Writer's Forum-The Use of Google Scholar for Research and Research Dissemination

Abstract

The abundance of technological and Internet resources can both simplify and complicate a researcher's world. Such innovations place a burden on researchers to stay current with advances in technology and then discern the best technology tools to utilize. We first discuss benefits that Google Scholar can provide in the preparation of the literature review, which is vital to developing rigorous studies. We also discuss ways to use Google Scholar for the dissemination of one's research. This article follows the Writer's Forum article by Campuzano, Storberg–Walker, and Werner (2017) concerning methods to promote one's research using social media.

Keywords

Google Scholar literature review social media

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Birkenshaw

, Hamel

, & Mol

M. J.

(2008). Management innovation. Academy of Management Review, 33, 825–845. doi: https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.34421969

Blewett

(May 11, 2016). Academics need to embrace new ways of writing and sharing research. The conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/academics–need–to–embrace–new–ways–of–writing–and–sharing–research–59010

Boote

D. N.

, & Beile

(2005). Scholars before researchers: On the centrality of the dissertation literature review in research preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034006003

Campuzano

, Storberg–Walker

, & Werner

J. M.

(2017). Promoting your research on social media: Part 1. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 29: 63–67. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20203

Cooper

H. M.

(1985). A taxonomy of literature reviews. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED254541

Damanpour

(1991). Organizational innovation: A meta–analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555–590. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/256406

Glass

G. V.

(1976). Primary, secondary, and meta–analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3–8. doi:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003

Google Scholar (2017a). Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/

Google Scholar (2017b). Google Scholar Metrics Overview. Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html

10.

Harzing

A. M.

(March 26, 2017). Google Scholar is a serious alternative to Web of Science. The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) impact blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2017/03/16/google–scholar–is–a–serious–alternative–to–web–of–science/

11.

Harzing

A. M.

, & Adams

(2017). Publish or perish: Realising Google Scholar's potential to democratise citation analysis. In Google Scholar day: Changing current evaluation paradigms (Cybermetrics Lab) Madrid, Spain. Seminar.

12.

Imel

(2011). Writing a literature review. In Rocco

T. S.

& Hatcher

(Eds.), The handbook of scholarly writing and publishing (pp. 145–160). San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.

13.

Mayr

, & Walter

(2007). An exploratory study of Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 31, 814–830. doi:https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520710841784

14.

McGregor

(Feb. 4, 2015). How dysfunctional is your boss? The Washington Post, Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on–leadership/wp/2015/02/04/how–dysfunctional–is–your–boss/?utm_term=.3da7a4c80d2b

15.

Rose

, Shuck

, Twyford

, & Bergman

(2015). Skunked: An integrative review exploring the consequences of the dysfunctional leader and the implications for those employees who work for them. Human Resource Development Review, 14, 64–90. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484314552437

16.

Sage Publishing (2016). 5 tips for aspiring social media savvy academics. Sage Connection. Retrieved from http://connection.sagepub.com/blog/sage–connection/2016/08/24/5–tips–for–aspiring–social–media–savvy–academics/?utm_source=SAGE_social&hootPostID=3edd90bdfa4c582bbfd2fc9ae49909c8

17.

Shuck

, Ghosh

, Zigarmi

, & Nimon

(2013). The jingle jangle of employee engagement: Further exploration of the emerging construct and implications for workplace learning and performance. Human Resource Development Review, 12, 11–35. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312463921

18.

Shuck

& Herd

A. M.

(2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11, 156–181. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312438211

19.

Torraco

(2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15, 404–428. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606

20.

Wagner

(May 11, 2015). The end of ‘employee engagement?’ Forbes Magazine, Leadership. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/roddwagner/2015/05/11/the–end–of–employee–engagement/2/#3c06b4916edc

21.

White

M. C

. (Feb. 3, 2015). If you think your boss is horrible, you're probably right. Time Magazine, Business. Retrieved from http://time.com/3692875/if–you–think–your–boss–is–horrible–youre–probably–right/