Nurse-academics’ scholarly productivity: Perceived frames and facilitators

Abstract

The reward system within Universities remains focused on research, with a benchmark of scholarly productivity, especially in relation to promotion. Despite their relative newness to the tertiary system, nurse academics are judged by the same standards as other disciplines. This study sought to examine factors that constrained and/or facilitated scholarly productivity. The study used a questionnaire survey technique to establish current productivity levels, and frame and facilitating factor theory and analysis to identify major constraints and facilitators. Findings from the study were that the unremitting nature of teaching, course coordination and university service workloads interact to the detriment of research and writing. Facilitating factors included a departmental culture that values and supports research, in conjunction with tangible support from University management. Mentorship was viewed as desirable, but often not available. An environment that more actively prioritises, fosters and supports academic scholarly productivity is needed.

Cross‐sectional online survey of research productivity in young Japanese nursing faculty

“…Byrne and Keefe (2002), in their published work review, noted that mentoring of faculty is an important resource for conducting research. However, Roberts and Turnbull (2004) reported that junior nursing faculty do not have sufficient mentorship from senior faculty because they do not understand how to effectively provide research mentorship. Other academic-centered issues affecting research productivity also have been reported; having a research assistant has a positive influence on research productivity, while duties outside of research have a negative impact.…”

“…The lack of mentoring and career planning difficulty are reminiscent of previous research results. Roberts (1997) and Jacelon, Zucker, Staccarini and Henneman, 2003 reported that mentorships facilitate publication. Byrne and Keefe (2002), in their published work review, noted that mentoring of faculty is an important resource for conducting research.…”

“…Young Japanese nursing faculty reported spending 70% of their total working time on educational activities such as lectures and clinical training while only 10% of their total working time was spent on research activities (Japan Academy of Nursing Science, 2013). A high workload detracts from research and publication time (Roberts & Turnbull, 2004;Turale et al, 2009). Maas, Conn, Buckwalter, Herr, and Tripp-Reimer (2009) claim that many countries have underdeveloped research environments and cultures in the nursing discipline (Maas, Conn, Buckwalter, Herr, & Tripp-Reimer, 2009).…”

“…In addition, Kataoka, Nishiyama, Chiba, Ichie, and Tanioka (2009) found that most young nursing faculty members faced difficulties in conducting research, including writing papers. The most often cited difficulty here, and in foreign countries (Roberts & Turnbull, 2004), was a lack of time caused by excessive educational workload (Kataoka et al, 2009). However, a study of nursing scholars found that those who publish research articles at a young age are more likely to continue publishing (Phillips, 1973).…”

“…Publication is widely recognized as evidence of scholarly activity (Roberts, 1997) and is expected of university faculty (Lia-Hoagberg, 1985;Sanderson, Carter, & Schuessler, 2012). In nursing science, the publication of research findings contributes to not only overall knowledge in the discipline of nursing but also to nursing education and clinical practice (Barhyte & Redman, 1993;Keen, 2007).…”