Faculty Productivity and Carnegie Institutional Characteristics within AEJMC Programs

Abstract

This article reports the results of a content analysis of faculty vitae from eighteen ACEJMC programs drawn using stratified random sampling by Carnegie Classification. The findings indicate that faculty members differ by CarnegieClassification on research productivity, highest earned degrees, professional experience, time assignments (for research, teaching, and service), contact and credit hours, and external grants.The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education categorizes colleges and universities by the top degree offered, the number of doctoral or master's degrees granted per year, the emphasis on research, and the monetary value of external grants awarded to faculty. Established in 1971, it has been used in numerous studies to denote differences in colleges and universities. Before the most relevant of those studies are reviewed, it's important that readers understand the classification system.Previous researchers have identified Carnegie Classification as an important institutional characteristic. For instance, both tenure procedures (Howe, 1980) and gift income and fundraising practices and programs (Woods, 1987) have been found to differ significantly by Carnegie Classification. Keely (1992) also investigated institutions' finances as related to Carnegie Classification. He used spending patterns concerning instruction, research, public service, academic support, institutional support, student services, and operation and maintenance of the plant to validate Carnegie Classification and to explain reclassification of institutions from Research I1 (RII) and Doctoral I1 (DII) to FU and DI categories.

Research Productivity and Values

“…It is generally agreed that university knowledge creation, or research productivity, is a function of a complex array of antecedent factors (Dundar & Lewis, 1998;Erdogan & Bauer, 2005;Hara, Solomon, Kim & Sonnenwald, 2003;Laursen & Foss, 2003;Lucas, 2006;Morton & Beard, 2005;Rachal, Shelley & David, 2008;Ramsden, 1994;Rothausen-Vange, Marler & Wright, 2005;Rynes, Bartunek & Daft, 2001). …”

Mapping Educational Role Dimensions Among Chilean Journalism and Mass Communication Educators

“…Previous international empirical evidence has found a predominance of teachers rather than scholars within JMC schools, as well as the influence of several educational, professional and work-related factors in the scholarly profile of its members (De Garay 1992;Fuentes 1994;Harcup 2011;Morton and Beard 2005;Oregon Report 1987;Weaver and Wilhoit 1988).…”

Field maturation in journalism: The role of hackademics as a ‘motley crew’

“…In South Africa, only four scholars in the field were formally recognized as researchers by the national research council (De Beer, 2008: 191). Even in the USA, Morton and Beard (2005: 182–4) found that on the whole faculty spent less time on research than on professional and creative activities, and even service. Mensing (2011: 17) believed that at the end of the first decade of the 21st century the field was still marked by division.…”