Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science (한국문헌정보학회지)

Korean Society For Library And Information Science (한국문헌정보학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Faculty Perception of Research Performance Evaluation

연구업적 평가에 관한 대학 교수 인식 연구

  • 김용환 (청주대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 강지혜 (동덕여자대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 이종욱 (경북대학교 문헌정보학과) ;
  • 노영희 (건국대학교 문헌정보학과)
  • Received : 2022.10.18
  • Accepted : 2022.11.26
  • Published : 2022.11.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A survey was conducted to analyze the perceptions related to research performance evaluation from 2,618 professors. The survey is to find out the perception about two parts. One is a survey of professors' perceptions about the faculty performance evaluation, which is currently being conducted at each university. The other is that we analyzed the perception of the introduction of qualitative performance evaluation indicators, an alternative to the quantitative performance evaluation. As a result, we confirmed followings. Quantitative research performance evaluation is carried out in most universities. Research performance evaluation is not appropriate for a department or research field. And an extension of the evaluation period is required. Quantitative evaluation have a negative impact on the academic community. Quantitative evaluation needs to be improved. As regard to the introduction of the qualitative evaluation, we confirmed that professors perceived that qualitative evaluation is necessary to evaluate research performance, and they also have negative opinions about introduction of qualitative evaluation.

본 연구에서는 전국의 국공립 및 사립, 전문대학의 교수들 2,618명을 대상으로 교수연구업적평가와 관련하여 교수들의 인식을 파악하고자 설문조사를 수행하였다. 설문조사는 두 가지 부분에 대한 인식을 파악하기 위한 조사로 하나는 현재 각 대학에서 진행되고 있는 교수연구업적평가에 대한 인식조사이며, 다른 하나는 정량 위주의 업적평가 방식의 대안으로 여겨지는 정성적 평가 지표의 도입에 대한 인식조사이다. 설문 결과, 교수 연구업적평가에서 정량 중심 평가는 여전히 대다수의 대학에서 크게 활용되며, 계열 또는 분야에 적합하지 않은 연구업적평가가 이루어지고 있으며, 평가 기간의 확대가 필요를 요구하고, 정량 위주의 업적평가 방식은 학술 커뮤니티에 부정적인 영향을 가져오며, 연구업적평가에 대한 개선의 필요하다는 인식을 가지고 있는 것을 확인할 수 있었다. 정성적 평가 지표의 도입과 관련하여 교수들은 연구업적평가에 정성적 평가가 필요하다는 인식을 하고 있으며, 정성적 평가 도입과 관련하여 부정적인 의견 또한 존재하는 것을 확인할 수 있었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ban, Sangjin (2010). Discussion on the Improvement of Faculty Performance Evaluation. Korean Association of Educational Administration 2010 Policy Development Discussion.
  2. Cho, Sungtaek (2013). Problems in university faculty' research performance evaluation: focusing on humanities and social sciences. Critical Review of History, 89-120.
  3. Choi, Eunjoo, Yang, Kiduk, & Lee, HyeKyung (2016). Quality factor: a new bibliometric measure for assessing the quality of faculty research performance. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 47(2), 287-304. https://doi.org/10.16981/kliss.47.2.201606.287
  4. Choi, Incheol (2008). The desirable direction of evaluation of professors' research performance in the College of Social Sciences. Korean Social Sciences, 30.
  5. Chung, Jin-Sik (2009). A study on assessment of faculty performance in research achievement: a focus on library and information science field. Journal of the Korean Biblia Society for Library and Information Science, 20(2), 129-142. https://doi.org/10.14699/KBIBLIA.2009.20.2.129
  6. Chung, Yeon-Kyoung & Choi, Yoon-Kyung (2011). A study on faculty evaluation of research achievements in humanities and social sciences. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice, 42(3), 211-233.
  7. Kim, Dong-No, Lee, Min-Haeng, & Park, TaeGyun (2006). Constructing an evaluation model for the professors' academic achievement in the humanities. Journal of Educational Evaluation, 19(3), 1-20.
  8. Kim, Wang-Jun, Yun, Hongju, & Rah, Min-joo (2012). A comparative analysis of faculty evaluation systems of national universities in Korea. The Journal of Korean Teacher Education, 29(1), 143-165. https://doi.org/10.24211/tjkte.2012.29.1.143
  9. Lee, HyeKyung & Yang, Kiduk (2017). Comparative analysis of Korean universities'journal publication research performance evaluation standards. Journal of Korean Library and Information Science Society, 48(2), 295-322. https://doi.org/10.16981/KLISS.48.2.201706.295
  10. Lee, Hyobin & Cho, Youngdon (2021). A Study on the Research Ethics Awareness Level of University Faculty in 2021. National Research Foundation of Korea.
  11. Lee, Jongwook & Yang, Kiduk (2011). A bibliometric analysis of faculty research performance assessment methods. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 28(4), 119-140. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2011.28.4.119
  12. Park, Namgi (2007). Analysis of professor achievement evaluation by university and development of professor achievement evaluation model. Higher Education, 148, 126-131.
  13. Yu, So-Young, Lee, Jae-Yun, Chung, Eunkyung, & Lee, Boram (2015). A review of declarations on appropriate research evaluation for exploring their applications to research evaluation system of Korea. Journal of the Korean Society for Information Management, 32(4), 249-272. https://doi.org/10.3743/KOSIM.2015.32.4.249
  14. ARC (2015). Excellence in Research for Australia. Available: http://www.arc.gov.au/excellence-research-australia
  15. Bladek, M. (2014). DORA: San Francisco declaration on research assessment (May 2013). College & Research Libraries News, 75(4), 191-196. https://doi.org/10.5860/crln.75.4.9104
  16. Hatch, A. & Curry, S. (2020). Research culture: Changing how we evaluate research is difficult, but not impossible. Elife, 9, e58654. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.58654
  17. Hicks, D., Wouters, P., Waltman, L., de Rijcke, S., & Rafols, I. (2015). Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature, 520(7548), 429-431. Available: http://www.nature.com/news/bibliometrics-the-leiden-manifesto-for-research-metrics-1.17351 https://doi.org/10.1038/520429a
  18. IEEE (2013). Appropriate use of bibliometric indicators for the assessment of journals, research proposals, and individuals. Available: https://magazines.ieeeauthorcenter.ieee.org/wp-content/uploads/ieee_bibliometric_statement.pdf
  19. REF2021 (2020). Index of revisions to the 'Panel criteria and working methods'. Available: https://www.ref.ac.uk/media/1450/ref-2019_02-panel-criteria-and-working-methods.pdf