Human resources analytics: where do we go from here?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Human resource analytics (HRA) has developed as a new business trend and challenge, stressing the strategic relevance of human resource management (HRM) to senior management executives. HRA is a process that uses statistical techniques, to link HR practices to organizational performance. The purpose of this study is to carry out recent development in HRA, bibliometric analysis and content analysis to present a comprehensive account of HRA to fill the gap in the evolution and status of its research. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on the recent advances in HRA in terms of it evolution and advancement by analyzing and drawing conclusions 480 articles retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) database from 2003 to March 2022. The methodology is divided into four steps: data collection, analysis, visualization and interpretation. The study performed a rigorous bibliometric assessment of HRA using the bibliometric R-package and VOS viewer. Findings The findings based on the literature survey, and bibliometric analysis, reveal the path-breaking articles, the prominent authors, most contributing institutions and countries that have contributed to the HRA scholarship. The results show that the number of publications has significantly increased from 2015 onwards, reaching a maximum of 101 journals in 2021. The USA, China, India, Canada and the United Kingdom were the most productive countries in terms of the total number of publications. Human Resource Management Journal , Human Resource Management , International Journal of Manpower , and Journal of Organizational Effectiveness-People and Performance are the top four academic outlets in the field of HRA. Additionally, the study identifies four clusters of HRA research and the knowledge gaps in HRA scholarship. Research limitations/implications The present study is based on the articles retrieved from the WoS. The study underpins HRA research to understand the trends and presents a structured account. However, the study is not free from limitations. It is recommended that future research could be undertaken by combining WoS and Scopus databases to have a more detailed and comprehensive view. This study indicates that the field is still in its infancy stage. Hence, there is a need for more arduous research on the topic to help develop a better understanding of this field. Originality/value The findings of knowledge clusters will drive future researchers to augment the field. The evolution of the four clusters and their subsequent development will fill the gaps in the literature. This study enriches the HRA literature and the findings of this study may assist academicians, researchers and managers in furthering their research in the identified research clusters
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.037 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.046 | 0.061 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".