business Review, 21: 89-101.
Liu, Y., Lin, W-T. & Cheng, K-Y. (2011). Family Ownership and the International Involvement of Taiwan’s High-Technology Firms: The Moderating Effect of High-Discretion Organizational Slack. Management and Organization Review, 7 (2): 201-222.
Liu, Y., Valenti, M. A. and Yu, H. (2012), Presuccession Performance, CEO Succession, Top Management Team, and Change in a Firm's Internationalization: The Moderating Effect of CEO/Chairperson Dissimilarity. Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 29: 67-78.
Lu, L., Zhou, F. & Leung, K. (2011) Effects of task and relationship conflicts on individual work behaviors, International Journal of Conflict Management, 22 (2): 131-150.
Mackey, A. (2008), The effect of CEOs on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1357-1367.
Markóczy, L. (2001), Consensus formation during strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 1013-1031.
Martin, J. A. (2011). Dynamic Managerial Capabilities and the Multibusiness Team: The Role of Episodic Teams in Executive Leadership Groups. Organization Science, 22 (1): 118-140.
McCain, K. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: a technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6): 433-443.
Medeiros, R., Serra, F. A. R. & Ferreira, M. A. P. (2011). O tempo de mandato do CEO e o desempenho das organizações: Um estudo em grandes empresas brasileiras. Revista Portuguesa e Brasileira de Gestão, 10: 60–69.
Nadkarni, S. & Barr, P. S. (2008). Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: an integrated view. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 1395-1427.
Nagaratnam, S., Ale Ebrahim, N., & Habibullah M. (2016). A bibliometric analysis on “fertility rate” research trends. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 1(1), 1-14.
Nielsen, S. (2009). Why do top management teams look the way they do? A multilevel exploration of the antecedents of TMT heterogeneity. Strategic Organization, 7(3): 277–305.
Nielsen, S. (2010). Top Management Team Diversity: A Review of Theories and Methodologies. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12 (3): 301-316.
Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., & Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic Decision Making: The Effects of Cognitive Diversity, Conflict, and Trust on Decision Outcomes. Journal of Management, 33(2): 196–222.
Oppong, S. (2014). Upper echelons theory revisited: the need for a change from causal description to causal explanation. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 19(2): 169-183.
Parayitam, S. & Dooley, R. S. (2007) The relationship between conflict and decision outcomes: Moderating effects of cognitive‐ and affect‐based trust in strategic decision‐making teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18 (1), 42-73.
Parayitam, S., & Dooley, R. S. (2009). The interplay between cognitive- and affective conflict and cognition- and affect-based trust in influencing decision outcomes. Journal of Business Research, 62(8): 789-796.
Penrose, E. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Powell, T. C., Lovallo, D. & Fox, C. R. (2011), Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 1369-1386.
Preston, D. S., Chen, D., & Leidner, D. E. (2008). Examining the antecedents and consequences of CIO strategic decision-making authority: An empirical study. Decision Sciences, 39(4): 605-642.
Puck, J.; Neyer, A-K. & Dennerlein, T. (2010) Diversity and conflict in teams: a contingency perspective. European Journal of International Management, 4 (4): 417-439.
Quigley, T. J. & Hambrick, D. C. (2015). Has the "CEO effect" increased in recent decades? A new explanation for the great rise in America's attention to corporate leaders. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6): 821-830.
Ramos-Rodriguez, A., & Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10): 981–1004.
Rost, K. and Osterloh, M. (2010), Opening the Black Box of Upper Echelons: Drivers of Poor Information Processing During the Financial Crisis. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 18: 212-233.
Sabherwal, R. (1999). The Relationship Between Information System Planning Sophistication and Information System Success: An Empirical Assessment. Decision Sciences, 30(1): 137-167.
Serra, F. A. R & Lissone, J. (2006). Los pilares de la estratégia y el éxito de las organizaciones. Revista de Empresa, 18: 36-48.
Serra, F. A. R. & Ferreira, M. A. P. (2010). Emerging determinants of firm performance: A case study research examining the strategy pillars from a resource-based view. Management Research, 8: 7–24.
Serra, F. A. R., Ferreira, M. A. P., Guerrazzi, L., & Scaciotta, V. (2018). Doing Bibliometric Reviews for the Iberoamerican Journal of Strategic Management. Iberoamerican Journal Of Strategic Management, 17(3): 01-16.
Serra, F. R., Tres, G., & Ferreira, M.P. (2016). The “CEO effect” on the performance of Brazilian companies: An empirical study using measurable characteristics. European Management Review. 13(3): 193-205.
Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of innovation research (1988–2008). Strategic Management Journal, 34(1): 62–93.
Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (4): 597-624.
Stingl, V., & Geraldi, J. (2017). Errors, lies and misunderstandings: Systematic review on behavioural decision making in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(20, 121-135.
Talke, K.; Salomo, S. & Rost, K. (2010) How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields. Research Policy, 39 (7): 907-918.
Tallon, P. P. (2007b). Does IT pay to focus? An analysis of IT business value under single and multi-focused business strategies. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 16: 278-300.
Tallon, P. P. & Kraemer, K. (2007). Fact or Fiction? A Sensemaking Perspective on the Reality behind Executives' Perceptions of IT Business Value. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(1): 13-54.
Tallon, P. P. (2007a). A Process-Oriented Perspective on the Alignment of Information Technology and Business Strategy. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3): 227-268.
Tegarden, D.P., Tegarden, L.F. & Sheetz, S.D. (2009). Cognitive Factions in a Top Management Team: Surfacing and Analyzing Cognitive Diversity using Causal Maps. Group Decision and Negotiaton. 18(6): 537-566.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14, 207–222.
Tuggle, C., Schnatterly, K., & Johnson, R. (2010). Attention Patterns in the Boardroom: How Board Composition and Processes Affect Discussion of Entrepreneurial Issues. The Academy of Management Journal, 53(3): 550-571.
van Knippenberg, D., Dawson, J. F., West, M. A., & Homan, A. C. (2011). Diversity faultlines, shared objectives, and top management team performance. Human Relations, 64(3): 307–336.
van Knippenberg, D. & Sitkin, S. B. (2013). A Critical Assessment of Charismatic Transformational Leadership Research: Back to the Drawing Board? Academy of Management Annals, 7(1): 1-60.
Vogel, R. & Güttel, W. 2013. The dynamic capability view in strategic management: a bibliometric review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(4): 426-446.
Wangrow, D. B., Schepker, D. J. & Barker, V. L., III (2015). Managerial discretion: an empirical review and focus on future research directions. Journal of Management, 41(1): 99-135.
White, H. (2011). Scientific and Scholarly Networks. In P. J. Carrington & J. Scott (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis (pp. 271–285). London: SAGE Publications.
White, H. D. and Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: a literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of Association for Infromation Science and Technology, 32: 163-171.
Williams, H. M., Parker, S. K., & Turner, N. (2007). Perceived Dissimilarity and Perspective Taking Within Work Teams. Group & Organization Management, 32(5): 569–597.
Yang, Q.; Zimmerman, M. & Jiang, C. (2011). An Empirical Study of the Impact of CEO Characteristics on New Firms' Time to IPO. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(2): 163-184.
Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 19: 708-722.
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3): 429–472.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24023/FutureJournal/2175-5825/2019.v11i2.442

Nader Ale Ebrahim Figshare profile

My presentations about #ResearchVisibility & #ResearchImpact is reach to 43,834 downloads. Like to celebrate for 50,000 downloads soon! https://figshare.com/authors/Nader_Ale_Ebrahim/100797

Introduction to “Research Tools”: Tools for Collecting, Writing, Publishing, and Improving Research Visibility

Introduction to “Research Tools”: Tools for Collecting, Writing, Publishing, and Improving Research Visibility

https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.8258957.v1

 

RESEARCH 123 BY VIETNAM NATIONAL AGENCY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AND IES

Source: http://ies.igroupnet.com/r123vn/

Overview

Thanks to success of training workshop “Research 123” with some students got published internationally in 2017, we are please to announce the recruitment plan for the training workshop series “Research 123” by Vietnam National Agency for Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology and IES (Innovative Education Service) with advanced program designs to cover most of student’s research levels and objectives.

“Research 123” from October to December, 2018 will be the promised training workshop to help the scientist and researcher enhance the skill to research and write paper as well improve the visibility and impact factor of research paper.

Program Details

Organizer: National Agency for Science and Technology Information, Ministry of Science & Technology, IES

Duration: 6 days of intensive training and online support within 3 months

Location & Time Schedule

Building A2, National Economics University,

207 Giai Phong Road, Dong Tam Ward, Hai Ba Trung District, Hanoi

Roadmap 1: 30-31 October 2018

Roadmap 2: 26-30 November 2018

Roadmap 3: 10-14 December 2018

Contact Details

Website: ies.igroupnet.com/r123vn

Hotline: 0987 893 813

Email: daotao@vista.gov.vn

Tuition Fee

TBA / Research Best Practice 
TBA / Research Advance

Kindly contact us at 098 789 3813 for pricing detail

DISCOUNT 10% FOR STUDENTS REGISTERED BEFORE 20/10/2018

Nothing in life is to be feared, it is only to be understood.
Now is the time to understand more, so that we may fear less.

– Marie Curie (1867 – 1934) –

Learning Objectives

• Enhance the necessary skills to conduct a research and write a paper following the international standard.
• Consult and build strategy to international publish, outreach and dissemination.
• Expand the international research networking and cooperation.
• Provide some tips to improve the visibility and impact factor of research paper
• Guide to use research tools and research application such as database, reference management, and originality check.

Benefits for Students

• Participants will participate in 6 days of intensive training (October to December 2018) combining practice.
• Special students with online support from international experts with experience in the field. study, published within 3 months of training.
• Trainees will be provided with solid background knowledge to improve the quality of their research and publish them in international magazine publications.
• Increased opportunities and experience to connect with the international research community, participate in research projects, scientific research contests in and outside the country, the training content from the program will be the page useful for scientists in the research career.
• In addition to listening to lectures, group discussions, presentations and doing hands-on exercises in class.
• Students should combine self-study, self-study, active exchange with lecturers, experts, learners. Team members, and will be supported by experts through online connection tools. Participants in the training series will be provided free access to EEWOWW, Kudos, and EEWOWW, and Science Direct, Scopus, Springer, IEEE, Science resources. Direct, Web of Science, Thomson Innovation Analyst, InCites, etc.
• Trainees will be awarded the International Training Certificate after completing thetraining program in the workshop series.

Program Agenda

Research Best Practice

• Month 1: The Concept of Research Best Practices. Research tools and application. Definition and application of bibliometrics in research.
• Month 2: Research Method. International Standard of Research Quality. Research Plan and Practice. Good Manuscript Writing. Peer Review Process.

• Month 3: Concept of Research Outreach. Practical Session of Plain Language Summary. Concept of Research Impact & Impact Evidences. Story Telling through Infographics.

Research Advancement

• Month 1: Strategic Planning for Research Milestones. Bibliometrics, Altmetrics and Data Analytics. Research Communication.

• Month 2: Research Cluster Management and Leadership. Impactful Research Communication. Assignment Review.

Speaker Information

Wong Woei Fuh - Director of Innovation Education Services, iGroup (Asia Pacific)

Dr. Wong Woei Fuh is the Director of IES, iGroup (Asia Pacific) – Senior Advisor for Education and Research Solutions at iGroup Asia Pacific. He defended his Ph.D. in Polymer Science and Technology from the University of Manchester (UK) and an MBA from the University of Louisville (USA). Wong Woei Fuh has more than 15 years of experience in the information industry, 10 years as a consultant at Thomson Reuters, and has years of experience in deploying Derwent. He has published many international scientific papers on Polymers, related issues, and is currently involved in educational projects with units such as the Lifelong Learning Institute (Singapore Press Holding), the Research Excellence Program at the University of Tenaga, Malaysia), Research Analysis Program (Melaka University of Technology, Malaysia),

Nader Ale Ebrahim - Researcher and Speaker, Institute of Management and Research, University of Malaya

Dr. Nader is currently a “Research Visibility and Impact” freelancer consultant. He was working as a visiting research fellow with the Centre for Research Services, Institute of Management and Research Services (IPPP), University of Malaya from 2013 to November 2017. His current research interests are Open access, Research visibility, Research Tools, and Bibliometrics. Dr. Nader is well known as the creator of “Research Tools” Box and the developer of “Publication Marketing Tools”. He has so far conducted over 330 workshops within and outside of University of Malaya, and has published more than 100 papers and presented in several journals and conferences.

Han Wen Chang – Research Consultant and Analysis of Innovation Education Services, iGroup (Asia Pacific)

Dr. Chang completed his PhD studies at National Taiwan University. Her research focuses on the field of assessment and analysis of published international scientific papers. She has been an analyst for Thomson Reuters and has many years of experience working with a number of prestigious universities in the region such as Taiwan, Singapore, Korea and Hong Kong. the leading consultant in Southeast Asia for analyzing statistical data and information services, and providing effective solutions to increase the ability to advertise and identify articles in prestigious journals. For many research institutes, institutes and R & D departments in the region.

Pham Hung Hiep – Research and Speaker. Graduated in Chinese Culture University, Taipei

Pham Hung Hiep graduated with a Ph.D. in business administration from the Chinese University of Culture, Taiwan in 2017. His research focuses on the areas of commercialization in education and measurement. Dr. Hiep has published numerous articles in journals indexed on Scopus / SSCI and co-authored two books on higher education published by Springer and Sense. In addition to his research experience, he is also a frequent writer in local and international journals and magazines on scientific and educational issues. In 2013, TS. He received the Asian Development Bank Press Award (DAJA), which is sponsored by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) Research Institute.

Vuong Quan Hoang – Research and Speaker

PhD in economics at the University of Bruxelles, Belgium, in 2004, Dr. Wang Quan Hoang has spent many years working and researching for private and domestic universities and private sectors such as World Bank , IFC, ING Bank, Open University of Ho Chi Minh City, FPT University, Thanh Tay University. His research focuses on the following areas: finance, economic development, data science. He is currently the top researcher in Vietnam, with a collection of over 50 international published scientific papers indexed in journals in the ISI catalog, Scopus. He is also responsible for the Vietnam Social Scientist Network (NVSS), a project that aims to build a database of international published yields and productivity as well as the nature of the fish. humanities, research team in the field of social sciences & humanities.

Event Registration

Fields marked with an * are required

If you would like to take part in our event, please fill in your details in this Event Registration Form below and you will be automatically registered. Event registration must be completed at least seven (7) days prior to the event.

Source: https://libguides.brunel.ac.uk/visibilityandimpact/academicsocialnetworking

Visibility and Impact: Academic Social Networking Sites

• Overview
• Promoting Your Research
• Measuring Your Impact
• Academic Social Networking Sites
• Innovations in scholarly communication

ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and the institutional repository

A social networking site is not an open access repository

“What’s the difference between ResearchGate, Academia.edu, and the institutional repository?”
“I put my papers in ResearchGate, is that enough for the open access policy?
These and similar questions have been been common at open access events over the past couple of years. Authors want to better understand the differences between these platforms and when they should use one, the other, or some combination.
First, a brief primer on what each service has to offer:

ResearchGate and Academia.edu

ResearchGate and Academia.edu are social networking platforms whose primary aim is to connect researchers with common interests. Users create profiles on these services, and are then encouraged to list their publications and other scholarly activities, upload copies of manuscripts they’ve authored, and build connections with scholars they work or co-author with. Essentially these services provide a Facebook or LinkedIn experience for the research community.
Both services are commercial companies. Although Academia.edu has a “.edu” URL, it isn’t run by a higher education institution. The domain name was registered before the rules that would now prohibit this use went into effect, and the address was grandfathered in and later sold to the company. On its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission it uses the legal name Academia Inc.

Open access repositories

Open access repositories come in two basic flavors:

• Institutional repositories (IRs) are generally library-run websites that enable authors to upload a version of their manuscripts for public “open access” display. Brunel’s is calledenterHere;BURA. The primary aim of institutional repositories is to make the scholarly outputs of the university as widely available as possible and to ensure long-term preservation of these outputs.
• Subject-based repositories collect publications in a particular discipline or a range of disciplines, so that authors in a field can share and solicit feedback on their work from colleagues in that field, regardless of where they work.

Next, let’s take a closer look at some of the major differences between these two kinds of services:

	Open access repositories	Academia.edu	ResearchGate
Supports export or harvesting	Yes	No	No
Long-term preservation	Yes	No	No
Business model	Nonprofit (usually)	Commercial. Sells job posting services. Hopes to sell data.	Commericial. Sells ads, job posting services
Sends you lots of emails (by default)	No	Yes	Yes
Wants your address book	No	Yes	Yes
Fulfills requirements of Brunel, REF and funder policies	Yes	No	No

Openness and interoperability

We are often asked by researchers already using ResearchGate or Academia.edu why they should use a repository operated or recommended by the library instead (or as well), or alternatively: Why can’t the library just take my information from ResearchGate or Academia.edu and use that to populate the institutional repository?
The simple answer is: ResearchGate and Academia.edu do not permit their users to take their own data and reuse it elsewhere, nor do their terms of service permit the library to extract that data on the authors’ behalf.

• ResearchGate: “Users must not misuse the Service. Misuse of the Service includes, without limitation: … automated or massive manual retrieval of other Users’ profile data (‘data harvesting’).”
• Academia.edu: “You agree not to do any of the following: … Attempt to access or search the Site, … through the use of any engine, software, tool, agent, device or mechanism (including spiders, robots, crawlers, data mining tools or the like).”

Interestingly, ResearchGate permits you to import publications from other applications, but provides no method for getting that same data out of the ResearchGate ecosystem (well, not without some creative acrobatics). Similarly, Academia.edu previously supported import, but now makes it impossible to bring data in or out of their system.
Institutional repositories, on the other hand, are largely committed to complete openness and re-use of data.

• They get involved with efforts like SHARE, a mission to build a comprehensive, free open data set of research activities and outputs. SHARE participants include sites like the Social Science Research Network, the Smithsonian Digital Repository, and DataONE: Data Observation Network for Earth – see a full list here.
• They make their metadata – the information about what’s in the repository – interoperable and open by using standards like OAI-PMH.PubMedCentral, ArXiv, and BURA are all OAI-PMH providers – see more examples here.

These kinds of activities make open access repositories good places for publications you want people to be able to find.
Some IRs also offer APIs that further expand what researchers can do with the publication data they provide. ResearchGate previously discussed offering an API so that the data they collect could help foster open science, but over two years after announcing this intention, no progress seems to have been made.

Long-term preservation and access

Open access repositories are usually managed by universities, government agencies, or nonprofit associations. Affiliation with a larger institution (with a public service mission) means that repositories are likely to be around for a long time. They often employ librarians and data specialists who specialize in ensuring long term archiving.
Academia.edu and ResearchGate are independent for-profit companies that could theoretically close up shop at any time (anyone remember pets.com?). Both sites disavow any duty to warn users if they shut down:

• Academia.edu “reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to discontinue or terminate the Site and Services and to terminate these Terms, at any time and without prior notice.”
• ResearchGate “reserves the right to change, reduce, interrupt or discontinue the Service or parts of it at any time.”

Business models

Less theoretical is the likelihood of a shift in these sites’ profit strategy. ResearchGate and Academia.edu are commercial sites, whereas most open access repositories are non-profits.
These academic social networking sites have each raised large amounts of initial funding: $17.8 million for Academia.edu, and $35 million for ResearchGate. They share funders with Uber, Snapchat, and Upworthy.  Academia.edu’s largest funder is in a prolonged battle with the Surfrider foundation and the California Coastal Commission over preventing public beach access. This isn’t particularly notable for a startup company, but it’s unusual for an “academic” site.
And as Kathleen Fitzpatrick recently pointed out when writing about Academia.edu, venture capital funds don’t last forever. “There are a limited number of options for the network’s future: at some point, it will be required to turn a profit, or it will be sold for parts, or it will shut down.” What are their options?
ResearchGate offers to help companies “reach the right professionals in science and research with targeted, on-page advertising.” Academia.edu hopes to be able to track what topics and articles are trending with their users and sell that information to R&D companies. [Note: subsequent to this post, Academia.edu’s CEO Richard Price told the Chronicle of Higher Education that the company is no longer planning on pursuing that idea.] Both companies host job listings, and either charge for premium placement of the job ad or the ability to list it at all.
Open access repositories, as mentioned above, usually get their funding from a host entity like a university or a government agency.

Use of your contacts and personal data

ResearchGate and Academia.edu don’t have a lot in common with open access repositories, but they do have a lot in common with other social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter. They even encourage users to connect those and other services and contacts to their ResearchGate and Academia.edu accounts – sometimes aggressively.
Part of Academia.edu’s account setup process automatically tries to connect to a user’s Facebook account. If the user is signed in to Facebook, a pop up appears, saying “Academia.edu will receive the following info: your public profile, friend list, email address, work history and education history.” The options for moving past this screen are “Find Facebook Friends,” “Back,” or “I don’t have a Facebook account.” No “No Thanks” or “Skip this step” – you have to fib or fork over your data.
Both sites have a long list of possible types of email notifications, all of which can be turned off, and all of which appear to be turned on as a default.ResearchGate faced criticism in the past for sending unwanted emails not only to users themselves, but also to users’ co-authors that claimed, erroneously, to be from the users themselves.
For better or worse, open access repositories are not social networking sites. Users can search for work by a particular author, but authors can’t build a friend or collaborator list, and usually can’t manage a profile page. The success of ResearchGate and Academia.edu demonstrate that this is a functionality that scholars find valuable, and new efforts like MLA Commonsare trying to fill the gap.

The fine print

Whenever you sign up for a service, it’s a good idea to read the Terms of Use.Academia.edu’s terms give the company a license to make derivative works (like translations?) based on articles users upload to the site “in connection with operating and providing the Services and Content to you and to other Members.” ResearchGate’s terms include an agreement to have the user’s relationship with the company be governed by German law. And both sites have an indemnification clause, asserting that if the site faces any legal claims arising from things users upload to the site, the user will bear the cost.

Ok, great. But really: what should I use?

In the end, both types of services have unique offerings, and both likely hold some value for researchers. Academic social networking sites, such as ResearchGate or Academia.edu, might be valuable when trying to find others in your field conducting related research, or for providing access to your papers to those people you know use the site.
The value provided by the institutional repository, however — particularly the long-term preservation and commitment to open access, should not be overlooked. Until some public commitment has been made, it should not be assumed that the other services provide this, and they will not be considered “open access repositories” that meet the requirements of participating in Brunel’s open access policies.
If your colleagues find a social networking site useful and you can manage the email notification settings, that site might be worth your time. On the other hand, as Kathleen Fitzpatrick writes, “everything that’s wrong with Facebook is wrong with Academia.edu.” If the typical behavior of commercial social networking sites bothers you – gathering users’ information for their own purposes – be as wary of those that target academics as you are of those with a more general audience. Whether or not you decide these social networking sites are right for you, remember that institutional repositories (such as BURA) enable you to share your research widely without trying to mine your address book. If you’re not already using eScholarship or another open access repository, take a few minutes to check out the services available to you, at no charge, from organizations who offer similar tools for broadening access to your publications, but who have no interest in making a profit from your work.

---

This article was authored by Katie Fortney and Justin Gonder (University of California) and is gratefully reused under the terms of © 2014 The Regents of the University of California [Creative Commons CC-BY License]   Site text by the University of California Office of Scholarly Communication is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Article originally available at http://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2015/12/a-social-networking-site-is-not-an-open-access-repository/