ORCID Profil Tamamlama ve Türkiye'deki Akademisyenlerin Dijital Kimliği

Year 2024, , 1 - 10, 12.06.2024

Kemal Yayla

https://doi.org/10.55590/literatureandhumanities.1415722

Abstract

Bu çalışma, Türkiye'deki yükseköğretim kurumlarında çalışan bilim insanlarının ORCID profillerini tamamlama oranlarını araştırma disiplinleri ve akademik ünvanlar açısından incelemektedir. Karma yöntem yaklaşımının kullanıldığı bu çalışmanın örneklemini, YÖK Akademik veri tabanında ORCID profil bilgileriyle listelenen 12 farklı araştırma disiplininden rastgele seçilen Profesör, Doçent ve Doktor Öğretim Üyesi ünvanlarına sahip araştırmacılar oluşturmaktadır. Veriler 'ORCID Profil Tamamlama Ölçeği' kullanılarak toplanmış ve frekans değerleri ile Kruskal-Wallis H testi analizlerine tabi tutulmuştur. Sonuçlar, dijital akademik kimliklerde araştırma disiplinleri ve akademik ünvanlar açısından önemli farklılıklar olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Doçentler ORCID Profil Tamamlama Ölçeği'nde diğer iki ünvana göre daha yüksek ortalama puanlar elde etmiştir. Araştırma disiplinleri arasında, Biglan sınıflandırmasına göre bazı sert ve saf alanların diğerlerine göre daha yüksek ortalama ORCID profili tamamlama oranlarına sahip olduğu tespit edilmiş ve ünvanlar ve araştırma disiplinleri arasında dijital akademik kimliklerdeki farklılıkları azaltmak için önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Keywords

Dijital akademik kimlik, ORCID, ORCID profil tamamlama ölçeği, Akademik ünvan, YÖK Akademik

Ethical Statement

Araştırma kapsamı etik kurul iznine ihtiyaç yoktur.

ORCID Profile Completion and the Digital Identity of Academics in Turkey

Abstract

This study examines the completion rates of ORCID profiles of scientists working in higher education institutions in Turkey regarding research disciplines and academic titles. Employing a mixed- methods approach, the sample of this study comprises researchers with the titles of Professor, Associate Professor, and Doctoral Teaching Staff, randomly selected from 12 different research disciplines as listed in the YÖK Academic database with ORCID profile information. Data were collected using the 'ORCID Profile Completion Scale' and subjected to frequency values and Kruskal– Wallis H test analyses. The results reveal significant differences in digital academic identities concerning research disciplines and academic titles. Associate Professors achieved higher average scores on the ORCID Profile Completion Scale than the other two titles. Among research disciplines, it was found that certain hard and pure domains, according to Biglan classification, have higher average ORCID profile completion rates than others and suggestions were made to reduce the differences in digital academic identities across titles and research disciplines.

Keywords

Digital academic identity, ORCID, ORCID profile completion scale, Academic title, YÖK Akademik

References

• Allison, A., Currall, J., Moss, M., & Stuart, S. (2005). Digital identity matters. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(4), 364-372. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20112.
• Bakan, U., Kalaman, S., & Bakan, U. (2019). ABD’li akademisyenlerin linkedin’de benlik sunum rollerinin keşfi. İletişim Kuram ve Araştırma Dergisi, 2019(49), 69-89. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ikad/issue/69411/992236.
• Biglan, A. (1973). The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(3), 195- 203. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034701.
• Boudry, C., & Durand-Barthez, M. (2020). Use of author identifier services (ORCID, ResearcherID) and academic social networks (Academia. Edu, ResearchGate) by the researchers of the University of Caen Normandy (France): A case study. Plos One, 15(9), e0238583. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238583.
• Clegg, S. (2011). Academic identities re-formed? Contesting technological determinism in accounts of the digital age. Contemporary Social Science, 6(2), 175-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2011.583485.
• Collins, H. J., Glover, H., & Myers, F. (2022). Behind the digital curtain: A study of academic identities, liminalities and labour market adaptations for the ‘Uber-isation’of HE. Teaching in Higher Education, 27(2), 201-216. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2019.1706163.
• Côté, I. M., & Darling, E. S. (2018). Scientists on Twitter: Preaching to the choir or singing from the rooftops? Facets, 3(1), 682- 694. https://doi.org/10.1139/facets-2018-0002.
• Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage publications.
• Dennen, V. P. (2009). Constructing academic alter-egos: İdentity issues in a blog-based community. Identity in the Information Society, 2, 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12394-009-0020-8.
• Djonov, E., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2018). Social media as semiotic technology and social practice: The case of ResearchGate’s design and its potential to transform social practice. Social Semiotics, 28(5), 641-664. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1504715.
• Feher, K. (2021). Digital identity and the online self: Footprint strategies–An exploratory and comparative research study. Journal of Information Science, 47(2), 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551519879702.
• Fenner, M., Gómez, C. G., & Thorisson, G. A. (2011). Collective Action for the Open Researcher & Contributor ID (ORCID). Insights, 24(3), 277. https://doi.org/10.1629/24277.
• Flowerdew, J., & Wang, S. H. (2015). Identity in academic discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 35, 81-99. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719051400021X.
• Gesuato, S., & Bianchi, F. (2021). Representing academic identities in email: Content and structure of Automatic Signatures. European Journal of English Studies, 25(3), 334-351. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825577.2021.1988275.
• Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Anchor Books.
• Haak, L. L., Fenner, M., Paglione, L., Pentz, E., & Ratner, H. (2012). ORCID: a system to uniquely identify researchers. Learned Publishing, 25(4), 259-264. https://doi.org/10.1087/20120404.
• Hammarfelt, B., de Rijcke, S., & Rushforth, A. D. (2016). Quantified academic selves: The gamification of research through social networking services. Information Research, 21(2). http://InformationR.net/ir/21-2/SM1.html.
• Hausmann, C., Jonason, A., & Summers-Effler, E. (2011). Interaction ritual theory and structural symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interaction, 34(3), 319-329. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2011.34.3.319.
• Herman, E. (2018). Scholarly reputation. FEMS microbiology letters, 365(18), fny200. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny200 .
• Heusse, M.-D., & Cabanac, G. (2022). ORCID growth and field-wise dynamics of adoption: A case study of the Toulouse scientific area. Learned Publishing, 35(4), 454-466. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1451.
• Hildebrandt, K., & Couros, A. (2016). Digital selves, digital scholars: Theorising academic identity in online spaces. Journal of Applied Social Theory, 1(1). https://socialtheoryapplied.com/journal/jast/article/view/16/10.
• Işık, D. (2021). Akademisyenlerin researchgate ve google scholar citations kullanımları: Türkiye’deki bilgi ve belge yönetimi bölümleri üzerine bir inceleme. Bilgi Yönetimi, 4(2), 240-263. https://doi.org/10.33721/by.928614.
• Jordan, K. (2019). From social networks to publishing platforms: A review of the history and scholarship of academic social network sites. Frontiers in Digital Humanities, 6, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fdigh.2019.00005.
• Kirkup, G. (2010). Academic blogging, academic practice and academic identity. London Review of Education, 8(1), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460903557803.
• Korkmaz, C., & Öztürk, S. (2022). Öğretim üyelerinin akademik unvan algıları ve iş stresi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 12(2), 333-348. https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.21.815764.
• Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260), 583-621. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441.
• MacLeod, M. (2018). What makes interdisciplinarity difficult? Some consequences of domain specificity in interdisciplinary practice. Synthese, 195(2), 697-720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1236-4.
• Manca, S. (2018). ResearchGate and Academia. Edu as networked socio-technical systems for scholarly communication: A literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 26. https://doi.org/10.25304/rlt.v26.2008.
• Marshall, D. P., Barbour, K., & Moore, C. (2018). Academic Persona:The construction of online reputation in the modern academy. İçinde D. Lupton, I. Mewburn, & P. Thompson (Ed.), The Digital Academic: Critical Perspectives On Digital Technologies In Higher Education (ss. 47-62). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
• McKim, C. A. (2017). The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096.
• Meadows, A., & Haak, L. (2018). How persistent identifiers can save scientists time. FEMS Microbiology Letters, 365(15), fny143. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fny143.
• Mikki, S., Zygmuntowska, M., Gjesdal, Ø. L., & Al Ruwehy, H. A. (2015). Digital presence of Norwegian scholars on academic network sites—Where and who are they? Plos One, 10(11), e0142709. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142709.
• Musselin, C., & Becquet, V. (2008). Academic work and academic identities: A comparison between four disciplines. İçinde J. Välimaa & Y. Oili-Helena (Ed.), Cultural Perspectives on Higher Education (ss. 91-107). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 1-4020-6604-7.
• Radford, M. L., Kitzie, V., Mikitish, S., Floegel, D., Radford, G. P., & Connaway, L. S. (2020). “People are reading your work,” scholarly identity and social networking sites. Journal of Documentation, 76(6), 1233-1260. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-04- 2019-0074.
• Simpson, A. (2017). The surprising persistence of Biglan’s classification scheme. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1520-1531. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1111323.
• Stake, R. E. (2005). Multiple case study analysis. Guilford Press.
• Stewart, B. (2014). How do we know who we are when we’re online?: Reputation, identity, and influence in scholarly networks. İçinde S. Bayne, C. Jones, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg, & C. Sinclair (Ed.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning (ss. 380-381). University of Edinburgh. https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2014/abstracts/pdf/stewart.pdf.
• Stewart, J. (2012). Multiple-case study methods in governance-related research. Public Management Review, 14(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2011.589618.
• Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2022). Dystopian cases of ORCID identifiers: Animal-associated accounts. Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics, 3(4), 263-269. https://doi.org/10.47316/cajmhe.2022.3.4.06.
• Tomášková, R. (2021). University research blogs: Constructing identity through language and images. European Journal of English Studies, 25(3), 385-403. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825577.2021.1988257.
• Tully, S. (2014). A human right to access the Internet? Problems and prospects. Human Rights Law Review, 14(2), 175-195. https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngu011.
• Turner, S. (2000). What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different. İçinde N. Stehr & P. Weingart (Ed.), Practising interdisciplinarity (ss. 46-65). University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442678729-005.
• Van Dijck, J. (2013). ‘You have one identity’: Performing the self on Facebook and LinkedIn. Media, Culture & Society, 35(2), 199-215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712468605.
• Van Noorden, R. (2014). Online collaboration: Scientists and the social network. Nature News, 512(7513), 126. https://doi.org/10.1038/512126a.
• Williams, D. E., & Greenhalgh, S. P. (2022). Pseudonymous academics: Authentic tales from the Twitter trenches. The Internet and Higher Education, 55, 100870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2022.100870.
• Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4. bs). Sage Publications.
• Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu (2023). Yükseköğretimde yeni istatistikler. https://web.archive.org/web/20230925090352/https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2023/yuksekogretimde-yeni-istatistikler.aspx.
• Yüksek Öğretim Kurumu. (2020). ORCID alınması tanımlayıcı tekil numara. Bingöl Üniversitesi. https://sbe.bingol.edu.tr/media/9272/orcid-alinmasi-tanimlayici-tekil-numara-1.pdf.
• Zhang, L., & Li, C. (2020). Investigating Science Researchers’ Presence on Academic Profile Websites: A Case Study of a Canadian Research University. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, 95. https://doi.org/10.29173/istl51.