Faculty Productivity Research Articles

The Effects of the Quantification of Faculty Productivity: Perspectives from the Design Science Research Community

In recent years, efforts to assess faculty research productivity have focused more on the measurable quantification of academic outcomes. For benchmarking academic performance, researchers have developed different ranking and rating lists that define so-called high-quality research. While many scholars in IS consider lists such as the Senior Scholar’s basket (SSB) to provide good guidance, others who belong to less-mainstream groups in the IS discipline could perceive these lists as constraining. Thus, we analyzed the perceived impact of the SSB on information systems (IS) academics working in design science research (DSR) and, in particular, how it has affected their research behavior. We found the DSR community felt a strong normative influence from the SSB. We conducted a content analysis of the SSB and found evidence that some of its journals have come to accept DSR more. We note the emergence of papers in the SSB that outline the role of theory in DSR and describe DSR methodologies, which indicates that the DSR community has rallied to describe what to expect from a DSR manuscript to the broader IS community and to guide the DSR community on how to organize papers for publication in the SSB.

Examining the Personal and Institutional Determinants of Research Productivity in Hospitality and Tourism Management

ABSTRACTThe transition toward a post-capitalist knowledge-oriented economy has resulted in an increasingly competitive academic environment, where the success of faculty is dependent on their research productivity. This study examines the personal and institutional determinants of the quantity and quality of the research productivity of hospitality and tourism management faculty in US institutions. A survey of 98 faculty found that a different set of determinants impact the quantity and quality aspects of research productivity. Also, institutional determinants were found to play a larger role, indicating the need for administrators to strive for a culture that is supportive of and an infrastructure that is conducive to their faculty’s research success. The authors use the field of hospitality and tourism management as a case study to develop a holistic and cohesive framework for knowledge worker productivity that can guide the evaluation, hiring, and development of researchers.

Will Analytics Suppress a Diversity of Ideas in Psychological Science?

In this article, I suggest that an overreliance on analytics to assess faculty productivity and the diffusion of ideas may inadvertently suppress innovation. Even when these productivity-diffusion metrics are used to promote an individual’s work, the use of such external guideposts may bias scientific choices and curb a psychological scientist’s earnest inclination to synthesize or take scientific risks. Analytics are not inert but can change the path and progress of science itself, potentially reducing the diversity of ideas in psychological science. This potential harm may most affect new scholars at the beginning of their independent research careers.

Using egocentric analysis to investigate professional networks and productivity of graduate students and faculty in life sciences in Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan.

Prior studies showed that scientists’ professional networks contribute to research productivity, but little work has examined what factors predict the formation of professional networks. This study sought to 1) examine what factors predict the formation of international ties between faculty and graduate students and 2) identify how these international ties would affect publication productivity in three East Asian countries. Face-to-face surveys and in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of faculty and doctoral students in life sciences at 10 research institutions in Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. Our final sample consisted of 290 respondents (84 faculty and 206 doctoral students) and 1,435 network members. We used egocentric social network analysis to examine the structure of international ties and how they relate to research productivity. Our findings suggest that overseas graduate training can be a key factor in graduate students’ development of international ties in these countries. Those with a higher proportion of international ties in their professional networks were likely to have published more papers and written more manuscripts. For faculty, international ties did not affect the number of manuscripts written or of papers published, but did correlate with an increase in publishing in top journals. The networks we examined were identified by asking study participants with whom they discuss their research. Because the relationships may not appear in explicit co-authorship networks, these networks were not officially recorded elsewhere. This study sheds light on the relationships of these invisible support networks to researcher productivity.

The misleading narrative of the canonical faculty productivity trajectory

A scientist may publish tens or hundreds of papers over a career, but these contributions are not evenly spaced in time. Sixty years of studies on career productivity patterns in a variety of fields suggest an intuitive and universal pattern: Productivity tends to rise rapidly to an early peak and then gradually declines. Here, we test the universality of this conventional narrative by analyzing the structures of individual faculty productivity time series, constructed from over 200,000 publications and matched with hiring data for 2,453 tenure-track faculty in all 205 PhD-granting computer science departments in the United States and Canada. Unlike prior studies, which considered only some faculty or some institutions, or lacked common career reference points, here we combine a large bibliographic dataset with comprehensive information on career transitions that covers an entire field of study. We show that the conventional narrative confidently describes only one-fifth of faculty, regardless of department prestige or researcher gender, and the remaining four-fifths of faculty exhibit a rich diversity of productivity patterns. To explain this diversity, we introduce a simple model of productivity trajectories and explore correlations between its parameters and researcher covariates, showing that departmental prestige predicts overall individual productivity and the timing of the transition from first- to last-author publications. These results demonstrate the unpredictability of productivity over time and open the door for new efforts to understand how environmental and individual factors shape scientific productivity.

Six-fold over-representation of graduates from prestigious universities does not necessitate unmeritocratic selection in the faculty hiring process.

To achieve faculty status, graduating doctoral students have to substantially outperform their peers, given the competitive nature of the academic job market. In an ideal, meritocratic world, factors such as prestige of degree-granting university ought not to overly influence hiring decisions. However, it has recently been reported that top-ranked universities produced about 2–6 times more faculty than did universities that were ranked lower [1], which the authors claim suggests the use of un-meritocratic factors in the hiring process: how could students from top-ranked universities be six times more productive than their peers from lower-ranked universities? Here we present a signal detection model, supported by computer simulation and simple proof-of-concept example data from psychology departments in the U.S., to demonstrate that substantially higher rates of faculty production need not require substantially (and unrealistically) higher levels of student productivity. Instead, a high hiring threshold due to keen competition is sufficient to cause small differences in average student productivity between universities to result in manifold differences in placement rates. Under this framework, the previously reported results are compatible with a purely meritocratic system. Whereas these results do not necessarily mean that the actual faculty hiring market is purely meritocratic, they highlight the difficulty in empirically demonstrating that it is not so.

APPLICATION OF THE MALMQUIST PRODUCTIVITY INDEX TO EXAMINE CHANGES IN THE EFFICIENCY OF HUMANITIES FACULTIES

The aim of this study was to determine changes in efficiency of humanities faculties using the Malmquist Productivity Index (MPI). The analysis included 14 university organisational units supervised by the Minister of Science and Higher Education, for which relevant data were available. In the period from 2008/2009 to 2014/2015, the average Malmquist index value was 28%, indicative of increased faculty productivity. Changes in technology growth did not affect the index figure, as their average in the analysed period was around 1. Changes in technical efficiency, which amounted to 34% per year on average, were the main factor driving increased productivity of faculties.

Assessing the Quality of Doctoral Education: (Mis)Counting Who and What Matters

It was with great interest that I read Kleck and Mims (2016) recent analysis of doctoral faculty productivity. Despite the inherent limitations to quantifying the quality of doctoral education, I, ...

The scholarly productivity and work environments of academic pharmacists.

Productive faculty are key to generating new knowledge and advancing pharmacy practice. The work environments of academic pharmacists are critical to their vitality, commitment, and longevity. To (1) identify correlates of faculty scholarly productivity and teaching effectiveness, considering personal and environmental characteristics; (2) determine the relationship between a faculty's perception of organizational citizenship behaviors they witness with the organizational culture of their employing college/school of pharmacy; and (3) describe the relationship between organizational climate, job satisfaction, and commitment of academic pharmacists. A self-administered survey was disseminated to a random sample of U.S. academic pharmacists acquired from AACP list-servs. The survey measured perceptions of their organization's culture, the organizational citizenship behaviors they witness at their institution, their job satisfaction, teaching load and productivity, and scholarly productivity based upon peer-reviewed scholarly papers accepted. Both bivariate and multivariate (regression) procedures were employed to identify factors most responsible for explaining academic pharmacist's work environment. Responses were received from 177 of 600 survey recipients. Faculty reported having had accepted 10.9±13.6 papers in peer-reviewed journals during the previous 5 years, with most of those in journals with relatively low Impact Factor scores. Faculty productivity was related to type of academic institution employed, teaching effectiveness, job satisfaction, and other factors. Organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational culture was seen similarly by faculty of varied ranks and experience levels. Commitment to remain at the current college/school of pharmacy was highly associated with culture, climate, and job satisfaction conditions. The results provided evidence for a strong connection or nexus between teaching and research effectiveness. Organizational culture of academic pharmacy programs is highly important for faculty vitality and commitment. The findings should be helpful for academic leaders in devising programs for mentoring, development, and retention of faculty.

Abstract: Which Funding Sources are the Greatest Contributors to Scholastic Productivity for Academic Plastic Surgeons?

INTRODUCTION: Scholastic productivity has previously been shown to be positively associated with National Institute of Health (NIH) grants and industry funding. 1–3 This study examines whether society, industry or federal funding contributes towards academic productivity as measured by scholastic output of academic plastic surgeons. METHODS: Institution websites were used to acquire academic attributes of full-time academic plastic surgeons. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payment database, NIH reporter, the Plastic Surgery Foundation (PSF), and American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS) websites were accessed for funding and endowment details. Bibliometric data of each surgeon were then collected via Scopus to ascertain strengths of association with each source. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify significant contributors to high scholastic output. RESULTS: We identified 935 academic plastic surgeons with 94 (10.1%), 24 (2.6%), 724 (77.4%), and 62 (6.6%) receiving funding from PSF, AAPS, industry, and NIH respectively. There were positive correlations in receiving NIH, PSF, and/or AAPS funding (p<0.001), while industry funding was found to negatively associate with PSF (r=-0.75, p=0.022) grants. The NIH R award was consistently found to be the most predictive of academic output across bibliometrics, followed by the AAPS academic scholarship award. Conventional measures of academic seniority remained predictive across all measures used. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates for the first time interactions between industry, federal and association funding. The NIH R award was the strongest determinant of high scholastic productivity. Recognition through AAPS academic scholarships appeared to associate with subsequent success in NIH funding. Reference Citations: 1. Gast KM, Kuzon WM, Jr., Adelman EE, Waljee JF. Influence of training institution on academic affiliation and productivity among plastic surgery faculty in the United States. Plast Reconstr Surg. Sep 2014;134(3):570–578. 2. Lopez J, Susarla SM, Swanson EW, Calotta N, Lifchez SD. The Association of the H-Index and Academic Rank Among Full-Time Academic Hand Surgeons Affiliated With Fellowship Programs. J Hand Surg Am. Jul 2015;40(7):1434–1441. 3. Ruan QZ, Ricci JA, Silvestre J, Ho OA, Lee BT. Academic productivity of faculty associated with microsurgery fellowships. Microsurgery. Dec 26 2016.

Gender comparisons of Israeli social work faculty using h-index scores

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to analyze the role of gender and faculty rank to determine their contribution to individual variance in research productivity for doctoral social work faculty in Israel.Design/methodology/approachH-index scores were used to assess research productivity. Quantitative comparisons of the h-index scores were performed for a sample (n=92) of social work faculty from Israeli universities with social work doctoral programs. Average h-index differences were assessed between genders at each tenure-track faculty rank and between faculty ranks for each gender.FindingsScholarly impact varied as a function of faculty rank. There was little indication of variance due to gender or the interaction of gender and rank. The average h-index of male faculty was higher than the mean h-index for women at the rank of lecturer and full professor. Women had a higher mean h-index than men at the rank of senior lecturer and associate professor. H-index means varied most at the full professor level.Originality/valueResults were congruent with previous studies demonstrating that male faculty in the social sciences have higher overall h-index scores than women. However, this study was unique in its finding that this gap was reversed for Israeli social work faculty at the senior lecturer and associate professor. Further research is needed to examine the differences in publication patterns of social work faculty in different countries.

Library Development of Scholarly Output Measurement Tool

ABSTRACTA significant measure of academic productivity of any institution is the annual output of peer-reviewed publications. Accurately reporting scholarly output by an academic medical center can be a daunting task as there are many variables and numerous definitions to consider. This article describes an enhancement of the existing author-level, unit-of-measure method used to identify and quantify scholarly productivity of the physician faculty and housestaff. This institution is characterized as having a pluralistic medical model that is defined as health care setting that utilizes various physician staffing models. Staffing models include academic faculty physicians, private practice physicians, and various medical groups. A pluralistic model adds to the challenge as various groups have different characteristics related to reporting purposes. This project will be useful to other medical librarians who are increasingly asked to provide systematic reporting of scholarly output and impact to stakeholders including hospital administration, clinicians, medical departments and divisions.

Writing Renewal Retreats: The Scholarly Writer, Contemplative Practice, and Scholarly Productivity

This article offers an exploratory case study of a program for faculty that blends contemplative practices, scholarly productivity, and renewal of faculty as writers at a retreat in a natural setting. We share faculty learning outcomes, logistics, a retreat agenda, and evaluation data from four writing renewal retreats conducted over two years to present initial insight into a contemplative approach to writing retreats that fosters a connection to self, to scholarship, and to a community of writers—key elements of a successful writing life. Through critical reflection on the role of contemplative practices, scholarly productivity, and faculty well-being, we offer a model for holistic faculty development.

Academic Productivity of US Neurosurgery Residents as Measured by H-Index: Program Ranking with Correlation to Faculty Productivity

Engagement in research and academic productivity are crucial components in the training of a neurosurgeon. This process typically begins in residency training. In this study, we analyzed individual resident productivity as it correlated to publications across all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited neurosurgery training programs in an attempt to identify how programs have developed and fostered a research culture and environment. We obtained a list of current neurosurgery residents in ACGME-accredited programs from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons database. An expanded PubMed and Scopus search was conducted for each resident through the present time. We tabulated all articles attributed to each resident. We then categorized the publications based on each neurosurgical subspecialty while in residency. A spreadsheet-based statistical analysis was performed. This formulated the average number of resident articles, h-indices, and most common subspecialty categories by training program. We analyzed 1352 current neurosurgery residents in 105 programs. There were a total of 10 645 publications, of which 3985 were resident first-author publications during the period of study. The most common subspecialties among all resident publications were vascular (24.9%), spine (16.9%), oncology (16.1%), pediatric (5.6%), functional (4.9%), and trauma (3.8%). The average resident published 2.9 first-author papers with average of 38.0 first-author publications by total residents at each program (range 0-241). The average h-index per resident is 2.47 ± 3.25. When comparing previously published faculty h-index program rankings against our resident h-index rankings, there is a strong correlation between the 2 datasets with a clear delineation between Top-20 productivity and that of other programs (average h-index 4.2 vs 1.7, respectively, P < .001). Increasing program size leads to a clear increase in academic productivity on both the resident and faculty level (average h-index 1.6, 1.9, 3.9 for 1, 2, and 3 resident per year programs, respectively, P < .001). Resident first-author publications correlated with recently described academic departmental productivity. Subspecialty resident publications are highest in cerebrovascular surgery. Resident research and publication is a key metric for assessing the productivity of academic neurosurgery programs and is consistent with one of the core foci of neurosurgical training.

A descriptive, cross-sectional study of medical student preferences for vodcast design, format and pedagogical approach

BackgroundVodcasts (video podcasts) are becoming increasingly popular in medical education. At A.T. Still University School of Osteopathic Medicine in Arizona (ATSU SOMA), vodcasts are an essential component of our blended learning environment, where year 2–4 students train in a contextual setting at community health centers across the U.S. Vodcasts are used far less frequently in our year 1 residential learning environment at the main campus in Arizona, but we are considering moving to significantly more interactive educational experiences with on-demand videos followed by in-class activities. The aim of this study was to determine stakeholder (i.e. medical student) preferences for vodcast design, format, and pedagogical strategies. The overall goal was to increase opportunities for students to learn with this modality.MethodsAn interactive Qualtrics™ survey was administered to three cohorts of medical students. The survey generated quantitative and open-ended response data that addressed principles of vodcast instructional design and learning. Responses to survey items were analyzed for statistical significance using the independent samples t-test for interval data, the chi-square test for categorical data, and the Kruskal-Wallis test for ordinal data, using the post-hoc Bonferroni procedure to determine the appropriate α level. Responses to open-ended prompts were categorized using open- and axial-coding.ResultsThe most highly valued vodcast attributes, considered essential by all three cohorts, were clear explanations, organization, conciseness, high-yield for medical board exams, and the ability to speed vodcasts up. The least helpful vodcast attributes for all three cohorts were music and objects moving on screen. The average preferred vodcast length for each cohort was 27–28 min. There were significant differences between the less experienced learners in the residential setting and the more mature learners in the blended learning environment regarding certain vodcast attribute preferences, format of included practice questions, explanations for preferred vodcast lengths, and reasons for not viewing vodcasts.ConclusionsOverall, learner preferences were in line with non-interactive, screen-capture type vodcasts, which have lower demands on institutional cost and faculty production time than Flash™-type interactive vodcasts. Students in the blended learning environment were much more focused on vodcast features that decreased their time commitment, including a preference for noninteractive vodcasts. Given the increase in distance learning in medical education, our results should be of value to other medical programs.

Perceptions of academic administrators of the effect of involvement in doctoral programs on faculty members' research and work–life balance

BackgroundSupport for research strongly predicts doctoral program faculty members' research productivity. Although academic administrators affect such support, their views of faculty members’ use of support are unknown. PurposeWe examined academic administrators' perceptions of institutional support and their perceptions of the effects of teaching doctoral students on faculty members’ scholarship productivity and work-life balance. MethodsAn online survey was completed by a random sample of 180 deans/directors of schools of nursing and doctoral programs directors. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, chi-square analysis, and analysis of variance. DiscussionDeans and doctoral program directors viewed the level of productivity of program faculty as high to moderately high and unchanged since faculty started teaching doctoral students. Deans perceived better administrative research supports, productivity, and work–life balance of doctoral program faculty than did program directors. ConclusionFindings indicate the need for greater administrative support for scholarship and mentoring given the changes in the composition of doctoral program faculty.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve the Success of Women Assistant Professors.

Background: Given the persistent disparity in the advancement of women compared with men faculty in academic medicine, it is critical to develop effective interventions to enhance women's careers. We carried out a cluster-randomized, multifaceted intervention to improve the success of women assistant professors at a research-intensive medical school.Materials and Methods: Twenty-seven departments/divisions were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. The three-tiered intervention included components that were aimed at (1) the professional development of women assistant professors, (2) changes at the department/division level through faculty-led task forces, and (3) engagement of institutional leaders. Generalized linear models were used to test associations between assignment and outcomes, adjusting for correlations induced by the clustered design.Results: Academic productivity and work self-efficacy improved significantly over the 3-year trial in both intervention and control groups, but the improvements did not differ between the groups. Average hours worked per week declined significantly more for faculty in the intervention group as compared with the control group (−3.82 vs. −1.39 hours, respectively, p = 0.006). The PhD faculty in the intervention group published significantly more than PhD controls; however, no differences were observed between MDs in the intervention group and MDs in the control group.Conclusions: Significant improvements in academic productivity and work self-efficacy occurred in both intervention and control groups, potentially due to school-wide intervention effects. A greater decline in work hours in the intervention group despite similar increases in academic productivity may reflect learning to “work smarter” or reveal efficiencies brought about as a result of the multifaceted intervention. The intervention appeared to benefit the academic productivity of faculty with PhDs, but not MDs, suggesting that interventions should be more intense or tailored to specific faculty groups.

Launchpad for Onboarding New Faculty Into Academic Life

We developed a faculty professional development seminar series in order to facilitate the integration of our numerous new faculty into academics. The changing nature of the healthcare system, increasing clinical and administrative responsibility, and lack of access to senior mentors can hinder junior faculty productivity and possibly increase attrition. Given that no ready-made resources existed to address these issues we established a Professional Development Committee, developed a curriculum that covers relevant topics including promotion, mentorship, conflict management and feedback, and effective presentation of scientific data, and instituted changes iteratively based upon feedback. We used surveys from successive years of this seminar series to assess effectiveness, and our data demonstrate that our Professional Development Seminar Series was valued by its participants and that individual lectures improved from year to year. While it is too early to determine whether our efforts will lead to long-term changes in promotion success or faculty retention, our initial data are promising.

Write More Articles, Get More Grants: The Impact of Department Climate on Faculty Research Productivity.

Many studies find that female faculty in academic medicine, science, and engineering experience adverse workplace climates. This study longitudinally investigates whether department climate is associated with future research productivity and whether the associations are stronger for female than male faculty. Two waves of a faculty climate survey, institutional grant records, and publication records were collected for 789 faculties in academic medicine, science, and engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2000 and 2010. Research productivity was measured as Number of Publications and Number of Grants awarded, and department climate was measured with scales for professional interactions, department decision-making practices, climate for underrepresented groups, and work/life balance. Ordinary least squares and negative binomial regression methods were used to assess gender differences in productivity, influences of department climate on productivity, and gender differences in effects of climate on productivity. Female faculty published fewer articles and were awarded fewer grants in the baseline period, but their productivity did not differ from male faculty on these measures in subsequent years. Number of Publications was positively affected by professional interactions, but negatively affected by positive work/life balance. Number of Grants awarded was positively affected by climate for underrepresented groups. These main effects did not differ by gender; however, some three-way interactions illuminated how different aspects of department climate affected productivity differently for men and women in specific situations. In perhaps the first study to assess the longitudinal impact of department climate on faculty research productivity, positive department climate is associated with significantly greater productivity for all faculty-women and men. However, some positive aspects of climate (specifically, work/life balance) may be associated with lower productivity for some female faculty at specific career periods. These findings suggest that departments that wish to increase grants and publications would be wise to foster a positive workplace climate.

African American Faculty in Social Work Schools

Purpose:This study assessed the research productivity of African American faculty in the top 25 ranked schools of social work cited in the 2012 U.S. News and World Report.Method:Four citation metrics ( h-index, g-index, age-weighted citation rate, and per author age-weighted citation rate) were examined.Results:Scholar rankings per h-index changed when ranked by other metrics revealing more uniqueness beyond the impact of their scholarship.Discussion:While the h-index metric is a valuable measure of scholarly impact to assist tenure and promotion decisions, it should be considered with other metrics that reveal the overall character of individual scholarship. As the overall research culture of social work broadens, future research calls for an expanded knowledge based on measuring both impact and uniqueness of scholarship to assist faculty, especially minority scholars, in successfully negotiating and overcoming barriers and challenges.