PhD-granting Institutions Research Articles

A decade of international diversity in collaborative research published in highly ranked accounting journals

PurposeThis study examines the patterns of international diversity in collaborative research published in highly ranked accounting journals.Design/methodology/approachWe examine four types of collaborations: regional, inter-regional, European national and European international. The empirical study is based on 4,033 articles published in 13 journals between 2010 and 2019. Social network analyses were carried out for the inter-regional and the European international collaborations.FindingsThe broad analysis of the regional and inter-regional collaborations reveals not only significant differences between the non-North American journals and the North American but also important dissimilarities among the non-North American journals. The analysis of the European collaborations reveals significant differences between the journals where the UK institutions play a significant role in leading a network of European researchers and the journals where the Dutch and/or German institutions also play a significant role in another network as European leaders in terms of research.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough it reveals the patterns of internationalization of the highly ranked accounting journals, and offers some insights regarding why such patterns exist, it does not assess co-authorship networks with regard to the authors' orientation in terms of methods and research topics. We acknowledge that the networks amongst authors should also be influenced by the specific PhD-granting institutions. However, we let the data speak to these points, showing how journals differ in publication patterns. Not all highly ranked journals in accounting have the same networks and patterns of co-authorship. Another limitation pertains to the limited aspect of diversity it focuses on, that of geographical diversity. Furthermore, our analyses do not speak directly to the nationalities of the authors, but to the country in which the publication was granted at the time of the paper's publication.Practical implicationsOur findings show that the patterns of international diversity in all the types of collaborations under examination in the highly ranked accounting journals vary across different groups of journals. The “North-American or North-American inspired journals” (Guthrie et al., 2019, p. 12) have the highest level of geographical concentration and the North American universities/institutions contribute with the majority of the papers. The “non-North American journals” – the leading journals for critical, interpretive and interdisciplinary approaches (Hussain et al., 2020) and those which are more acceptive of these latter approaches – have a lower level of geographic concentration of the papers and there is a broader set of regions and countries involved, including North American countries, the UK and two Continental European countries (Germany and the Netherlands).Originality/valueOur study shows empirically that the patterns of international diversity in all the types of collaborations under examination in the highly ranked accounting journals vary across different groups of journals, revealing not only significant differences between the North American and non-North American journals in accounting, but also showcasing how the non-North American journals present a lot more heterogeneity. We also believe the analysis of the European case is a noteworthy contribution of this study given existing accounting literature fails in acknowledging European diversity.

Differentiation, adaptation, and perseverance: Maturing conceptualizations of education-focused science faculty in the United States.

Science education reform has been underway for almost a century with the general aim to engage students and train scientists needed to find solutions to global challenges, and also ensure a general public well disposed towards science. In an effort to aid science reform, more recently, colleges and universities have been augmenting their academic workforce by embedding education-focused science faculty into science departments. However, little research has investigated how this approach, and the identity of these faculty, may be changing over time. Here we investigate how conceptualizations of professional identities of these faculty across the United States have changed over the last two decades. We found three professional identities amongst these faculty: Science Faculty with Education Specialties (SFES), Discipline-Based Education Researchers (DBER), and faculty who identify as both SFES and DBER. Evidence indicates this is a maturing field within higher-education science departments, with more direct hiring and training pathways, but with potentially diminishing agency. Finally, data reveal resilience and perseverance despite negative biases from peers and college administrators, especially at PhD-granting institutions.

New sustainability grants available

Two new grants from the American Chemical Society Office of Sustainability are launching to align with the ACS Board of Directors’ Campaign for a Sustainable Future , which was announced in 2022. The campaign aims to advance chemistry innovations to address the challenges articulated in the United Nations sustainable development goals. The Early Career Postdoctoral–Faculty Bridge Grants are for new faculty members at PhD-granting institutions. Funds can be used by the new faculty member to support a postdoctoral scholar for 2 years to help develop a sustainability-focused research program. Mentorship training will be provided to the new faculty member to support the partnership. Awardees must incorporate green chemistry in course materials and attend an ACS teacher-training workshop in green chemistry. Submissions are due by Sept. 15. Current postdoctoral scholars applying for US-based faculty positions are eligible. Grant funds of no more than $125,000 can go toward salary, benefits, and travel

Labor advantages drive the greater productivity of faculty at elite universities.

Faculty at prestigious institutions dominate scientific discourse, producing a disproportionate share of all research publications. Environmental prestige can drive such epistemic disparity, but the mechanisms by which it causes increased faculty productivity remain unknown. Here, we combine employment, publication, and federal survey data for 78,802 tenure-track faculty at 262 PhD-granting institutions in the American university system to show through multiple lines of evidence that the greater availability of funded graduate and postdoctoral labor at more prestigious institutions drives the environmental effect of prestige on productivity. In particular, greater environmental prestige leads to larger faculty-led research groups, which drive higher faculty productivity, primarily in disciplines with group collaboration norms. In contrast, productivity does not increase substantially with prestige for faculty publications without group members or for group members themselves. The disproportionate scientific productivity of elite researchers can be largely explained by their substantial labor advantage rather than inherent differences in talent.

The authors of economics journals revisited: evidence from a large-scale replication of Hodgson and Rothman (1999)

AbstractIn this paper, we present results from of a large-scale replication of Hodgson and Rothman's (1999, The Economic Journal, 109(453): 165–186) seminal analysis of the institutional and geographical concentration of authors publishing in top economic journals. We analyze bibliometric data of more than 49,000 articles published in a set of 30 highly influential economic journals between 1990 and 2018. Based on a random sample of 3,253 authors, we further analyze the PhD-granting institutions of the authors under study to better scrutinize the claim of an ‘institutional oligopoly’. The findings confirm the long-term persistence of strong oligopolistic structures in terms of both, author affiliations as well as PhD-granting institutions.

#polisci Twitter: A Descriptive Analysis of how Political Scientists Use Twitter in 2019

Knowledge creation is a social enterprise, especially in political science. Sharing new findings widely and quickly is essential for progress. Scholars can now use Twitter to rapidly disseminate ideas, and many do. What are the implications of this new tool? Who uses it, how do they use it, and what are the implications for exacerbating or ameliorating existing inequalities in terms of research dissemination and attention? We construct a novel dataset of all 1,236 political science professors at PhD-granting institutions in the United States who have a Twitter account to answer these questions. We find that female scholars and those on the tenure track are more likely to use Twitter, especially for the dissemination of research. However, we consistently find that research by men shared on Twitter is more likely to be passed along further by men than research by women.

Revisiting the Presence of Women in Political Science Journal Editorial Positions

ABSTRACTIn 2010, an analysis of the top 50 political science journals showed that women were reasonably well represented as editors, associate editors, and board members compared to their numbers as senior faculty at PhD-granting institutions. As the presence of women in the profession has increased, have women kept up in these editorial positions? Overall, the data from 2018 suggest that they have. Although women are still significantly underrepresented as editors and associate editors at journals with small editorial staffs, they are well represented at those with medium-sized and large staffs. The proportion of women as board members also has kept pace with the proportion of female senior faculty at PhD-granting institutions, especially at the top five journals in the profession. There is still significant variation among journals but little change in their rankings: journals with the highest proportion of women as editors, associate editors, and board members in 2010 continued to lead the way in 2018.

Publishing Productivity of Sociologists at American Colleges and Universities: Institution Type, Gender, and Other Correlates of Book and Article Counts

This study examines the 2013–2017 publishing productivity of sociology faculty at six types of colleges and universities (e.g., research universities, master’s institutions, and top liberal arts colleges) based on publication counts for articles, articles in high-impact journals, books, and books from high-impact publishers. We compare the productivity of groups based on institution type, gender, academic rank, years of experience, and reputation of PhD-granting institution. Our age-cohort data suggest that differentials in productivity among institution types have diminished in recent decades. The top universities are losing ground, in relative terms, while faculty at other types of institutions are more productive now than in the past. Our results for gender are unlike those reported in previous research, revealing (1) higher productivity for women than for men across most institution types and (2) the absence of any gender differential for all institution types combined. Our data also show that book and article counts are virtually unrelated, that faculty at the top liberal arts colleges have the highest average book counts, and that there is great variation in productivity within every institution type. In general, associate professors, faculty with fewer than 17 years of experience, and faculty with doctorates from top universities are especially productive.

Take me where I want to go: Institutional prestige, advisor sponsorship, and academic career placement preferences.

Placement in prestigious research institutions for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) PhD recipients is generally considered to be optimal. Yet some doctoral recipients are not interested in intensive research careers and instead seek alternative careers, outside but also within academe (for example teaching positions in Liberal Arts Schools). Recent attention to non-academic pathways has expanded our understanding of alternative PhD careers. However, career preferences and placements are also nuanced along the academic pathway. Existing research on academic careers (mostly research-centric) has found that certain factors have a significant impact on the prestige of both the institutional placement and the salary of PhD recipients. We understand less, however, about the functioning of career preferences and related placements outside of the top academic research institutions. Our work builds on prior studies of academic career placement to explore the impact that prestige of PhD-granting institution, advisor involvement, and cultural capital have on the extent to which STEM PhDs are placed in their preferred academic institution types. What determines whether an individual with a preference for research oriented institutions works at a Research Extensive university? Or whether an individual with a preference for teaching works at a Liberal Arts college? Using survey data from a nationally representative sample of faculty in biology, biochemistry, civil engineering and mathematics at four different Carnegie Classified institution types (Research Extensive, Research Intensive, Master’s I & II, and Liberal Arts Colleges), we examine the relative weight of different individual and institutional characteristics on institutional type placement. We find that doctoral institutional prestige plays a significant role in matching individuals with their preferred institutional type, but that advisor involvement only has an impact on those with a preference for research oriented institutions. Gender effects are also observed, particularly in the role of the advisor in affecting preferred career placement.

Origins of Science Faculty with Education Specialties: Hiring Motivations and Prior Connections Explain Institutional Differences in the SFES Phenomenon

Situated in university science departments as potential science-education change agents, science faculty with education specialties (SFES) reported differences in the origin of their positions depending on the nature of their institution. For instance, SFES at PhD-granting institutions most commonly reported being hired to relieve other faculty from teaching and service burdens. At MS-granting institutions, SFES reported being hired primarily to prepare future K–12 science teachers. At primarily undergraduate institutions, SFES reported transitioning to these specialized roles after their initial hire. In our random, stratified sample of 50 interviewed SFES, all were tenured or tenure track, excepting 45% of SFES at PhD-granting institutions. Those non-tenure-track SFES were more likely to have prior institutional connections—as alumni of, through previous employment at, or with a spouse also employed at their institution—than were other SFES. These findings provide new insights into the evolving SFES phenomenon and clarify previously reported differences among SFES.

The changing landscape of JIBS authorship

In this study, we examine the landscape of JIBS authorship over time to assess: (1) the accessibility of JIBS to new contributors, and (2) the diversity of authors contributing to JIBS. Our analysis of author data from 1972 to 2014 shows that JIBS is becoming more accessible, as indicated by the high and sustained proportion of first-time contributors to the journal. This is also evident from the recent decline in the share of authors with multiple past JIBS publications. With regard to diversity, our findings show that JIBS has a much wider geographic scope of authors on its landscape in comparison to previous decades. This may be attributed partly to increasing travel and communication in scholarly communities, and partly to the increased migration of scholars in the recent decades. Our analysis of migration patterns of JIBS authors suggests that about 51 % of prominent international business scholars are employed outside their country of birth. Of the 49 % employed in their country of birth, 12 % are return migrants. In our sample, China, South Korea and Canada have the highest number of returnees. The USA, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and China have the highest number of natives, whose country of birth, country of PhD-granting institution and country of university affiliation are identical.

Academic Imperialism; Or, Replacing Nonrepresentative Elites

Candidates from mid- and low-tier universities are not hired at top universities because they are not interviewed. The data in this article demonstrate that professors appointed to positions in the top tiers of US News and World Report and National Research Council rankings tend to be from one small sector of PhD-granting institutions; the enormous preference for elite affiliation in these hiring competitions has stratified the discipline to the point that just 1 percent of faculty at top-ranked English departments are graduates from the so-called bottom 75 percent of PhD-granting universities. This situation amounts to an ethical crisis, not just a labor one. The myth that “competition” is an appropriate mainstay for hiring is a toxic one for the humanities, as the process frequently fails: qualified candidates are unsuccessful not as a result of their own shortcomings but due to the ethically bankrupt nature of the competition itself. In the context of unethical admissions policies at top universities, widespread grade inflation, the slanted politics of recommendation letters, and search committees whom deny (and/or are unconscious of) the biases that dominate candidate valuation —this article poses an argument in favor of structural changes to the hiring process that would democratize faculty bodies at so-called top US institutions as well as throughout the academy.

Peer Reviewing in Political Science: New Survey Results

ABSTRACTCharges are frequently leveled that the peer-review system is broken, and reviewers are overburdened with requests. But this specific charge has been made in the absence of data about the actual reviewing loads of political scientists. I report the results of a recent survey asking a random sample of about 600 APSA members with PhDs what their reviewing loads are like and what their beliefs are about the value of peer reviewing to them and others. Article reviewing loads correspond to rank, institution, and scholarly productivity in predictable ways. At PhD-granting institutions, assistant professors averaged 5.5, associate professors averaged 7.0, and full professors averaged 8.3 in the past year; everyone else averaged just under 3 reviews a year. To recognize the value we place on peer reviewing, we need a system that collects data on who reviews and presents them in a format usable by scholars and their relevant evaluation bodies.

“Can/Should/Does One Size Fit All? Does the Pacific Sociological Association Still Meet the Needs of Faculty Members at PhD-Granting Institutions?”

This article addresses the concern expressed by many within the Pacific Sociological Association in recent years that their regional organization is increasingly seen by Research I University sociologists as no longer meeting their professional needs, thus leading to (a) decreasing rates of membership and participation within, (b) a decline in the amount of high quality professional work associated with, and (c) a diminishment of the professional status of, the PSA. Using data gained from a membership survey of sociologists at the 29 Research I Universities in the Western Region of the United States and Canada, the empirical basis of these claims is examined, and their possible implications explored. The results of this investigation suggest that although PSA membership among faculty members at PhD-granting institutions may have declined somewhat over time, this has occurred for a number of very comprehendible reasons, some associated with but others external to the Pacific Sociological Association as a professional organization. In light of these findings, it is the main recommendation of this paper that the PSA should continue to approach this issue in a careful and reasoned manner, doing what it reasonably can to try to meet the professional needs of Research I University sociologists in the 21st century, but being mindful not to jeopardize what has made the PSA important and attractive to its growing number of other constituencies in recent years.

Widespread distribution and unexpected variation among science faculty with education specialties (SFES) across the United States

College and university science departments are increasingly taking an active role in improving science education. Perhaps as a result, a new type of specialized science faculty position within science departments is emerging--referred to here as science faculty with education specialties (SFES)--where individual scientists focus their professional efforts on strengthening undergraduate science education, improving kindergarten-through-12th grade science education, and conducting discipline-based education research. Numerous assertions, assumptions, and questions about SFES exist, yet no national studies have been published. Here, we present findings from a large-scale study of US SFES, who are widespread and increasing in numbers. Contrary to many assumptions, SFES were indeed found across the nation, across science disciplines, and, most notably, across primarily undergraduate, master of science-granting, and PhD-granting institutions. Data also reveal unexpected variations among SFES by institution type. Among respondents, SFES at master of science-granting institutions were almost twice as likely to have formal training in science education compared with other SFES. In addition, SFES at PhD-granting institutions were much more likely to have obtained science education funding. Surprisingly, formal training in science education provided no advantage in obtaining science education funding. Our findings show that the SFES phenomenon is likely more complex and diverse than anticipated, with differences being more evident across institution types than across science disciplines. These findings raise questions about the origins of differences among SFES and are useful to science departments interested in hiring SFES, scientific trainees preparing for SFES careers, and agencies awarding science education funding.

The teaching demonstration: what faculty expect and how to prepare for this aspect of the job interview.

Many institutions require candidates for faculty positions to present a teaching demonstration as part of the interview process. To help job candidates prepare for this and to assist departments in planning how to structure this portion of the interview, we surveyed biology faculty from community and liberal arts colleges and master's- and PhD-granting institutions concerning how their departments assess teaching potential. We also asked survey respondents to share advice on how candidates can prepare for teaching demonstrations. Here we report on the survey results and offer suggestions based on comments from respondents.

School Rankings, Department Rankings, and Individual Accomplishments

The outcome of a graduate student’s hunt for employment is often attributed to the student’s own accomplishments, the reputation of the department, and the reputation of the university. In 2007, a national survey of psychology graduate students was conducted to assess accomplishments and experiences in graduate school, part of which was an assessment of employment after completion of the doctorate (PhD). Five hundred and fifty-one respondents who had applied for employment reported whether they had obtained employment and in what capacity. Survey results were then integrated with the National Research Council’s most recent official ranking system of academic departments. The strongest predictor of employment was department-level rankings even while controlling for individual accomplishments, such as publications, posters, and teaching experience. Equally accomplished applicants for an employment position were not equal, apparently, if they graduated from differently ranked departments. The results also show the degree to which school-level rankings, department-level rankings, and individual accomplishments uniquely predict the various types of employment, including jobs at PhD-granting institutions, master’s-granting institutions, liberal arts colleges, 2-year schools, outside academia, or no employment at all.

Getting on the Board: The Presence of Women in Political Science Journal Editorial Positions

AbstractAlthough the overall representation of women in the field of political science has increased gradually over the last several decades, most gains are being achieved at junior levels. When considering the status of women in the profession, it is instructive to incorporate information on the presence of women in editorial positions at top-ranked political science journals. Our 2010 snapshot of women editors in the top 50 journals in the field finds that on average, women are reasonably well represented in editorial positions in proportion to the ranks they hold in the profession overall and at PhD-granting institutions; however, substantial variation exists across journals. Our discussion of the role-model effect and the gatekeeping power of editors suggests that greater inclusion of women and others who bring different perspectives to research could result in a more vibrant range of research topics and methodological approaches published in a journal.

A More Capacious View of Scholarship

As a member of the MLA Task Force on Evaluating Scholarship for Tenure and Promotion, I am happy to share here a few reflections on our report and, especially, on the urgency of our policy proposals. In doing so, I want to focus on and around the report's third recommendation, which reads, The profession as a whole should develop a more capacious conception of scholarship by rethinking the dominance of the monograph, promoting the scholarly essay, establishing multiple pathways to tenure, and using scholarly portfolios (11). Indeed, if there was one aspect of the data that the task force collected that disturbed me the most, even if it confirmed my suspicions, it was the statistics showing just how fixated we are in English and foreign lan guage departments on monograph production as the gold standard in tenure and promotion cases. Almost ninety percent of Carnegie Doctorate-granting institutions rank monographs or very important in promotion and tenure processes, and almost half of all Carnegie Master's and BA insti tutions do the same. Even more alarming, a third of all departments and half of all PhD-granting institutions now demand progress toward a second book for tenure. And while articles are also valued by almost all institutions, other forms of scholarship?broadly defined?are not: textbooks, bibliographic scholarship, scholarly editions, and journal editing are all being devalued. In my opinion, this is an untenable and unjust state of affairs. I describe this state as untenable and unjust not only for practical rea sons, given contextual factors that the report details and that I reiterate

What Will Be Needed for the New Gastroenterology Fellowship Match to Succeed?

What Will Be Needed for the New Gastroenterology Fellowship Match to Succeed?