BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS PRODUCTIVITY RATINGS OF INSTITUTIONS BASED ON PUBLICATION IN READING JOURNALS:

Transcription

1 Journal of Reading Behavior 1979, Vol. XI, No. 2 BRIEF RESEARCH REPORTS PRODUCTIVITY RATINGS OF INSTITUTIONS BASED ON PUBLICATION IN READING JOURNALS: Carol J. Hopkins Purdue University Several researchers have examined the appeal of quality and quantity of research produced as indicators of institutional prestige. To enable prospective graduate students to make "more intelligent and informed choices of programs and institutions" (p. xi), Roose and Andersen (1970) analyzed questionnaire responses of department chairpersons and faculty members who had been asked to rate graduate programs in psychology in terms of the quality of the faculty. In an attempt to overcome Roose and Andersen's limitations of rating graduate programs according to opinion and reputation, Cox and Catt (1977) devised an alternative method for rating graduate programs in psychology based on more objective measures of research and scholastic productivity by examining the institutional affiliations of manuscript contributors. Their method consisted of ranking programs based on the frequency of publications in the 13 journals of the American Psychological Association between the years 1970 and 1975 and included indices of quality as well as separate ratings for major areas of psychology. A replication of the Cox and Catt (1977) study was conducted by West (1978) who examined the American Educational Research Association publications Review of Educational Research and American Educational Research Journal for the years 1970 to 1976 to determine institutional affiliations of contributors of unsolicited manuscripts. As part of a National Institute of Education study of research, development, dissemination and utilization activities in schools, colleges, and departments of education, Guba and Clark (1978) examined articles, essays and reviews in national education journals to identify the institutions or agencies at which the authors were employed at the time of publication. The present study is a partial replication of the Cox and Catt (1977), West (1978) and Guba and Clark (1978) studies. Its purpose is to determine productivity ratings of institutions based on publication in reading journals. Method The criteria used for the selection of the seven journals included in the study were that 1) they must be national journals whose contents are devoted solely to the discipline of reading and 2) they must be refereed journals, here defined as journals whose articles are read by members of a review board which makes recommendations to the editor regarding the disposition of manuscripts. The set of reading journals included: Journal of Reading (JR), Journal of Reading BeAavior(JRB), Reading Horizons (RH), Reading Improvement [Kl], Reading Research Quarterly(RRQ), Reading Teacher{KT), and Reading WorW(RW). For purposes of assigning productivity ratings, only articles and research reports appearing in these journals between September 1972 and August 1978 were included. Since most of these journals are published on an academic year basis, it was possible to include complete volumes.

2 178 Journal of Reading Behavior Special sections such as commentaries, editorials, regular columns by special column editors, book reviews, test reviews, and letters were omitted. The institutional affiliation of the author for each journal entry was recorded and frequency distributions were constructed to determine the number of manuscripts that had been contributed by each college, university, public or private school system or agency. Following the rating procedures employed by Cox and Catt (1977), West (1978), and Guba and Clark (1978), each contribution was assigned a maximum of credit per article. In the case of multiple authorship and multiple institutions, credit was assigned proportionately. Separate credit was assigned to branch campuses of a given university or university system. No distinction was made between rank of authors (i.e., faculty vs. graduate student, superintendent vs. classroom teacher) nor was any attempt made to differentiate among departments such as English, education or psychology within colleges and universities. The institutional productivity ratings were determined separately for each journal and for the composite of all seven journals. Results and Discussion In tabulating the credits assigned to the institutional affiliations of contributors, several publishing trends can be identified. First, the percentage of total credits assigned to any given individual institution is relatively low. Over a six-year period, the maximum credits assigned to a single institution was 31.66, corresponding to 2 percent of the total assigned credits. Seventy percent of the 867 institutions represented were assigned one or less credits; percent of the institutions received between 1.1 and credits, S percent received 2.1 to credits and 14 percent received or more credits." A composite of the productivity ratings for the top 25 institutions is shown in Table 1. A second identifiable trend is the differential contribution rate to the individual journals by any single institution. There is no one institution that can be cited as making the highest number of contributions to all seven journals. In fact, only two institutions received credit in all seven journals and several of the institutions listed in Table 1 received their productivity ranks on the basis of publications in one or two journals alone. A third trend in the data is the variety of institutions represented in the journals. A common assumption is that the professional literature in education is comprised of articles written by ivory-tower academics. Such is not the case in the reading journals. Of the 867 institutions represented in this study, four categories of contributors can be identified. These are college and university authors, public and private school authors teaching or administering grades kindergarten through twelve, authors who represent miscellaneous private or government agencies, hospitals or organizations, and finally, authors who claimed no institutional affiliation. However, a shift in contributors for various journals can be noted. The Reading Research Quarterly, for instance, has only three different public school contributors and no contributions from authors without an institutional affiliation. In contrast, 102 different public schools are represented by the articles published in the Journal of Reading. While the percentage of articles written by non-college or university authors is relatively high for several of the journals, it is of interest to note that in terms of credits assigned, the percentage of the total credits they receive is low, In most cases this is the result of public school personnel coauthoring with university personnel and thereby receiving only partial credit for an article. Finally, to determine the leading institutions in publishing reading research, contributions to the Journal of Reading Behavior and the Reading Research Quarterlywere tallied since these journals are devoted solely to publishing original research studies or reviews of research. The top ten institutions in this category are listed in Table 2.

3 TABLE 1 Composite Institutional Productivity Ratings Institution JR JRB RH RI RRQ RT RW TOTAL RANK University of Georgia Northern Illinois University SUNY-Albany University of Maryland University of Delaware University of Wisconsin University of Missouri-Kansas City Indiana University University of Illinois University of Minnesota San Diego State University University of Florida New Haven [Connecticut) Public Schools Arizona State University University of Pennsylvania Southern Illinois University University of Missouri-Columbia University of Texas University of Chicago University of Victoria University of British Columbia California State University, Los Angeles Kansas State University Purdue University Rutgers University , Q S. Sa CD CO

4 180 Journal of Reading Behavior TABLE 2 Leading Contributors to Reading Research Journals [Journal ofreading Behavior and Reading Research Quarterly). Institution Credits Rank University of Minnesota University of Missouri-Kansas City University of Georgia Indiana University SUNY-Albany University of Chicago University of Illinois University of Wisconsin Rutgers University University of British Columbia University of Illinois, Chicago Circle University of Victoria Consideration of several factors is important to the interpretation of institutional productivity ratings. One of these is the fact that the study does not take into account authors who are publishing results of reading research in non-reading journals. Also, no adjustment has been made for productivity ranks according to the size of the institution and/or faculty, nor has there been any attempt to rank the quality of the contributions. A final factor to be considered is that the productivity ratings of institutions fluctuate when prolific writers move from one institution to another. Summary The results of this study provide one means of assessing institutional productivity in the field of reading. Obviously, there is no absolute way of measuring productivity. For the purposes of this study, publication of journal articles has been used as the measure of productivity. Books, monographs, and book chapters certainly enhance the reputation of the institutions with which the authors are affiliated. Other indicators of productivity might include entries in ERIC, presentations at the conventions of professional associations such as the International Reading Association or the National Reading Conference, and foundation grants and/or federal or other public agency grants for research and development or dissemination and utilization activities. It is hoped that the results of this investigation will be useful in helping individuals assess the relative standing of their institution in terms of journal-level productivity and perhaps serve as an impetus for improvement for those dissatisfied with their institution's ratings. FOOTNOTES 1 Requests for reprints should be addressed to the author: Purdue University, 205 Education Building, West Lafayette, IN

5 Productivity Ratings Individual listings of productivity ratings for each of the seven journals may be obtained from " the author. REFERENCES COX, W. M., & CATT, V. Productivity ratings of graduate programs in psychology based on publication in the journals of the American Psychological Association. American Psychologist, 1977, 32, GUBA, E. G., & CLARK, D. Levels of R & D productivity in schools of education. Educational Researcher, 1978, 7, 3-9. KATZ, D. A. Faculty salaries, promotions, and productivity at a large university. American Economic Review, 1973, 63, 469. ROOSE, K. D., & ANDERSEN, C. J. A rating of graduate programs. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, TUCKMAN, H. P. Publication, teaching, and the academic reward structure. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company, WEST, C. K. Productivity ratings of institutions based on publication in the journals of the American Educational Research Association: Educational Researcher, 1978, 7,