DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 245 239
CS 208 344
AUTHOR
Fedler, Fred; Smith, Ron F.
TITLE
Survey Reveals Journalism Administrators Prefer
Traditional Types of "Research."
PUB DATE
Aug 84
NOTE
19p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication (67th, Gainesville, FL, August 5-8,
1984).
PUB TYPE
Reports - Research/Technical (143) --
Speeches /Conference Papers (150)
EDRS PRICE
MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS
*Administrator Attitudes; *Educational Research;
Faculty Development; Higher Education; *Journalism
Education; Research Projects; Scholarly Journals;
*Teacher Evaluation; Tenured Faculty
IDENTIFIERS
American Society of Journalism Administrators
ABSTRACT
Ninety-four college journalism administrators
responded to a questionnaire designed to determine which research
activities they felt were most important for tenure evaluation of
journalism instructors. All respondents were members of the American
Society of Journalism School Administrators. Respondents ranked the
importance of 33 activities specific to journalism research. The
results indicated that respondents clearly considered some types of
research more valuable than others. The types considered most
valuable included writing a scholarly book, writing a refereed
article for a national journal, and writing a textbook. The
activities considered least valuable included editing a newsletter
for a nonjournalism group, publishing a photograph in a local
newspaper, and appearing on a television program unrelated to a
faculty member's teaching assignment. Many of the respondents said
some activities were forms of teaching or service, not research.
They
expressed the greatest disagreement about the more professional or
media related activities, such as working part time for a newspaper.
Most preferred articles published in refereed, national journals
rather than local or nonrefereed journals. They also preferred
articles written by a single faculty member, articles related to a
faculty member's teaching assignment, and research published in
journals rather than presented as a convention paper. (Activity
rankings and a copy of the questionnaire are included.) (HTH)
***********************************************************************
*
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made
*
*
from the original document.
*
***********************************************************************
Department of Communication
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Fla.
32816
Phone: 305-275-2681
U.5. OEPAIIIIIIIENT OF ELPLIUATKIII
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION
)4
CENTER IERICI
This document has been reproduced as
received from the person or organization
originating it.
i :
Minor changes have been made to improve
reproduction quality.
Points nf
ltvv or opinions stated in this docu-
ment do not necessarily represent official NIE
Position or p'jlicy.
Survey Reveals Journalism Administrators
Prefer Traditional Types Of "Research"
By Fred Fedler and Ron F. Smith*
"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS
MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Fred Fedler
Ron F. Smith
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."
Paper presented to the Newspaper Division of the
Association for Education
in Journalism and Mass Communication at its 1984
convention at the University
of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
*Fedler is a professor and Smith is an assistant
professor in the Department
of Communication at the University of Central Florida,
Orlando.
Survey Reveals Journalism Administrators
Prefer Traditional Types Of "Research"
grod researchers good teachers?
wLat types of research do administrators in the field of journalism and
mass communication consider most valuable?
This is the first of three studies that will attempt to answer those questions.
As a first step. tris sLnrly will identify the types of research preferred by
administrators in the field of journalism and mass communication.
The second
study, to be
inducted at a :angle institution, will compare faculty members'
accomplishments in the field of research with their performance as teachers.
The third study also will compare faculty members' performance as researchers
and teachers, but at a national cross-section of universities.
Traditionally, faculty members employed by the nation's colleges and
universities
have been evaluated in three areas:
(1) teaching, (2) research, and (3) service.
But
of those three areas, research seems to be the most important.
The rewards granted
faculty members--tenure, promotions, raises and merit pay--seem to
depend primarily
upon excellence in research, and only secondarily upon excellence
in teaching.
Fedler and Counts found that 75% of the faculty members in the
field of
journalism and mass communication agreed that tenure at their institutions was
related to research, but only 52.6% agreed that tenure also was related to
teaching.1
Similarly, Rossman found that, "Other than academic rank,
which are
closely related to salary, that variable which showed the highest
relationship
to salary was publication productivity.
2
Despite its importance, "research" has neve7: been clearly defined.
More than
3,200 four-year colleges and universities offer classes in the United States, and
definitions of research vary from one institution to another, and even from
one
departmri
to another within each institution.
Some 11c7ilty members employed by those institutions seem opposed to any
evaluations
their research.
Others argue that research is too complex and
diverse to be defined.
Still others disagree about the criteria that should
be used.
Administrators might count the number of articles published by a faculty
member.
Or, they might try to evaluate the articles' quality, or the quality
of the journals that publish those articles.
As another alternative, administrators
might seek peer ratings or count the number of times a faculty member's articles
have been cited by other researchers.
Many administrators seem to be interested primarily in the number of articles
on a faculty member's publication list.
But that practice favors faculty members
who produce a large quantity (rather than a high quality) of research.
Commenting
on that problem, Levesque noted that, "The 'Publish or Perish' slogan is pervasive
because it cleverly tells part of the truth--the contemptuous hint that anything
will do, as long as it gets into print."3
Other evaluation techniques also involve some difficulties.
For example:
attempts to evaluate an article's quality may be subjective. Peer ratings also
are suhiective and may be difficult to obtain.
Stallings and Singhal assigned numerical values to different types of research:
15 points for a book, 12 for a co-authored book, 9 for an edited book, 3 for an
article, 2 for a co-authored article, 3 for a technical report, 2 for a co-authored
technical report, 2 for a book review, 1 for a co-authored book review, and 5 for a
dissertation.
4
The numerical values provided more credit for the most desirable
4
types of publications.
However, the selection of those numerical values seems
to have been arbitrary.
Using a similar methodology, Cole and Bowers rated the research productivity
of 171 U.S. schools and departmen s of journalism "according to one objective index
of research contributions:
productivity of articles."
5
Cole and Bowers limited their study to six journals selected "on the basis of
their generally recognized importance in the field of journalism and mass
communication."
They assigned a weight of "1" to a research note, "2" to a
full article, and "6" to a monograph.
They gave fractional credits for articles
that had been co-authored:
"A two-author article gave each author .50 credit, a
three-author article .33 credit, and so on."
Cole and Bowers found that faculty members at the University of Wisconsin were
most productive. "Far behind, but close to each other, were Minnesota and Iowa."
In addition, Cole and Bowers also identified the most productive individuals.
But
again, their study was limited to the articles published by six journals.
A second issue adds to the need for better evaluations of faculty research.
Many academicians believe that the faculty members who engage in research excel
as teachers.
Seldin explains, "Some teachers maintain that they cannot be
stimulating and up-to-date in their classrooms unless they are personally
engaged in research in their favorite areas."
6
Jencks and Riesman add:
"Teachers cannot remain stimulating unless they also
continue to learn....When a teacher stops doing it, he begins to repeat himself and
eventually loses touch with both the young and the world around him."
7
Jencks and
Riesman also insist that:
"Thos
who do not publish usually feel they have not
learned anything worth communicating to adults.
This means they have not learned
much worth communicating to the young either.
"8
Other advocates of faculty research argue that the research expands faculty
members' knowledge of their fields and enables those faculty members to test their
ideas, not just in a classroom, but before their scholarly peers.
By publishing
that research, faculty members also can enhance their reputations nationally and
even internationally.
Other academicians insist that there is no relationship between teaching and
research. Some even warn that research discourages good teaching--that faculty
members may neglect their classes so they can devote more time to research.
Academicians skeptical of the relationship between research and teaching
add that the skills needed to excel as a researcher are different from the skills
needed to excel as a teacher.
Moreover, faculty members may be unlikely to discuss
their research with students because most research is more specialized than the
content of most classes.
Studies conducted in other fields have generally supported the skeptics' view-
point.
The studies have found little or no relationship between research and teaching.
Typically, Eble found:
"Some good researchers are good teachers; some good researchers
are poor teachers; some poor researchers are good teachers; some poor researchers are
poor teachers; the majority of both researchers and teachers are mediocre, but in
different combinations and ways."9
Similarly, Dent and Lewis concluded:
"...universities which select faculty
members solely on the basis of scholarship get a group that is average in teaching.
These faculty members will be neither inferior nor superior, as a group, to
non-productive colleagues."
10
Linsky and Straus also found that research does not seem to be closely related
to good teaching.
Nevertheless, their research implies that "universities that hire
faculty primarily according to research potential will get a greater overall return
for their money."
Linsky and Straus explained that, "...such research-producing
faculty are on average at least as good teachers as those not engaging in
research."
11
Regardless of the relationship 1-etween research and teaching, the problem of
defining and evaluating research is becoming increasingly important.
If faculty member
6
are rewarded primarily for their research, then
administrators must be able to
properly evaluate that research and to explain their evaluations to the faculty
members involved.
If the administrators are unable to do so, faculty members
receiving poor evaluations will complain that the process is too subjective
and unfair.
The previous research seems to be especially inadequate for faculty members
in the field of journalism and mass communication.
Three factors support that
contention:
FIRST, few of the previous studies have involved faculty members in the field
of journalism and mass communication.
Yet faculty members in that field might
argue that their research activities are unusually
diverse, and that those
activities may involve much more than pure theory and experimentation.
SECOND, most of the previous studies have emphasized the number of articles
produced by faculty members, without regard to the quality of those articles.
Some studies have weighed some types of articles Lore heavily that& others,
but
the assignment of those weights has been subjective, based primarily upon
the
judgment of one or two individuals.
Also, some studies have been limited to the
articles published by only a few journals.
THIRD, faculty members in the field of journalism and mass communication
often insist that, to be good teachers, they must be experienced
professionals.
Many try to keep their professional skills up-to-date by working part
time for
the media or by periodically spending a summer or sabbatical on
the staff of a
newspaper or radio or television station.
If their assertions are correct, then
the faculty members who engage in those professional or
media-related activities
and research also should be better teachers than their less active
colleagues.
Furthermore, some of those faculty members may want their
professional activities
accepted as types of research, or as substitutes for that research.
7
-6-
Because of the field's diversity, this study will examine 33 different
types
of activities or research, including
some unique to journalism and communication.
In addition, it will rely upon the collective julgment of
dozens of administrators
from institutions throughout the United States.
Methodology
The authors mailed a one-page questionnaire to all 147 members of
the American
Society of Journalism School Administrators.
The authors selected the administrators
because most would be familiar with the evaluation criteria
at their institutions
and would use those criteria to evaluate faculty members.
The questionnaire listed 33 activities and asked respondents
to rate each
activity, using "your institution's definitions of research for year-end evaluations,
tenure, and promotions."
The rating scale ranged from "1" (least valuable) to "10'.'
(most valuable).
Respondents who did not consider an activity a form of research
were instructed to rate that activity "0."
Many of the activities listed on the questionnaire involved traditional
types
of research, such as:
delivering a convention paper; writing a journal article; or
writing, editing, or reviewing a book.
In addition, the questionnaire listed several
activities of particular concern to faculty members in the field of journalism and
mass communication.
Those activities included:
publishing a photograph, working
part time for a newspaper, and producing a radio or television program.
Still other activities included:
applying for a grant, editing a newsletter,,
serving as a convention discussant, giving a speech, and appearing
on a television
program.
Several activities were divided into more specific subcategories.
For example:
respondents were asked to rate four activities involving books:
(1) writing a college
textbook, (2) writing a scholarly book unlikely to be used as a textbook, (3) writing
a popular book for the general public, and (4) editing a book of readings.
a
Respondents also were asked to compare the value of articles
in national
refereed publications, such as Journalism
Quarterly, with the articles published
by:
(1) national journalism magazines
such as The Quill, (2) popular national
magazines not about journalism, and (3) local and regional
magazines.
Finally, other questions asked about articles that
were co-authored, about
grant applications that were successful and unsuccessful, and
about activities
related and unrelated to a faculty member's teaching
assignment (A copy of the
entire questionnaire appears in Appendix A.).
Results
Ninety-four usable questionnaires (63.9%)
were returned to the authors.
Six
additional questionnaires were returned blank; however,
several of the persons
who returned those questionnaires attached
notes of explanation.
The respondents clearly considered some types of research
more valuable than
others (See Table I).
The types of research considered most valuable included:
writing a scholarly book, which received a mean
score of 8.39; writing a refereed
article for a national journal, 8.25; and writing
a college textbook, 7.42.
By
comparison, books for the general public ranked 7th, and edited books of readings
ranked 11th.
Viewed from another perspective, 49 respondents rated the publication of
a
scholarly book "10," the highest possible score.
However, only 30 respondents
gave that rating to a textbook, 14 to a popular book and 2 to an edited book
of readings.
Forty respondents also gave the highest rating, a "10," to the publication
of an article in a national refereed journal.
The three activities considered least valuable included:
editing a newsletter
for a non-journalism group, 2.24; publishing
a photograph in a local newspaper, 2.19;
and appearing on a television program unrelated to
a faculty member's teaching
assignment, 1.97.
Only six of the 33 activities were classified as research by all 94 respondents.
Those activities included:
(1) writing a scholarly book, (2) presenting a paper at
a refereed national convention, (3) co-authoring an article for a refereed national
journal, (4) writing an article for a refereed regional journal, (5) writing
an
article for a journalism magazine such as The Quill, and (6) presenting a paper
at a state or regional convention.
One respondent marked the publication of a
single-author article in a national refereed journal "0" (not a type of research).
Thirty or more respondents objected to calling three activities types of
research:
(1) working part time for a newspaper, (2) publishing
a photograph
in a local newspaper, and (3) appearing on a television program unrelated to
a faculty member's teaching assignment.
The respondents consistently preferred activities related to teaching
assignments.
Typically, they ranked the publication of a newspaper article related
to a faculty member's teaching assignment 16th, but a newspaper article unrelated to
the teaching assignment 28th.
Similarly, several respondents said they would
consider the publication of photographs meritorious "only for a photo teacher."
One respondent explained:
"A person who teaches magazine article writing
could receive tenure and promotion to associate professor on the basis of success
as a free lance magazine writer (called creative activity here, not research), and
a broadcaster could be tenured for television programs written and produced.
Both
must demonstrate a distinguished national reputation for promotion to professor.
For example, the broadcaster, would have to provide programs for PBS...."
Finally, Table I shows no major changes occur in the mean scores and rankings
when respondents who rated an activity "0" (not a type of research) are excluded
from the tabulations.
Sevs'-al respondents noted that the faculty members at their institutions are
required to engage in "research or creative activities."
Moreover, several listed
-9-
additional activities that they believe would
help fulfill that requirement.
Again, faculty members at other institutions
may disagree about the activities'
value; nevertheless, those activities include:
*Working as a consultant
*Working on an advanced degree
*Attending a seminar or workshop
*Exhibiting a creative work, such
as a film
*Being awarded a fellowship, such
as a Fulbright
*Serving as an expert witness; an officer in AEJMC;
a judge for a professional
contest; or on a variety of other regional, state, and national committees.
Several respondents added that they
are trying to expand their institutions'
definitions of research so faculty members
can obtain more credit for professional
journalistic activities.
One of those respondents explained:
"...we are in the
process of trying to broaden those definitions somewhat, especially
to take greater
account of creative work, but also to recognize writing that reflects research
efforts, but presented in some forum other than 'traditional'
scholarly journals."
However, an even greater number of respondents complained
that the list of 33
activities was already too large--that
many of the activities were types of teaching
or service, not research.
For example:
two respondents said writing a college
textbook is an "extension of teaching" or "evidence of teaching,
not research."
Similarly, 14 respondents said they would
not consider successful grant
applications "research," and 26 said they would
not consider unsuccessful grant
applications "research."
Several respondents questioned the applications' purpose;
for examples whether the grants would be spent
on equipment or research.
One of the
respondents said he would give a grant application
a "0," but that, "The research
supported by the grant is a different matter."
11
Another respondent added:
"Content is critical.
Editing, writing, speaking,
grantsmanship, cannot be associated with serious research simply by implication.
The activities listed may well be valuable to classroom performance, but the
majority of them are completely unrelated to research as I understand it.
Even
the writing of a book need not be a research exercise...."
Table II shows that respondents expressed the greatest disagreement about
the value of nontraditional types of research:
about the more professional or
media-related activities.
Respondents expressed the greatest agreement about the value of articles
written for journalism magazines such as The Quill.
They expressed the greatest
disagreement about the value of part-time work for a newspaper.
Again, it does
not seem to matter whether the respondents who ranked an activity
"0" (not a
form of research) are excluded from the tabulations.
Briefly, other interesting highlights include:
*Thirty-one respondents did not consider working part time for a newspaper
research, yet 9 others rated it "10," the highest possible score.
*Five respondents did not consider writing a book for the general public
a form of research, yet 14 others rated it
"10."
*Ten respondents did not consider serving as a discussant at a convention
a form of research; moreover, none rated it a
"10."
Respondents who returned blank forms generally explained that their evaluations
of a faculty member's work would depend more upon its quality.
One of those
respondents said, "Most of the questions require generalizations I am simply
unable to make."
He noted, for example, that, "Articles appearing in Columbia
Journalism Review or The Quill vary substantially in their quality as
scholarship."
12
A second respondent added:
"Individual cases must be judged.
An article in
Quill could be based on true or pure research and therefore be a 10; it could be
a
thoughtful piece...and be a 7 or 8; or it could be Quill's usual tripe and be a
0. It all depends.
The quality of the meeting also must be judged.
Some AEJMC
divisions have no real research papers, and others are highly competitive."
Still another respondent declared:
"...it is unwise, I think, to place
absolute values on any of these items.
We try to give credit for getting up to bat
(entering the publications game) but also for what the person did at bat (quality)...
Thus, faculty members in the field of journalism and mass communication engage
in a variety of activities that might be considered research but do not involve
publication.
The availability of those options may help explain why a recent
study found that 22% of the field's faculty members had not published a single
article during the last five years and why 54% had not published an article in
a national refereed publication such as Journalism Quarterly.
12
Their institutions
may allow those faculty members to engage in other types of research and creative
activities.
Despite the options, this study found that most administrators prefer
traditional forms of research, as opposed to more professional types of media work.
Even more specifically, administrators preferred articles published in journals that
are:
(1) national rather than local, and (2) refereed rather than non-refereed.
They also prefer articles written by a single faculty member, articles related
to a faculty member's teaching assignment, and research published in journals
rather than presented in convention papers.
However, the differences are not great.
For example:
a paper presented at a
national convention received a mean score of 6.99, compared to a score of 5.87 for
a paper presented at a state or regional convention.
Moreover, the rankings rarely
seem to reflect the amount of work required to produce a piece of research.
A
scholarly book (which may require years to produce) received a mean score of 8.39,
while a refereed article (which may require only a few months to produce) received
a mean score of 8.25.
A textbook (which also may require years to produce) received
an even lower score:
7.42.
The authors failed to ask about several variables that might affect or help
explain the results.
For example: there may be a greater emphasis on the traditional
types of research at older, larger public universities, and especially at universities
with major graduate programs.
Also, the faculty members at those universities may
enjoy lighter teaching loads so they have more time to engage in research.
Conversely, smaller schools--especially schools with st'lng professional programs- -
may be more willing to accept a broader range of activities, including some media
work, as research.
Several respondents complained that this study placed too much emphasis upon
the quantity of a faculty member's research and not enough emphasis upon its quality.
Although that criticism has some merit, it may not be entirely accurate.
The 94
respondents clearly considered some types of research more valuable (of a higher
quality) than others.
And the numerical values they assigned to the 33 activities
reflect their assessment of its quality.
Also, as a generality, some publications are more rigorous than others.
They
receive more manuscripts and subject them to peer review.
Similarly, most
academicians would probably agree that writing a typical book requires more
scholarship--more research, thought, effort, and writing ability--than writing
a typical book review.
And a typical paper presented at a refereed national
convention would have to be more competitive and would receive more recognition
than a typical paper presented at a local conference.
Thus, the study and the
list of 33 activities did include some indications of quality.
14
Finally, one respondent commented
on an issue to be pursued in the second
phase of this study:
the relationship between teaching and research.
He said:
"In journalism and mass communications,
I know many fine teachers who do not
participate in the activities you list.
And I know many who do.
Those who do not
find the road to promotion, tenure and merit raises rocky--that
is where the
difference is significant--not in the classroom."
Summary
The authors mailed a one-page questionnaire to all 147 members of the
American
Society of Journalism School Administrators.
The questionnaire listed 33 activities,
and each respondent was asked to rate the activities
on a scale of "1" (least
valuable) to "10" (most, valuable).
The respondents clearly considered some types of research more valuable than
others.
The types of research considered most valuable included:
writing a scholarl3
book, writing a refereed article for a national journal, and writing
a textbook.
The
activities considered least valuable included:
editing a newsletter for a non-
journalism group, publishing a photograph in a local newspaper, and appearing
on
a television program unrelated to a faculty member's teaching assignment.
Many of the respondents said some activities were forms of teaching or service,
not research.
They expressed the greatest disagreement about the more professional
or media-related activities, such as working part time for a newspaper.
Most respondents preferred articles published in journals that are national
rather than local and refereed rather than non-refereed.
They also preferred
articles written by a single faculty member, articles related to a faculty
member's teaching assignment, and research published in journals rather than
presented in convention papers.
However, many of the differences were small,
and the mean scores did not seem to reflect the amount of work required to
produce a particular type of research.
15
Footnotes
1
Fred Fedler and Tim Counts, "National J-faculty survey reveals job
likes, dislikes,"
Journalism Educator, Autumn 1982, p. 4.
2
Jack E. Rossman, "Teaching, Publication, and Rewards at a Liberal Arts
College,"
Improving College and University Teaching, Autumn 1976, p. 239.
3
George A. Levesque, "Publish, Yea, Even If It Be Thy Doctoral
Dissertation,"
The Chronicle Of Higher Education, Sept. 19, 1977, p. 32.
4
William M. Stallings and Sushila Singhal, "Some Observations on
the Relationships
between Research Productivity and Student Evaluations of Courses and
Teaching,"
Research Report #274, University of Illinois, 1969, p. 4.
5
Richard R. Cole and Thomas A. Bowers, "Research Article
Productivity of U.S.
Journalism Faculties," Journalism Quarterly, 50 (Summer 1973), p.
246.
6
Peter Seldin, Successful Faculty Evaluation Programs
(Crugers, N.Y.:
Coventry
Press, 1980), p. 14.
Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, The Academic Revolution
(Garden City, N.Y..:
Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1968), p. 532.
8
Ibid.
9
Kenneth Eble, The Craft of Teaching (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers,
1977), pp. 18-19.
10
Preston L. Dent and Donald J. Lewis, "The Relationship
Between Teaching
Effectiveness And Measures of Research Quality," Educational
Research
Quarterly, Fall 1976, p. 15.
11
Arnold S. Linsky and Murray A. Straus, "Student Evaluations,
Research Productivity,
and Eminence of College Faculty," Journal of Higher
Education, 46 (Jan./Feb.
1975), p. 100.
12
Fred Fedler and Tim Counts, "Professors' Satisfaction
With Jobs Related To
Academic Ranks," paper presented to the Mass Communication
and Society
Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication,
annual convention in Athens, Ohio, July 1982, p. 9.
Table I
Ranking Of 33 Activities
In The Order Of Their Perceived Value As Research
Ranks And Activities
1.
Scholarly book
2. National, refereed article
3. College textbook
4.
National convention paper
5.
Co-author national,
refereed article
6.
Regional refereed article
7.
Popular book
8. Article in national
journalism magazine
9.
Regional convention paper
!O. Successful grant application
11.
Edited book of readings
12. Article in popular national
mag. related to teaching
13.
Speech related to teaching
14.
Article in regional mag.,
not refereed
15.
Book review in national,
refereed publication
16.
Newspaper article
related to teaching
17. Article in popular national
mag. unrelated to teaching
18.
Discussant at convention
19.
Book review in regional,
refereed publication
20.
Part-time work for a
newspaper
21.
Work as radio/TV reporter
22.
Photo in national magazine
23. Appearance on TV show,
related to teaching
24.
Editing newsletter for J-group
25. Working part time in industry
26. Reviewer for textbook publisher
27. Photo in regional publication
28.
Newspaper article
unrelated to teaching
29.
Unsuccessful grant application
30.
Speech unrelated to teaching
31.
Editing newsletter for
non-journalism group
32.
Photo in local newspaper
33.
Appearance on TV show,
unrelated to teaching
Means
Number Objecting
To Categorization
As "Research"
Percent
Objecting
Ranks And Means
Excluding
All Zeroes
8.39
0
0
1.
8.39
8.25
1
1.1 2.
8.34
7.42
2
2.1
3.
7.56
6.99
0
0
4.
6.99
6.87
0 0
5. 6.87
6.38
0
0
8. 6.34
6.22 5 5.3
7.
6.57
6.08 0 0
9.
6.07
5.87 0
0
10.
5.87
5.62
14
14.9
6.
6.67
5.33
4 4.3
14.
5.34
5.27
3 3.2
12.
5.55
4.87 10
10.6
13.
5.41
4.75 5
5.3
19.
4.75
4.58 7
7.4
17.
4.95
4.20
9
9.6
21.
4.65
4.07 12 12.8
20.
4.67
4.04 10
10.6
22.
4.53
3.86
8
8.5
26.
4.22
3.84
31 33.0
11.
5.78
3.78
25
26.6
15.
5.21
3.62
26
27.7
16.
5.09
3.53
20 21.3
23.
4.51
3.44
20
21.3
25.
4.39
3.29
30
31.9
18.
4.89
3.19
20
21.3
27.
4.07
3.02
29 30.9
24.
4.44
2.74
22 23.4
30.
3.60
2,.73
26 27.7
28.
3.84
2.70 25
26.6
29.
3.70
2.24
29
30.9
32.
3.27
2.19 34
36.2
31.
3.49
1.97
35 37.2
33.
3.18
17
Table II
Rank Ordering By Variance
(Table Shows Disagreement About Their Perceived Value)
Ranks AncVMerma
Lk.
jre.4,
Excluding
Ranks And Activities
-1131106
All Zeroes
1. Part time work for
newspaper
12.46 1.
7.56
2. Successful grant application
12.03 2.
7.23
3. Photo in national magazine
10.13
3. 6.69
3. Work as radio/TV reporter
10.13 14. 4.85
5.
Working part time in industry
8.89
9. 5.35
6.
Photo in regional publication
8.20
7. 5.73
7. Popular book
8.11 4. 6.25
8. Speech related to teaching
7.73
8. 5.52
9. Appearance on TV show,
related to teaching
7.29 14.
4.85
10.
Editing newsletter for J-group
7.00
18. 4.72
11.
College textbook
6.89 5. 5.81
12. Article in popular national
mag. unrelated to teaching
6.69
14. 4.85
13. Reviewer for textbook publisher
6.40
23.
4.57
14.
Newspaper article
related to teaching
6.25
17.
4.81
15.
Discussant at convention
6.19
19. 4.71
16. Book review in national,
refereed publication
5.99
22. 4.61
17.
Unsuccessful grant application
5.97
29.
4.10
18.
Co-author national
refereed article
5.81 5. 5.81
19.
National, refereed article
5.68
12. 4.98
20. Newspaper article,
unrelated to teaching
5.67 27. 4.33
20.
Photo in local newspaper
5.67
24.
4.50
22.
Speech unrelated to teaching
5.58 31.
3.91
23. Edited book of readings 5.33 26. 4.34
23. Regional refereed article
5.33 10. 5.33
25.
Book review in regional,
refereed publication
5.32 28. 4.27
26. Article in popular national
mag. related to teaching
5.23
25. 4.41
27.
Scholarly book
5.00 11. 5.00
27.
Editing newsletter for
non-journalism group
5.00
32. 3.91
29. Regional convention paper 4.97 13. 4.97
30. Article in regional mag.,
not refereed 4.36
20. 4.65
30.
National convention paper
4.36
20.
4.65
32.
Appearance on TV show,
unrelated to teaching
4.05
33. 2.68
33. Article in national
journalism magazine
3.96 30.
3.96
Appendix A
Research Questionnaire
INSTRUCTIONS:
We would like to know which types of research you consider most
valuable.
Using a scale of "1" (least valuable) to "10" (most valuable), please
rate the following types of research.
If you do not consider an activity
"research," please rate it "0."
Use your institution's definition of research
for year-end evaluations, tenure and promotions.
The form is anonymous, and you
can use the enclosed, stamped and addressed envelope
to return your ratings to the authors:
Fred Fedler and Ron Smith, Department of
Communication, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Fla.
32816.
1.
Writing a college textbook
2.
Writing a scholarly book unlikely to be used as a textbook
3.
Writing a book for the general public
4.
Editing a book of readings
5.
Article in a national, refereed (peer reviewed) publication, such as
Journalism Quarterly, written entirely by a faculty member at your instituti n
6.
Article in a national, refereed publication but with two co-authors
7.
Article in a national journalism magazine, not refereed, such as Quill
8.
Article about a professor's teaching area in a popular national magazine
9.
Article not about the professor's teaching area in a popular national magazine
10.
Article in a state or regional, refereed publication
11.
Article in a state or regional journalism magazine, not refereed
12.
Paper presented at a national convention
13.
Paper presented at a state or regional convention
Serving as a discussant or on a panel at a convention
15.
Newspaper article (editorial, review, feature story, column) related to a
professor's teaching area
16.
Newspaper article (editorial, etc.) not related to the professor's teaching area
17.__
Giving a speech, seminar or workshop about a professor's teaching area
18.
Giving a speech, seminar or workshop not about the professor's teaching area
19.
Working as a part-time staff member for a newspaper
20.
Working part-time in a journalistic capacity for a private firm or industry
21.
Writing or editing a newsletter for a journalism group
22.
Writing or editing a newsletter for a non-journalism group
23.
Applying, successfully, for a grant
24.
Applying, unsuccessfully, for a grant
25.
Participating in a radio or television program about the teaching area
26.
Participating in a radio or television program not about the teaching area
27.
Serving as a reporter or producer for a radio or television program
28.
Having a photograph appear in a national magazine
29.
Having a photograph appear in a state or regional magazine
30.
Having a photograph appear in a local newspaper
31.
Writing a book review for a national refereed publication
32.
Writing a book review for a state or regional refereed publication
33.
Serving as a reviewer for a textbook publisher
34.
Other <Please specify)
