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 I \

THE C:\IVERSITY OF CTAH GRADLATE SCHOOL

SU PERVISORY COr\'I�IITTEE j-\PPROV AL

of a thesis submitted by

Kristi Adair Robinia

This thesis has been read bv each member of the following supervisorv committee and bv maiori(v vote has been found to be satisfactory.

I

'-. �

'.:o.:

' ��i ..::..._fj_._ ... f_'1.......,·· �� .·,..4�"- · ·_·. ·...:..;; '_,;l-'\"A.._ .. "-...l_)_". _,(_ .. _-'>-_____ _

Chairman,> Thomas ... T. Mansen

yAnn F. Pranulis

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 format, citations and bibliographic style are consistent and acceptable; (2) its illustrative materials including figures, tables and chms are in place: and (3) the final manuscript is satisfactory to the �upervisory committee and is ready for submission to The Graduate School. /

. --

Thorn Mfnsen Chair, Supervisory Committee

Approved for the Major Department

Linda Amos Chair /Dean

Approved for the Graduate Council

/' .� <'

B. Gale Dick Dean of The GradualC 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 productivi­

ty reports that there are few highly productive nurse

researchers and no published norms for objectively evaluat­

ing 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 produc­

tivity 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 percent­

age of subjects. The highly productive researchers in this

study remained productive, but the least productive re­

searchers 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 expecta­

tion 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 pub­

lished 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 profes­

sional 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 objec­

tively evaluate the annual and career productivity of

individuals seeking appointment, retention, and/or promo­

tion.

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 productivi­

ty 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 under­

stand 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 develop­

ing 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 educa­

tion 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 con­

sistently productive over time. Williams (1989) reported

that nurse faculty, as a group, are less productive than

faculty in other disciplines in meeting the research re­

quirements 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 produc­

tivity.

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 produc­

tivity 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 gener­

ated in these areas: (a) building a science of prac­

tice; (b) artistry of practice; (c) establishing struc­

tures 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 Appen­

dix 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 empiri­

cal 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 knowl­

edge (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 character­

istics, and interactions of an individual, group, or commu­

nity (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 devel­

oped, 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 dis­

cussed, 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 stan­

dards 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 cri­

tiques 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 report­

ed 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 catego­

rized according to their appropriate month and year subcate­

gories. 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 sub­

ject 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 re­

search 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 dif­

ferences in health needs and health problems among individu­

als 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, tech­

niques, 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 schol­

arly 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 pro­

ductivity 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 re­

search 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 service­

oriented 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 identi­

fied group of productive nurse researchers over a period of

years, an investigator should be able to ascertain informa­

tion leading to an understanding of what they are doing that

perhaps less productive nurse researchers are not. Informa­

tion about their productivity norms would assist nurse

researchers to establish their own realistic publication

goals and assist nurse administrators to evaluate objective­

ly faculty productivity in their schools.

Studies have demonstrated that there are both environ­

mental and individual factors related to research productiv­

ity. 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 environ­

ment. 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 in­

volved in research activities. Whether environmental or

individual factors play a larger part in research productiv­

ity 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 collabora­

tion by having administration, faculty and doctoral students

work together to determine school goals and means to attain

them.

Batey (1985) reported that faculty research productivi­

ty did increase, although she indicated that lack of faculty

time and faculty turnover impeded the University of Washing­

ton School of Nursing's research productivity goal. There

was no empirical evidence provided to support these conclu­

sions.

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 pro­

grams 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 demon­

strated 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 resourc­

es. 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 sur­

veyed 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 resourc­

es, 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 exam­

ined 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 contex­

tual 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 percep­

tions 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 remov­

ing 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 percep­

tions of university research environments and individual

characteristics of nursing faculty related to research

productivity.

Pranulis defined research productivity as "A quantif­

iable index of the amount of empirical knowledge disseminat­

ed 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, adminis­

trative 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 productiv­

ity. Other variables significantly related to total produc­

tivity 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 envi­

ronmental (contextual) interactions that originate in con­

flict 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 oppor­

tunity to conduct research or could be used purposefully if

the new faculty member and his or her department (environ­

ment) 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 multi­

dimensionality 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 differ­

ent 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 causali­

ty. 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 particu­

lar effect. Reed implies causality when she states that

choices made predoctorally influence postdoctoral productiv­

ity. She does not address the uniqueness that each indivi­

dual'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 di­

verse 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 teach­

ing 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 activi­

ties.

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 fac­

tors, 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 productivi­

ty. 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, se­

lected 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 doc­

torates 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 indi­

cated 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 presenta­

tions; 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 charac­

terized 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, productiv­

ity 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 so­

cialized into a research role, Brogan (1982) studied the

effect of graduate coursework in research methods and sta­

tistics 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 re­

search 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 conduct­

ing 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 adminis­

trator's support for research had on research activities and

faculty productivity. However, Pranulis also found that

faculty perceptions of how frequently administrators exhib­

ited behaviors supportive of research did not correlate with

a significant amount of the variance in total faculty re­

search 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 schol­

arly 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 publica­

tions 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 produc­

tivity. 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 insti­

tutions lacked nurses who are productive in terms of arti­

cles 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 institu­

tional 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 conclud­

ed 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 produc­

tivity have been discussed. Past studies examining factors

facilitating or impeding research were reviewed and research

making a case for measuring research productivity objective­

ly 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 knowl­

edge 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 be­

tween variables, which she believes is due to a lack of a

descriptive research base. This study was of a non­

experimental, descriptive design in that, as defined by

Waltz and Bausell (1981), it attempted to construct a pic­

ture 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 ques­

tions were also addressed. A retrospective 10-year litera­

ture 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 Produc­

tivity at University Schools of Nursing," which she conduct­

ed at the University of California, San Francisco. All of

the subjects in Pranulis's study were female, doctorally­

prepared 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 investi­

gator 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 identi­

ties 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 tech­

niques 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 govern­

ment and nursing organization publications. Publications

that were owned by Spencer S. Eccles Health Sciences Library

and published in English were retrieved for content analy­

sis.

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 catego­

ry and focus of publication. These were the two categories

in the coding sheet that were open for subjective interpre­

tation. 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 instruc­

tions 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 publica­

tions 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 publica­

tion," 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 pre­

sentation 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 as­

signed 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 essen­

tially 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 sus­

tained 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 method­

ology, 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 percent­

ages 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 distribu­

tion 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 repre­

sent highly productive nurse researchers. This might indi­

cate 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 consis­

tent 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 indi­

vidual 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

G MN 2.4 2.6 2.9 3.3 2.8 2.2 3.0 1.6 1 .8 1.9 R 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 negative­

ly. 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 publica­

tion 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 publica­

tions that were research studies that reported funding

sources. However, the raw data revealed that the publica­

tions that were not research studies but reported funding

sources were either articles describing proposals or litera­

ture 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 col­

lapsed into two categories: (a) Federal Funding, represent­

ing 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 frequen­

cies and percentages of publications falling into the major

categories, and Table 7 reports the frequencies and percent­

ages 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 percent­

age 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 inter­

est is the fact that among the research studies, the majori­

ty (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 signifi­

cant 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 publi­

cation 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 publica­

tions 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 catego­

ries of (a) refereed nursing journal sole author, (b) refer­

eed nursing journal contributing author, (c) all other

categories sole author, and (d) all other categories con­

tributing 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 objec­

tive 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 applica­

ble, 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 prac­

tice. She also reported that the respondents viewed improv­

ing 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 administra­

tive 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 adminis­

trative 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 publica­

tions 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 sub­

jects. The most productive group of 5 subjects were respon­

sible for 252 of the 612 publications. Approximately 19% of

the publications in this group were funded, 60% were publi­

cations 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 non­

English 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, significant­

ly 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 find­

ings (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 under­

stand 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 addi­

tional 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 incon­

stant publication productivity over the lO-year period

studied. As the most productive individuals were consis­

tently productive and conversely the least productive sub­

jects 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 moti­

vated 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 find­

ings.

69

Implications for Nursing

If nursing publication productivity is an individual

factor, then the problem of increasing publication produc­

tivity 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 rela­

tionship between extramural funding and publication produc­

tivity 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.