B-school deans' perceptions of e-journals.

Stretcher, Robert H. ; Hynes, Geraldine E. ; Stowe, Charles R.B. 等

ABSTRACT

Electronic journals are clearly now part of the landscape of intellectual, peer-reviewed journals. Given that published intellectual contributions affect faculty pay, promotion, merit and tenure, this survey of business school deans reveals that not all deans regard e-journals as meritorious as their hard copy brethren. A 25.5% response rate from the 419 deans of AACSB member institutions suggests that interest in the subject was strong. An overwhelming 84.11% of Business School Deans said that their faculty evaluation policies include criteria for rating the quality of a journal in which the faculty are publishing. Among the 90 respondents comprising the 84.11%, about 20% indicated that the format of the journal (electronic versus print) was an important factor in their rating process. 42% indicated that format was of little or no importance. Interestingly, among the respondents indicating that their business school did not rate journal quality, 93% do not consider electronic journal publications to be valid intellectual contributions. Among all survey respondents, none indicate that their business school weights electronic journals superior to print journals, but almost 32% indicate that print journals are more heavily weighted than electronic.

EVALUATING BUSINESS FACULTY RESEARCH PERFORMANCE

Over the years much research has been conducted on the topic of business faculty evaluation, and particularly on the relative importance of teaching and research productivity (Ehie & Karathanos, 1994). According to the Carnegie Foundation, 45% of business faculty felt that straight counts of publications are the chief indicator of research productivity at their institutions (Boyer, 1990). Perhaps surprisingly, 45% of business faculty felt that the reputation of the press or journal publishing the research is unimportant for tenure review (Boyer, 1990). A 1993 survey (Bures and Tong, 1993) found strikingly similar results. Finance faculty affirmed that the raw number of articles in professional journals was the factor most affecting their performance evaluations.

Since 1991 AACSB has advocated standards with a strong focus on the institution's mission. Primarily teaching institutions might thus be expected to count teaching accomplishment more heavily during faculty evaluations than scholarship activity. However, other studies have found that publishing record is counted more heavily than teaching in faculty evaluations, no matter what the stated institution's mission (Lein & Metz, 1977; Tong & Bures, 1987; Bures & Tong, 1993; Ehie & Karathanos, 1994).

In a 1989 Carnegie Foundation study, over two thirds of business faculty agreed that we need better ways to evaluate scholarly performance (Boyer, 1990). And approximately 36% of the respondents in Bures and Tong's (1993) survey expressed dissatisfaction with their current systems. This lack of confidence in evaluation systems suggests that scholarship be more creatively assessed. Boyer (1990, p. 35) urged that faculty assessment criteria take into account "a broader range of writing" and changing social contexts. "Standards must be flexible and creative...and innovation should be rewarded, not restricted" (Boyer, 1990, p. 80).

Surveys of faculty preferences over print or electronic journals indicate a general acceptance of electronic journals despite concerns over the loss of hard copy journals (Palmer, 2003). Though the sample was small, intensive face-to-face interviews with a total of 61 faculty from economics, sociology, and anthropology departments suggests that faculty may be far ahead of administration in accepting the replacement of hardcopy serials with electronic only publications. Only four faculty members in the survey indicated strong preferences for print journals and those individuals all earned their doctorates in the 1960's (Palmer, 2003). At the same time, these faculty members still valued access to printed publications. This study focuses on administrator's perceptions of faculty publication efforts and any variance of print and electronic journals. The issue of using electronic journal articles for research and actually submitting to electronic only publications was not investigated in the study of Michigan study. Because faculty promotion, tenure and merit systems are tied to publications in peer-reviewed journals, we felt that an investigation of how deans perceive electronic journals was warranted.

EVALUATING PUBLICATIONS IN ELECTRONIC JOURNALS

Perhaps the most obvious example of innovation in faculty performance is the adoption of new technologies for teaching and research (McInnis, 2002; Bloedel, 2001). Computer-mediated communication, in particular, is reconfiguring the way in which knowledge is produced and disseminated (McInnis, 2002). The Internet is creating new opportunities to publish research results (Wilga, 2000). It is estimated that, of the 44,000 active scholarly journals (refereed and non-refereed) listed in Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, over 41% now offer full text or full content online (Jerabek, 2004). And the number is steadily increasing. The costs of serials jumped 226 percent from 1986 to 2000 according to the Association of research Libraries while the Consumer Price increase during the same period rose just 49% (Albanese, 2001). In 2003, a one year subscription to the Journal of Economics and Business was $493, a one year subscription to Economics Letters was $1,823 and Tetrahedon Letters cost $10,345 per year (Edwards, 2003). The average number of scholarly journals in business and economics was 295 with an average cost of $457 in the year 200 up to $614 in year 2004. That represents an increase in price of 49% between 2000 and 2004 according to a survey compiled from EBSCO Publishing's Academic Search Elite (Orsdel, 2004). The actual number of scholarly business or economics related journals is much higher. A study of accounting journals in print, electronic format or both revealed over 470 publications (Colbert, 2002).

Reasons for migrating to electronic media are (1) other periodicals are taking that route, (2) it is less expensive to publish electronically than in paper format, (3) it is less labor intensive, (4) it allows for just-in-time delivery, (5) it allows for greater diffusion of knowledge across disciplines, and (6) it allows for inclusion of articles in other electronic indexes and bibliographies (Shwom, 2004). Thus, electronic publication may better serve the purposes of the contemporary researcher. Shifting to electronic publications saves libraries considerable funding in not having to pay for binding, in reducing space for serials, and in elimination of handling costs of storing hard copies (Cox, 2003). However, some evidence suggests that the pricing of electronic journals has increased just as published serials have (Falk, 2003).

As the electronic journal comes of age, new issues emerge. Both administrators and faculty have expressed concern about the role that electronic journal publications play in their research evaluation systems. As scholarship activities are increasingly heterogeneous, it becomes necessary to derive new standards by which research productivity is judged (Marine, 2002). Yet the literature provides no evidence that faculty evaluation systems are keeping pace by developing and incorporating new criteria for electronic scholarship outlets.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine how Business School Deans regard electronic versus traditional hard copy serials. While scholarly journals have been increasingly migrating to electronic format, it was unclear how administrators evaluate electronic publications compared to printed formats when conducting faculty performance appraisals.

PROCEDURES

Population

We surveyed Deans of U.S. Business Schools that are members of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International. A questionnaire was mailed by USPS to all 419 U.S. Business School Deans included on the AACSB mailing list of member institutions. One hundred seven usable surveys were returned, for a 25.5% response rate. Considering that most return rates for USPS mail surveys hover around 10%, this level of response indicates strong interest in this issue among Deans.

Instrumentation

We developed the survey instrument for this study in consultation with our Business School Dean and Associate Dean. It consists of 24 forced-choice items. Items are grouped into three sections:

1) "Your Business School's Current Policies" contains items on the factors applied when rating the quality of a journal, including electronic journals, conference proceedings, and abstracts.

2) "Your Personal Opinions Regarding Evaluation of Faculty Publications" contains items on respondents' own views of journal quality, including electronic journals, conference proceedings, and abstracts. This section also contains items on predicted changes to Business School policies.

3) "Demographic Questions", though not addressed in this paper, contained items on the university's size, accreditation, and Carnegie classification along with similar items about the Business School.

Data Collection and Analysis

The questionnaire was mailed to all U.S. Deans of AACSB-member schools in May 2004. The researchers' own Dean contributed a cover letter supporting the study. A return envelope was included in the packet of materials. We chose to use a paper instrument rather than a Web-based or email survey in order to capture responses of any Deans who do not favor computer-mediated communication.

Responses were entered into a database and statistical analyses were performed to identify patterns of results (frequencies, means, and percentages). Findings from sections 1) and 3) of the survey instrument (described above) are reported here.

RESULTS

An overwhelming 84.11% of Business School Deans said that their faculty evaluation policies include criteria for rating the quality of a journal in which the faculty are publishing. Among the 90 respondents comprising the 84.11%, about 20% indicated that the format of the journal (electronic versus print) was an important factor in their rating process. 42% indicated that format was of little or no importance.

Interestingly, among the respondents indicating that their business school did not rate journal quality, 93% do not consider electronic journal publications to be valid intellectual contributions. Among all survey respondents, none indicate that their business school weights electronic journals superior to print journals, but almost 32% indicate that print journals are more heavily weighted than electronic. About 68% indicate equivalent treatment, based wholly on format.

When asked for their personal preferences (versus their business school's policies), we found that 57% gave little importance to format as a criterion, while only 15% indicated its relative importance in the rating of journals. Among 106 responding to the question, in their personal views, three deans felt that journals that had migrated from print to electronic were actually better, while 18 felt that migration was worse than remaining in print form. 85 deans indicated that migration to electronic form was irrelevant in their view.

DISCUSSION

Our preliminary findings indicate that electronic publications are typically considered along with paper-printed publications during Business School faculty research evaluations. However, their status in the mix remains tenuous. Business School policies vary widely in their recognition of electronic outlets for faculty research publication and in their criteria for evaluating electronic media. There appear to remain some significant biases against electronic journals, although many business schools seem to have embraced the format as viable.

Analysis of our survey results is incomplete at this time. This paper reports only on current Business School faculty evaluation policies regarding research published in journals (print and electronic). Future reports will present our findings about (1) Business School Deans' personal opinions and how they compare to their institutions' current policies, and (2) the Deans' regard for conference proceedings and abstracts (print and electronic), as well as their School's policies for counting conference proceedings and abstracts as research publications. Demographic patterns such as institutional size, region, Carnegie classification, and accreditation status will also be reported for these results. Ultimately, we hope that clearer impressions will emerge of the current status and future trends in evaluating electronic publications.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the rapid pace of technological change makes it impossible for any set of guidelines to apply to all publication of scholarship in electronic media. Undoubtedly, business school policies should state standards for faculty uses of electronic media as their research outlets, thus ensuring the attraction and retention of the best of the new breed of faculty. As Boyer (1990) observed, "even the best of our institutions must continuously evolve. And to sustain the vitality of higher education in our time, a new vision of scholarship is required" (p. 81).

REFERENCES

Albanese, Andrew Richard "Revolution or Evolution" Library Journal, November 1, 2001, 48-51.

Bloedel, J. R. (2001). Evaluating research productivity. A Merrill Center publication on The Research Mission of Public Universities. No. 105. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from http://merrill.ku.edu/publications/2001whitepaper/bloedel.html

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship Revisited: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Bures, A. L., & Tong, H. M. (1993). Assessing finance faculty evaluation systems: A national survey. Financial Practice & Education, 3(2), 141-145.

Centra, J. A. (1987). Formative and summative evaluation: Parody or paradox? In Aleamoni, L.M. (Ed.). New Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 31: Techniques of Evaluating and Improving Instruction. 47-55. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective Faculty Evaluation: Enhancing Teaching and Determining Faculty Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Colbert, Janet L., Ross, Mark and Aldrige, C. Richard "Constructing an Accounting Journal Website" Serials Review, Volume 28, November 2, 2002, 201-205.

Cox, J. (2003) "Value for Money in Electronic Journals: A Survey of the Early Evidence and Some Preliminary Conclusions" Serials Review, Volume 29, Number 2, 83-88.

Edwards, Richard and Shulenburger, David (2003, November/December) Change, 10-19.

Ehie, I.C., & Karathanos, D. (1994). Business faculty performance evaluation based on the new AACSB accreditation standards. Journal of Education for Business, 69(5), 257-263.

Falk, Howard, "Journal Publishing is Ripe for Change" The Electronic Library, 21(2), 165-168.

Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. London: Oxford University Press.

Jerabek, A. (2004, February 26). Reference Librarian, Sam Houston State University. Personal communication.

Lein, D. D., & Merz, C. M. (1977-78). Faculty evaluation in schools of business: The impact of AACSB accreditation on promotion and tenure decisions. Collegiate News and Views, 21-24.

Marine, R. J. (2002). A systems framework for evaluation of faculty Web-work. In Colbeck, C.L. (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 114: Evaluating Faculty Performance. 63-71. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McInnis, C. (2002). The impact of technology on faculty performance and its evaluation. In Colbeck, C.L. (Ed.), New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 114: Evaluating Faculty Performance. 53-61. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Medlin, B., Green, Jr., K., & Whitten, D. (2001-02). Peer evaluations at AACSB-accredited institutions. Academic Forum #19, a Publication of Henderson State University. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from http://www.hsu.edu/faculty/afo/2001-02/contents19.htm

Mills, M., & Hyle, A. (1999). Faculty evaluation: A prickly pear. Higher Education, 38, 351-371. Retrieved March 15, 2004, from EBSCOHost database.

Moses, Y. T. (2001). Scanning the environment: AAHE's president reports on trends in higher education. AAHE Bulletin. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from http://www.aahebulletin.com/public/archive/scanning.asp?pf=1

Orsdel, Lee Van and Born, Kathleen "Closing in on Open Access" Library Journal, April 15, 2004, 45-50.

Radhakrisbna, R. B., & Jackson, G. (1993). Agricultural and extension education department heads' perceptions of journals and importance of publishing. Journal of Agricultural Education, 34(4), 8-16.

Shwom, B. (2004, February 27). Past President, Association for Business Communication. Personal email.

Tong, H. M., & Bures, A. L. (1987). An empirical study of faculty evaluation systems: Business faculty perceptions. Journal of Education for Business, April, 320-322.

Waller, S. C. (2004, May 3). Conflict in higher education faculty evaluation: An organizational perspective. Organizational Issues and Insights, New Foundations: Supporting the Reflective Educator. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from www.newfoundations.com/OrgHeader.html

Wergin, J. F. (1999, December). Evaluating department achievements: Consequences for the work of faculty. AAHE Bulletin. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from http://www.aahebulletin.com/public/archive/dec99f1.asp?pf=1

Wilga, D. (2000, May 1). Guidelines for evaluating faculty research, teaching and community service in the digital age. Retrieved June 20, 2004, from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/committees/facappoint/guidelines.shtml

Robert H. Stretcher, Sam Houston State University

Geraldine E. Hynes, Sam Houston State University

Charles R. B. Stowe, Sam Houston State University