The criteria used by key decision makers in Australia to judge the academic quality of NTROs

McKee, A

The criteria used by key decision makers in Australia to judge the academic quality of NTROs

McKee, A

Permalink

Publisher:: SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: MEDIA INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA, 2020
Issue Date:: 2020-05-29

In Progress

	Filename	Description	Size
	2afe65ed-07b2-4910-b439-ff790b09846d.pdf	Accepted Manuscript	280.93 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is being processed and is not currently available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	McKee, A https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0577-2061
dc.date.accessioned	2020-07-13T00:04:31Z
dc.date.available	2020-07-13T00:04:31Z
dc.date.issued	2020-05-29
dc.identifier.citation	MEDIA INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA, 2020
dc.identifier.issn	1329-878X
dc.identifier.issn	2200-467X
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/141754
dc.description.abstract	<jats:p> Thirty experts in the assessment of the quality of Non-Traditional Research Outputs (NTROs) as academic research outputs were asked to rate the importance of 19 criteria that might be used in making these judgements. Analysis of responses identified four criteria where there is substantial agreement among the community of experts: (a) demonstrated familiarity in the research statement with the current state of knowledge in the relevant academic disciplines (very important); (b) demonstrated familiarity in the research statement with the current state of knowledge in the relevant industry (important); (c) evidence that the work has been engaged with by other academic researchers (relevant); (d) whether the NTRO creator is a substantive university staff member or an adjunct/honorary (unimportant). Fifteen other criteria either reached a less than ‘fair’ level of agreement, or larger numbers of respondents nominated ‘It depends’. Qualitative analysis of comments also revealed noteworthy disagreements in the expert community about how the criteria should be applied. </jats:p>
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
dc.relation.ispartof	MEDIA INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/1329878X20921565
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess
dc.rights	McKee, Alan, The criteria used by key decision makers in Australia to judge the academic quality of NTROs MEDIA INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALIA, ARTN 1329820921565, Copyright © [2020] (Copyright Holder). DOI: [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1329878X20921565]
dc.subject	16 Studies in Human Society, 19 Studies in Creative Arts and Writing, 20 Language, Communication and Culture
dc.title	The criteria used by key decision makers in Australia to judge the academic quality of NTROs
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.for	16 Studies in Human Society
utslib.for	19 Studies in Creative Arts and Writing
utslib.for	20 Language, Communication and Culture
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences/FASS Faculty Administration
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
utslib.copyright.status	in_progress	*
dc.date.updated	2020-07-13T00:04:26Z
pubs.publication-status	Published

Abstract:

Thirty experts in the assessment of the quality of Non-Traditional Research Outputs (NTROs) as academic research outputs were asked to rate the importance of 19 criteria that might be used in making these judgements. Analysis of responses identified four criteria where there is substantial agreement among the community of experts: (a) demonstrated familiarity in the research statement with the current state of knowledge in the relevant academic disciplines (very important); (b) demonstrated familiarity in the research statement with the current state of knowledge in the relevant industry (important); (c) evidence that the work has been engaged with by other academic researchers (relevant); (d) whether the NTRO creator is a substantive university staff member or an adjunct/honorary (unimportant). Fifteen other criteria either reached a less than ‘fair’ level of agreement, or larger numbers of respondents nominated ‘It depends’. Qualitative analysis of comments also revealed noteworthy disagreements in the expert community about how the criteria should be applied.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/141754