Communication pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc
Narrowing the Gap? Revisiting Publication Rates in Chemistry Education Andrew F. Craig,† Danielle L. Koch,† Adam Buffington,‡ and Nathaniel Grove*,† †
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina 28403, United States ‡ Department of Chemistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, United States ABSTRACT: Pienta’s 2004 work detailing publication rates for chemistry education research (CER) faculty has become an important source of information for faculty undergoing annual review or promotion or tenure decisions. Much has changed in the CER community in the last decade and this work seeks to explore whether publication rates are among them. Our results reveal an overall increase in publication rates among CER faculty at both doctoral and masters degree-granting institutions and an overall narrowing of the gap between these rates and the publication rates of more traditionally focused chemistry faculty. KEYWORDS: Graduate Education/Research, General Public, Chemical Education Research, Public Understanding/Outreach
I
separate lists were created for 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011. The number of yearly publications for each researcher was tallied, with each sorted into one of two groups based upon the highest degree his or her institution awarded, M.S. CER faculty and Ph.D. CER faculty. Subsequently, each of these subgroups was further divided into two additional subgroups: CER faculty who were found to be publication active and those who were publication inactive. In other words, this grouping reflected whether a given faculty member published a chemistry education-related manuscript during the period covered by that particular volume of the Directory. It is important to note that “chemistry education-related” was interpreted quite broadly, and included not only formal CER publications, but also publications describing the professional development of preservice or inservice K−12 educators and tertiary-level instructors, and publications describing curricular development and reforms. Finally, to place the CER results into context, publication data were also assembled for all faculty members within departments containing publication-active chemistry education researchers.
n a 2004 study exploring publication practices among chemistry education research (CER) faculty,1 Pienta reported a sizable disparity in publication rates between CER faculty and their traditional chemistry colleagues: on average, traditional chemistry faculty had 5.2 times more manuscripts published per year in comparison to CER faculty in the same department. In addition to their research responsibilities, many CER faculty are intimately involved in the training and mentoring of preservice teachers and frequently are assigned disproportionately high teaching loads or administrative duties.1 CER faculty also reported having access to fewer graduate students or even none at all. Despite these realities, the metrics used to measure productivity for CER faculty rely heavily upon grant funding and publication records, and because of this, Pienta’s work has provided an important point of comparison for CER faculty as they approach annual reviews and tenure and promotion decisions within their departments. Over the past decade, the CER field has undergone tremendous growth. As recently as 2008, approximately two dozen chemistry departments in the United States offered advanced degrees with an emphasis in CER;2 less than five years later, that number has grown to nearly three dozen.3 Given this recent growth, it is reasonable to question how publication rates have changed, if at all, in the decade since Pienta’s initial work. It is the goal of this communication, therefore, to present up-to-date publication data and comparisons.
■
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of our investigation are included in Table 1 and Figure 1 and reveal a number of noteworthy trends. As outlined in the last row of Table 1, publication rates among all chemistry faculty members have not changed substantially during the reporting period. Although there are some variations from year to year, faculty members at Ph.D.-granting institutions publish an average of three to four manuscripts per year, while those at M.S.-granting institutions annually publish one to two manuscripts per year. In contrast, overall publication rates have increased among faculty performing chemistry education research, and even more so for those characterized as publication active. In some instances, CER faculty published at rates that were triple or even quadruple the rates reported by
■
METHODOLOGY To ensure that comparisons made between more recent publication data and the publication data reported by Pienta1 would be valid, the original methodological approach employed was followed as closely as possible. Using the online version of the American Chemical Society’s (ACS) Directory of Graduate Research,4 a list was generated of all researchers who selfidentified “chemistry education” as an area of research interest. The Directory is published on a biennial basis, and as such, © 2012 American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.
Published: October 26, 2012 1606
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed3003995 | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1606−1608
Pienta,1 though this trend is much less pronounced for CER faculty at M.S.-granting institutions. Further, it bears noting that over the course of the reporting period, the proportion of CER faculty at M.S.-granting institutions has decreased greatly, from nearly 40% in 1997−1999 to less than 15% in 2011. The positive developments described above are also mirrored in Figure 1, which plots the ratio of overall departmental publication rates to publication rates for the publication-active CER faculty. In this case, smaller ratios indicate less of a disparity between publication rates for CER faculty versus traditional chemistry faculty. Although inequities still existon average, the 2011 publication rates for traditional faculty are still about double those for their CER colleaguesthey are much smaller than the nearly 5-fold difference reported previously.1 Given that publication rates among traditional chemistry faculty have remained fairly stable over the reporting period covered by these data, gains can be attributed to increased publication productivity among CER faculty. Several factors likely contributed in tandem to the observed increases. As noted above, the data show a steady and substantial reapportioning of CER faculty away from M.S.granting institutions toward Ph.D.-granting institutions over the last 15 years. The data included in Table 1 reveal that publication rates within chemistry departments with Ph.D. programs are typically double or triple those of departments with M.S. programs. Because of existing cultural differences between many M.S.- and Ph.D.-granting institutions and the seemingly greater emphasis that many Ph.D.-granting institutions place on publications for promotion and tenure, it is reasonable to postulate that these attitudes have affected how many CER faculty approach the dissemination of their research. The faculty surveyed by Pienta1 noted that access to CERspecific graduate students was also a major limitation to research productivity, and by extension, publication rates. With the increased number of chemistry programs in the United States offering advanced degrees with a CER concentration, many more faculty have graduate students working with them. Not only that, but the very nature of the CER field has begun to change as a result of these programs. Prior to 2000, many CER faculty members were self-taught, having transitioned to the field from traditional chemistry subdisciplines. Newer CER faculty members, however, often have received formal training in the field, and as such, this may impact their ability to conduct effective chemistry education research. Further, CER-specific postdoctoral positions, while still rare now, continue to become more common. Finally, it is worth noting that the mechanics of publishing in the CER field have also evolved. New journals, such as the Royal Society’s Chemistry Education Research and Practice, have emerged, and established journals such as the Journal of Chemical Education are now using online submission and review systems, which have streamlined the publication process. Taken together, these factors are likely to have contributed to the improvements in CER publication rates.
The 1997−1999 data were taken from ref 1. bThese data reflect publications from CER faculty members at doctoral degree-granting institutions as reported in ref 4. cThese data reflect publications from CER faculty members at masters degree-granting institutions as reported in ref 4.
Yearly average, departmental publications per faculty member
Yearly average, CER publications of publication-active group, per group member
Communication
■
CONCLUSIONS Much has changed in the chemistry education research field over the last 15 years, including publication rates for many CER faculty members. This update to Pienta’s original work reveals that although disparities still exist between publication rates of traditional chemistry faculty and their CER colleagues, the differences are substantially less than those reported in 2004.1 Interestingly, despite the overall gains, the changes were not universal, as observed publication ratios for CER faculty at
a
36 19 0.40 (0.65) 0.74 (0.51) 1.8 (1.1) 205 59 0.90 (1.5) 1.5 ( 1.3) 3.2 (1.7) 56 6 0.19 (0.50) 1.0 (0.64) 1.4 (0.47) 182 43 0.61 (1.3) 1.4 (1.3) 3.2 (1.3) 55 10 0.22 (0.42) 0.60 (0.21) 1.8 (1.8) 171 54 0.64 (1.2) 1.1 (0.87) 3.6 (1.4) 52 13 0.24 (0.41) 0.66 (0.24) 1.6 (0.84) 127 33 1.1 (3.1) 1.2 (1.0) 4.2 (2.0) 55 14 0.29 (0.62) 0.75 (0.33) 1.7 (1.1) 136 29 1.1 (3.1) 1.1 (0.96) 3.7 (1.5) 94 19 0.50 (1.1) 0.90 (0.79) 1.3 (0.67) 199 48 1.3 (3.7) 1.0 (0.62) 4.0 (2.1) 107 33 0.17 (0.38) 0.55 (0.49) 1.2 (2.2) 171 79 0.30 (0.55) 0.67 (0.67) 3.7 ( 4.2) Number of overall self-identified CER faculty Number of publication-active CER faculty Yearly average, publications of active and inactive CER faculty per group member
M.S.c Ph.D.b M.S.c
2009
M.S.c 2007
Ph.D.b M.S.c
2005
Ph.D.b M.S.c
2003
Values (SD) for Each Characterization, by Time Period
Ph.D.b M.S.c
2001
Ph.D.b M.S.c
1997−1999
Ph.D.b Researcher and Publication Characterizations
a
Table 1. Biennial Publication Data for Chemistry Education Research Faculty, 1997−2011
Ph.D.b
2011
Journal of Chemical Education
1607
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed3003995 | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1606−1608
Journal of Chemical Education
Communication
Figure 1. Biennial publication rate ratios between department publication average versus active CER publication average, 1997−2011. Smaller ratios indicate less disparity between CER and traditional chemistry faculty publication rates. Note that 1997−1999 data were taken from ref 1.
M.S.-granting institutions have consistently hovered around two. It may be that a natural publication limit has been achieved by these faculty members, given the nature of their positions, namely, higher teaching and service loads relative to their Ph.D. counterparts and likely more limited access to CER graduate students and postdoctoral fellows. Whatever the cause, this is certainly an area worthy of additional exploration.
■
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*E-mail:
[email protected]. Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Norbert Pienta for his support of this update and for his generous sharing of publication data. REFERENCES
(1) Pienta, N. J. Measuring Productivity in College-Level Chemistry Education Scholarship. J. Chem. Educ. 2004, 81, 579−583. (2) Rovner, S. L. Resources for Chemical Educators. Chem. Eng. News 2008, 86 (13); http://pubs.acs.org/isubscribe/journals/cen/86/i13/ html/8613educationweb.html (accessed Oct 2012). (3) Bretz, S. L. CER Resources, Graduate Programs in Chemistry Education Research. http://www.users.muohio.edu/bretzsl/ GradPrograms.html (accessed Oct 2012). (4) DGRweb 2011, the searchable online version of the ACS Directory of Graduate Research. http://dgr.rints.com/ (accessed Oct 2012).
1608
dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed3003995 | J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1606−1608
