Dear Nicholas,

Dear All,

Most of my colleagues have not participated in RG activity. They used to say they are so busy that they have no time to waste. It would be interesting and illuminating to investigate the spiritual activity and traffic among colleagues of various universities in order to find out how important and intense is the change of ideas among them. My own experience is: I have discussed/changed more ideas at RG during half a year than during more than 30 years at my working places. I hope elsewhere this rate is better.

And now, let us see your questions:

1. and 2.I have to repeat what has already been written by a lot of us at various RG threads. Selecting RG threads and their participants there is a fine and challenging opportunity to learn new phenomena, situations, way of thinking, cultural backgrounds which help to widen the scientific and human horizon. Certainly, besides the dominant useful, excellent and pleasant experiences, one can meet some ignorance, intolerance, prejudice, the well known common places and mainstream deformity and human amorality (e.g. irrelevant down-voters). However, all this is “normal”.

3. Appreciation and reward is the participation itself and the personnel gain to learn and understand better this world. Serious people can add that RG activity may increase our performance and we can easily distribute our ideas and publications. Important collateral(?) gain is the fun and making friends of ideas among RG participants.

Interacting with peers outside our institution is very important because it exposes us to a wider span of writers and their works, that will definitely widen and enhance our knowledge about things.

The usefulness or impact of such activity can be evaluated on the improvement it made upon us and upon those whom we shared it with (research outputs, betterment in the quality of work).

Such activity is appreciated by those whom we shared it by them saying "thank you" to us. Or telling us how it improved their work.

I believe the "thank you" from our peers is enough reward.

From management, reward will come if we have improved our performance on the basis of such activity.

Communicating with peers from outside my university gives me a chance of broadening my views on varius professional issues and also lets me to meet opinions of peers originating from cultures differnt from mine -this gives me better understanding of differnt peoples in the world and I gain better "cultural awareness" as a quality of my mind. I wonder if anyone has different or similar opinions.

D/E/J: Thanks for such quick replies! I also agree with the need & value to engage with each other outside our institutions. In my own experience it has been extremely worthwhile & led to many good collaborations. I have also seen many colleagues who flit between classroom & office & have little time for research, networking etc. ... they do the 'real' work of teaching at university ;-) Likewise, employers count your teaching hours, publications (& their 'impact'), but don't give much credit for those who are active on a wider basis. Some people claim that things like their RG scores help them demonstrate this engagement, but I am not sure that it is appreciated to any degree by those who do not have a similar outlook. After all - we can still achieve results whilst locked in our Ivory Tower ;-)

I've just recently joined RG and have already found it to be quite good for interacting with peers in various fields. I've been using Academia.edu for some time now; https://concordia.academia.edu/SCOTTMCMASTER but it lacks the user driven Q&A that RG has and that is the most engaging part.

1. I think this is essential (especially for ABDs) and is the crux of conferences

2. Initially it's difficult to evaluate the value of such activities; in the short term they may benefit us in simply hearing about different approaches and resources for problems and teaching. In the long term they could lead to academia relationships, collaborations and jobs

3. I think most departments would appreciate a faculty member who creates a good online profile and is an active/recognizable member in their field at conferences etc. The real rewards however are likely the interactions and sharing of perspectives on interesting issues.

I had joined RG over a year ago but had never participated in discussions as I was so busy with school, etc. However, in the last month I became very active and have already learned so much from the diversity of opinions and interactions among forum members. I wish that I had been more active sooner. I think that for me the usefulness of this forum is that many questions motivate me to conduct research, and this expands my knowledge and understanding on a variety of issues. I find the responses to be generally thoughtful, and often supported by authoritative sources. I, for one, greatly appreciate RG and the members who contribute to it.

Dear Ruth, I am a newcommer to Researchgate -not longer than half a year and I find it very useful, aducative in many ways and friendly!

Rowe,

Let me share my own experience, I have joined RG for almost a year and I find it highly prolific for me personally. I used to be engaged in highly scientific environment where a number of undergraduates, graduates and postgraduates meet and had scientific discussions from time to time. Presently, I am relocated where such environment is building up. RG gave me the chance to help and support others as a part of my job but in a global mode. That gave me some satisfaction of creating my own environment at least for a while. Also, I am sure that RG may give me a good chance to establish international collaborations when I am ready to do so. I hope that scientists everywhere will not be mislead by numbers given to them here and there but to do their job and enjoy their journey in science on this planet.

Good luck

Hi Nicholas/All

1. How important is it to interact with peers outside your institution?

As academics it is far too easy to become institutionalised whereby one becomes cocooned and consumed by ones comparatively limited surroundings. I believe that it is most beneficial to put ones head above the parapet to see that there is a wide world out there.

2. How can we evaluate the 'usefulness' or 'impact' of such activity?

If it opens our minds, that itself is useful!

3. How is such activity appreciated and rewarded?

I am not engaged here for any perceived expectation of recognition or reward. However, should we be engaged at an institutional level in a performance management and development system (PMDS) of ongoing performance evaluation, then such activity must be recognised as progressive and therefore worthwhile. (Provided the evaluators are, or become, familiar with the activities within such platforms as R.G.)

Phil - I agree that we don't engage in RG directly for reward, but this type of engagement does come under the 'pillars' (e.g. students & learning / research / KT / professional practice) of performance we are often appraised by in academia.  It used to be under the last two areas that we would talk about attending conferences, forming links with those outside our institutions etc, but platforms such as RG have given another (more cost-effective) way to demonstrate how we engage with our peers.  Additionally, it is a matter of record (unlike oral conversations), it is 'scored' (albeit in a debatable way, but given our love of 'impact factor', we have no room for complaint), and it also has some metrics that can be used to demonstrate progressive engagement.

The question remains as to how we integrate such media into evaluations?  Whilst participation is reward in its own right, it can also bring benefit to peoples appraisal / profile, so how can this be developed?

• Has anyone published a paper discussing the pursuit of professional engagement in academia, & how it is recognised / rewarded ?

All too often, we see those who have high levels of engagement & those who have low levels of engagement receive the same recognition - same paygrade, same opportunities & working conditions etc.  On seeing these rewards, it is understandable why some ask why they should bother with things like conferences, professional media platforms etc.  Platforms such as RG can help highlight levels and forms of engagement, as well as act as repositories for publications & give indications as to how appealing they are to others (e.g. download/views).  I have profiles on Academia.edu & RG, and together (they each have different desirable elements), they give a good indication of how my work is received (impact), my levels & fields of engagement etc.  It seems though that this 'effort' could be put to more productive use in terms of providing 'evidence' for appraisal (& perhaps 'reward').  After all:  what is the most popular reason people go to work .... ?

All good!  I didn't mean to suggest that the interactions within a forum such as RG should not count in terms of professional development; indeed I firmly believe to the contrary. Since joining RG I found it interesting to note that the President of our Institute is a member/contributor!  This fact will no doubt be highlighted at my next annual performance evaluation :O)

I would be interested in reading such a paper as you enquire of (“The pursuit of professional engagement in academia”) should anyone know of the existence of such.

So, a new question arises:

Has anyone published a paper discussing the pursuit of professional engagement in academia, & how it is recognised / rewarded ?

Yes. It is indeed a good platform for professionals to discourse over any topic in which they feel interested, though it does take us lot of time to communicate with peers of the group.

Ming-Lee: Why does it take this much time to communicate?  This type of platform gives almost real-time response & there are various on-line tools to help with language (& no requirement for 'perfect' grammar etc.), so communication is much easier (technically) than in previous times. 

I note that within my own institution, there are limited amounts of interaction (measured by peoples contributions of questions & answers) & 'visibility' seems to be an important objective in terms of getting your work (& name?) out there.  It follows though, that rather than passively wait for people to respond to your published work, platforms like RG open up a whole new dimension of interaction. I think I can measure the written responses to my articles on two fingers, although this may just indicate that I write very un-interesting stuff ... zzzz.  My contributions on RG however (& I am not an avid or 'professional' contributor), have allowed me to discuss all sorts of issues with people from around the world, at all levels. You can float ideas & get all sorts of feedback (which agrees & disagrees with you). So how do others achieve this by other means? 

My guess is that they tend to 'swim in their own pool' (geographic, cultural, institution or language), which is traditional & serves their needs.  I can't help feeling though that platforms such as RG can help to take us out of our comfort zones & thus help our exchange and development through challenge. This form of exchange is invariably productive, if not in tangible outputs & results, then in areas such as academic motivation & stimulus.  If we think about comparable media (i.e. the conference setting or professional meetings), how often do we get to choose what we talk about, who we talk to, when we talk etc .... & all from the inexpensive comfort of our own desk  :-)

What I mean by taking lots of time is that we need to take time to read and respond all discoussions, even some of them are not really interested enough to keep moving further and futher. It could be one of the reasons why some colleagues drop out after discussing a short period of time to be engaged in the group, even a group they were interested at the beginning.

I must admit that when discussions get lengthy, I tend to be a dropper-outer. Not through boredom or lack of commitment, but I find that later comments tend to have already been covered.  If however my attention is drawn back to the thread (i.e. "someone up-voted the comment you made last year"), then I tend to go back through the thread to see if I missed any new material. I am also not much of a 'serial responder', so I tend to reply only to direct comments or those that interest me .... as you can guess, I don't have many Facebook friends  ;-)

You are right, Niholas!

I agree with Scott about the benefit of interacting with peers. I have learned from the many perspectives offered on this site so, from a personal point of view, it has been useful and effective. I do not know how useful or effective it is otherwise, though.

Phil pointed out that the President of his institution joined RG - I can see how RG can become a tool for providing insight into  the quality of  employees' critical and strategic thinking.

Interesting that 'The Boss' might 'follow' his employees & get an insight into their thinking .... is RG going to turn into BB  :-P

Dear Nicholas,

Dear All,

Most of my colleagues have not participated in RG activity. They used to say they are so busy that they have no time to waste. It would be interesting and illuminating to investigate the spiritual activity and traffic among colleagues of various universities in order to find out how important and intense is the change of ideas among them. My own experience is: I have discussed/changed more ideas at RG during half a year than during more than 30 years at my working places. I hope elsewhere this rate is better.

And now, let us see your questions:

1. and 2.I have to repeat what has already been written by a lot of us at various RG threads. Selecting RG threads and their participants there is a fine and challenging opportunity to learn new phenomena, situations, way of thinking, cultural backgrounds which help to widen the scientific and human horizon. Certainly, besides the dominant useful, excellent and pleasant experiences, one can meet some ignorance, intolerance, prejudice, the well known common places and mainstream deformity and human amorality (e.g. irrelevant down-voters). However, all this is “normal”.

3. Appreciation and reward is the participation itself and the personnel gain to learn and understand better this world. Serious people can add that RG activity may increase our performance and we can easily distribute our ideas and publications. Important collateral(?) gain is the fun and making friends of ideas among RG participants.

I can share my personal experience.

A simply request of my paper, became for me an opportunity to cooperate with a very smart Iranian researcher. We constructed a plan for our research, and now we have got one paper under revision, and some ideas for further research. I'm in Italy, and it is no simple to go to Iran, find researcher interested to my fields, and ask to him if he want to cooperate with me! But here in RG we're all in the same ship!

So I think that RG is an opportunity to grow up my experience, and knowledge, but also to find new cooperations.

I am glad that this type of platform is so productive, both in terms of personal interaction & also serving tangible 'outputs' such as Rc collaboration & acting as a platform for sharing/disseminating work.  The platform is growing, so hopefully it is being acknowledged as a 'new' but worthwhile endeavour.  As this becomes more recognised, I think those who claim to swim in their own traditional pools will be questioned in terms of how they really interact with their global peers.  Hopefully, RG or similar developments will set an example to those who 'do not have time' ....  if they don't have time for something like this, then what do they do instead that gives a suitable account of their activities ?

My peers? Yes, they appreciate even if they do not find to indulge on such platform's activities.

Interaction with the scientists other than your institute, field and discipline. It is most important learn latest cutting edge information on your profession through inter action. These platforms provide this opportunity.

Its usefulness and impact may be evaluated by you through the increase in graph of your knowledge/confidence in your research after discussing openly on these platforms.

Of Course the RG score shows the reputation and command among members which may also be used  for promotions and carrier enhancement of individual scientist.

Thanks

Dear @Sarwan Kumar Dubey. you pointed benefits of scholars joining RG nicely. Thank you. However, with due respect, I dont thing RG score shows anything about scholars ability in this forum! There are many reputed scholars with lots of publication in RG who never indulge in any of Q&A and so their RG score stays low, and vice versa! So RG score is not a valid metric (the algorithm has flaws and inaccurate) and should not be used for promotions and carrier enhancement of individual scientist.. There are much better metrics such as h-index, impact points, or performance measures (e.g., number of publications, number of thesis supervised, etc.) for such purposes.

Sarwan,

Remember that RG has not said what the RG score is actually measuring.  And if you look up for Nobel price winner here on RG you will find that some of them has scores less than 40.

With reference to RG scores, there are a number of threads running on this, so I will try not to divert too much.  Both Louis & Mahmoud raise interesting points (which can also be exampled by their own RG/Impact score).  As an indicator of interaction, the high RG score tells me someone is engaged with their peers, seems to generate positive support for their contribution & is therefore filling a reciprocal role with their peers.  The high Impact Points tell me the volume and 'level' at which someone publishes in traditional journals etc, & this gives me an idea of how they are accepted beyond RG.  Tell me if these perceptions are way off mark  ;-)

Ok, motivations to engage on RG may differ, but it is a site where 'big & small' can play together.  For me, this is different from just 'output' measurement & gives a good feel for someone's active engagement.  We often do not produce visible outcomes from our activities (other than publications & follow up citations, book sales etc.) so RG does (IMO) give something more on-going & current.

Nicholas,

Given that the scoring method has not been specified we are reduced to speculate.  My speculations are closed to yours.  Scores are like clothes and physical appearances.  The first time we meet someone that we do not know their physical appearances and their clothes weigth a lot because we have nothing else onto which to based our judgments.  After we know more the person, we do not put a lot of weigth on their appearance and their clothes.  The same with scores on RG. 

As practitioners, there are two main issues needs to be considered. The need for research and the need to show the findings for public. The need to look through what you need, question routines, study, try something different, research, try things differently, study it again, and so on. The need for a continuous use of action research is a fundamental things exactly like having a cup of tea early morning. However, publishing the findings, talking abut it to similar practitioners is also important.

This what makes people different!

RG is a platform for developing synergies and interactions to share articles, books and other information. The use of RG depends on the intensity of use is mediated by each of those involved and through invitations or references that can be made to colleagues and students. The RG score is a measure of participation, which must be taken into account to analyze the profile of a researcher, teacher, academics, etc.

Please, allow me to launch an invitation to an academic survey, since this space deals with using RG as academic connector.

We develop a research investigating the way academic networks function. Please, help us to better understand this topic, by answering to the following survey. It will take up to 5 minutes. Also, it would be of great help if you send the invitation to your colleagues in India, no matter their university and research profile.

Thank you for taking the time to fill out the following questionnaire!

The questionnaire addresses the entities and activities within your online social networks which you created or joined based on your academic or research interests. Thus, each of the items below refers to the so-called online professional networks (e.g. ResearchGate, Academia.edu, LinkedIn, CoP, etc.).

I've invited you to fill out the form QUESTIONNAIRE. To fill it out, visit:

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1qS6xrtKd-TFFUySIOfTWSckM3lpSkaHA8lAfZVCFYVQ/viewform?c=0&w=1&usp=mail_form_link

Thank you

Alexandra Zbuchea