CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 23

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Engaging Design Thinking in Professional Bureaucracies: Improving Equity for Non-Tenure Track Faculty in Higher Education

Culver, K. C., Pullias Center for Higher Education, USC Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Harper, Jordan, Pullias Center for Higher Education, USC Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Kezar, Adrianna, Pullias Center for Higher Education, USC Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California·2022·Journal of Higher Education Policy And Leadership Studies
DOI 10.52547/johepal.3.1.68
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.52547/johepal.3.1.68

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Design teams are emerging in higher education as well but few studies exist to date and the research is nascent.

    “Design teams are emerging in higher education as well but few studies exist to date and the research is nascent but provides an area future researchers should explore(Culver et al., 2022).”

    From Moving Toward Institutional Culture Change in Higher Education: An Exploration into Cross-functional Professional Learning Communities (2025) · cites this paper as Culver et al., 2022

    The Findings describe design teams at three higher-education campuses, and the Conclusions call for further research on teams in other institutional contexts. These passages support the existence of design teams and the value of further study, but they do not establish that teams are emerging across higher education or that few studies exist and the research is nascent. The indexed copy provides no page numbers for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. 10.1353/rhe.2007.0032 · DOI
  2. Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and Code Development. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  3. 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x · DOI
  4. 10.1111/gove.12342 · DOI
  5. 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00372.x · DOI
  6. 10.1177/0011000006287390 · DOI
  7. 10.1007/978-3-030-60700-5_2 · DOI
  8. 10.1007/s11162-008-9113-8 · DOI
  9. 10.3368/jhr.XL.3.647 · DOI
  10. 10.1177/0149206317744252 · DOI
  11. Finkelstein, M. J., Conley, V. M., & Schuster, J. H. (2016). The Faculty Factor: Reassessing the American Academy in a Turbulent Era. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  12. 10.1111/puar.12361 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1332/030557319X15613699681219 · DOI
  14. 10.1353/jhe.2006.0050 · DOI
  15. 10.1007/s11162-013-9288-5 · DOI
  16. Kezar, A., DePaola, T., & Scott, D. T. (2019). The Gig Academy: Mapping Labor in the Neoliberal University. Johns Hopkins University Press.
  17. 10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15 · DOI
  18. Kolko, J. (2018). The divisiveness of design thinking. Interactions, 25(3), 28-34. · DOI
  19. 10.1332/030557319X15579230420081 · DOI
  20. 10.1080/13562517.2018.1461621 · DOI
  21. 10.1111/jpim.12466 · DOI
  22. 10.1111/1467-8500.12211 · DOI
  23. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.06.038 · DOI
  24. 10.1177/1555458920975467 · DOI
  25. 10.1177/1050651919854096 · DOI
  26. 10.1111/j.1747-1346.2010.00253.x · DOI
  27. Schuurman, D., & Tõnurist, P. (2017). Innovation in the public sector: Exploring the characteristics and potential of living labs and innovation labs. Technology Innovation Management Review, 7(1), 7-14. · DOI
  28. Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  29. 10.4018/978-1-5225-0643-0.ch014 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/0886-1633(94)90023-X · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Culver, K. C., Pullias Center for Higher Education, U. R. S. O. E., Harper, J., Pullias Center for Higher Education, U. R. S. O. E., Kezar, A., & Pullias Center for Higher Education, U. R. S. O. E.
Venue
Journal of Higher Education Policy And Leadership Studies
Publisher
CMV Verlag
Published
2022-03-01
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
68-89
ISSN
2717-1426
DOI
10.52547/johepal.3.1.68
Cited by
23
References
1
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review