MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321351940 · doi:10.5430/jct.v12n1p200

Factors Affecting Organizational Innovation of Universities - Focusing on Shared Vision, Student-Centered Value, Trust Culture, and Organizational Positivity

2023· article· en· W4321351940 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Eun Joo Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducation and Learning Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreativityBusinessOptimismGovernment (linguistics)Organizational cultureDescriptive statisticsValue (mathematics)Public relationsDescriptive researchOrganizational analysisKnowledge managementMarketingPolitical scienceSociologyPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Any organization must innovate to adapt to change and move forward, and without such innovation, it will not develop and fall behind. Similarly, in the case of university organizations, without innovation, they will not be able to contribute not only to securing competitiveness but also to national development. Today, many organizations such as universities, corporations, and government agencies are striving to effectively cope with the changes required in a rapidly changing environment. In the process, many organizations are innovating. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze the factors that affect organizational innovation in universities and prepare measures for this. The decrease in university admission resources along with rapid social change is causing difficulties in university finances and management. As a result, universities are faced with the reality of having to innovate on their own. Hence, organizational innovation is required at the university level to keep up with the fourth industrial revolution. Thus, this study establishes vision sharing, values that prioritize students, a culture of trust, and organizational optimism as independent factors that can impact universities' organizational creativity and validates their impact on organizational innovation. Ultimately, the current study prepares a plan for organizational innovation in universities. To achieve the research purpose, data were collected from 118 responses through an online survey conducted from October to November 2021 targeting professors and staff at 4-year E-University in Gyeonggi-do. The design of this study is a descriptive research study. For the analysis method, frequency analysis and descriptive statistical analysis were performed. Additionally, correlation analysis was performed to examine the validity between variables and to confirm multicollinearity. Finally, multiple regression analysis was performed to verify the influence of independent variables on organizational innovation at universities. The analysis led to the exclusion of the trust culture variable as a factor impacting university organizational innovation. The remaining organizational positivity, student-centered values, and shared vision variables showed a positive influence on organizational innovation. The findings of this study suggest that altering member perceptions is crucial for university organizations to innovate. In particular, all university members must share a positive perception of the organization, educational goals for students, and the vision pursued by the university.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicEducation and Learning InterventionsFrench-language works237,207