Faculty Research Expectations Varies
Among Universities

by

John C. Schweitzer

Ex: Journalism Educator (1989). Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 45-49


According to the recently completed comprehensive survey of journalism and mass communications (JMC) faculty by Weaver and Wilhoit (1988), "the typical journalism/mass communica-tions faculty member says teaching interest exceeds commitment to research" (p. 18). On the other hand, they also report that "younger journalism fac-ulty, those in the assis-tant rank and faculty at accredited insti-tutions are more likely to say that they lean toward research, or that they value their teaching and research roles equally, than are others" (p. 18). They also found that about three-quarters of faculty at non-doctorate-granting colleges prefer teaching to research.
Earlier, Bowen and Schuster (1986) reported that there is considerable pressure on (especially younger) faculty to conduct and publish research. There is also evidence that JMC administrators value traditional academic research pro-ductivity on the part of their faculties (Stone & Norton, 1980; Fedler & Smith, 1985). But, Fedler and Counts (1982) found in their study of JMC faculty that 22% had not pub-lished a single article during the previous five years and 54% had never published an article in a national refereed journal.

Leigh (1987) found in his study of tenure and promotion criteria that there were differences among administrators of different JMC programs as to what activities were acceptable when evaluating faculty for tenure and promotion. He found that "professional" (undergraduate-only) schools were more likely than "research" (doctoral-granting) schools to value professional and service activities by faculty members.

Large numbers of JMC faculty do not agree that research should be part of their responsibilities and certainly do not agree that tenure and promotion decisions should be based on research productivity (Schweitzer, 1985). And recent evi-dence suggests that relatively few mass communications fac-ulty are conducting the vast bulk of the research being pub-lished in academic journals (Schweitzer, 1988).

Certainly there are professional JMC organizations such as the Committee on News and Editorial Education (CONEE) that "...urge schools and departments of journalism and mass com-munication to adhere to tenure and promotion rules and proce-dures that fully recognize the importance of continuing pro-fessional achievements in journalism. In particular, we pro-pose that outstanding professional activity be considered an alternative criterion to scholarly research ..." (emphasis supplied). A similar statement has been put forth by the Council on Education in Electronic Media (CEEM). The CEEM statement urges recognition of such activities as articles and critical reviews about the field in recognized magazines, trade publications and major newspapers, ... textbooks and other books in the field, consulting and other professional activities. Although the CONEE statement has been adopted by the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communi-cations, the CEEM statement has not. In fact, there is some concern in the AEJMC that such industry-sponsored statements could easily get out of hand and there is a movement within AEJMC to draft its own statement on "professional activities" (Bowers, 1989). Still, in a 1987 preconvention seminar on "Research for Promotion and Tenure" held by the AEJMC, par-ticipants were told, paraphrasing the late Vince Lombardi, that "research isn't everything, it's the only thing" (AEJMC, 1987).

This survey of 165 JMC admin-istrators suggests that those faculty who prefer teaching to research and who hope to get past tenure and promotion committees based on "continuing professional achievement" may be in danger of being passed over for tenure and promo-tion if they do not already hold that status.

In the study of JMC administrators reported here, nearly half the adminis-trators of programs granting only the bachelor's degree agreed that there is considerable pressure on their faculty to conduct and publish research. And those same administrators rank research and publication second only to classroom teaching when evaluating several factors consid-ered important for promotion and tenure.

This report is based on the results of a survey con-ducted among administrators of JMC programs during the summer of 1988. This report discusses the factors administrators consider most important when evaluating a faculty member for promotion and tenure, whether they believe their faculty are under considerable pressure to conduct and publish research and how they rank 22 activities in importance. Forthcoming analyses will provide more detailed analyses of the results.

Method

Four-page questionnaires were mailed to the 165 adminis-trator members of the Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass Com-munications (ASJMC) in the middle of June 1988. The association is composed of administrators from accredited and non-accredited departments of journalism and mass commu-nication and is thought to be the most representative listing of administrators available.

The questionnaire was designed to elicit answers to a number of questions including the administrators' opinions regarding the importance of research for promotion and tenure, their assessment of the amount of pressure their fac-ulty was under to conduct research, the relative importance of 22 different kinds of activi-ties in which faculty might engage in the name of "research," their extent of agreement with a number of statements concerning research activity among faculty and, finally, their assessment of the impor-tance of a number of factors thought to affect research pro-ductivity.

A letter explaining the purpose of the research and a stamped, self-addressed envelope was included in the envelope with the questionnaire. By mid-August, some 92 usable ques-tionnaires had been returned for a response rate of 56%.

Results

Responses were received from 32 administrators of under-graduate-only programs, 41 administrators of master's degree programs and from 19 administrators of doctoral programs. Results reported here are based on the differences in admin-istrators' responses by the type of degree program adminis-tered.

Only twenty percent of the administrators had indepen-dent college or school status. Of the others, about 70% were located in a college of "arts and science," "liberal arts" or "arts and letters."
About 60% of the respondents were from ACEJMC accredited schools or departments and the average number of undergradu-ates was 478, but ranged upward to as many as 2300.

Respondents were asked how important 12 traditional fac-ulty activities were "when evaluating a faculty member for promotion in rank and/or for tenure." The responses could vary from "major importance" (4) to "not applicable" (1). Overall, the highest mean rating (3.83) was given to class-room teaching and the lowest overall rating was given to con-sulting and supervision of graduate study (2.18). A one-way analysis of variance, however, showed that administrators of doctoral programs differed significantly from other adminis-trators in the importance they attached to classroom teach-ing. They gave a high mean rating to classroom teaching high (3.63), but not as high as publication (3.84). These results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1

The administrators were also asked the extent of their agreement with the statement, "... there is considerable pressure on (especially junior) faculty to publish in refereed research journals such as Journalism Quarterly." Their responses ranged from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). On average, the administrators tended to agree slightly with the statement (3.66). As Table 2 shows, how-ever, the extent of agreement was a function of the highest degree offered. Administrators of graduate programs agreed more strongly than did administrators of undergraduate-only programs, and doctoral program administrators agreed most strongly.

Table 2

Respondents were also asked to use their own institu-tion's definition of research for year-end evaluations of faculty to rate a list of 22 activities that might count as "research" from 10 (most impor-tant) to 1 (least impor-tant). They were asked to rate the activ-ity zero (0) if they did not consider it a form of research.

Writing a scholarly book and being the sole author of an article appearing in a national refereed journal were given the highest ratings overall by the administrators. Overall, the administrators gave book reviews in regional refereed journals the lowest rating. The ratings given by the admin-istrators are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

As Table 3 shows, there was remarkable agreement among the administrators as to the relative importance of the sev-eral activ-ities. There were statistically significant differences among them on only four activities: being a referee for a national jour-nal, writing an article in a non-refereed national journal, being editor of a mass communications newsletter and a book review in a regional refereed journal were all rated significantly higher by undergraduate-only and master's degree program administrators than by doctoral pro-gram administrators.

Discussion

The results of this study show that JMC faculty are clearly under pressure to conduct and publish research. The pressure is somewhat less in undergraduate-only programs, but it exists there too. Moreover, these results show that despite the efforts of professional organizations and many faculty within JMC, it is traditional academic research that is expected, if not demanded by all administrators. There was no disagreement among the administrators that the most important activity by a faculty member is writing a scholarly book and that book reviews in regional journals don't measure up as research activity. Articles in national magazines or in non-refereed jour-nals rank below more traditional research in importance for tenure and promotion even among admin-istrators of undergraduate-only programs. In fact, the only activities for which faculty in undergraduate-only programs may receive more credit than their colleagues in graduate programs are refereeing for national journals, editing mass communications newsletters and writing book reviews for regional journals. But, and this is important, even those activities are rated at the bot-tom of the list by administra-tors of undergraduate-only programs.

These results tend to support the idea that there is consid-erable pressure on faculty to conduct and publish aca-demic research in JMC programs. Despite the statistically significant differences among the responses of the adminis-trators, the direction of the responses was similar.
The results tell faculty, especially junior faculty without tenure, what is expected of them. They ignore research and publi-cation at their peril. The results may also help administrators bring their policies into line with other programs.

The results also demonstrate, for good or ill, that despite the efforts of professional JMC organizations, admin-istrators of JMC programs tend to prefer traditional academic research and publication when it comes to evaluating their faculty members for promotion and tenure. It must be stated, however, that the specific question of tenure for "professional" faculty was not specifically explored in this study. It may well be that if this topic was specifically examined, more support would have been found for "continuing professional achievements in journalism." There seems little doubt that this area will remain an area of controversy for some time and it would be interesting to determine which and what kind of JMC programs give specific recognition to "professional" as opposed to "academic" activity.
References

AEJMC (1987, August). Seminar for tenure and promotion, annual convention, San Antonio, TX.
Bowen, HR. & Schuster, J.H. (1986). American professors: A national resource imperiled. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bowers, Thomas. (1989, Jan.). Personal telephone conversation with the author.(Bowers was president of AEJMC 1988-89).
Fedler, F. & Counts, T. (1982, July). Professor's satisfac-tion with jobs related to academic ranks. Paper pre-sented at the meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Athens, OH.
Fedler, F. & Smith, R. (1985). Administrators feel tradi-tional research has highest value. Journalism Educator,40, 51-52.
Leigh, F.A. (1987). Tenure and promotion criteria in schools of journalism and mass communication. Paper presented at the meeting of the Southwest Symposium for Journalism and Mass Communication, Arlington, TX.
Stone, G.C. & Norton, W., Jr. (1980, July). How administra-tors define the term, "faculty research," Journalism Educator, 35, 40-42.
Schweitzer, J.C. (1988). Research article productivity by mass communication scholars, Journalism Quarterly, 65, 479-484.
Schweitzer, J.C. (1985, August). How academics and practi-tioners rate academic research. Paper presented at Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Commu-nication, Memphis, TN.
Weaver, D. & Wilhoit, G.C. (1988). A profile of JMC administra-tors: Traits, attitudes and values. Journalism Educator, 43 (2), 4-41.