نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استادیار گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی، واحد کرمانشاه، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی،کرمانشاه، ایران.

2 استادیار گروه علم اطلاعات و دانش شناسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

Purpose: The goal of the present study was to investigate the contextual factors affecting the scholarly communication of the faculty members in Iran’s Universities.
Methodology: The study aimed to be an applied analytic survey. The statistical population included the faculty members working in all universities in Iran. The data gathering instrument was a researcher-made questionnaire containing 35 questions. The obtained Alpha Cronbach correlation coefficient was.881 which proved the reliability of the questionnaire. The data were analyzed based on multiple regression analysis using Amos and SPSS 21.
Finding: The multiple regression analysis showed that among the contextual factors, the variable of the relationship with government, the academic freedom, the social environment and political and cultural environment can statistically explain the variance of scholarly communication.
Conclusion: : It is concluded that there is significant relationship between the scholarly communication with the scientific products. Moreover, the scholarly communication can explain the variance of the scientific production.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Contextual Factors Affecting the Scholarly Communication of Faculty Members in Iran’s Universities

نویسندگان [English]

  • Farshad Parhamnia 1
  • Fatemeh Nooshinfard 2

1 Department of Knowledge and Information Science, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran.

2 Depatment of Knowledge and Information Science, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

Purpose: The goal of the present study was to investigate the contextual factors affecting the scholarly communication of the faculty members in Iran’s Universities.
Methodology: The study aimed to be an applied analytic survey. The statistical population included the faculty members working in all universities in Iran. The data gathering instrument was a researcher-made questionnaire containing 35 questions. The obtained Alpha Cronbach correlation coefficient was.881 which proved the reliability of the questionnaire. The data were analyzed based on multiple regression analysis using Amos and SPSS 21.
Finding: The multiple regression analysis showed that among the contextual factors, the variable of the relationship with government, the academic freedom, the social environment and political and cultural environment can statistically explain the variance of scholarly communication.
Conclusion: : It is concluded that there is significant relationship between the scholarly communication with the scientific products. Moreover, the scholarly communication can explain the variance of the scientific production.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Higher education
  • Scholarly Communication
  • Scientific Products
  • Contextual factors
  • Faculty members
Ahmadi, Y.; Qasemi, V. (2013). Impact of Cultural Empathy, Social Initiative and Ethnicism on Cultural Intelligence . Strategy for Culture, (20), 129-154.
Association of College & Research Libraries (2003). Principles and strategies for the reform of scholarly communication 1. White paper approved by the ACRL board of directors. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/acrl/publications/ whitepapers/principlesstrategies
Bashir, H.; Afrasiabi, M.S. (2012).  Internet Social Networks and Youth Life Style: A Case Study of the Largest Iranians' Virtual Community. Journal of Iranian Cultural Research, 5 (1), 31-62.
Borgman, C.L. (1989). Bibliometrics and scholarly communication. Communication Research, 16 (5), 583-599.
Borgman, C.L. (2000 a). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics revisited. In B. Cronin and H. B. Atkins (Ed.), The Web of knowledge: A festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. Thomas H. Hogan, Sr.www.://Books.google.com  
Borgman, C.L. (2000 b). Digital libraries and the continuum of scholarly communication. Journal of Documentation, 56 (4), 412 – 430.
Bruns, T., Brantley, J.S.; Duffin, K. (2015). Scholarly Communication Coaching: Liaison Librarians' Shifting Roles.  (2015). Faculty Research & Creative Activity. Paper 99. http://thekeep.eiu.edu/lib_fac/99.
Bourdieu, P. (2007). Science of science and reflection. Translator by Yahya Emami. Tehran: Scientific Policy Research Center of Iran.
Calabrese, A. (1992). Changing time for scholarly communication: The case of the electronic journal. Technology in Society, 14, 199-220.
Chen, CH.; Ke, HR. (2016). A Study of Informal Communication among Fishery Scientists. You have free access to this content. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology Volume 53, Issue 1, Version of Record online: 27 DEC 2016. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.
Cortez, P. (January 2011). Some Scholarly Communication Guidelines. Teaching Report, Department of information systems, Engineering School, university of Minho, Guimaraaes, Portugal. https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bitstream/1822/11599/ 1/scholar.pdf
Costa, C.; Meadows, J. (2000). The impact of computer usage on scholarly communication among social scientists. Journal of Information Science, 26 (4), 255–262.
Davies, J. E.; Greenwood, H. (2004). Scholarly communication trends-voices from the vortex: a summary of specialist opinion. Learned Publishing, 17 (2), 157-167.
Dehghani, Y., et al (2011). The study of scientific freedom among teachers in Shiraz university due to sociological  variables. The programming Researches of Lesson I (2), 55-29.
Ehikhamenor, F.A. (1990). Informal scientific communication in Nigerian universities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41 (6), 419-426. 
Etzkowitz, H.; Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of university – industry – government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109-123.
Ezema, I. J. (2016). Scholarly Communication and Authorship Patterns in Language Research: Evidences from Citation   Analysis of Language Theses in Nigeria. GJDS, 13 (2), 1-25.
Fazlollahi, S.; Maleki Tavana (2011). Solutions for overcoming the cultural barriers of science in universities. Marifat, 20 (171), 111-124.
Fjallbrant, N. (1997). Scholarly communication-Historical development and new possibilities .IATUL. http://www .iatul.org/doclibrary/public/Conf_Proceedings/1997/Fjallbrant.doc.
Frastkhah, M. (2003). Scientific freedom. Majlis & Rahbord (Majlis and Research), 10 (41), 101.-140.
Galyani-Moghaddam, G.; Momeni, E. (2014). Scholarly communication in Iran: An overview. Science Communication, 36 (6), 811-820.
Garvey, W.D.; Griffith, B.C. (1972). Communication and information processing within scientific disciplines: Empirical findings for psychology. Information Storage and Retrieval, 3 (8), 123-126.
Ghaempour, M.A. (2015). Social and academic interactions in Sharif University students. Quarterly Journal of Research and  Planning in Higher education, 20 (4), 95-121.
Ghaneirad, M.A. (2003). The institutionalization of science, the maintenance and establishment of brains. Journal Management System (Rayaft), 12 (28), 71-86.
Ghaneirad, M. A. (2005). The development and the decadence of science in Iran (Islamic Career). Tehran: Science Organ, the Center of Scientific Politics in the Country.
Ghaneirad, M.A. (2006). Status of the scientific community in the social sciences discipline. Annually Nameh-Ye Olum-E Ejtemai, (27),  27-55.
Ghaneirad, M. A.; GaziPoor, F. (2002). The normative and institutional factors affecting the productivity of faculty members. Journal of cultural research, 7 (4), 167-206.
Harter, S.P. (1998). Scholarly communication and electronic journal: an impact study. Journal of the American Society for  Information Science, 49 (4), 507-516.
Holden, N. (1986). International scientific communication–old problems and a new perspective. R & D  Management, 16 (3), 199-209.

Hosseiny Shavoun, A.; Jahed, H. (2013). The Viewpoint of faculty members on research obstacles at Tabriz University. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 4 (4), 49-64.

Hurd, J. M. (2000). The Transformation of Scientific communication: A model for 2020. Journal of the  American Society for Information Science, 51 (14), 1279-1283.
Kazemi, S., et al (2013). Paradigm governing special education from the perspective of the sociology of science. Quarterly Foundations of education (Studies in education & Psychology), 3 (1), 111-136.
Karimian, Z.; Ahmadvand, A.M. (2012).  Information Society, Cultural Identity and Missions of Universities. Journal of Iranian Cultural Research, 5 (3), 47-76.
Karimian, Z., et al (2012). Higher education administration and accountability; the necessity of autonomy and academic freedom from faculties’ viewpoint. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 11 (8), 855-863.
Khosrowjerdi, M. (2008). Mapping the scientific communication network among scholars using “citation  network” approach. Journal of Librarianship, 40 (45), 97-112.
Krejcie, R.V.; Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
Kuhn, T.S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. ( A. Taheri, Trans.). Tehran: Geseh.
Kyvik, S.; Larsen, I. M. (1994). International contact and research performance. Scientomertrics, 29 (1), 161-72.
Liu, Z. (2003). Trends in transforming scholarly communication and their implications. Information Processing And Management, (39), 889-898.
Mahmood, I.; Hartley,  R.; Rowley, J. (2011). Scientific communication in Libya in the digital age. Journal of         Information Science, 37 (4), 379–390.
Menzel, H. (1964). The information needs of current scientific research. Library Quarterly, 34, 4-19.
Menzel, H. (1967). Planning the consequences of unplanned action in scientific communication. paper presented in symposium on  communication in science: Paper presented in Symposium on Communication in Science: Documentation and Automation, eds. DeReuck, Anthony and J. Knight, 1996.
Merton, R.  K. (1973). The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago press.
Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in Scientific Discovery, in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical           Investigations, Norman Storer (ed.), Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Meyers, L.S.; Gamst, G.; Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied Multivariate Research: Design and Interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mirzaei, S.A.E. (2007). Peer review process in science –research journal (a case study of Iranian journal of sociology). Quarterly Iranian Journal of Sociology in Iran, 7 (4), 147-179.
Mirzaei Aranjani, H. (1998). In Search of a theoretical design for understanding and analyzing the factors affecting work conscience and social discipline, Proceedings of the Second Conference on Practical Ways of Work Conscience and Social Discipline, Islamic Azad University, Qazvin Branch.
Mirzaei Aranjani, H.; Moghimi, S. M. (2003). Presenting a desirable organization model for Iranian non-governmental organizations using entrepreneurial approach. Management Knowledge, (3), 101-138.
Mohammadi, A. (2008). The effects of scientific communication on knowledge production. Quarterly Iranian Journal of Sociology (ISA), 8 (1), 52-75.
Mukherjee, B. (2009). Scholarly Communication: A Journey from Print to Web. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). Paper 285. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/285.
Mulaudzi, P. (2005). Intercultural Communication: Problem or Solution within the New South African Context. Paper presented at humanities conference, 2005, University of Cambridge, Uk. Available at:       www.ho5.cgpubliser.com/proposals/758/index_html.
Nakhoda, M.; Horri, A. (2005). Factors affecting the application of information technology with emphasis on academic libraries: A literature review. Academic Librarianship and Information Research (Journal of Librarianship), 39 (43), 57-76.
Neshat, N. (2007). From episteme to idea. Tehran: Dama.
Nielsen, K. H.  (2012). Scientific communication and the Nature of Science. Published online: 22 may, 2012 Sci & Educ DOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9475-3. http://pure.au.dk/ portal/files/45699216 /nielsen2012 .pdf
Odlyzko, A. (2013). The future of scientific communication. available at: http://www.research.att.com.
Park, J.; Shim, J. (2011 ). Exploring How Library Publishing Services Facilitate Scholarly Communication. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 43 (1), 76-89.
Pikas, C.K. (2006). The impact of information and communication technologies on informal scholarly scientific communication: A literature review. Prepared for LBSC878: Doctoral Seminar on Information Studies. Available: http://terpconnect.umd.edu
Price, D.J. de Solla (1986). Little science, big science…and beyond. New York: Columbia University press.
Rahimi, M. (2007). The study of employment condition in producing the scientific works and affective factors aiming the scientific members of Mashhad University. M.A. Thesis of library and information, Psychology and treatment science university, Mashhad University.
Ronson, S.; Hinings, B.; Greenwood, R. (1980). The structuring of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25 (1), 1-7.
Roosendaal, H. E.; Geurts, Th. M. (1997). Forces and functions communication: an analysis of  their interplay. Proceedings of the Conference on Co-operative Research in Information Systems in  Physics, University of Oldenburg, ­Germany, ­September ­1-3. www.physik.uni-oldenburg.de/conferences/crisp97 /roosendaal .html  
Safarzadeh, H.; Jafari, M.S. (2011). The survey role of tracheotomy model factors (structure, context and content) in establishment of e-auction. Journal of Industrial Strategic management (Pajouheshgar) , 8 (23), 51-69.
Solemani, M.R.; Ahokouei, A. (2008). The factors influencing the scientific productivity of the faculty members of the Islamic Azad University (Branch 8). Quarterly Curriculum Planning Knowledge & Research in Educational Sciences, (17-18). 119-146. 
Xia, J. (2006). Scholarly Communication in East and Southeast Asia: traditions and challenges. IFLA Journal, 32(2): 104–112.
Xia, J.; Li, Y. (2015). Changed responsibilities in scholarly communication services: and analysis of job descriptions. Serial Review, 41 (1), 15-22.
Ying, D. (2017). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics: I. Scholarly communication model Literature Review. http://info.slis.indiana.edu/~dingying/Publication/Review_1_FID.pdf
Zuccala, A. (2006). Modeling the Invisible College. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52 (2), 152-168.