Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 116, Issue 1, pp 161–180 | Cite as

Understanding the advisor–advisee relationship via scholarly data analysis

  • Jiaying Liu
  • Tao Tang
  • Xiangjie Kong
  • Amr Tolba
  • Zafer AL-Makhadmeh
  • Feng Xia
Article
  • 191 Downloads

Abstract

Advisor–advisee relationship is important in academic networks due to its universality and necessity. Despite the increasing desire to analyze the career of newcomers, however, the outcomes of different collaboration patterns between advisors and advisees remain unknown. The purpose of this paper is to find out the correlation between advisors’ academic characteristics and advisees’ academic performance in Computer Science. Employing both quantitative and qualitative analysis, we find that with the increase of advisors’ academic age, advisees’ performance experiences an initial growth, follows a sustaining stage, and finally ends up with a declining trend. We also discover the phenomenon that accomplished advisors can bring up skilled advisees. We explore the conclusion from two aspects: (1) Advisees mentored by advisors with high academic level have better academic performance than the rest; (2) Advisors with high academic level can raise their advisees’ h-index ranking. This work provides new insights on promoting our understanding of the relationship between advisors’ academic characteristics and advisees’ performance, as well as on advisor choosing.

Keywords

Academic networks Scholarly data Social network analysis Advisor–advisee relationship Collaboration patterns 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for funding this work through research group NO (RG-1438-027). Xiangjie Kong is supported by Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities under Grant NO (DUT18JC09), and China Scholarship Council under Grant NO (201706060067).

References

  1. Amjad, T., Ding, Y., Xu, J., Zhang, C., Daud, A., Tang, J., et al. (2017). Standing on the shoulders of giants. Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. (2006). The long tail: Why the future of business is selling less of more. New York: Hachette Books.Google Scholar
  3. Azoulay, P. (2012). Research efficiency: Turn the scientific method on ourselves. Nature, 484(7392), 31–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borders, L. D., Wester, K. L., Granello, D. H., Chang, C. Y., Hays, D. G., Pepperell, J., et al. (2012). Association for counselor education and supervision guidelines for research mentorship: Development and implementation. Counselor Education and Supervision, 51(3), 162–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bozionelos, N., Bozionelos, G., Polychroniou, P., & Kostopoulos, K. (2014). Mentoring receipt and personality: Evidence for non-linear relationships. Journal of Business Research, 67(2), 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51(1), 15–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chao, G. T., Walz, P., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentorships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45(3), 619–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobson, L. (2013). Effective practices of formal mentoring programs. Math Alliance Research Study, 3, 1–3.Google Scholar
  9. Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of protégés versus non-protégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(4), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Florea, L., Cheung, Y. H., & Herndon, N. C. (2013). For all good reasons: Role of values in organizational sustainability. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(3), 393–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ghosh, R., & Reio, T. G. (2013). Career benefits associated with mentoring for mentors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(1), 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glänzel, W., Heeffer, S., & Thijs, B. (2017). Lexical analysis of scientific publications for nano-level scientometrics. Scientometrics, 111, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gollapalli, S. D., Mitra, P., & Giles, C. L. (2011). Ranking authors in digital libraries. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries, (pp. 251–254). ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Hu, C., Wang, S., Yang, C.-C., & Wu, T.-Y. (2014). When mentors feel supported: Relationships with mentoring functions and protégés’ perceived organizational support. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnson, W. B., & Ridley, C. R. (2015). The elements of mentoring. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  16. Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608–625.Google Scholar
  17. Langfeldt, L., Benner, M., Sivertsen, G., Kristiansen, E. H., Aksnes, D. W., Borlaug, S. B., et al. (2015). Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect. Science and Public Policy, 42, scu083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lehmann, S., Jackson, A. D., & Lautrup, B. E. (2006). Measures for measures. Nature, 444(7122), 1003–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Letchford, A., Moat, H. S., & Preis, T. (2015). The advantage of short paper titles. Royal Society open science, 2(8), 150266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ley, M. (2009). DBLP: Some lessons learned. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment, 2(2), 1493–1500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malmgren, R. D., Ottino, J. M., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2010). The role of mentorship in protégé performance. Nature, 465(7298), 622–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Moreira, C., Calado, P., & Martins, B. (2011). Learning to rank for expert search in digital libraries of academic publications. In Portuguese conference on artificial intelligence, (pp. 431–445). Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Murphy, T. H. (2015). On great teachers. Journal of Legal Studies Education, 32(1), 223–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404–409.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Owens, B. (2013). Research assessments: Judgement day. Nature, 502(7471), 288–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scandura, T. A., & Ragins, B. R. (1993). The effects of sex and gender role orientation on mentorship in male-dominated occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43(3), 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sinatra, R., Wang, D., Deville, P., Song, C., & Barabási, A.-L. (2016). Quantifying the evolution of individual scientific impact. Science, 354(6312), aaf5239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singh, R., Ragins, B. R., & Tharenou, P. (2009). Who gets a mentor? A longitudinal assessment of the rising star hypothesis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(1), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tang, J., Jin, R., & Zhang, J. (2008). A topic modeling approach and its integration into the random walk framework for academic search. In Eighth IEEE international conference on data mining, 2008. ICDM’08, (pp. 1055–1060). IEEE.Google Scholar
  30. Tang, J., Zhang, J., Yao, L., Li, J., Zhang, L., & Su, Z. (2008). Arnetminer: Extraction and mining of academic social networks. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, (pp. 990–998). ACM.Google Scholar
  31. Tuesta, E. F., Delgado, K. V., Mugnaini, R., Digiampietri, L. A., Mena-Chalco, J. P., & Pérez-Alcázar, J. J. (2015). Analysis of an advisor–advisee relationship: An exploratory study of the area of exact and earth sciences in Brazil. PloS ONE, 10(5), e0129065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wanberg, C. R., Kammeyer-Mueller, J., & Marchese, M. (2006). Mentor and protégé predictors and outcomes of mentoring in a formal mentoring program. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 69(3), 410–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, W., Liu, J., Xia, F., King, I., & Tong, H. (2017). Shifu: Deep learning based advisor–advisee relationship mining in scholarly big data. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on world wide web companion, (pp. 303–310). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.Google Scholar
  34. Wang, W., Liu, J., Yu, S., Zhang, C., Xu, Z., & Xia, F. (2016). Mining advisor–advisee relationships in scholarly big data: A deep learning approach. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on joint conference on digital libraries.Google Scholar
  35. Wang, W., Yu, S., Bekele, T. M., Kong, X., & Xia, F. (2017). Scientific collaboration patterns vary with scholars academic ages. Scientometrics, 112(1), 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xia, F., Wang, W., Bekele, T. M., & Liu, H. (2017). Big scholarly data: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 3(1), 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Young, A. M., & Perrewe, P. L. (2000). What did you expect? An examination of career-related support and social support among mentors and protégés. Journal of Management, 26(4), 611–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory for Ubiquitous Network and Service Software of Liaoning Province, School of SoftwareDalian University of TechnologyDalianChina
  2. 2.Chengdu CollegeUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  3. 3.Computer Science Department, Community CollegeKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  4. 4.Mathematics and Computer Science Department, Faculty of ScienceMenoufia UniversityShibin El KomEgypt

Personalised recommendations