TechniCity MindMixer Data Available

Several participants of the TechniCity MOOC have asked for the raw data of comments and other activity from the MindMixer discussion forum.  An Excel file of all activity is now available for download here.

Please be sure to share the results of your analyses with the rest of us and post on Twitter using #technicity or on the TechniCity LinkedIn page.

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

2014 Urban Planning Citation Analysis

At the end of 2013, I posted an initial citation analysis for urban planning academics using Google Scholar citations (see: bit.ly/1lNyHR8). I also emailed the individual data to each of the faculty included in the analysis to get their feedback. I would like to thank everyone who responded confirming or correcting their information, as well as those providing comments and suggestions. The results below summarize a more complete analysis that is being prepared for publication. There are a few things I would like to mention, each being discussed in much more detail in a forthcoming article.

  1. The previous analysis was based on the 2011 ACSP Guide to Undergraduate and Graduate Education in Urban and Regional Planning.  This analysis uses the 2013 Guide (19th Edition). All schools and regular faculty (i.e., tenure track) in the Guide are included.
  2. Citation analysis is one of several ways to gauge faculty productivity and impact. Teaching, service, funded research, etc. are other facets of what we do, but are not accounted for. Therefore scholarly publication is the focus here.
  3. Google Scholar citation counts (as of March – May 2014) were used for the analysis. There is some debate about the accuracy of Google Scholar versus Scopus or Web of Science, about which I will provide a complete discussion in an upcoming publication.
  4. Traditional citation analysis includes books, chapters, and journal articles – materials commonly controlled by publishers. The nature of “citations” is changing and Google Scholar reflects this by including some non-traditional citation types.  I argue Google Scholar is quite appropriate for the field of planning. (See an earlier discussion in my paper from the Journal of the World Universities Forum).
  5. School/program rankings are based on median values (instead of mean) to control for outliers. For instance, Arizona State University has the highest mean number of faculty citations (one of their faculty members has the highest number of citations among planning programs), but is ranked 12th using the median number of citations.
  6. While I am quite confident in the results, there are inevitable errors in the data attributable to the following:
    1. Citation data are dynamic and change daily. What is presented below is a snapshot at a particular point in time.
    2. The uniqueness of author names influences the accuracy of citation counts. Common names, name changes, non-use of middle initials or middle names (by authors or publishers), misspellings, and other parsing errors can lead to improperly attributed publications.
    3. The number of citations per year is used to control for the age of faculty members. Programs with older faculty are expected to have greater numbers of citations – just by virtue of having more time. Unfortunately, the exact year that a faculty member started their academic career is not known, so the year they obtained their terminal degree is used as a proxy. There is also no data available on leaves taken or time off.
    4. I use data directly from Google Scholar Citations where faculty have existing profiles. These are assumed to be correct and contain only publications authored or co-authored by them. There were 202 profiles out of the 923 faculty included in the analysis.

I welcome your questions, comments, and suggestions.

Table 1 list the top 25 planning schools based on the median  number of GS citations per faculty member. Table 2 lists the top 25 in terms of citations per year of service (or year since degree) to account for faculty age or experience.

table1

 

table2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The citation data can also be compared by the school where each faculty member received their terminal degree (usually a PhD). Table 3 shows the top 25 universities (not necessarily planning degrees) in terms of median total citation output.

table3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although there is a significant amount of variation among individual planning faculty citations that effect department-level performance, there are distinct trends based on seniority. Figures 1 and 2 show both increasing mean and median citation totals by years of experience and rank.

Figure 1.

years

 

Figure 2.

rank

Finally, there are many planning faculty with citation totals far exceeding the average levels discussed (the top 25 are shown in Table 4). All of the previous summary information for planning schools is based on GS citation totals for individual planning faculty. These totals will change over time as the data are corrected and updated as previously mentioned.  Please direct your questions or comments to me at: tom.sanchez@vt.edu.

top25

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

TechniCity 2014 about to get underway….

Registrants

The TechniCity preview will launch this week (see: https://www.coursera.org/course/techcity).  One exciting aspect is the geographic diversity of students enrolled in the class.  As we learned last time, this adds richness to our discussions and the examples that students share with each other.  We are excited about the start of the class and look forward to connecting with the global TechniCity.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

TechniCity eBook

Image

The TechniCity eBook captures the experience of the Spring 2013 MOOC.

Check out the newly released TechniCity eBook!  In this eBook we outline the TechniCity Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) that was conducted in the Spring of 2013. The eBook can be used as an introduction and guidebook for the course because it describes the course structure and provides examples of course activities. Because the course will grow and change over time, revised versions of the TechniCity eBook will be made available. (Click to download)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Social Network Analysis of TRB Standing Committees

ImageThe purpose of this paper is to illustrate the interconnectedness of TRB standing committees using social network analysis.  Analyzing co-membership of these research committees indicates the degree to which committees have the potential to collaborate and share information.  The TRB member database was used to analyze membership across the 210 standing committees.  Members serving on multiple committees create the network ties, which means that one or more members may be sharing information and creating partnerships between members and committees.  This leads to inter-organizational knowledge transfer which is certainly a benefit of information sharing that occurs at the individual and committee levels that can extend far beyond TRB.  The results of the analysis are especially valuable for committees attempting to forge strategic research partnerships and interdisciplinary relationships that may result in research opportunities through new or expanded topics.  The analysis provides insight into the general characteristics of TRB committees and their members, which is useful for making comparisons. The Transportation and Sustainability Committee (ADD40) is used as a case study to illustrate how the results of social network analysis can be applied at the committee level. Download full paper.

Posted in articles, transportation | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Excellent TechniCity 2013 Student Projects

The following are the top 25 student projects as selected by the TechniCity instructors.  There were many, many great projects overall!  Click on the title to read more about the project.

Name Project
Agata Ruchlewicz-Dzianach L Spot App
Anellina Chirico The Ringing Bell: Solution to Traffic Jams
Anna Gabriela Hoverter Callejas PedApp: The App for Pedestrians
Atef Rostom Massive Open Online Carpooling
Cathy Tao TechniCities Grand Challenge 100,000 minds working together
Dario Cianciarulo Emergency Services with Augmented Reality
Dmytro Krasnoshtan Happibus, Easy to Use Public Transportation
James Yeung California Race Projector
Kala Gurung Use of RFID Technology for Providing Safe and Accessible Bicycling
Laila Ammar Technology Enhanced Park and Ride
Liene Some Emergency Services with Augmented Reality
Liew Wen Hwee City that Connects Learns and Loves its Urban Biodiversity
Mariela Saez Solidarity Communities, Solidarity Cities
Patrick C Smith Improving Data Collection for Louisville’s Urban Forest
Paul Goff Framework for Smart City Deployment
Robert Giusti Mapping bicycle movement via smartphones mobile app design
Robert Strohmaier Urban Gardening Toolkit
Shabana Charaniya Tease Me Not App to Report Eve Teasing Incidents
Sky King Ubiquitous Environmental Sensing Using Low Cost Microprocessors
Veridiana Neves Lejeune Curbita Recycling
Victoria Darah Mobile App for Ohio State Student Safety Service
Vivian Doumpa U-Drift: A Personalized Drifting app for Utrecht
Winfred Selwyn Ooh-Azlin Human Battery Gym
Yvonne Tan Yit Fong The Trucking Culture
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

Faculty Scholarly Productivity and Reputation in Planning: A Preliminary Citation Analysis

The following is a preliminary analysis of planning faculty listed in the Guide to Undergraduate and Graduate Education in Urban and Regional Planning (17th edition, dated 2011) published by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. I queried Google Scholar for publication/citation data for each of the 850+ regular faculty listed in the guide (the primary tool used was Harzing’s Publish or Perish; see http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm). Because of name disambiguation, misspellings, etc., the resulting data from these searches required extensive cleaning to match authors with their publications. The original dataset consisted of over 62,000 records (publications indexed by Google Scholar [GS]) associated with approximately 975,000 citations. Automated and manual processes to clean the data for planning faculty reduced these numbers to 24,609 publications with 634,467 citations. This process is still underway, and I suspect the data are at least 85–90% clean at this point. Again, these data are preliminary but are reasonable estimates at this point. Following a brief discussion about academic citations are summary results from the initial analysis.

Citations
The traditional means of assessing academic productivity and reputation is citation analysis. Citation analysis for scholarly evaluation has an extensive literature that weighs appropriateness within and across disciplines as well as offering nuanced discussion of metrics (see, e.g., Adam, 2002; Garfield, 1972; Garfield & Merton, 1979; MacRoberts & MacRoberts, 1989, 1996; Moed, 2005). Recently, popular metrics like the h-index, g-index, and e-index have been adopted by GS to provide Web-based citation analysis previously limited to proprietary citation indexes like Thomson Reuters (formerly ISI) Web of Knowledge (WoK) and Sciverse Scopus. This is the likely trajectory of citation analysis as open access scholarship becomes more pervasive. There is some debate, however, that GS’s inclusion of gray literature citations means its analyses draw from a different universe of publications to assess citation frequency and lineage. Scholarly activity represents approximately one-third to one-half (or more) of faculty effort along with teaching and outreach/service activities. In many universities/disciplines, scholarly productivity and reputation are primary factors in deciding promotion and tenure cases.

Results
This initial analysis focused on the citation activity of planning faculty by (a) current school, (b) the school from which they received their PhD (or other terminal degree), (c) years as a professor (time since terminal degree was used as a proxy), (d) rank, and (e) individual faculty. The results are as of mid-November 2013 and will be continually refreshed with GS searches and manual data input and correction.

Table 1 list the top 25 planning schools based on the average number of GS citations per faculty member. Table 2 lists the top 25 in terms of citations per year of service (or year since degree) to account for faculty age or experience. On average, the work of the UCLA and USC planning faculty members has been cited over 3,000 times (averages are greatly influenced by particular faculty). In addition, planning faculty members at Penn, UCLA, ASU, Berkeley, SUNY Buffalo, and USC average over 100 citations per year.

Picture1

Picture2

Faculty Citations by School of Degree
The citation data can also be compared by the school where each faculty member received their terminal degree (usually a PhD). Table 3 shows the top 25 universities (not necessarily planning degrees) in terms of average total citation output. Table 4 shows citations per year of experience. Graduates from the University of Chicago and UCSB have the highest levels of citation activity among planning faculty. Of note is that UCSB does not have a planning program.

Picture3

Picture4

Although there is a significant amount of variation among individual planning faculty citations that effect department-level performance, there are distinct trends based on seniority. Figures 1 and 2 show both increasing mean and median citation totals by years of experience and rank. Currently, faculty with 5–6 years of experience (pre-tenure) average about 115 citations (median of 41), and those with 15–16 years of experience (around promotion to full professor) average over 500 citations (median of 300). However, these numbers do not control for types of institutions, teaching loads, and administrative activities. During the course of a career (30–50 years), faculty average between total 1,000 and 1,500 citations. In terms of those currently at the rank of assistant professor, the average is over 150, with associate professors averaging over 500 and full professors over 1,400.

Figure 1.Picture5

Figure 2.
Picture6

Finally, there are many planning faculty with citation totals far exceeding the average levels discussed (the top 25 are shown in Table 5). All of the previous summary information for planning schools is based on GS citation totals for individual planning faculty. These totals will change over time as the data are corrected and updated as previously mentioned. The overall list of planning faculty is available here for download. Your help in updating these numbers will be greatly appreciated and will be used for an upcoming complete analysis. If your citations totals are very different from what is shown, please feel free to send me (tom.sanchez@vt.edu) your updated CV or links to your GS Citation profiles.

Picture7

If you are interested in citation analysis and bibliometrics, you can visit my Mendeley Group at http://www.mendeley.com/groups/1318573/citation-analysis-bibliometrics-and-webometrics/ and my paper on the topic at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2157789.

References

Adam, D. (2002). Citation analysis: The counting house. Nature, 415(6873), 726–729.

Garfield, E. (1972). Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation. Science, 178(4060), 471–479.

Garfield, E. (1979). Citation indexing: Its theory and application in science, technology, and humanities. New York, NY: Wiley.

MacRoberts, M. H, & MacRoberts, B. R. (1989). Problems of citation analysis: A critical review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 342–349.

MacRoberts, M. H, & MacRoberts, B. R . (1996). Problems of citation analysis. Scientometrics, 36(3), 435–444.

Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Posted in academic visibility, Citation analysis, publications | 7 Comments