SpringerLink
Log in

Academics’ views on publishing refereed works: A content analysis

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Survey research was carried out with academics (N=205), from a large regional Australian university, to explore their views about publishing or not publishing in refereed sources and their perceived worth of this activity. Several open-ended questions were included in the survey to elicit information about the factors that either encourage or discourage these academics from publishing. Additionally, questions were posed to allow the respondents to discuss ways that the University could further support them in their endeavour to produce at least some or more scholarly publications. The responses to these questions were content analysed to discover key categories and frequencies were calculated on the most salient categories. The results of this analysis are reported and comparisons are made on the responses of male and female academics. The implications of the results for higher educational practice are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Austin, A.E. and Gamson, Z.F. (1983). Academic Workplace: New Demands, Heightened Tensions (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Research Report No. 10). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 243 397)

  • Bandura A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. W.H. Freeman and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazeley P. (2003). Defining early career in research. Higher Education 45(3): 257–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becher T. and Trowler P.R. (2001). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Inquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press, Buckingham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn R.T. and Lawrence J.H. (1995). Faculty at Work: Motivation, Expectation, Satisfaction. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown J. and Wright D. (1999). The impact of person–environment interaction on African-American retention. National Association of Student Affairs Professional Journal 2(1): 5–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, G. (2004). Interview conducted for The Australian reported in June 16, p. 37

  • Budd J.M. (1995). Faculty publishing productivity: An institutional analysis and comparison with library and other measures. College & Research Libraries 56(6): 547–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark B.R. (1987). The Academic Life: Small Worlds, Different Worlds. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Creamer, E.G. (1998). Assessing Faculty Publication Productivity: Issues of Equity (Report No. BBB32577). Washington, DC: George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 420 242)

  • Creswell J.W. (2002). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Merrill Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Csizmadia, T. and Westerheijden, D. (2003). Quality Management in Higher Education. Retrieved 30 November, 2004, from www.utwente.nl/cheps/documenten/susu2003/csizmadia.pdf

  • (2002). Surveys in Social Research. Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond R.M. (1993). Changing priorities in the faculty reward system. In: Diamond, R.M. and Adam, B.E. (eds) Recognizing Faculty Work: Reward Systems for the Year 2000, pp 5–12. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnegan D.E. (1993). Segmentation in the academic labor market: Hiring cohorts in comprehensive universities. Journal of Higher Education 64(6): 621–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnegan D.E. and Gamson Z.F. (1996). Disciplinary adaptations to research culture in comprehensive institutions. The Review of Higher Education 19(2): 141–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis R., Hemmings B., Hill D., Quinn P. and Wolfe T. (2000). Profiling the development of tertiary-educated agriculturalists. Agricultural Science 13(3): 31–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner H. (2000). Cultures in higher education. In: King, R., Hill, R. and Hemmings, B. (eds) University and Diversity: Changing Perspectives, Policies and Practices in Australia, pp 9–29. KEON Publications, Wagga Wagga

    Google Scholar 

  • Grbich C. (1998). The academic researcher: Socialisation in settings previously dominated by teaching. Higher Education 36(1): 67–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green R.G. (1998). Faculty rank, effort and success: A study of publication in professional journals. Journal of Social Work Education 34(3): 415–426

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood C. (1998). Publish or perish: The ethics of publishing in peer-reviewed journals. Media Information Australia 68: 29–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayden M. and Carpenter P. (1990). From school to higher education. Higher Education 20(2): 175–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higher Education Funding Council For England (2004). Research Assessment Exercise, viewed April 14 2005 <http://www.hefce.ac.uk/research/assessment/>

  • Hourcade J.J. and Anderson H. (1998). Writing for publication. In: Malone, J.A., Atweh, B. and Northfield, J.R. (eds) Research and Supervision in Mathematics and Science Education, pp 277–298. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes C. (1999). Faculty publishing productivity: The emerging role of network connectivity. Campus-Wide Information Systems 16: 30–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Illing, D. (2004). Uni staff fail on research output. June 16, The Australian p. 37

  • Karmel P. (2003). Higher education at the crossroads: Response to an Australian ministerial discussion paper. Higher Education 45(1): 1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim S. (2003). The impact of research productivity on early retirement of university professors. Industrial Relations 42(1): 106–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knowles J.G., Cole A.L. and Sumsion J. (2000). Modifying conditions of researching in teacher education institutions. Teacher Education Quarterly 27(2): 7–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff K. (1980). Content Analysis. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin H., Silvern S.B. and Gorrell J. (1999). Early childhood pre-service teachers’ beliefs in Taiwan. International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction 1(2): 163–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Long J.S. and Fox M.F. (1995). Scientific careers: Universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology 21: 45–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marginson, S. (2002). ‘Nation-building universities in a global environment: The case of Australia’, Higher Education 43(3), 409–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Mruck K. and Mey G. (2002). Between printed past and digital future. Research in Science Education 32(2): 257–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, B. (2005). Arts at risk in research overhaul. March 23, The Australian p. 35

  • Pajares F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research 66(4): 543–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S.M. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn't women's work count? The Journal of Higher Education 67(1), 46–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Pratt M., Margaritas D. and Coy D. (1999). Develo** a research culture in a university faculty. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 21(1): 43–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Print M. and Hattie J. (1997). Measuring quality in universities: An approach to weighting research productivity. Higher Education 33(4): 453–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Research Corporation (2001). Determining Research Productivity and Grant Activity Among Science Faculty at Surveyed Institutions (Report No. BBB26706). Tucson, AZ (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 469 492)

  • Roth W.M. (2002). Editorial power/authorial suffering. Research in Science Education 32(2): 215–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarantakos S. (1993). Social Research. Macmillan, South Melbourne

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyed, F.J., Al-Haji Umar, Y. and Al-Hajji, M. (2004). ‘Determinants of business faculty research productivity in the Middle East’, Paper Presented at the Academy of World Business, Marketing and Management Development Conference, Gold Coast, Qld, July

  • Schneider A. (1998). Why women don’t publish as much as men. Chronicle of Higher Education 45(3): A14–A16

    Google Scholar 

  • Skolnik M. (2000). Does counting publications provide any useful information about academic performance. Teacher Education Quarterly 27(2): 15–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Snelson, C. (2002). ‘Online mathematics instruction: An analysis of content’, Paper Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Northern Rocky Mountain Educational Research Association, Estes Park, CO, October

  • Stack S. (2004). Gender, children and research productivity. Research in Higher Education 45(8): 891–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stemler, S. (2001). An Introduction to Content Analysis (Report No. EDO TM 01 06). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 458 218)

  • Sullivan S. (1996). Scholarly publishing: Trash or treasure. Australian Academic and Research Libraries 27(1): 40–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Tien F.F. (2000). To what degree does the desire for promotion motivate faculty to perform research? Testing the expectancy theory. Research in Higher Education 41(6): 723–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tierney W. and Bensimon E.M. (1996). Promotion and Tenure: Community and Socialization in Academe. State University of New York Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschannen-Moran M. and Hoy A.W. (2002). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 783–805

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waddell J. (2002). Peer review. Canadian Journal of Surgery 1: 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber R.P. (1990). Basic Content Analysis. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia

    Brian C. Hemmings, Peter Rushbrook & Erica Smith

Authors
  1. Brian C. Hemmings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Rushbrook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erica Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian C. Hemmings.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hemmings, B.C., Rushbrook, P. & Smith, E. Academics’ views on publishing refereed works: A content analysis. High Educ 54, 307–332 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-8608-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-8608-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation