IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v58y2024i1d10.1007_s11135-023-01665-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research on developmental evaluation based on the "four abilities" model: evidence from early career researchers in China

Author

Listed:
  • Song Jing

    (Southwestern University of Finance and Economics)

  • Qingzhao Ma

    (Southwestern University of Finance and Economics)

  • Siyi Wang

    (Southwestern University of Finance and Economics)

  • Hanliang Xu

    (Southwestern University of Finance and Economics)

  • Tian Xu

    (Columbia University)

  • Xia Guo

    (Sichuan Vocational and Technical College of Communications)

  • Zhuolin Wu

    (Southwestern University of Finance and Economics)

Abstract

Based on the theory of developmental evaluation, this paper develops a new development-oriented research evaluation model called "four abilities", with "basic development ability", "process development ability", "achievement ability" and "influence ability" as key dimensions, which can be applied in different situations such as recruitment, performance appraisal, promotion evaluation, tenure review, and selection of honorary academic awards. Based on the data from the Youth Fund of the Ministry of Management Science of National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) from 2014 to 2018, this paper takes the developmental evaluation of early career researchers as an example, treating the existing research output as the development goal and the "development ability" of early career researchers as the explanatory factor. Then the propensity score matching method (PSM) method is adopted to control the sample self-selection bias in the way of reverse order evaluation, so as to explain whether the guiding indicator "development ability" is conducive to the development of researchers. The results indicate that strong “process development ability” of newly recruited researchers in the first 3 years of employment period can significantly promote their future research performance, which has important implications for the current evaluative culture overemphasizing short-term output. Through the application of the “four abilities” model integrating various dimensions composed of potential, capacity, output and impact, researchers at different career stages are guided to concentrate more on long-term academic mission and to achieve better career development based on their differentiated development needs.

Suggested Citation

  • Song Jing & Qingzhao Ma & Siyi Wang & Hanliang Xu & Tian Xu & Xia Guo & Zhuolin Wu, 2024. "Research on developmental evaluation based on the "four abilities" model: evidence from early career researchers in China," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 681-704, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01665-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11135-023-01665-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11135-023-01665-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11135-023-01665-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anton J. Nederhof, 2006. "Bibliometric monitoring of research performance in the Social Sciences and the Humanities: A Review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 66(1), pages 81-100, January.
    2. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    3. Björn Hammarfelt & Gaby Haddow, 2018. "Conflicting measures and values: How humanities scholars in Australia and Sweden use and react to bibliometric indicators," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(7), pages 924-935, July.
    4. Sven E. Hug & Michael Ochsner & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2013. "Criteria for assessing research quality in the humanities: a Delphi study among scholars of English literature, German literature and art history," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(5), pages 369-383, August.
    5. Thomas Zacharewicz & Benedetto Lepori & Emanuela Reale & Koen Jonkers, 2019. "Performance-based research funding in EU Member States—a comparative assessment," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 105-115.
    6. Sven E. Hug & Mirjam Aeschbach, 2020. "Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    2. Zoltán Krajcsák, 2021. "Researcher Performance in Scopus Articles ( RPSA ) as a New Scientometric Model of Scientific Output: Tested in Business Area of V4 Countries," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, October.
    3. Jordi Ardanuy & Llorenç Arguimbau & Ángel Borrego, 2022. "Social sciences and humanities research funded under the European Union Sixth Framework Programme (2002–2006): a long-term assessment of projects, acknowledgements and publications," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Sven E. Hug & Mirjam Aeschbach, 2020. "Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-15, December.
    5. Yaşar Tonta & Müge Akbulut, 2020. "Does monetary support increase citation impact of scholarly papers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1617-1641, November.
    6. Sven Helmer & David B. Blumenthal & Kathrin Paschen, 2020. "What is meaningful research and how should we measure it?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 153-169, October.
    7. Verleysen, Frederik T. & Weeren, Arie, 2016. "Clustering by publication patterns of senior authors in the social sciences and humanities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 254-272.
    8. Alberto Saracco, 2022. "Dr. Strangelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Citations," The Mathematical Intelligencer, Springer, vol. 44(4), pages 326-330, December.
    9. Zhichao Wang & Valentin Zelenyuk, 2021. "Performance Analysis of Hospitals in Australia and its Peers: A Systematic Review," CEPA Working Papers Series WP012021, School of Economics, University of Queensland, Australia.
    10. Walters, William H., 2017. "Do subjective journal ratings represent whole journals or typical articles? Unweighted or weighted citation impact?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 730-744.
    11. Pantea Kamrani & Isabelle Dorsch & Wolfgang G. Stock, 2021. "Do researchers know what the h-index is? And how do they estimate its importance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(7), pages 5489-5508, July.
    12. Mehdi Rhaiem & Nabil Amara, 2020. "Determinants of research efficiency in Canadian business schools: evidence from scholar-level data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 53-99, October.
    13. Sándor Soós & Zsófia Vida & András Schubert, 2018. "Long-term trends in the multidisciplinarity of some typical natural and social sciences, and its implications on the SSH versus STM distinction," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 795-822, March.
    14. Katarzyna Piwowar‐Sulej, 2021. "Core functions of Sustainable Human Resource Management. A hybrid literature review with the use of H‐Classics methodology," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 671-693, July.
    15. Monika Blišťanová & Peter Koščák & Michaela Tirpáková & Magdaléna Ondicová, 2023. "A Cross-Comparative Analysis of Transportation Safety Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, May.
    16. Qing Ji & Xiaoping Pang & Xi Zhao, 2014. "A bibliometric analysis of research on Antarctica during 1993–2012," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(3), pages 1925-1939, December.
    17. Zsolt Kohus & Márton Demeter & László Kun & Eszter Lukács & Katalin Czakó & Gyula Péter Szigeti, 2022. "A Study of the Relation between Byline Positions of Affiliated/Non-Affiliated Authors and the Scientific Impact of European Universities in Times Higher Education World University Rankings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-14, October.
    18. Ülle Must, 2012. "Alone or together: examples from history research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 527-537, May.
    19. Horbach, Serge & Aagaard, Kaare & Schneider, Jesper W., 2021. "Meta-Research: How problematic citing practices distort science," MetaArXiv aqyhg, Center for Open Science.
    20. Gérard Charreaux, 2011. "«Cité ou oublié»:les supports de la notoriété des professeurs en sciences de gestion vus à travers Google Scholar," Revue Finance Contrôle Stratégie, revues.org, vol. 14(4), pages 129-166, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:58:y:2024:i:1:d:10.1007_s11135-023-01665-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.