Perceptions of Academic Departmental Climate by Men and Women and the Effects of Such Perceptions on Research Productivity

ABSTRACT We demonstrate how men and women political scientists in PhD-granting departments perceive the professional climates there. We find remarkable differences in how men and women perceive the “cultural” climates of their departments, such as the degree to which it is sexist, but not in how they perceive strictly collegial aspects of climate. We also demonstrate that these patterns characterize the perceptions of men and women at both junior and senior ranks. Contrary to some past research, we also find that climate perceptions do not have a general effect on faculty research productivity. Further, perceptions of high departmental sexism by women scholars does not degrade their research productivity.

Research Initiatives in Accounting Education: Research Relevance and Research Productivity

ABSTRACT Research in accounting education has evolved to include, among other areas, research relevance, faculty research productivity, and the use of journal lists. These topics offer new areas for research, including investigating the benefits and risks of relevant/irrelevant research, how effectively faculty research is evaluated, the potential consequences of using journal lists, and much more. Although these areas have significant and wide-ranging effects on faculty, much more empirical data are needed to inform decision making. This paper highlights these issues and makes suggestions for additional research to help the academy make better decisions by using data-driven research findings.

Impact of Achieved Tenure and Promotion on Faculty Research Productivity at a School of Pharmacy

Objective: Critics of the promotion and tenure system contend that promotion and tenure may lead to a decline in research productivity (“dead wood phenomena”) by those faculty. To assess this perception, we compiled the publications and grants at the time of application for promotion, and again through 2017 for the same faculty following promotion and/or tenure. Methods: Promotion documents at a school of pharmacy at a public Midwestern university were assessed. Mean publication rates and grant dollars per year per faculty member were compared to the same group of faculty (n=13) pre and post-promotion. Results: At the time of promotion to associate professor, mean numbers of total publications per year per faculty in the pharmacy practice department were 1.1, compared to 1.4 post-promotion. For pharmaceutical sciences department faculty, corresponding means were 5.0 and 4.1, respectively. At the time of promotion to full professor, mean numbers of total publications per year for pharmacy practice faculty were 7.0, compared to 7.2 post-promotion. For pharmaceutical sciences faculty, corresponding means were 3.5 and 4.7, respectively. For grant activity, both associate professors and full professors increased the mean total dollars per year from pre-promotion to post-promotion for both departments. Conclusion: Research productivity at this school of pharmacy continues to be either maintained or increased since promotion for the collective group of faculty. This evidence runs counter to the perception that promotion and tenure may lead to decreased scholarly productivity. The study provides a roadmap for other schools/colleges to quantify research productivity and make comparisons to national mean levels reported in the literature. Article Type: Original Research

A Survey of Provosts Indicates that Academic Libraries Should Connect Outcomes to University Goals

A Review of: Murray, A. & Ireland, A. (2018). Provosts’ perceptions of academic library value and preferences for communication: A national study. College & Research Libraries, 79(3), 336-365. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.79.3.336 Abstract Objective – To understand how public and private university provosts understand and interpret the value of academic libraries. Design – Electronic survey. Setting – Public and private colleges and universities in the United States with Carnegie classifications of master’s (small), master’s (medium), master’s (large), doctoral/research (DRU), research (RU/H), and research very high (RU/VH). Subjects – 209 provosts and chief academic officers. Methods – The authors distributed the survey to a pool of 935 provosts and chief academic officers in academic institutions. Questions were organized toward understanding participants’ perceptions of their libraries’ involvement with issues of institutional importance inspired by the Association of College & Research Libraries’ Value of Academic Libraries: A Comprehensive Research Review and Report, and high impact educational practices (HIPs) based on the work of George Kuh (2008). The survey also asked participants to select their data preferences when making library funding allocation decisions and their library communication preferences when making funding decisions. The authors received 209 responses and analyzed the content using Qualtrics to determine the highest and lowest ranked responses to each question. In addition, responses for specific survey questions were cross tabulated with demographic information about the institution to identify any potential trends that conformed to or deviated from the overall set of responses. Chi squares were then calculated to determine potential significance. Main Results – In terms of involvement with university initiatives, almost all of the 209 provosts and chief academic officers who responded to the survey had the perception that their respective libraries are either very involved or somewhat involved. The highest areas of involvement included: faculty research productivity (85.02%), accreditation (82.15%), student academic success (75%). and undergraduate retention (67.26%). Of note, only 9% of provosts indicated their libraries were very involved with enrollment. The authors found a trend that suggests that higher-enrollment institutions with a Carnegie ranking of doctoral/research, research, or research very high, increased provosts’ perceptions of their institutions’ libraries involvement in retention initiatives, student academic success, and faculty research productivity. A significant point of note: when asked why provosts did not view their institutions’ academic libraries as being involved in undergraduate retention initiatives, a significant number (76.12%) of respondents indicated that it was because the campuses overall did not recognize the role the libraries could play in retention initiatives. This position co-exists in an environment where the demographic, economic, and cultural transitions taking place in the United States are continuing to have a disruptive impact on higher education. Library directors need to make these connections much more tangible. Utilizing Kuh’s (2008) 10 high-impact educational practices, the authors gauged the participants’ perception of their libraries’ involvement in educationally purposeful activities. They found that 84.43% of provosts perceived their libraries as highly involved with undergraduate research, 78.39% with first-year seminars/experiences, 77.38% with collaborative assignments and projects, 75.76% with writing-intensive courses, 71.34% with common intellectual experiences, and 69.64% with capstone courses/projects. Fewer provosts indicated that their libraries were involved in diversity and global learning, learning communities, service learning/community-based learning, or internships. A significant point of note: when asked if their institution’s library had an impact on students’ decisions to continue enrollment, opinion was divided. Of the total respondents, a combined total of 91 indicated yes, based on demonstrated evidence or anecdotal or suspected evidence, while 81 respondents indicated unclear or no. This suggests further work is required for libraries in terms of investigating the potential role they might play in enrollment and how to demonstrate such. The authors also asked participants to indicate their opinion on the level of influence 11 different data types would have on a moderate (non-capital) funding request for the library. In terms of highest influence, 72.02% indicated they would like to see correlations linking the use of library services/resources with student success, 66.07% with undergraduate retention, and 56.55% with enrollment. Of moderate influence, 57.14% indicated they would like to see library usage data, 55.36% user satisfaction data, and 50% focus groups or other qualitative data. A total of 60% of the provosts also indicated that anecdotal evidence had a low influence on their funding allocations. Most provosts preferred the information to be communicated in a formal annual report, and indicated that the report should include information literacy student learning outcomes (SLOs) (50.9%), user satisfaction data (46.11%), correlations with faculty productivity (45.45%), correlations with student success (44.91%), correlations with undergraduate retention (43.11%), correlations with enrollment (42.51%), basic use data (40.12%), and faculty feedback (39.1%). Conclusion – Most provosts have an understanding that their libraries play an important role on campus, but demonstrating a strong connection to university goals and outcomes is essential. When seeking funding, academic library administrators should focus on projects or initiatives that support the priorities of the institution as a whole, and work to communicate evidence of the value of library services and resources within this context. This is achieved through communication channels that are both timely and relevant, and include a formal annual report or a dedicated budget meeting.

Factors Affecting Faculty Research Productivity: Conclusions from a Critical Review of the Literature

Publication is the most visible sign of an active researcher. It is central to a research career and academic advancement. Also, the institution gains prestige and the researcher gains a notable reputation and career rewards. The study summarized the findings from a systematic investigation into existing literature and views regarding the factors that affect faculty research productivity, to discuss themes and components of such work, and to propose a conceptual framework. A systematic analysis of existing literature was used to address the problems. It is found that faculty research productivity is influenced by individual factors (self-efficacy, affiliation, motivation, commitment, orientation, basic and advance research skills, sense of achievements, contributing to society, sense of responsibility, scholarly pursuit, autonomy and flexibility, satisfying interest and curiosity), institutional factors (have fewer course preparations, staff support, advising and mentoring, resources, rewards, sufficient work time, culture, research emphasis, tenure and promotion, financial rewards, satisfying performance standards, peer and social recognition), leadership factors (highly regarded able scholar, research oriented, work for departments with a similar priority placed on research). Ascriptive factors refer to gender, an age of a faculty member at a given point in time, intelligence, a personality of the individual. The paper has implications for higher education institution administrators regarding managing faculty members’ research performance.