Research Productivity in Academia: A Comparative Study of the Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities

Wanner, Richard A.

doi:10.2307/2112566

Cited by 137 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…define an academic discipline as a branch of knowledge that is taught or researched at the higher education level. This study follows the discipline taxonomy used by who adopted it from the taxonomy developed by Becher (1994), Wanner, Lewis, and Gregorio (1981), and others. This taxonomy identifies five major categories of academic discipline: humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, formal sciences, and professions and applied sciences.…”

Section: Population Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Trends in Mobile Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Articles (2011 – 2015)

Krull

Duart

2017

IRRODL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential and use of mobile devices in higher education has been a key issue for educational research and practice since the widespread adoption of these devices. Due to the evolving nature and affordances of mobile technologies, it is an area that requires ongoing investigation. This study aims to identify emerging trends in mobile learning research in higher education in order to provide insights for researchers and educators around research topics and issues for further exploration. This study analysed the research themes, methods, settings, and technologies in mobile learning research in higher education from 2011 to 2015. A total of 233 refereed articles were selected and analysed from peer reviewed journals. The results were compared to three previous literature review-based research studies focused between 2001 and 2010 to identify similarities and differences. Key findings indicated that: (a) mobile learning in higher education is a growing field as evidenced by the increasing variety of research topics, methods, and researchers; (b) the most common research topic continues to be about enabling m-learning applications and systems; and (c) mobile phones continue to be the most widely used devices in mobile learning studies, however, more and more studies work across different devices, rather than focusing on specific devices.

show abstract

Section: Population Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Trends in Mobile Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Articles (2011 – 2015)

Krull

Duart

2017

IRRODL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Since research productivity is the principal basis for promotion in academia women progress more slowly, hold lower ranks, and are older at each rank than comparable men. This approach focuses on individual-level factors, such as motivation and human capital, while ignoring contextual factors, such as market conditions, employers' attitudes and inclinations, sex-stereotypes, and organizational opportunity structures (e.g., Hartman 1987;Bielby and Bielby 1988).Moreover, a growing number of recent studies on women in academia find that married women with or without children publish as much or slightly more than single or childless faculty women (Astin and Davis 1985;Zuckerman and Cole 1987; Fox and Faver 1985;Wanner et al 1981; Kyvic 1990;Toren 1991;Simon 1991). These findings are counter-intuitive and not yet well-understood; they have nevertheless dented our belief that family and children are the principal obstacle hindering the performance and promotion of faculty women.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The temporal dimension of gender inequality in academia

Toren

1993

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. This paper examines gender inequality in academic careers by applying Merton's concept of 'socially expected durations' (SEDs). Women's relatively slower advancement along the academic hierarchy has been traditionally attributed to their traits and constraints. The concept of SED shifts attention from the individual to the organizational level, and the actual and expected augmented durations between promotions for women are viewed as part of the structural arrangements of academic institutions and their culture. It is argued that because of the distinct characteristics of academic careers, time-in-rank is an important dimension distinguishing among otherwise very uniform occupational roles and career patterns. The implications of conceptualizing career discrepancies in terms of socially expected durations are discussed.One of the basic mechanisms which creates gender inequality in academia is the widely known fact that women's career progress in the academic hierarchy is slower than that of men. The question of why this is so has been addressed from various points of view and explained by different factors. One popular explanation relates female academics' slow career advancement to their family responsibilities and family-work role conflict. Women, it is argued, have less time, energy, and commitment to invest in their professional careers and are therefore less productive scientifically than men. Since research productivity is the principal basis for promotion in academia women progress more slowly, hold lower ranks, and are older at each rank than comparable men. This approach focuses on individual-level factors, such as motivation and human capital, while ignoring contextual factors, such as market conditions, employers' attitudes and inclinations, sex-stereotypes, and organizational opportunity structures (e.g., Hartman 1987;Bielby and Bielby 1988).Moreover, a growing number of recent studies on women in academia find that married women with or without children publish as much or slightly more than single or childless faculty women (Astin and Davis 1985;Zuckerman and Cole 1987; Fox and Faver 1985;Wanner et al. 1981; Kyvic 1990;Toren 1991;Simon 1991). These findings are counter-intuitive and not yet well-understood; they have nevertheless dented our belief that family and children are the principal obstacle hindering the performance and promotion of faculty women.In this paper the temporal dimension of academics' careers, and particularly the slower progress of women as compared to their male colleagues, is perceived as part of the organizational structure and culture of institutions of higher education. I argue that the differential pacing of upward mobility of men and women cannot be accounted for by individual characteristics alone, such as talent, human capital, motivation, or productivity but is attributable, at least in part, to different timetables

show abstract

“…Publication rate is often used to assess the research productivity of social scientists (Baird, 1991;Dundar & Lewis, 1998;Feldman, 1987;Miller & Tollison, 1975;Toutkoushian, Porter, Danielson, & Hollis, 2003;Wanner, Lewis, & Gregorio, 1981). For this study, research productivity is confined solely to the number of articles published by authors in professional journals, excluding other available evaluation criteria such as the volume of books, reports, proceedings, patents, book reviews, commentaries, and research notes in journals.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research Productivity of Academic Professionals in Tourism and Hospitality (TH)

Kim¹,

Choi²,

Lee³

2013

JTHM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to identify how much tourism-and hospitality-related academic professionals have contributed to their fields in recent years and to apply an authorship analysis following Sheldon's work to reconfirm her observation that full professors contribute more to academic professional journals more than authors with lower academic ranks. Our analyses of research productivity showed that tourism and hospitality (TH) academicians published more than non-TH professionals in some Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)-listed TH journals and that experienced scholars were more productive than novice professionals in other SSCI-registered TH journals. By conducting not only an authorship analysis in the senior TH-related journals but also a research productivity analysis of TH versus non-TH professionals and English-speaking (ES) versus non-ES researchers, in particular, the results of this study provide helpful information to young journals such as Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management to be a high-quality academic journal across varied disciplinary boundaries and to collect extensive opinions from elder TH journals.

show abstract

Research Productivity in Academia: A Comparative Study of the Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities

Cited by 137 publications

References 30 publications

Research Trends in Mobile Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Articles (2011 – 2015)

Research Trends in Mobile Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review of Articles (2011 – 2015)

The temporal dimension of gender inequality in academia

Research Productivity of Academic Professionals in Tourism and Hospitality (TH)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About