The CIPO model in the management of university lecturers’ scientific research activities: Some theoretical issues
Keywords:
CIPO model, research management, university lecturers, higher education institutions, digital transformationAbstract
Research objectives: This study aims to clarify the theoretical foundations of the CIPO model and examine its applicability to the management of university lecturers’ research activities, with a view to enhancing research quality, effectiveness, and practical impact in the context of digital transformation. Research gap: Although the CIPO model has been widely examined and applied in educational evaluation and management, its application to the management of university lecturers’ research activities has received limited systematic and in-depth attention. Research methods: The study employs theoretical research methods, including the analysis and synthesis of relevant domestic and international literature; practical research methods focusing on the application of the CIPO model to research management in higher education institutions; and expert consultation to assess the relevance and feasibility of the proposed management measures. Key findings: The study identifies and clarifies the components of the CIPO model and their respective roles in managing university lecturers’ research activities. Based on the CIPO framework, it proposes management measures aimed at improving the quality of scientific publications, strengthening lecturers’ research capacity, enhancing the linkage between research, teaching, and practice, and responding to the requirements of digital transformation and higher education reform.
Downloads
References
Abbas, J. (2020). HEISQUAL: A modern approach to measure service quality in higher education institutions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 67, 100933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100933
Bamberger, M., Rugh, J., & Mabry, L. (2021). RealWorld evaluation: Working under budget, time, data, and political constraints. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Chang, D. F., & Lin, N. J. (2018). Applying CIPO indicators to examine internationalization in higher education institutions in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational Development, 63, 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.12.007
Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2022), The CIPO program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Kember, D. (1997). A reconceptualisation of the research into university academics' conceptions of teaching. Learning and instruction, 7(3), 255-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(96)00028-X
Mertens, D. M. (2023). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed CIPO methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Patton, M. Q., & Campbell-Patton, C. E. (2022). Utilization-focused evaluation (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Scheerens, J. (1990). School effectiveness research and the development of process indicators of school functioning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345900010106
Scheerens, J. (2000). Improving school effectiveness (Fundamentals of Educational Planning No. 68). UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning.
Scriven, M. (2021). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The relevance of the CIPP evaluation model for educational accountability. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 5(1), 19–25.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (1971). The use of experimental design in educational evaluation. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8(4), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3984.1971.tb00936.x
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In T. Kellaghan & D. L. Stufflebeam (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 31–62). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2023). The CIPO Model for Evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 99, 35-46.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (1985). Systematic evaluation: A self-instructional guide to theory and practice. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2021). Evaluation theory, models, and applications CIPO. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Zhang, G. (2017). The CIPP evaluation model: How to evaluate for improvement and accountability. Guilford Press.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2024). Case study research: Design, methods and application of CIPO. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2026 International journal of social sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Articles published in the International Journal of Social Sciences (IJSS) are available under Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). Authors retain copyright in their work and grant IJSS right of first publication under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Users have the right to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles in this journal, and to use them for any other lawful purpose.
Articles published in IJSS can be copied, communicated and shared in their published form for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given to the author and the journal. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
