Publication productivity of a selected group of nurse educators from 1981 through 1991

The results of this study show a wide range of productivity from 1 to 78 publications produced per subject and a total of 612 publications produced by the entire sample over the 10-year period studied. Within this study sample, a high level of productivity was achieved by a small percentage of subjects. The highly productive researchers in this study remained productive, but the least productive researchers remained nonproductive. Therefore, data results demonstrated inconstant publication productivity within the assumed homogenous sample group but consistent individual productivity for the study subjects over time. Further investigation should be done in the area of faculty research productivity in order to determine the validity of the baseline productivity norm rates found in this study. In addition to this, further studies comparing subjective versus objective data on research productivity are needed.

THE PUBLICATION PRODUCTIVITY OF A SELECTED GROUP OF NURSE EDUCATORS FROM 1981 THROUGH 1991 by Kristi Adair Robinia A thesis submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science College of Nursing The University of Utah December 1992 Copyright © Kristi Adair Robinia 1992 All Rights Reserved I \ THE C:\IVERSITY OF CTAH GRADUATE SCHOOL SUPERVISORY CO~I1\fITTEE r\PPROVAL of a thesis submitted by Kristi Adair Robinia This thesis has been read by each member of [he following supervisory committee and bv majority vote has been found [0 be satisfactory. '. _ < ~,.1J fH ~I,.,d ~;::;~\ k A..lJ ~ ,(. Chairman> -rfhomas \J. Mansen f· /i ).~1 /:3 f /f~i-- . l L< f lit,;3 /</'11. I l THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH GRADUATE SCHOOL FINAL READING APPROVAL To the Graduate Council of the University of Utah: I have read the thesis of Kristi Adair Robinia in its final form and have found that (1) its fonnat, citations and bibliographic style are consistent and acceptable; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables and chans are in place: and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the supervisory committee and is ready for submission to The Graduate School. / iJi t,f~ 1£" ,(/ n L . . - Date L' li <:> ·~-1\ _&- l I - . / L \. b\ 1\. • ..1 \. "---_ Thorn M¥nsen Chair, Supervisory Committee Linda Amos Chair/Dean Approved for the Graduate Council <' , ( B. Gale Dick oon of The Gradl..l.::lLC School ABSTRACT This was a descriptive study from July 1981 through June 1991 of the objective publication productivity of 25 nurse educators who had been identified as being productive researchers. The literature on nursing research productivi­ty reports that there are few highly productive nurse researchers and no published norms for objectively evaluat­ing the adequacy of the annual and sustained publication productivity of individual nurse researchers. The annual and sustained publication productivity of this selected sample of nurse educators was determined by conducting a literature review on each of the subjects over the 10-year time period studied. The results of this study show a wide range of produc­tivity from 1 to 78 publications produced per subject and a total of 612 publications produced by the entire sample over the 10-year period studied. Within this study sample, a high level of productivity was achieved by a small percent­age of subjects. The highly productive researchers in this study remained productive, but the least productive re­searchers remained nonproductive. Therefore, data results demonstrated inconstant publication productivity within the assumed homogenous sample group but consistent individual productivity for the study subjects over time. Further investigation should be done in the area of faculty research productivity in order to determine the validity of the baseline productivity norm rates found in this study. In addition to this/ further studies comparing subjective versus objective data on research productivity are needed. v TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT. . • • . . • • • • • • • • • . • . • . . • . • • . • • • • . • • • • • . • . • . • • i v LIST OF TABLES .•.•.••••••...•••••••.••••..••••••••• viii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION •••.••••..•..•••••••••.••••••••• Purpose of the Study........................ 2 Significance of the Study................... 3 Research Questions.......................... 4 Operational Defini tions. • • • • • . • . • • • . • • • • • • • • 5 Assumptions. . . . • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . • • • . . • • . • • • 13 Limi ta tions. . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . 13 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE........................ 15 Environmental Factors and Research Producti v i ty. • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 17 Individual Characteristics and Research Producti vi ty. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . 22 Summa r y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1 III. METHODOLOGy................................. 33 Subjects.................................... 33 Methodology................................. 35 Statistical Methods and Data Analysis..................................... 40 IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................... 42 V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS................. 63 Summary....................................... 65 Recommendations............................. 66 Conclusions................................. 67 Implications for Nursing.................... 69 APPENDIX A. DATA CODING SHEET FOR PUBLICATIONS ....•.. 70 B. FUNDING SOURCES REPORTED (RAW DATA)............................... 74 C. FUNDING SOURCES REPORTED AND PRODUCTIVITY GROUP FREQUENCIES (RAW DATA) ............. 75 D. TYPE AND AUTHOR ORDER OF PUBLICATIONS (RAW DATA)............................... 77 E. TYPE/AUTHOR ORDER REPORTED AND PRODUCTIVITY GROUP FREQUENCIES ........... 78 F. FOCUS OF PUBLICATION ( RAW DATA)............................... 80 G. FOCUS OF PUBLICATION AND PRODUCTIVITY GROUP FREQUENCIES (RAW DATA) ••.••••••.... 81 H. CATEGORY OF PUBLICATION •••.•...•......... 83 I. PERCENTAGE OF PUBLICATIONS FOR PRODUCTIVITY GROUPS IN THE MAJOR CATEGORIES ......••... 84 REFERENCES........................................ 86 vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Intercoder ReI iabi Ii ty. . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • 38 2. Subject Productivity from 1981-1991... 43 3. Total Sample Productivity by year..... 45 4. Individual Annual and Total Productivity Versus Total Sample Annual and Total Productivity.......................... 47 5. Ranking Subjects into Productivity Groups................................ 49 6. Funding Sources....................... 51 7. Funding Sources by Productivity Groups. . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . • . . . 53 8. Type and Author Order of Publications. 55 9. Type and Author Order of Publications by Produc t i vi t y Groups................ 56 10. Focus of Nursing Knowledge............ 59 11. Focus of Nursing Knowledge by Producti vi ty Groups................... 60 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Scholarly productivity has become a normative expecta­tion for nursing faculty. Watson (1990) points out that in the past 10 years expectations of faculty have changed and states, "Currently, interviews with applicants for faculty positions are more likely to focus on scholarly productivity and research potential, than on teaching. In fact, teaching ability is often assumed" (p.27). The problem is that despite these changes, there are still few highly productive nurse researchers and no pub­lished norms for objectively evaluating the adequacy of the annual and sustained publication productivity of individual nurse researchers. Nursing administrators face the challenge in university and clinical settings to meet universitywide and profes­sional expectations for funded research activities (Watson, 1990). Fawcett (1980) believes that administrators hold the key to incorporating research into nursing through the dissemination and utilization of research findings. A major part of this role involves facilitating faculty research productivity. Conway (1989) points out that this involves soliciting and obtaining intramural and extramural funds; 2 providing support, time, and resources for faculty research; and assuring that schools' missions reflect the academic activities that are both essential and of value to the profession of nursing. A study that researched information about productivity norms would (a) assist nurse researchers to realistically establish and meet their annual and career publication goals and (b) assist faculty peers and administrators to objec­tively evaluate the annual and career productivity of individuals seeking appointment, retention, and/or promo­tion. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to describe and explore objectively the scholarly productivity of a selected sample of 25 nurse educators who have been identified as being productive researchers from July 1981 through June 1991. By determining the annual and sustained publication productivi­ty of a selected sample of productive nurse educators, this study aims to contribute to knowledge about nurses' research productivity and to provide " ... a mechanism useful in monitoring the scholarly progress of the evolving discipline of nursing" (Ostmoe, 1986, p.211). 3 Significance of the Study Nursing has made great strides to develop its own unique body of knowledge based on research. Nurses under­stand that scientific research is essential not only to create accountability for practice but also to justify the very existence of nursing as a professional discipline (Fawcett, 1980; Gortner, 1974; Jacox, 1980). However, despite nursing's appreciation of and commitment to develop­ing scientific nursing knowledge, doctorally-prepared nurse faculty, who are assumed to be nursings' most qualified to be conducting research, are not as productive as expected (Nieswiadomy, 1984; Pranulis, 1984). Fox (1985) reported that productivity in higher educa­tion is inconstant; certain small groups of faculty seem to be highly productive, but most of their colleagues are not. What remains unclear is whether these individuals are con­sistently productive over time. Williams (1989) reported that nurse faculty, as a group, are less productive than faculty in other disciplines in meeting the research re­quirements of their academic institutions. Numerous studies have been conducted to identify environmental influences on nurse faculty research productivity (Batey 1978; Holzemer & Chambers, 1986; Pranulis, 1984) and characteristics of productive nurse researchers (Nieswiadomy, 1984; Ostmoe, 1986; Pranulis, 1984; Reed, 1988; Stevenson, 1990). Other studies have focused on the development of a research 4 identity (Brogan, 1982; Wakefield-Fisher, 1987; Watson, 1990; Williams & Blackburn, 1988). However, although the actual productivity levels of participants in these studies were reported, most studies relied on self-reported produc­tivity. Batey (1978) examined objective data regarding research grants and publications to determine research productivity and to rank schools for their productivity. However, Batey did not report the actual numbers of research products generated at each of the participating schools and did not examine individual faculty members' productivity rates. Thus, there remains a gap in knowledge about nurse faculty's research productivity that gives rise to the questions that were addressed in this study. Research Questions The central question addressed in this study was "What is the average annual and sustained objective publication productivity of nurse educators who have been identified as productive researchers?" Contributory questions asked were: 1. To what extent does objective publication produc­tivity vary across subjects and over time? 2. Does objective publication productivity vary in relation to source of funding for research activities? 3. Does objective publication productivity vary in relation to the type and author order of publication? 5 4. Does objective publication productivity vary in relation to the focus of nursing knowledge being gener­ated in these areas: (a) building a science of prac­tice; (b) artistry of practice; (c) establishing struc­tures for optimal delivery of carei (d) developing methodology; and (e) application of research findings? Operational Definitions Data for this study were collected by conducting a 10 year literature review on each of the 25 subjects and then retrieving and analyzing the publications found in the review. The specific categorization schema used to analyze publications is listed in the data coding sheet (see Appen­dix A). Key concepts and category definitions for this study are as follows: Objective Measure of Research Productivity For the purposes of this study, research productivity was defined as a quantifiable index of the amount of empiri­cal knowledge disseminated through the written word in terms of books or periodicals (Pranulis, 1984). Subjective Measure of Research Productivity A subjective measure of research productivity was defined as the self-reported research productivity from a study subject. 6 Category of Publication A scheme of classifying publications with 19 categories encompassing books as well as any entry in the table of contents of a periodical. The categories and their definitions are as follows: Book: A printed work on sheets of paper bound together (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1980). Abstract or research brief: Any summary of careful and systematic study and investigation in some field of knowl­edge (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1980). Editorial of letter to the editor: Any article stating opinions of an editor or publisher and any letters that expressed opinions of an editor or publisher. Literature review: Any discussion of relevant studies that reports what has been investigated in some field of knowledge (Wilson, 1989). This category also included publications that were book reviews. Case study: Any intensive, systematic investigations of the background, current status, environmental character­istics, and interactions of an individual, group, or commu­nity (Waltz & Bausell, 1981). Opinion paper: Any article that expressed the authors' opinions and reactions to a topic that was not based on empirical evidence and was not in the form of an editorial or letter to the editor. 7 Historical research paper: A study that examined and interpreted data contained in historical sources such as diaries, letters, and journals (Wilson, 1989). Methodological research paper: Any study that devel­oped, validated, or evaluated research tools or techniques (Wilson, 1989). Metaanalysis paper: Any statistical analysis of a large collection of results from individual studies for the purpose of integrating the findings (Waltz & Bausell, 1981). Cultural research paper: A study that examined through observation, interviewing, case studies, case histories, document reviews or other systematic investigation the different worlds and realities of a given people in a given period. Substantive research paper: A stUdy that was concerned with developing the body of knowledge belonging to the science of nursing. Theory paper: Any article that explored and reported " ... conceptual inventions of reality that are used to describe, explain, predict, or understand phenomena of concern" (Wilson, 1989, p.277). Methodological issue paper: Any article that dis­cussed, explored, and reported tools and techniques involved in conducting research. Professional or substantive issue paper: Any article concerned with any issue that affects the profession of 8 nursing. Ethical or philosophical issue paper: Any article addressing moral issues and the principles underlying stan­dards of conduct (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 1980) . Combination cultural and substantive research paper: Any study that interposed cultural knowledge with knowledge belonging to the science of nursing. Response or commentary paper: Any article that cri­tiques the work of another author or explains the work of the author writing the article. Functional research paper: Any study that reported the characteristics and steps of an activity (e.g., survey of availability of funding for nurses throughout the country). Functional information paper: Any article that report­ed the characteristics and steps of an activity (e.g., the steps to follow when seeking funding for research). Year of Publication This category consists of 10 subcategories identifying the year in which publications were published. The review of literature spanned from July 1981 (Pranulis' 1984 study's starting date) through June 1991. All articles were catego­rized according to their appropriate month and year subcate­gories. Articles that were published quarterly were placed in the subcategory according to the first month of the 9 quarter in which published. Books were categorized in the first subcategory that identified their year of publication. Annual Publication This term was defined as the number of publications per year as listed in the year of publication subcategories. Sustained Publication This term was defined as the consistency of publication productivity over a 10-year span. Type of Publication and Author Order This category consists of 21 subcategories to identify publications as books, articles, government publications, or nursing publications and differentiate whether publications were in refereed or nonrefereed journals and whether the subject was sole or contributing author to the publications. The subcategories were labeled and defined as follows: Refereed nursing journal: Nursing journals that have a manuscript peer review procedure and were identified as refereed by Swanson, McCloskey, and Bodensteiner (1991). Nonrefereed nursing journal: Nursing journals that were classified as nonrefereed by Swanson et al. (1991). Refereed nonnursing journal: Nonnursing serials listed as refereed in Ulrich's International Periodical Directory (1991) . 10 Nonrefereed nonnursing journal: Nonnursing serials that were not listed as refereed in Ulrich's International Periodical Directory (1991). Government publication: Any publication that was produced or published by a government agency. Nursing organization publication: Any publication produced or published by a nursing organization. Contributing editor of book: Any book in which the study subject was identified as contributing editor. Unable to determine refereed status nursing journal: Any nursing journal that was unclassified or not identified by Swanson, et al. (1991). Foreign journal (English): Any serials published in the English language outside of the United States. Non-English foreign journal: Any serials published in a foreign language outside of the United States. Sole editor of book: Any book in which the study sub­ject was identified as being the only editor. Sole author: Any publication that the study subject edited or wrote alone. Contributing author: Any publication which the study subject edited or wrote in conjunction with colleagues. There was no differentiation of author order acknowledged in this study. 1 1 Funding Source This category was defined as any funding listed in any publication. Two subcategory definitions were as follows: Not applicable: Any publication that was not a re­search study. However, if a publication that was not a study listed funding it was acknowledged. No funding listed: For research studies that did not identify a funding source. Institutional Affiliation of Author This term was defined as the college, university, health service agency, or other employer listed in the author biographical data accompanying a publication. Focus of Publication A framework in which to categorize research studies into five major areas (Gortner, Bloch & Phillips, 1976). These five areas are defined as follows: Building a science of practice: Research studies that have as their primary focus the systematic identification of various characteristics, health problems, health needs of patients and potential patients, individuals and groups, as well as aspects of relationships between nurses and patients; research studies concerned with dif­ferences in health needs and health problems among individu­als in different groups, for instance, those of certain cultural and ethnic backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, age 12 groups and illness categories; studies that are concerned with understanding the problems and behavior of patients and providers; and research studies that contribute to the science of nursing (Gortner et al.,1976). Artistry of practice: Laboratory and field research studies that attempt to evaluate nursing procedures, tech­niques, and methods. These research studies are of two types: (a) technical or physical procedures; and (b) verbal, cognitive, psychosocial and interpersonal aspects of nursing care (Gortner et al.,1976). Establishing structures for optimal delivery of care: Descriptive, analytical, and experimental research studies of the physical and social environments in which nurses and their clients interact, as well as research studies in which different patterns of health care providers are evaluated (Gortner et al., 1976). Developing methodology: Research studies that aim to develop methodology or measurement tools, such as indicators of quality of care, or pain, or of knowledge (Gartner et al.,1976). Application of research findings: Research studies that deal directly with the application of research findings to the field through examination of such factors as single replications of an original design as well as wide-scale demonstrations (Gartner et al., 1976). Not applicable: Any publication that is not a research 1 3 study. The only exception would be a book that presents a series of studies. Unable to determine: A research study that could not be classified according to the five major areas. Assumptions The fundamental assumption underlying this study was that the selected subject sample is representative of schol­arly productive nurse researchers. The investigator also assumed the following: 1. That the literature reviews done at Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library revealed the scholarly pro­ductivity of the subjects for the past 10 years. 2. That the investigator's definition of objective research productivity was an accurate definition for nursing research productivity. 3. That the investigator's measurement of objective research productivity is reliable and valid. Limitations The investigator could not retrieve publications that were chapters in books and that could have represented a significant level of objective research productivity for any one of the subjects. There were also publications that could not be retrieved or could not be categorized to answer the research questions and therefore were counted as missing data during the analysis of data. The missing data were a 1 4 considerable limitation in that if retrieved, these data could have altered the investigator's answers to the re­search questions asked. This study was also limited to measuring research productivity objectively and therefore negated counting other aspects of nurse educator scholarly productivity such as teaching, presenting, and clinical practice. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Nursing education has evolved from developing and implementing nursing educational programs to focusing on researching empirical data to justify the foundation of the practice and profession of nursing (Anderson, 1989; Fawcett, 1980; Gortner, 1977; Gortner, 1974; Jacox, 1980). Gortner (1975) has written of the ethical responsibility nurses have to concomitantly research their practice and develop nursing theory because of the heavy responsibility any service­oriented profession has to society to provide state-of-the art quality care. It is for these reasons that the issue of faculty research productivity is at the forefront of nurse educators' concerns (Anderson, 1989; Andreoli & Musser, 1986; Watson, 1990). Faculty productivity is measured by the components of teaching, research, service, and practice, but according to their philosophies and missions educational institutes will value these components differently (Andreoli & MUsser, 1986). At present, the trend is for universities to focus on research productivity and potential (Watson, 1990). The problem is that among nurse educators holding doctorates (who are logically assumed to be the most qualified to 16 conduct research) research productivity is not as high as expected (Nieswiadomy, 1984; Pranulis, 1984). Although there are many studies focusing on factors facilitating or impeding research, there is little known about methods for assessing the quality of research being conducted or the productivity rates of individual nurse educators (Andreoli & Musser, 1986). By studying an identi­fied group of productive nurse researchers over a period of years, an investigator should be able to ascertain informa­tion leading to an understanding of what they are doing that perhaps less productive nurse researchers are not. Informa­tion about their productivity norms would assist nurse researchers to establish their own realistic publication goals and assist nurse administrators to evaluate objective­ly faculty productivity in their schools. Studies have demonstrated that there are both environ­mental and individual factors related to research productiv­ity. Pranulis (1984) expanded on the work of Batey (1978) by using social systems theory to explore the effects of various structural elements in a nursing research environ­ment. Batey compared six highly productive schools with six schools of lower productivity and found that the former had the following elements: (a) faculty competent in research skills, (b) research valued as a desirable outcome goal, (c) role responsibilities included time for faculty to engage in research activities, (d) compatibility between faculty 17 research activities and organizational mission and goals (as reflected in the support and rewards for research), (e) support for and encouragement of faculty's efforts to seek extramural funding for research, (f) administrative support for research, and (g) a psychosocial climate supportive of research and neophyte investigators (Pranulis & Gortner, 1985) . These studies emphasized the importance of institutions providing research environments as well as the need for individuals in these institutions to be motivated and in­volved in research activities. Whether environmental or individual factors play a larger part in research productiv­ity is a matter for debate. Environmental Factors and Research Productivity Batey (1985) and Hinshaw and Sorenson (1986) described the efforts of separate university schools of nursing to structure their environments to be conducive to research. In both cases the authors contend that by manipulating environmental factors, universities can increase faculty productivity. Batey (1985) reported that the University of Washington consciously structured its school of nursing to enhance research productivity with a four-step developmental process consisting of (a) gaining administrative support; (b) educating faculty by actively involving them in the research 18 process and providing monies to develop individual research potential; (c) making a true commitment to research by identifying it as central to the schools mission, policies and operations and exhibiting this by creating a specific office with the responsibility of assisting all faculty through the entire spectrum of the research process; and finally (d) facilitating research integration and collabora­tion by having administration, faculty and doctoral students work together to determine school goals and means to attain them. Batey (1985) reported that faculty research productivi­ty did increase, although she indicated that lack of faculty time and faculty turnover impeded the University of Washing­ton School of Nursing's research productivity goal. There was no empirical evidence provided to support these conclu­sions. Hinshaw and Sorenson (1986) describe how the University of Arizona College of Nursing was able, through the use of grant money, to move faculty through the process of research development to research facilitation. The former stage meant creating space, equipment and a director of research position to make research visible throughout the college. The next stage evolved as faculty deliberately built a "scientific community" with commonality, collaboration, and competition and chose to focus on their own research pro­grams and the necessity of extramural funding. 19 Hinshaw and Sorenson (1986) state that vital to the above process was (a) the development of the doctoral program because students facilitate research productivity; and (b) the Nursing Research Emphasis Grant award, which provided monies for faculty pilot studies. Hinshaw and Sorenson imply that increased productivity has been demon­strated by an increase of pilot projects and applications for funding. Ironically, faculty research productivity has increased to the point of overcoming available resources, which means that the faculty faces the added challenge of balancing competition with collaboration for scarce resourc­es. Once again the authors did not provide any empirical evidence to support their beliefs. Holzemer and Chambers (1986) studied the relationship between student and faculty perceptions of the quality of their academic program environments and the productivity of both faculty and alumni of those programs. The study sur­veyed 326 faculty, 659 students, and 296 alumni from 25 nursing doctoral programs and reported that significant relationships were found between faculty perceptions of their environment/s scholarly excellence, available resourc­es, and student commitment and motivation and 11 different measures of faculty productivity, including number of publications, academic rank, and number of funded research grants. There was only a minimal effect between alumni productivity and student and faculty perceptions of their 20 school environments. Holzemer and Chambers (1988) used data from the above cited study to examine how faculty productivity is affected when individual faculty characteristics are controlled for and the effects of environment on productivity can be exam­ined in isolation. They did this by completing a contextual analysis of the faculty productivity of 241 faculty subjects from the parent study. They reported only a modest contex­tual effect after removing the contributions of individual characteristics. Programs with senior ranked faculty who had more teaching experience and who, collectively, were productive scholars had more productive individual faculty members. Environmental factors such as age of the program, percent of faculty with tenure, and program size could not be related to individual faculty productivity. Contrary to their previous findings, they found that individual percep­tions of the quality of the environment were not related to individual faculty productivity. There was a significant individual effect upon faculty productivity found when removing the contribution of the environment. After remov­ing environmental characteristics, individual factors related to productivity were having a higher academic rank, being older, and spending a higher percentage of time on research. Pranulis's (1984) study of environmental influences on nurse faculty research productivity sought answers to the 21 question, "Why do some doctorally-prepared nurse faculty demonstrate higher levels of research productivity than others?" (p.2) Pranulis examined how nurse faculty percep­tions of university research environments and individual characteristics of nursing faculty related to research productivity. Pranulis defined research productivity as "A quantif­iable index of the amount of empirical knowledge disseminat­ed through the written or spoken word or symbol" (pp.9-10). Nurse faculty respondents were asked to report the number and types of research activities they were involved in for a period of 2 1/2 years, and then a weighted score was used to quantify each respondent's research productivity. Pranulis reported that minor trends, not statistically significant relationships, were found between respondents' perceptions of degree of organizational emphasis, adminis­trative support, resources, and psychosocial climate with faculty productivity. The only environmental characteristic that significantly correlated with productivity was the extent of extramural funding sources. Pranulis did find that identity as a nurse researcher and the number of hours spent in research were significant covariables of productiv­ity. Other variables significantly related to total produc­tivity were the self-perceived influences of recognition from nonnursing groups, the state of nursing's interest in the researcher's study problem, and recognition from nursing 22 groups. Pranulis' findings that there is a trend supporting the concept that the stronger the organization research emphasis the greater the faculty research productivity, give credence to Batey's (1978) statement on the importance of congruent organizational missions and goals being directed towards research. The data relating number of hours spent in re-search to research productivity support Holzemer and Charn-bers (1988) findings and suggest that individual factors affecting research productivity bear further study. Individual Characteristics and Research productivity Reed (1988) proposes that by understanding four devel-opmental stages that occur in the early postdoctoral years of the new doctorate, individuals can be facilitated in obtaining research productivity. She identifies these stages as (a) rhythmicity, (b) contextual-dialectic, (c) unidirectionality, and (d) multidimensionality. Reed's principle of rhythmicity refers to the stages involved in the learning process: romance, precision, and generalization. She believes that the rhythm of research productivity is fostered in environments where individuals are creative and open-minded and find role models who are excited and committed to research. Contextual-dialectic refers to the interaction between an individual and his or her environment. This principle at- 23 tributes equal importance to the role of the individual and the role of environment in the developmental process of new faculty members. Reed proposes that growth develops out of change and that change is a product of individual and envi­ronmental (contextual) interactions that originate in con­flict and that demand a "dialectic process of synthesizing differences and creating new solutions" (p.121). An example of a contextual factor that produces conflict is assigning a recently educated researcher to teach an undergraduate clinical specialty course. This type of conflict could lead an individual to feel inadequate and deprived of the oppor­tunity to conduct research or could be used purposefully if the new faculty member and his or her department (environ­ment) recognize the challenge and collaborate together to find solutions to enhance the faculty members' research productivity and to benefit the department at the same time. It is in this stage that administrative support is critical for the research activities of the new faculty member. Reed states that the principle of unidirectionality is learning to accept moving forward professionally and may be marked by retrogression or a time of diminished productivity as new faculty try to make sense of and cope with the new reality of their professional lives. Finally, Reed talks of the principle of multi­dimensionality wherein individual postdoctoral productivity is best understood by looking at past, present, and future 24 career success. She believes that postdoctoral productivity is a product of the academic choices made predoctorally and choices made postdoctorally will relate to and affect later phases in a career. Reed presents a model to normalize the developmental growth of new faculty and to understand the stages of scholarly productivity, but she does not account for the individual's role in moving quickly or slowly through these stages. Can the individual's development be pushed though environmental forces or is it internally motivated? Reed also utilizes and interprets concepts created by Martha Rogers (1970). She uses the terminology of rhythmicity and dimensionality in a developmental framework that is differ­ent in many ways from Roger's evolutionary framework. Roger emphasizes that there is a continuous and mutual human and environmental field process that consists of nonrepeating rhythmicities that are multidimensional and without causali­ty. Any change in any part of the field process will create change in the whole field. This makes it impossible to guarantee that change in any factor will produce a particu­lar effect. Reed implies causality when she states that choices made predoctorally influence postdoctoral productiv­ity. She does not address the uniqueness that each indivi­dual's patterns and rhythms have in conjuction with the continuous involvement of the environmental field. Reed seems to have contorted and simplified Rogers' concepts to 25 explain her theory that early postdoctoral years can be conceptualized as developmental phases. Ostmoe (1986) summarizes the variables associated with high publication productivity of faculty from several di­verse disciplinary areas as (a) possessing an earned PhD degree at a young age; (b) prior to receiving the doctorate, publishing; (c) working as a research assistant during graduate school; (d) being intrinsically motivated toward and interested in research; (e) believing publication should be an important consideration in promotion and tenure decisions; (f) being appointed to the faculty of a research university at a young age; (g) not having much prior teach­ing experience before beginning research; (h) reading a number of professional journals and being interested in continued learning; and (i) teaching graduate students and spending a significant amount of time on research activi­ties. Ostmoe (1986) used these characteristics to develop a design model to study 261 full-time tenure-track nurse faculty from seven different nursing schools. She looked for relationships between professional, educational, and career variables and publication productivity. Ostmoe found that research preparation, current job socialization fac­tors, and motivational factors accounted for 48% of the variation in nursing faculty publication productivity with the latter two factors being the most significant even when 26 controlling for the individual characteristics of years since first master's degree, age, and rank. According to Ostmoe, the acquisition of an earned doctorate at a young age was not significantly related to publication productivi­ty. Other factors not related to publication productivity were having worked as a research assistant during graduate school and accepting tenure track appointments at a young age. Finally, Ostmoe reported that the more time faculty spent in clinical instruction, the less productive they were in producing publications. Nieswiadomy (1984) surveyed 405 nurse educators, se­lected because of their membership in the American Nurses' Association, and found that 75% of her sample population were not involved in any research at the time of the study. The top three reasons listed as research deterrents in order of importance were lack of time, lack of skills, and lack of interest. This study reported that nurses holding doc­torates were the most productive researchers. This could indicate that nurses in clinical environments are less likely to be productive in research although it is unclear if this is due to lack of doctoral preparation, or as indi­cated by Ostmoe's (1986) study, other factors at work. Stevenson (1990) sampled 478 nurse educators with doctorates who were employed in programs accredited by the National League for Nursing (NLN). She found that the type of doctorate degree significantly related to the type of 27 scholarly productivity. Educators holding a PhD in the social sciences averaged more articles; educators with a PhD in nursing reported the highest number of research projects; those holding a DNS averaged more grants and paper presenta­tions; and finally nurses with EdD degrees accomplished the least in any of the above areas. The type of doctoral program individuals choose might determine their interest in scholarly productivity in the future. Pranulis's (1984) study derived a theoretical profile of productive nurse researchers from data collected from 103 doctorally-prepared nurse faculty representing 10 university schools of nursing in the United States. As stated earlier, Pranulis found that productive nurse researchers are charac­terized by having a strong researcher identity, although they may vary in age, educational backgrounds, dominate values orientations, length of time since obtaining their doctorates, and duration of their current employment. Pranulis reported finding a significant relationship between productivity and faculty rank. Full professors exhibited higher productivity than associate professors. In contrast to Stevenson's (1990) study, Pranulis found no differences in productivity in relation to her subject's types of doctorates. Watson (1990) asserts that faculty research skills can be developed with an effective plan of action. One strategy is to utilize mentors. Watson believes that all faculty, no 28 matter how experienced, can benefit from a mentor. Mentors can guide by sharing knowledge and experience as well as helping to create networks for facilitating the research process. Williams and Blackburn (1988) studied the effects of mentoring on junior faculty productivity. Interestingly, work output was not affected by mentor advocacy, mentor socialization, or mentor encouragement. However, productiv­ity significantly increased for both mentors and mentes when mentors worked directly with and actively with junior faculty on projects. In an attempt to understand the process of being so­cialized into a research role, Brogan (1982) studied the effect of graduate coursework in research methods and sta­tistics in socializing graduate students in nursing into a research role. Brogan found that coursework did not alter the students' interest in doing research in the future. The only two correlates of interest in conducting nursing re­search were (a) more years of nursing experience and (b) a positive past research experience. Brogan points out that perhaps after the active experience of completing a master's thesis, students might report enhanced interest in conduct­ing research. Wakefield-Fisher (1987) studied the role of a dean's leadership style related to the professionalism of nursing faculty and its productivity. She found no relationship and 29 postulated that perhaps with a highly professional faculty, who are thereby autonomous, the dean's leadership style is insignificant to faculty productivity. Pranulis's (1984) study reported a correlation between faculty perceptions of the degree of influence that adminis­trator's support for research had on research activities and faculty productivity. However, Pranulis also found that faculty perceptions of how frequently administrators exhib­ited behaviors supportive of research did not correlate with a significant amount of the variance in total faculty re­search productivity. She concluded that faculty in her study may have perceived their administrators as having more influence on faculty research than they actually did. Hayter and Rice (1979) set out to identify where schol­arly productivity in nursing was occurring by conducting a literature review of three nursing journals from 1963 through 1977. During that time period, they tabulated the 5,560 articles published in Nursing Research, Nursing Outlook, and the American Journal of Nursing according to three variables: (a) institutional affiliation of author, (b) geographic location of institution, and (c) highest degree obtained by author. They justified their study's methodology by making a case for an objective measurement of scholarly productivity. Hayter and Rice point out that evaluative studies are often purely subjective with the limitation that numerous variables might affect responses. 30 Therefore, they defined scholarly productivity as publica­tions and used full articles published in one of three nursing journals as an index of productivity. Hayter and Rice reported that the majority of the articles written were by authors in the Mid-Atlantic (27.3%) and North Central (26.6%) geographical areas. Over the 15 years studied, there were 32 institutions from which at least 20 articles originated. Only eight institutions averaged as many as four articles a year. The implication is that many institutions have little publication produc­tivity. Of the articles tabulated, 15% were written by nurse authors with doctoral degrees and 42% by nurse authors with master's listed as the highest degree. Hayter and Rice concluded that a large number of insti­tutions lacked nurses who are productive in terms of arti­cles published. The results of their study indicated that much of nursing scholarly productivity is the result of individual nurses who are personally motivated, independent of institutional productivity. Hayter (1984) expanded upon Hayter and Rice's 1979 study by reviewing all the articles found in 13 nursing journals during the period of 1978 through 1982. Hayter used the same methodology as in the first study. Again, her central question revolved around identifying the institu­tional sources of scholarly productivity in nursing as measured by published articles. Articles written from the 31 North Central and Mid-Atlantic areas comprised 56.1% of the 3,792 articles published in the 13 nursing journals. Over the 5 years studied, there were 32 institutions from which at least 15 articles originated. Hayter once again conclud­ed that there are many settings with low nursing scholarly productivity. There were sole nurses who published inspite of the lack of institutional scholarly productivity as was found in the previous study. Hayter did find that more nurses are writing about nursing instead of allowing other disciplines to write about their profession for them. She also reported that institutions with newly established doctoral programs in nursing demonstrated higher scholarly productivity. Summary The literature review points out that institutions have been focusing on research productivity as the prime factor in faculty scholarly productivity. The environmental and individual variables related to faculty research produc­tivity have been discussed. Past studies examining factors facilitating or impeding research were reviewed and research making a case for measuring research productivity objective­ly was cited. This study focused on examining the objective research productivity, as measured by publications, of a selected sample of nurse educators and sought to provide additional information about the individual characteristics 32 that influence research productivity to the body of knowl­edge that currently exists. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Downs (1980) reported the need for more descriptive research in nursing as a large quantity of experimental studies have produced "astoundingly low' correlations be­tween variables, which she believes is due to a lack of a descriptive research base. This study was of a non­experimental, descriptive design in that, as defined by Waltz and Bausell (1981), it attempted to construct a pic­ture of the scholarly productivity of a selective sample of highly productive nurse researchers who were identified in Pranulis' 1984 study. There were no hypotheses tested, but the central research question asked in this study was, "What is the average annual and sustained objective publication productivity of nurse educators who have been identified as productive researchers?" Four contributory research ques­tions were also addressed. A retrospective 10-year litera­ture review of the published work of the study sample was conducted and involved categorization as well as content analysis of the publications retrieved. Subjects The sample for this study consisted of the 25 most highly productive participants in Pranulis' 1984 study, 34 "Environmental Influences on Nurse Faculty Research Produc­tivity at University Schools of Nursing," which she conduct­ed at the University of California, San Francisco. All of the subjects in Pranulis's study were female, doctorally­prepared nurse faculty researchers who were employed at one of the 10 top nursing colleges (ranked in 1984) in the United States. They all had earned doctorates and held tenure-track faculty positions at that time. Pranulis identified the names of the 25 most productive nurses who participated in her 1984 study and gave them to this investigator to carry out a la-year computerized literature search on each of these subjects. This investi­gator was blind to any of the parent study data on these subjects, including their specific productivity rank, their self-reported productivity, and any demographic data. For this study, to guard confidentiality, the 25 subjects were assigned representative code numbers and were only referred to by those numbers. Names were not used in data analysis nor were they reported in the data results. Subject identi­ties were only known to Pranulis, this investigator, and in part a second investigator who was utilized for coding reliability. To further ensure subject confidentiality, the proposal for this study was submitted to the Institutional Review Board at the University of Utah and was granted exempt status. 35 Methodology The methodology employed in this study followed tech­niques and definitions from the work of Hayter and Rice (1979), Hayter (1984), Pranulis (1984), and Gortner, Bloch, and Phillips (1976). A search of the literature by subject name was conducted using three separate computerized index programs: (1) Nursing and Allied Health, (2) Medline, and (3) the Online Catalog. These programs listed all the library materials known to the Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library at the University of Utah. The Nursing and Allied Health index is the computer database equivalent to the "Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature" and provides access to all known English language journals, publications from the American Nurses' Association and the National League for Nursing, and primary journals from 13 allied health disciplines. The Medline index is equivalent to the "National Library of Medicine's" bibliographic database. This program lists material from copyrighted publications of the respective copyright claimants. The Online Catalog lists known journal publications but was primarily used to access information regarding published books. Three separate literature reviews per subject on three different database indexes ensured that this investigator had retrieved the most accurate possible list of known publications, by each subject, that was accessible for an 36 objective study. The review of literature spanned exactly 10 years, from July 1981 (Pranulis' identified starting date for subjects to report their publication productivity) through June 1991. A review of the literature by subject name was conducted on all of the 25 subjects, and all the publications found in the literature reviews were assigned code numbers and counted. The publications identified in the literature reviews were books, articles from periodicals, and govern­ment and nursing organization publications. Publications that were owned by Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library and published in English were retrieved for content analy­sis. All publications were categorized according to the specific categorization schema that is listed in the data coding sheet (see appendix A). Definitions for all the categories can be found in Chapter I under "Operational Definitions." Publications were categorized in areas identified by Hayter and Rice (1979) consisting of year of publication and institutional affiliation of author. Other areas were the category of publication, type and author order of publication (Pranulis, 1984), and funding source if listed in the publication. Publications that were research studies were further categorized according to their focus areas, which were (a) building a science of practice, (b) artistry of practice, (c) establishing structures for 37 optimal delivery of care, (d) developing methodology, and (e) application of research findings (Gortner et al., 1976). Coding reliability was assessed for publication catego­ry and focus of publication. These were the two categories in the coding sheet that were open for subjective interpre­tation. Because the category of focus of publication was only applicable to research studies, all of the research studies from the retrieved publications were separated, and using a table of random numbers (Phillips & Thompson, 1967) 61 of the research studies were drawn for a second coder to code. This represented approximately 10% of the total number of publications identified in all of the literature reviews. The second independent coder was given coding instruc­tions prior to reviewing the 61 research studies. The second coder did not have any access to any confidential data but did know the name of the authors of the publica­tions and the titles of the publications that she coded. A high intercoder reliability was found for the two subjective areas of category of publication and focus of publication. Total agreement was found on both categories for 51 of the 61 (83.6%) random research studies examined. A higher percentage (91.8%) of agreement was achieved on each of the categories individually (see Table 1). There was no disagreement on both categories for any of the 61 research studies. 38 Table 1 Intercoder Reliability Agree on 4 56 91 .8 Agree on 9 56 91 .8 Agree on both 51 83.6 Disagree on both o 0.0 4 = Publication category 9 = Focus of Publication category 39 Although there was a high intercoder reliability between category of publication and focus of publication, the data coding sheet utilized for this study does need refinement. The reliability of the coding sheet was not consistent throughout the form. Most notably, in the category of type and focus of publication, a book might have been placed under: "book," "nursing organization publica­tion," or "government publication. II Therefore, there were a total of 48 books found and listed under the type and author category, but under category of publication, 52 books were found and listed. The coding sheet needs to be examined and standardized so that there is only one category for each variable and so that the categories match throughout the form. This would produce consistent data results throughout all the categories. All articles and books found in this study were counted once and equally. A book that had several editions was counted as many times as it was revised. Pranulis (1984) used a scoring system as a measure of productivity in her study and identified a total productivity score consisting of the sum of the publication productivity score, the pre­sentation productivity score, and other tangible outcomes. She defined these scores as a score of 1 x n for papers in nonrefereed journals, chapters in books, papers published as part of the proceedings of scientific sessions, and "other" research-related publications; a score of 2 x n for papers 40 published in refereed journals; and a score of 4 x n as­signed for books. Pranulis determined from her data results that either the weighted total productivity score, the weighted publication productivity score, or the unweighted count of publications could have been used to obtain essen­tially similar productivity results. This study could not obtain information regarding chapters in books, papers published in scientific sessions or "other" research-related publications; therefore the unweighted count of publications was used to obtain productivity ratings for each of the study subjects. Statistical Methods and Data Analysis Data results were analyzed using summary statistics (Waltz & Bausell, 1981). Frequency counts, means, and standard deviations were derived for each year for the subject group and for the total 10-year period for the subject group. Individual mean productivity and standard deviations were derived for the 10-year period against which the individual's annual productivity was plotted. In order to understand how the data related across all categories, subjects were ranked by productivity into five groups and research questions were answered by arranging aggregate data in tabular format and interpreting the results. The raw data are presented in Appendices B through G. In order to answer the research questions the missing data 41 were excluded in interpreting the results and therefore reduced the amount of data that could be reported in the actual findings. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This descriptive study was concerned with answering the central question of "What is the average annual and sus­tained objective publication productivity of nurse educators who have been identified as productive researchers?" Four contributing questions were also asked and will be addressed in the following order: (a) To what extent does objective publication productivity vary across subjects and over time? (b) Does objective publication productivity vary in relation to source of funding for research activities? (c) Does objective publication productivity vary in relation to the type and author order of publication? (d) Does objective publication productivity vary in relation to the focus of nursing knowledge being generated in the areas of building a science of practice, artistry of practice, establishing structures for optimal delivery of care; developing method­ology, and application of research findings? The sample of this study consisted of 25 subjects who over a 10-year period published 612 publications. The number of publications produced per subject and the percent­ages of productivity that each subject contributed to the entire sample number of publications are listed in Table 2. 43 Table 2 Subject Productivity from 1981-1992 01 7 1 . 1 1 • 1 02 10 1 . 6 2.8 03 78 1 2. 7 1 5.5 04 33 5.4 20.9 05 35 507 26.6 06 37 6.0 32.7 07 39 6.4 39. 1 08 1 .2 39.2 09 35 5.7 44.9 10 1 1 1 .8 46.7 1 1 36 5.9 52.6 12 1 4 2.3 54.9 1 3 8 1 .3 56.2 1 4 15 2.5 58.7 1 5 3 .5 59.2 1 6 34 5.6 64.7 17 49 8.0 72.7 18 26 4.2 77.0 1 9 35 5.7 82.7 20 1 1 1 • 8 84.5 21 1 2 2.0 86.4 22 1 4 2.3 88.7 23 49 8.0 96.7 24 18 2.9 99.7 25 2 .3 100.0 ----------- Total: N = 612 100.0 - Mean = 24.5 Median 18.0 44 The mean number of publications identified in this study was 24.5 with a median of 18 and a range from 1 through 78. There was variability found throughout the entire distribu­tion of publications. The number of publications published per year for the entire sample is listed in Table 3. The least number of publications (40) appeared in year 8 with the most appearing in year 4 (82). The scope of this study did not allow a comparison of the publication productivity between nurse educators and other disciplines, so productivity was only measured by reference to other subjects within the study. The data obtained suggest that the objective publication productivity reported in this study conforms with what is reported in the literature--that a high level of productivity was achieved by a small percentage of the subjects. This supports Fox's (1985) findings that certain small groups of faculty seem to be highly productive. This was surprising for this study, which was examining subjects who were all assumed to repre­sent highly productive nurse researchers. This might indi­cate that even within the subgroup of scholarly productive nurse researchers, a high degree of publication productivity is valued by a few whereas different types of productivity might be valued more by others. It does appear that productivity is reasonably consis­tent over the la-year period of this study. A slight increase appears during the middle period and levels off to Year Label July 81 - June 82 July 82 - June 83 July 83 - June 84 July 84 - June 85 July 85 June 86 July 86 - June 87 July 87 - June 88 July 88 - June 89 July 89 - June 90 July 90 - June 91 Table 3 Total Sample Productivity by Year Year P ications Percent 1 61 1 0.0 2 64 10. S 3 73 11 . 9 4 82 1 3 . 4 5 71 1 1 . 6 6 56 9.2 7 74 1 2. 1 8 40 6.S 9 44 7.2 10 47 7.7 Total: N = 612 100.0 Cum Percent 10.0 20.4 32.4 45.8 57.4 66.5 78.6 85.1 92.3 100.0 ~ V1 46 a lower than initial rate towards the end of the 10-year period. It should be noted that this long of a period of observation is subject to numerous variables that were beyond the controls of this study. There were no judgments made or data collected that would allow for an assessment of the quality of the publications investigated, which could have had a significant bearing on what constitutes true productivity. On the other hand, it is assumed that the publication process warrants a degree of validity. The next step in analyzing the data was to understand how the individual subjects performed in comparison to their colleagues. The first contributory question was, to what extent does objective publication productivity vary across subjects and over time? It was answered by comparing indi­vidual subjects' productivity over time. To understand the annual and sustained productivity of each subject as well as the aggregate data on the entire sample, Table 4 was developed. Horizontally in the table, the annual publication rate for each individual is listed, and the last two columns report each individuals' mean and standard deviation for the 10-year period. Vertically in the table, it is possible to compare the annual productivity of each subject to other subjects and to the overall groups' mean scores per year as well as the groups' yearly standard deviation ratings. For example, in year 1, 68% of the subjects produced between -.39 and 5.27 publications. In Table 4 Individual Annual and Total Productivity Versus Total Sample Annual and Total Productivity YEAR NUMBER INDIVIDUAL YRl YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR6 YR7 YR8 YR9 YR10 MN STD S 01 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0.7 0.8 U 02 0 1 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 1.0 1.1 B 03 9 5 7 12 7 5 1 2 7 7 7 7.8 2.5 J 04 5 2 3 5 2 1 3 4 3 5 3.3 1 .4 E 05 4 3 3 1 5 6 6 2 5 0 3.5 2.1 C 06 3 5 1 13 3 2 4 3 1 2 3.7 3.5 T 07 8 11 7 4 6 2 1 0 0 0 3.9 3.9 08 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 O. 1 0.3 N 09 4 4 3 7 8 5 2 1 1 0 3.5 2.6 U 10 1 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 1.1 1.0 M 11 2 2 4 5 4 8 6 1 3 1 3.6 2.3 B 12 0 3 1 1 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 . 4 1.0 E 1 3 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0.8 0.9 R 14 4 4 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1.5 1 .8 15 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0.3 0.5 16 4 3 4 3 2 2 4 4 2 6 3.4 1.3 17 8 9 10 10 7 2 0 1 1 1 4.9 4.2 18 1 2 2 5 1 5 1 2 2 5 2.6 1.7 19 1 3 6 4 7 1 4 3 5 1 3.5 2.1 20 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 1 • 1 0.7 21 0 1 1 1 2 0 4 0 1 2 1 • 2 1 .2 22 1 0 3 1 1 0 7 1 0 0 1 .4 2.2 23 5 3 2 3 9 4 8 4 5 6 4.9 2.2 24 1 0 2 2 0 2 4 3 0 4 1.8 1 . 5 25 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.2 0.4 .t:. ------- ---~--- ------- --------------- -~----- - ------ ------- ------- -J GR MN 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.2 3.0 1.6 1 .8 1.9 0 STD 2.8 2.8 2.4 3.7 2.9 2. 1 3.0 1.8 1 . 9 2.3 U p 48 most years, the distribution appears to be skewed negative­ly. Again, this indicates that the number of publications published in the 10-year span studied remained for the most part constant. The highly productive researchers remained productive and the least productive researchers remained nonproductive. Because the data had such a wide distribution, an attempt was made to organize it in a more meaningful manner by arranging the subjects into productivity groups. Table 5 describes how subjects were ranked by their productivity score and placed into a productivity group. There are five productivity groups with group number 1 representing the most productive subjects, group number 2 the second most productive subjects, and so on down to group number 5, which represents the least productive subjects in the sample. The total numbers and percentages of publications that each productivity group were responsible for are also listed in the table. The top 10 producers were responsible for 427 of the 612 publications (69.8%), whereas the subjects in group 5 only produced 21 publications (3.4%). The remaining three contributory research questions were answered by comparing the subjects in the five productivity groups to each other. The next question examined was, does objective publica­tion productivity vary in relation to source of funding for research activities? Of the 612 publications, 143 or 23.4% were reported to have received some source of funding (see Table 5 Ranking Subjects into Productivity Groups Productivity Groups I I I I I I I V Rank of Subjects 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 # of Pubs Bv Subjects 78 49 49 39 37 36 35 35 35 34 33 26 18 1 5 14 1 4 12 11 11 10 Total # of Pubs N = 252 N = 175 N = 106 N = 58 49 % of Pubs (41.2%) (28.6%) (17.3%) ( 9.5%) ------------------------------------------------------------- V 21 22 23 24 25 8 7 3 2 1 N = 21 ( 3.4%) ------------------------------------------------------------- Total: N = 612 (100.0%) 50 Table 6). The publications reporting funding were research studies or articles describing proposals or literature reviews to be used in research studies. The categories of not applicable and no funding listed were added to the data coding sheet (see Appendix A) in order to differentiate between publications that were research studies and those that were not. If a publication was listed under not applicable, this meant that it was not a research study and did not report any source of funding. Publications that were not research studies, but reporting receiving some source of funding were classified according to the funding they received. This limited interpretation of some of the data; future studies would benefit from revising the data coding sheet to reflect the differentiation between publications that were not research studies that reported funding sources and publica­tions that were research studies that reported funding sources. However, the raw data revealed that the publica­tions that were not research studies but reported funding sources were either articles describing proposals or litera­ture reviews to be used in future research studies and therefore were representative of steps in the research process. The category of no funding listed was used to identify research studies that did not report any funding sources. The data were analyzed after removing the publications Not Applicable No Funding Listed Federal (Some or All) All Others Total: Table 6 Funding Sources 287 84 105 38 N :::: 514 51 d Percent 55.8 16.3 20.4 7.4 (99.9%) 52 that fell into the categories of (a) not applicable, (b) no funding listed, and (c) missing information (see Appendices Band C for raw data). The data that remained were col­lapsed into two categories: (a) Federal Funding, represent­ing funding sources listed in publications that identified any amount of federal funding; and (b) Other Sources, representing all other sources of funding that were listed in the publications retrieved. Table 6 reports the frequen­cies and percentages of publications falling into the major categories, and Table 7 reports the frequencies and percent­ages of publications that each publication group totalled in the categories of Federal Funding and Other Sources. The extent that funding was a determining factor in productivity is somewhat uncertain. The most productive group had a high level of productivity without the percent­age of funding that was received by the middle groups, whereas the least productive group received no funding. This also suggests that the most productive subjects were motivated by factors other than funding. Of greater inter­est is the fact that among the research studies, the majori­ty (73.4%) of the publications were funded. The federal government alone was the source of funding for 58.7% of these publications. This clearly indicates that funding is a motivational factor in completing research studies, which supports Pranulis' (1984) finding that there was a signifi­cant relationship between extramural funding and productivi- Table 7 Funding Sources by Productivity Groups Groups FEDERAL (Allor Some) OTHER SOURCES TOTAL N % -N % -N % I 35 33.3) 12 31 .6) 47 32.9) I I 44 41 .9) 1 1 28.9) 55 38.5) I I I 1 2 1 1 .4 ) 1 2 31 .6) 24 1 6.8 ) I V 14 1 3.3 ) 3 7.9) 17 11 .9 ) V 0 0.0) 0 0.0) 0 o . 0 ) Total: 105 99.9) 38 (100.0) 143 (100.1) Groups = Productivity Groups Federal(All or Some) Publications that have any amount of federal funding sources Other Sources All other sources of funding listed in publications U1 W 54 ty. The third question examined was, does objective publi­cation productivity vary in relation to the type and author order of publication (e.g. refereed or nonrefereed journals; sole or contributory author; etc.)? The raw data obtained to answer this question is reported in Appendices D and E. To answer this question, data were analyzed after removing the publications that fell into the categories of missing and non-English foreign journals. The number of publica­tions that fell into these categories represented 97 of the 612 publications retrieved. The categories that remained were listed according to sole and contributory authorship, and the frequencies and percentages of publications that fell into these categories are listed in Table 8. Again, frequencies and percentages by productivity groups were derived and are listed in Table 9 for the collapsed catego­ries of (a) refereed nursing journal sole author, (b) refer­eed nursing journal contributing author, (c) all other categories sole author, and (d) all other categories con­tributing author. Publication productivity did vary in relation to type and author order. The majority (73.0%) of the publications were published in refereed nursing journals whereas only 0.6% of the publications were from nonrefereed nursing journals. The review of literature supports the fact that nurse researchers value the opinions and critiques of their Table 8 Type and Author Order of Publications Categories Sole Author Cont. Author -N % N % REFNURS 206 (81.7) 170 ( 64 • 6 ) NONREFNURS 2 .8) .4) REFNONNURS 6 2.4) 20 7 • 6 ) NONREFNONNURS 2 .8) 7 2.7) COMPLETE BOOK 12 4 • 8 ) 23 8.7) NURSG ORGANIZ 6 2.4) 16 6. 1 ) EDITOR OF BOOK 1 .4) 1 2 4.6) ?REF STATUS 15 6.0) 13 4 • 9 ) FOREIGN JOURNAL 2 .8) 1 .4) TOTAL: 252 (100.1) 263 (100.0) REFNURS = Refereed nursing journal NONREFNURS = Nonrefereed nursing journal REFNONNURS = Refereed nonnursing journal NONREFNONNURS Nonrefereed nonnursing journal COMPLETE BOOK = Complete book NURSG ORGANIZ = Nursing organization publication EDITOR OF BOOK = Editor of book ?REF STATUS = Refereed status unknown FOREIGN JOURNAL = English foreign journals Total -N 376 3 26 9 35 22 1 3 28 3 515 55 % ( 7 3 .0) .6) 5.0) 1 • 7) 6.8) 4.3) 2.5) 5.4) .6) (99.9) Table excludes missing data and non-English foreign journals Groups REFNSA N % I 98 47.6) I I 58 28.2) I I I 30 1 4 . 6 ) I V 17 8.3) V 3 1 • 5 ) Table 9 Type and Author Order of Publications by Productivity Groups REFNCA OTHERSA OTIIERCA N % N % N -% 53 31 . 2 ) 1 7 37.0) 40 53 31 . 2 ) 15 32.6) 1 6 38 22.4) 7 1 5. 2 ) 22 21 1 2.4 ) 6 1 3.0 ) 6 5 2.9) 2 • 2 ) 9 43.0) 1 7.2 ) 23.7) 6. 5) 9.7) Total: 206 (100.2) 170 (100.1) 46 (100.0) 92 (100.1) Groups Productivity Groups REFNSA ~ Refereed nursing journal sole author REFNCA = Refereed nursing journal contributing author OTHERS A = All other categories sole author OTHERCA = All other categories contributing author TOTAL N % - - 208 40.4) 142 27.6) 97 18.8) 50 9.7) 18 3.5) 515 (100.0) This table excluded foreign journal categories and missing information categories Ul 0'\ 57 peers (Pranulis, 1984), and this is reflected in this sample. This sample published almost equally as sole versus contributing authors. The majority of publications in nonnursing nonforeign journals were coauthored, which might suggest that this sample hesitated to publish outside of nursing journals as sole authors. Finally, although the raw data reports that only 24 of the 612 publications were published in foreign journals, it is interesting to note that the top two productivity groups were responsible for 22 or 91.2% of these publications. If the most productive nurse researchers are more apt to publish in foreign journals, it could be speculated that productive nurse educators have a more global vision of nursing than other nurse researchers. The last contributing question asked was, does objec­tive publication productivity vary in relation to the focus of nursing knowlege being generated in these areas: (a) building a science of practice, (b) artistry of practice, (c) establishing structures for optimal delivery of care, (d) developing methodology, and (e) application of research findings? Of the 612 publications 406 were either not applicable (308) or missing (98). A publication was listed under not applicable if it was not a research study or a book that presented a series of studies. This research question was concerned with asking what types of nursing knowledge were 58 being generated in nursing research studies. The raw data were reported in tables and can be found in Appendices F and G. The remaining data were analyzed after removing the publications that fell into the categories of not applica­ble, unable to determine, and missing. The focus categories and frequencies and percentages found within these categories are listed in Table 10. The frequencies and percentages for the five productivity groups were found for the collapsed categories: (a) building a practice of science, (b) developing methodology, and (c) all other categories (see Table 11). The publications did vary according to their focus of nursing knowledge. The majority (77.5%) focused on building a science of practice. Ironically, only 4.4% focused on artistry, which refers to the specific practice of nursing. This indicated that this sample has focused on increasing the general knowledge base of the science of nursing but not on understanding and expanding the specific knowledge base of the practice of nursing. Pranulis (1984) reported that the subjects in her study did not identify strongly with the role of clinician and devoted few hours to clinical prac­tice. She also reported that the respondents viewed improv­ing the efficiency and effectiveness of practice as the primary purpose of research in nursing. For some reason, this sample has demonstrated either a lack of interest or perhaps the clinical expertise to conduct research pertinent 59 Table 10 Focus of Nursing Knowledge Building Science 1 41 77.5 Artistry Practice 8 4.4 Establish Structure 5 2.7 Develop Methodology 26 1 4 . 3 Findings Application 2 1 • 1 --------- Total: N 182 (100.0) Building Science = Building a science of practice Artistry Practice Artistry of practice Establish Structure Establishing structures for optimal delivery of care Develop Methodology Developing methodology Findings Application = Application of research findings G N % I 32 22.7) I I 63 44.7) I I I 21 14.9) I V 18 12.8) V 7 5.0) Total: 1 41 (100.1 ) Groups = Productivity groups Table 11 Focus of Nursing Knowledge by Productivity Groups Other N % N % - - - - 5 1 9.2 ) 5 33.3) 9 34.6) 4 26.7) 6 23. 1 ) 4 26.7) 3 11. 5 ) 2 1 3.3 ) 3 11. 5) 0 o . 0 ) 26 99.9) 1 5 (100.0) Building Science = Building a practice of science Develop = Developing methodology Other = All other categories Total N -% 42 23. 1 ) 76 41 .8) 31 17.0) 23 12.6) 10 5 . 5 ) 182 (100.0) This table excluded the categories not applicable, unable to determine, missing information Q"\ o 61 to the specific practice of nursing. This researcher was surprised that from an administra­tive viewpoint only 2.7% of the studies looked at the various structures for delivering nursing care. This suggests that the role of administrator with the role of researcher bears further exploration. How much of adminis­trative theory is based on empirical evidence? How can administrators encourage and understand the research being conducted in their universities if they are not conducting research in their own specialty area? It is also interesting that only 1.1% of the publica­tions focused on application of research findings. This sample did not utilize the knowledge gained from previous studies to conduct follow-up studies. These researchers are generating new knowledge but have yet to make the next step of challenging or utilizing this knowledge. The productivity groups reflect across all the groups the same phenomenon that occurred throughout the sample. There was not much variance except in productivity group 2, which was responsible for the highest number of research studies over all the other groups. This chapter was concerned with reporting and analyzing the data obtained to answer the research questions asked in this study. A summary of the entire study is presented in Chapter V. A brief review of the problem that lead to the purpose of this study as well as the data obtained and 62 analyzed is also condensed in a general synopsis. Finally, the next chapter also suggests recommendations for future studies as well as what implications arise from the results of this study to impact the science of nursing. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Faculty research productivity has become an issue of priority for nurse educators and their administrators. Despite this development, faculty productivity appears to be inconstant, with a few highly productive nurse researchers producing the majority of published nursing research. There are no published norms for objectively evaluating the adequacy of the publication productivity of nurse educators. The purpose of this study was to describe objectively the scholarly productivity of a selected sample of 25 productive nurse researchers. The sample was drawn from the 25 most productive subjects who participated in Pranulis' 1984 study, which focused on identifying the environmental and individual factors contributing to faculty research productivity. These subjects were all doctorally-prepared faculty and were assumed to be representative of scholarly productive nurse researchers. Research productivity was defined as a quantifiable index of the amount of empirical knowledge disseminated through the written word in terms of books or periodicals. This study measured the research productivity of the sample by conducting a literature review from July 1981 through June 1991 on each of the study's 64 subjects. Data results demonstrated inconstant publication productivity within the assumed homogenous sample group, with a range from 1 to 78 publications produced per subject over the 10-year time period studied. The mean number of publications for the entire sample was 24.5, with a median of 18. The total number of publications retrieved was 612, and of these 52 (8.5%) were books, 203 were research papers (33.3%) and the rest fell into the categories identified in Appendix H. Subjects were arranged into five productivity groups in an effort to compare the productivity of the most productive research subjects with the least productive research sub­jects. The most productive group of 5 subjects were respon­sible for 252 of the 612 publications. Approximately 19% of the publications in this group were funded, 60% were publi­cations in refereed nursing journals, and 13% focused on building a science of practice for nursing. The least productive group of 5 subjects were responsible for 21 of the 612 publications. This group reported no funding sources, had 38% of their publications published in refereed nursing journals, and 33% of their publications focused on Building a Science of practice for nursing. Appendix I has the approximate percentage of publications produced by each productivity group and the approximate percentages of funding, refereed nursing publications, sole authored 65 publications, contributing author publications, foreign non­English publications, and publications that focused on Building a Science of practice for nursing that each group produced in relation to the total samples' productivity. Appendix I has the percentages that each group produced in the categories mentioned above, in relation to their own individual total productivity counts. Summary The data collected in this study suggest findings that correlate with what is reported in the literature. Even within this study sample, a high level of productivity was achieved by a small percentage of subjects, which reflects a phenomenon that Fox reported in 1985. The highly productive researchers in this study remained productive, whereas the least productive researchers remained nonproductive. Although the funding sources listed in publications could not be related to productivity, this study found that the majority of research studies were funded by the federal government alone, which supports Pranulis' (1984) finding that there was a significant relationship between extramural funding and productivity. The nurse researchers in this study tended to publish in refereed nursing journals, which also supports Pranulis (1984) finding in her study that recognition from nursing groups was a variable, significant­ly related to productivity. Finally, the data retrieved 66 from the category of focus of publication suggest that although nurse researchers have indicated that they believe nursing practice should incorporate nursing research find­ings (Pranulis, 1984), the nurse researchers in this sample have not done this. Recommendations 1. This study used publications as an objective measure of productivity. To test the validity of using an objective measure of research productivity further studies are needed. Studies that compare objective versus subjective data on research productivity are also suggested in order to under­stand the relationship between the two different measures of productivity. 2. Further studies, on a larger scale, are needed to replicate this study's design so that data can be collected to determine the validity of the baseline productivity norm rates that were found in this study. 3. A study that conducted more statistical analysis could determine if significant relationships exist between the very productive research group and the least productive researcher group identified in this and other studies. 4. A study that measured the objective productivity of scholars from other disciplines, compared with the objective productivity of nurse scholars, would answer questions regarding productivity norm rates and consistency of indi- 67 vidual productivity across different scientific disciplines. 5. The results from Pranulis' (1984) study and this study imply that extramural funding significantly impacts nurse faculty research productivity. Further studies to explore the relationship between these variables and research questions that sought answers to why and how some nurse researchers obtain extramural funding could assist nurse faculty in increasing their research productivity. 6. Finally, the results of this study suggest that addi­tional research exploring the focus of nursing research studies is indicated in order to understand how nurses can apply nursing research findings into nursing practice and to identify and understand the factors that inhibit this process. As nurses struggle to defend the practice of nursing as a profession to colleagues from other scientific disciplines, it becomes essential that nursing theory and nursing research are merged and utilized into nursing practice. Conclusions The nurse researchers in this study exhibited incon­stant publication productivity over the lO-year period studied. As the most productive individuals were consis­tently productive and conversely the least productive sub­jects remained low producers, it is logical to assume that in this research study publication productivity seemed to be 68 an individual factor. This does not discount the fact that individuals might choose environments that foster the type of productivity they value or that environments might educate and influence individuals to value a certain type of productivity. The influence of funding on publication productivity was seen mainly in the category of research studies. Of these types of publications, 73.4% were funded and the federal government alone was the source of funding for 58.7% of them. The nurse researchers in this study seemed moti­vated by extramural funding to publish their research findings. The nurse researchers in this sample obviously placed merit on the feedback and review of their peers as indicated by the fact that they tended to publish in refereed nursing journals. It is obvious that it is important for these nurse educators to disseminate their research findings and ideas throughout the profession of nursing. Ironically though, the findings of this study suggest that nursing research findings might not be transferred into nursing practice as the nurse researchers in this study did not focus their research on the application of research find­ings. 69 Implications for Nursing If nursing publication productivity is an individual factor, then the problem of increasing publication produc­tivity must focus on how to motivate the individual nurse who is not productive to publish. The findings of this study suggest that two important factors assist in this process: extramural funding and a peer review process. Highly productive nurse researchers do not seem influenced by funding, but this study suggests that there is a rela­tionship between extramural funding and publication produc­tivity for less productive nurse researchers. In addition, nurse authors seem to favor peer review publications, which might indicate that they are influenced by their peers and therefore can also be motivated by them. Individual nurses must value publication productivity at the same level they value other aspects of nursing productivity. This study also suggests that if nurses value nursing research, then nurses must expect to use nursing research findings in nursing practice. Nurse educators have the responsibility of facilitating this process through the focus of their research publications. APPENDIX A DATA CODING SHEET FOR PUBLICATIONS 71 DATE: CODER: 1. CARD NUMBER.............................. / / 2. 3. 4. SUBJECTS CODE NUMBER .•....••.•...•......• / / / PUBLICATION CODE NUMBER ..•..••.•.•••.••.. / / / / / CATEGORY OF PUBLICATION •••..••.•••••••••• / / / 00 Book 01 = Abstract or Research Brief 02 = Editorial/Letter to the Editor 03 = Literature Review 04 = Case Study 05 = Opinion Paper 06 = Historical Research Paper 07 = Methodological Research Paper 08 = MetaAnalysis Paper 09 = Cultural Research Paper 10 = Substantive Research Paper 11 = Theory Paper 12 = Methodological Issue Paper 13 = Professional/Substantive Issue Paper 14 = Ethical/Philisophical Issue Paper 15 = Combination of Cultural/Substantive Research Paper 16 = Response/Commentary Paper 17 = Functional Research Paper 18 = Functional Information Paper 5. YEAR OF PUBLICATION ..•..•.••••••••••••••• / / / 6. 00 = July 1981 through June 1982 01 = July 1982 through June 1983 02 = July 1983 through June 1984 03 = July 1984 through June 1985 04 = July 1985 through June 1986 05 = July 1986 through June 1987 06 = July 1987 through June 1988 07 = July 1988 through June 1989 08 = July 1989 through June 1990 09 = July 1990 through June 1991 TYPE 00 = 01 = 02 = 03 = OF PUBLICATION AND AUTHOR ORDER •.••• /_/_/ Refereed Nursing Journal Sole Author Refereed Nursing Journal Contributing Author Nonrefereed Nursing Journal Sole Author Nonrefereed Nursing Journal Contributing Author 72 Page 2 of 3 04 ;; 05 ;; 06 ;; 07 ::: 08 = 09 ;; 10 ;; 1 1 ;; 1 2 ::: 1 3 ::: 14 ::: 1 5 ::: 1 6 ::: 17 ::: 18 = 1 9 ;; 20 ::: Refereed Nonnursing Journal Sole Author Refereed Nonnursing Journal Contributing Author Nonrefereed Nonnursing Journal Sole Author Nonrefereed Nonnursing Journal Contributing Author Complete Book Sole Author Complete Book Contributing Author Government Publication Sole Author Government Publication Contributing Author Nursing Organization Publication Sole Author Nursing Organization Publication Contributing Author Contributing Editor of Book Unable to determine refereed status- Nursing Sole A. Unable to determine refereed status- Nursing Cont.A. Foreign (English) Journal Sole Author Foreign (English) Journal Contributing Author Non-English Foreign Journal Sole Editor of Book 7. FUNDING SOURCE REPORTED IN ARTICLES .•.•.•• / / / 00 = 01 = 02 ;; 03 = 04 :: 05 ;; 06 ::: 07 :: 08 ::: 09 = 10 ;; 11 :: 12 = 1 3 :: 14 ;; 15 = 16 = Not Applicable No Funding Listed Nursing Association (ANA, NLN, SNA) American Nurses Foundation Nursing Honor Society Private Foundation (ex. R.W. Johnson) Private, Nonprofit Agency (ex. American Cancer Society) Private, For Profit Corporation (ex. Drug Company) Military (ex. Veterans Administration) Federal (ex. NIH or NSF) Intramural Combination of Federal and Intramural Combination of Federal and Foreign Intramural Foreign Nursing Association + Private Foundation Intramural + Nursing Honor Society Nursing Honor Society + Federal Federal + American Nurses Foundation + Nursing Honor + Private Individual 8. INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION OF AUTHOR ••••••. / / / 00 ;; None Listed 01 = Health Service Agency Only 02 = Education Institution Only 03 = Health Service Agency Primary and Education Secondary 04 ;; Education Primary and Health Service Secondary Page 3 of 3 05 = Education and Professional Organization 06 = Retired Professor 73 07 = Education and Private Practice (ex. Consultant) 9. FOCUS OF PUBLICATION .•...................• / / / 00 = Not Applicable 01 = Unable to Determine 02 = Building a Science of Practice 03 = Artistry of Practice 04 = Establishing Structures for Optimal Delivery of Care 05 = Developing Methodology 06 = Application of Research Findings APPENDIX B FUNDING SOURCES REPORTED (RAW D~TA) Categories Not Applicable No Funding Listed Nursing Association Nursing Honor Society Private Foundation Private Nonprofit Private For Profit Federal Intramural Federal + Intramural Federal + Foreign Intramural Foreign Nrsg Asso. + Private Intramural + Nrsg. Honor Nrsg. Honor + Federal Federal + ANF + Nrsg H + Pri Missing Information Total: N Frequency 287 84 6 2 5 2 1 84 18 10 1 1 3 9 1 98 ----------- 612 Percent 46.9 13.7 1 • 0 · 3 .8 • 3 · 2 13.7 2.9 1 . 6 • 2 .2 · 5 1 . 5 .2 16.0 ------ 100.0 APPENDIX C FUNDING SOURCES REPORTED AND PRODUCTIVITY GROUP FREQUENCIES (RAW DATA) r:J/A Total # Publications Frequency 287 Percent 46.9 Mean 11 . 5 Std Dev. 1 1 • 4 Median 8.0 -- ------ ------ ----- --------- Frequency by Productivity Groups I I I I I I I V V N/A = Not applicable None = No funding listed 1 42 58 54 24 9 None 84 13. 7 3.4 3.3 3.0 ------ - 18 29 19 9 9 Some/All Others Missing I 105 38 98 17.2 6.2 16.0 4.2 1 . 5 3.9 5.2 2.2 5.5 2.0 1 .0 3.0 --~-- ------ -- - -- ----- ----- 35 12 45 44 1 1 33 12 12 9 1 4 3 8 0 0 3 Some/All Publications that have any amount of federal funding sources Others = All other sources of funding listed in publications Missing = Missing information Total = Total # of publications from July 1981 - June 1991 _'fotal 612 100 24.5 18.5 18.0 t- --- -- - Total Groups 252 175 106 58 21 ...J 01 APPENDIX D TYPE AND AUTHOR ORDER OF PUBLICATIONS Ref Nurs, Sole Auth Ref Nurs, Contribute Nonref Nurs, Sole Au Nonref Nurs, Contribute Ref Nonnurs, Sole Au Ref Nonnurs, Contribute Nonref Nonnurs, Sole Nonref Nonnurs, Cont Complete Book, Sole Complete Book, Contr Nurs Org, Sole Authr Nurs Org, Contr Auth Contrib Editor, Book ?Ref Status, Nurs, SA ?Ref Status, Nurs, CA Foreign Journl, Sole For Jour Contr Auth Non-English For Jour Sole Editor of Book Missing Information Totals: (RAW DATA) Freguency 206 170 2 1 6 20 2 7 12 23 6 1 6 1 2 1 5 13 2 1 24 1 73 --------- N 612 Percent 33.7 27.8 .3 .2 1 .0 3. 3 · 3 1 • 1 2.0 3.8 1 • 0 2.6 2.0 2.5 2. 1 .3 · 2 3.9 • 2 1 1 . 9 ------ 100.0 APPENDIX E TYPE/AUTHOR ORDER REPORTED AND PRODUCTIVITY GROUP FREQUENCIES (RAW DATA) REFNSA REFNCA OSA OCA FOREIGN Total Publications Frequency 206 170 46 93 24 Percent 33.7 27.8 7.5 15.2 3.9 Mean 8.2 6.8 1 .8 3.7 1 .0 Std Dev. 9.3 5.6 2.2 3.7 2.5 Median 6.0 6.0 1 .0 3.0 0.0 --------- -- -- -- -- ----- -------- --- -- --- - --- -- --- Frequency By Productivity Group~ I 98 53 17 40 11 I I 58 53 15 1 6 1 1 I I I 30 38 7 22 2 I V 1 7 21 6 6 0 V 3 5 1 9 0 - - ..... --........ --.... -.-~ --- -~ REFNSA ::: REFNCA OSA ::: Refereed nursing journal sole author Refereed nursing journal contributing author All other categories sole author OCA FOREIGN ::: MISSING = All other categories contributing author Non-English foreign journals Missing information MISSING 73 11 • 9 2.9 3.4 3.0 ---------- 33 22 7 8 3 TOTAL Total # of publications from July 1981 - June 1991 TOTAL 612 100 24.5 18.5 18.0 -- ----- -- -- -- TOTAL FOR GROUPS 252 175 106 58 21 ...J \.0 APPENDIX F FOCUS OF PUBLICATION (RAW DATA) Categories Frequency Percent Not Applicable 308 50.3 Unable to Determine 24 3.9 Building a Science 1 41 23.0 Artistry of Practice 8 1 • 3 Establish Structure 5 .8 Develop Methodology 26 4.2 Findings Application 2 • 3 Missing Information 98 16.0 ---- - Total: N = 612 100.0 APPENDIX G FOCUS OF PUBLICATION AND PRODUCTIVITY GROUP FREQUENCIES (RAW DATA) ---- Not Appl. Total # of P ions Frequency 308 Percent 50.3 Mean 1 2.3 std Dev. 11 . 1 Median 9 --- --- ------ --- - ---------- Frequencies of Productivity Groups I 143 I I 65 I I I 65 I V 27 V 8 Not Appl. = Not applicable Unab = Unable to determine Unable f--------- 24 3.9 1 .0 4 0.0 - ------ - 22 1 1 0 0 Building = Building a practice of science Devel. = Developing methodology Other = All other categories Mis. = Missing information Buildinq Devel. 1 41 26 23 4.2 5.6 1 .0 5.5 1 . 3 4 0.0 '-- --------' -- --- 32 5 63 9 21 6 18 3 7 3 Tot. = Total # of publications from July 1981 - June 1991 Total Groups = Total for groups Other - ------- 1 5 2.5 .6 1 0.0 - - -- - 5 4 4 2 0 Mis. --- -'------ 98 1 6 3.9 5.6 3 - -- -- 45 33 9 8 3 !- Tot. 612 100 24.5 18.5 18 -- -- Total Groups 252 175 106 58 21 co N APPENDIX H CATEGORY OF PUBLICATION Categories Book Editorial or Letter Literature review Case study Opinion paper Historical research Methodology research Cultural research Substantive research Theory Methodological issue Professional issue Ethical issue Cultural + Substantive Response/Commentary Functional research Functional information Missing information Frequency 52 7 25 4 5 1 1 25 22 127 1 1 50 67 46 2 32 1 2 17 97 Total: N:::: 612 Percent 8.5 1 • 1 4 • 1 • 7 .8 1 .8 4 • 1 3.6 20.8 1 .8 8.2 10.9 7.5 .3 5.2 2.0 2.8 1 5.8 100.0 APPENDIX I PERCENTAGE OF PUBLICATIONS FOR PRODUCTIVITY GROUPS IN THE MAJOR CATEGORIES * Groups %Pub. %Funded %Refer. %Sole %Contrib. %Foreign %Focus I 41% 8% I I 29% 9% I I I 17% 4% I V 9% 3% V 3% 0% ** I 252 19% I I 175 31% I I I 106 23% I V 58 29% V 21 0% 25% 19% 15% 18% 12% 11 % 11 % 6% 9% 6% 4% 4% 1 % .6% 2% 60% 46% 37% 63% 42% 39% 64% 35% 57% 65% 40% 46% 38% 19% 67% 1 % 1 % .3% 0% 0% 4% 6% 1 .9% 0% 0% 5% 10% 3% 3% 1 % %Focus 13% 36% 20% 31% 33% * Comparing each productivity group to the total sample productivity of 612 publications **Comparing each productivity group to each groups individual total productivity Groups = productivity groups %Pub. = percentages of total publications HPub. number of publications %Funded %Refer. %Sole percentages sole authored %Foreign %Contrib. = percentages contributing author %Focus = percentage funded percentage published in refereed nursing journals = percentage of foreign journals percentages of the focus being building a practice of science Q:) U'l REFERENCES Anderson, C.A. (1989). This isn't what I expected: The changing landscape of nursing education. Journal of Professional Nursing, 2(4), 171, 236. Andreoli, K.G., & Musser, L.A. (1986). Faculty productivity. Annual Review of Nursing Research. i, 177-193. Anema, M.G., & Byrd, G.L. (1991). A systems model approach to increasing faculty productivity. Journal of Nursing Education, 30(3}, 114-118. 87 Batey, M.V. (1978). Research development in university schools of nursing. Organizational structure and process variables related to goal attainment (Health Manpower References) (DHEW Publ. No [HRA] 78-67). Hayattsville, MD: Division of Nursing, U.S. Health Resources Administration. Batey, M.V. (1985). Nursing research productivity: The University of Washington experience. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 1(4), 489-493. Bock, L.R. (1990). From research to utilization: Bridging the gap. Nursing management, 21(3), 50-51. Brogan, D.R. (1982). Professional socialization to a research role: Interest in research among graduate students in nursing. Research in Nursing and Health, 2(3}, 113-122. Conway, M.E. (1989). Is survival dependent of success in the competition for extramural dollars? Journal of Professional Nursing, 2(6), 302. Downs, F. (1980). The relationship of findings of clinical research and development of criteria: A researcher's perspective. Nursing Research, 29(1), 94-97. Fawcett, J. (1980). A declaration of nursing independence: The relation of theory and research to nursing practice. Journal of Nursing Administration, 10(6) I 36-39. Fox, M.F. (1985). Publication, performance, and reward in science and scholarship. In J.C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theo~ and research (pp.255-282). New York: Agathon Press. Gortner, S.R. (1974). Scientific accountability in nursing. Nursing Outlook, 22(12}, 764-768. 88 Gortner, S.R. (1975). Research for a practice profession. Nursing Research, 24(3), 193-197. Gortner, S.R., Bloch, D., & Phillips, T.P. (1976). Contributions of nursing research to patient care. Journal of Nursing Administration, Q(3), 22-28. Gortner, S.R., Nahm, H. (1977). An overview of nursing research in the United States. Nursing Research, 26(1), 10-33. Guralnik, D. (Ed.). (1980). Webster's new collegiate dictionary. New York: Warner Books Inc. Haller, K.B., & Reynolds, M.A. (1986). A case for replication in nursing- part two. Western Journal of Nursing Research, ~(2), 249-252. Hayter, J. (1984). Institutional sources of articles published in 13 nursing journals, 1978-1982. Nursing Research, 33(6), 357-362. Hayter, J., & Rice, P. (1979). Institutional sources of articles published in the American Journal of Nursing, Nursing Outlook, and Nursing Research. Nursing Research, 28(4), 205-209. Hinshaw, A.S., & Sorensen, G.E. (1986). The University of Arizona environment- productivity versus resources. Western Journal of Nursing Research, ~(6), 243-247. Holzemer, W.L., & Chambers, D.B. (1986). Healthy nursing doctoral programs: Relationship between perceptions of the academic environment and productivity of faculty and alumni. Research in Nursing and Health, ~(4), 299-307. Holzemer, W.L., & Chambers, D.B. (1988). A contextual analysis of faculty productivity. Journal of Nursing Education, 27(1), 10-18. Holzemer, W.L., & Gortner, S.R. (1988). Evaluation of the nursing research emphasis/grants for doctoral programs in Nursing Grant Program, 1979 to 1984. Journal of Professional Nursing, 4(5), 381-386. Jacox, A. (1980). Strategies to promote nursing research. Nursing Research, 29(4) I 213-217. Munro, B.H., Visintainer, M.A., & Page, E.B. (1986). Statistical methods for health care research. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company. Nieswiadomy, R.M. (1984). Nurse educator's involvement 89 in research. Journal of Nursing Education, 23(2), 52-56. Ostmoe, P.M. (1986). Correlates of university nurse faculty publication productivity. Journal of Nursing Education, 25(5}, 207-212. Phillips, T.P., & Thompson, B. (1967) Statistics for nurses. New York: Macmillan Company. Pranulis, M.F. (1984). Environmental influences on nurse faculty research productivity at university schools of nursing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, San Francisco. Pranulis, M.F., & Drieveer, M.J. (1990). A conceptual framework for analyzing influences on research productivity in clinical settings. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 12(4), 563-565. Pranulis, M.F., & Gortner, S.R. (1985). Characteristics of productive research environments in nursing. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 2(1), 127-131. Reed, P.G. (1988). Promoting research productivity in new faculty: A developmental perspective of the early postdoctoral years. Journal of Professional Nursing, 1(2), 119-125. Riehl, J.P., & Roy, c. (1980). Conceptual models for nursing prctice (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton­Century- Crofts. Rogers, M.E. (1970). Theoretical basis of nursing. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company. Salk, J. (Ed). (1991-1992). Ulrich's international periodicals directory (30th ed.) New Providence: R.R. Bowker. Stevenson, S.S. (1990). Scholarly productivity of nurse educators with different types of doctorates. Nurse Educator, 15(1), 11, 23. 90 Swanson, E.A., McCloskey, J.C., & Bodensteiner, A. (1991). Publishing opportunities for nurses: a comparison of 92 U.S. journals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 23(7), 33-38. Wakefield-Fisher, M. (1987). The relationship between professionalization of nursing faculty, leadership styles of deans, and faculty scholarly productivity. Journal of Professional Nursing, ~(3), 155-164. Waltz, C., & Bausell, R.B. (1981). Nursing research: Design, statistics and computer analysis. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company. Watson, P.G. (1990). Faculty research skills development. Journal of Allied Health, 19(1) 1 25-37. Williams, R. (1989). Work behaviors of nursing faculty. Nursing Outlook, 37, 31-36. Williams, R., & Blackburn, R.T. (1988). Mentoring and junior faculty productivity. Journal of Nursing Education, 27(5), 204-209. Wilson, H.S. (1989). Research in nursing (2nd ed.). Redwood City: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.