Accessing Fellow Academics as Research Participants: Constraints, Collegiality, and “Academic Citizenship”
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Lack of Cooperation from Fellow Academics May Defeat Our Research Purpose: An Example
“Within a week, 80 had replied, citing their reasons for being unable to participate: some were too busy, others were not teaching that semester/year, and the rest did not give writing assignments in their courses. In response to follow-up requests, phone calls, and email messages, only five teachers from engineering and four from science agreed to participate in the project. Despite requests through e-mails and telephone calls, 134 teachers did not respond at all.”(pp. 297–298)
3. Academics in Different Parts of the World as Research Participants
3.1. Academics in U.S. Universities as Research Participants
Authors | Research site or target respondents’ affiliation | Target respondents and mode of survey | Focus of the study | Response rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Casanave and Hubbard [6] | Stanford University | “distributed 563 six-page questionnaires through Stanford’s interdepartmental mail service”; the questionnaires were “sent to all full-time faculty in humanities, social sciences, and science and technology departments” (p. 35) | Writing assigned by the faculty to first-year doctoral students across the disciplines, criteria used in evaluating writing, and native- and nonnative-English-speaking students’ writing problems | “Eighty-five usable questionnaires (about 15%) were returned, a rate within the range we had anticipated given the length and complexity of the questionnaire” (p. 35) |
Jenkins, Jordan, and Weiland [7] | The engineering school at six universities | A total of “600 quite complex questionnaires” were mailed to the faculty at six engineering schools chosen due to their large population of non-native-English-speaking graduate students (p. 55) | “the role of writing in graduate engineering programs and its implications for the design of writing courses” (p. 51) | 188 or 31% of the mailed questionnaires were returned; “[i]ndividual response rates for each university ranged from 21% to 50%” (p. 55) |
Ferris and Tagg [8] | Four different types of tertiary institutions in California | Questionnaires were mailed out to “instructors in the academic disciplines at each school in which ESL (English as a second language) students are significantly represented” (p. 36) | Oral communication needs of EAP learners and ESL students’ difficulties in meeting the requirement | 234 (25.4%) of the 921 delivered surveys “were completed and returned”; “the response rate was fairly low” (p. 37) |
O'Donnell [9] | College level language programs of French, German, and Spanish in the U.S. | A survey distributed to “145 language program directors and intermediate level instructors of French, German, and Spanish” whose “email addresses were available via an organizational listserv” (of the American Association of University Supervisors and Coordinators of Language Programs (AAUSC)) (p. 655) | “policies and procedures governing foreign language writing at their respective Institutions” (p. 650) | “66 were completed and returned, representing a response rate of 46%” (p. 655) |
Hubert and Bonzo [10] | “28 universities chosen at random from 17 different states” (“the West, Midwest, Northeast, South, and Southwest” of the U.S.) (p. 521) | 1518 foreign language (FL) instructors working at the chosen universities, receiving an email containing a secure URL link providing access to an online survey system | The extent to which the current university FL instruction is informed by second language writing research | 153 (9.92%) FL instructors completed the survey |
3.2. Academics in European Universities as Research Participants
Authors | Research site or target respondents’ affiliation | Target respondents and mode of survey | Focus of the study | Response rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Duszak and Lewko-wicz [12] | A university in Poland | The questionnaire was emailed to “academics in medicine, psychology and language studies” (p. 111) | Polish academics’ perception of difficulties in writing for publication in English | “99 completed questionnaires were received”; response rate is unknown as the population size is not indicated |
Ferguson, Pérez-Llantada, and Plo [13] | University of Zaragoza, Spain | A questionnaire (written in Spanish) was emailed “through a university server to all 3,000 academic and academic-related staff” (p. 47) | Scientists’ perception of disadvantage in using English in academic/scientific publication | “a modest though not impossibly low response rate of 10 per cent”, with 300 questionnaires returned (p. 47) |
Moreno, Rey-Rocha, Burgess, López-Navarro, and Sachdev [14] | One research-based institution and four universities in Spain | A cover letter (written in Spanish) was sent to the target respondents, providing access to an online questionnaire (also in Spanish) “hosted on a server to be accessible by means of a password” (p. 165) | Target respondents’ perceived difficulty in writing research articles in English, whether it varies across knowledge areas, and how it may be influenced by their English-writing proficiency | 1717 (19.6%) of total 8794 staff with doctorates responded |
Olsson and Sheridan [15] | A Swedish university | A questionnaire was e-mailed to 200 academics across faculties, with a cover letter stating the purpose of the research, assurance of confidentiality, and the researchers’ contact information | Academics’ experiences and perceptions of the use of English in their disciplines | “a disappointingly low response rate of 17.5%”, with 35 completed questionnaires; “a relatively even spread of respondents from different faculties” (p. 39) |
Bolton and Kuteeva [16] | Stockholm University, Sweden | “online questionnaires which were posted on the university server during the period April-June 2009” (p. 433) | The use of English at undergraduate and postgraduate levels and across disciplines, and the target respondents’ attitudes toward the use of English in teaching and research | “highly satisfactory” response rates: 19% of the target students responded, and 668 (40%) out of 1683 staff responded; excluding administrative personnel and PhD students from the staff category, “498 teaching and research staff remained” (p. 433) |
3.3. Academics in Chinese Universities as Research Participants
Authors | Research site or target respondents’ affiliation | Target respondents and mode of survey | Focus of the study | Response rate |
---|---|---|---|---|
Li, Li, and Sun [17] | Zhejiang University, China | “300 printed surveys were handed out to 300 randomly selected HSS [humanities and social sciences] young faculty members” (p. 282) | Young faculty’s job perception in terms of job satisfaction, job burnout, turnover, and intrinsic motivation | “268 useful surveys” received; response rate 89.3% (p. 282) |
Flower-dew [18] | Six universities in Hong Kong | Questionnaire sent to 2300 Cantonese-speaking academics by mail; reminder and a duplicate copy sent to those who have not responded two months later | The academics’ experience in using English, confidence in publishing in English and challenges faced | 717 completed questionnaires received: “a response rate of 3l%, which is considered to be good for surveys conducted in Hong Kong with academics” (132) |
Kwong, Ng, Mark, and Wong [19] | (in addition to target student respondents) “Faculty members of three colleges and two schools of a local university in Hong Kong” (p. 343) | “600 full-time equivalent teaching staff” (p. 343) | To compare students’ and faculty’s views on academic integrity | “113 completed faculty surveys” received (p. 346) (response rate about 18.8%) |
Aiston [20] | “degree-granting institutes of higher education in Hong Kong” (p. 71) | 6291 questionnaires were distributed to all the academic staff employed at the universities (part of an international comparative survey conducted in 2008) | “contains questions on career and professional situation, general work situation and activities, teaching, research, management and personal background” (p. 61) | Response rate 12.9%, with 797 questionnaires returned (67% from male academics and 33% from female academics) |
Min [5] | Different universities in Taiwan | Emailed a “20-item open-ended English questionnaire” to “50 academics who have published at least one article in English-medium journals outside Taiwan during the past 5 years” (p. 190) | The challenges faced by Taiwanese applied linguists (ALs) in trying to get published in international journals and the coping strategies they used | 38 responses or a response rate of 76%; the 50 target respondents having been identified “[v]ia browsing the websites of NNES Taiwanese ALs I met at conferences from local universities” (p. 190) |
3.4. Researchers Conducting Questionnaire-Based Studies with Fellow Academics: Endeavoring to Achieve a Higher Response Rate
4. My Personal Experience of Working with Chinese Academics as Research Participants
4.1. Accessing Participants through Personal Contacts
4.2. Researching in a Periphery Context as an Academic Based in a Semi-Periphery Region
4.3. Accessing Fellow Academics in Hong Kong
5. Providing Incentives to Fellow Academics for Them to Become Our Research Participants?
6. “Academic Citizenship” in a Performative Culture
7. Coda
“E-mail Request for Participants”
“I know you are very busy, but I am asking for about half an hour to interview you about intellectual property issues from an administrator’s point of view… … I am willing to conduct the interview at your convenience during the next two months. … … Please reply if you would be willing to help me with this, and I’ll try to arrange a time that works for you.”([53], pp. 154–155)
Acknowledgements
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Coar, L.; Sim, J. Interviewing one's peers: Methodological issues in a study of health professionals. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 2006, 24, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chew-Graham, C.A.; May, C.R.; Perry, M.S. Qualitative research and the problem of judgement: Lessons from interviewing fellow professionals. Fam. Pract. 2002, 19, 285–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Braine, G. When professors don't cooperate: A critical perspective on EAP. Engl. Specif. Purp. 2001, 20, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spack, R. Initiating ESL students into the academic discourse community: How far should we go? TESOL Q. 1988, 22, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Min, H.-T. Participating in international academic publishing: A Taiwan perspective. TESOL Q. 2014, 48, 188–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casanave, C.; Hubbard, P. The writing assignments and writing problems of doctoral students: Faculty perceptions, pedagogical issues, and needed research. Engl. Specif. Purp. 1992, 11, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenkins, S.; Jordan, M.K.; Weiland, P.O. The role of writing in graduate engineering education: A survey of faculty beliefs and practices. Engl. Specif. Purp. 1993, 12, 51–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferris, D.; Tagg, T. Academic oral communication needs of EAP learners: What subject-matter instructors actually require. TESOL Q. 1996, 30, 31–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O'Donnell, M. Policies and practices in foreign language writing at the college level: Survey results and implications. Foreign Lang. Ann. 2007, 40, 650–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hubert, M.; Bonzo, J. Does second language writing research impact U.S. University foreign language instruction? System 2010, 38, 517–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferris, D.; Tagg, T. Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Q. 1996, 30, 297–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duszak, A.; Lewkowicz, J. Publishing academic texts in english: A Polish perspective. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 2008, 7, 108–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferguson, G.; Perez-Llantada, C.; Plo, R. English as an international language of scientific publication: A study of attitudes. World Engl. 2011, 30, 41–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreno, A.I.; Rey-Rocha, J.; Burgess, S.; López-Navarro, I.; Sachdev, I. Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty writing research articles for English-medium journals: The impact of proficiency in English versus publication experience. Ibérica 2012, 24, 157–184. [Google Scholar]
- Olsson, A.; Sheridan, V. A case study of Swedish scholars’ experiences with and perceptions of the use of English in academic publishing. Writ. Commun. 2012, 29, 33–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolton, K.; Kuteeva, M. English as an academic language at a Swedish university: Parallel language use and the ‘threat’ of English. J. Multiling. Multicult. Dev. 2012, 33, 429–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Li, J.; Sun, Y. Young faculty job perceptions in the midst of Chinese higher education reform: The case of Zhejiang University. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2013, 33, 273–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flowerdew, J. Writing for scholarly publication in English: The case of Hong Kong. J. Second Lang. Writ. 1999, 8, 123–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwong, T.; Ng, H.-M.; Mark, K.-P.; Wong, E. Students’ and faculty’s perception of academic integrity in Hong Kong. Campus Wide Info. Sys. 2010, 27, 341–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aiston, S.J. Leading the academy or being led? Hong Kong women academics. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2014, 33, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cargill, M.; O’Connor, P.; Li, Y. Educating Chinese scientists to write for international journals: Addressing the divide between science and technology education and English language teaching. Engl. Specif. Purp. 2012, 31, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y. “Publish SCI papers or no degree”: Practices of Chinese doctoral supervisors in response to the publication pressure on science students. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cargill, M.; O'Connor, P. Developing Chinese scientists' skills for publishing in English: Evaluating collaborating-colleague workshops based on genre analysis. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 2006, 5, 207–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudley-Evans, T.; St John, M.J. Developments in English for Specific Purposes; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, Y.; Li, L.; Lü, J. Trends in research methods in applied linguistics: China and the West. Engl. Specif. Purp. 2001, 20, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becher, T.; Trowler, P.R. Academic Tribes and Territories; Open University Press: Buckingham, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Leki, I. Undergraduates in a Second Language: Challenges and Complexities of Academic Literacy Development; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Spack, R. The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language: A longitudinal case study. Writ. Commun. 1997, 14, 3–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atkins, L.; Wallace, S. Qualitative Research in Education; Sage: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Casanave, C.P. Qualitative inquiry in l2 writing. In Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing; Manchón, R., Matsuda, P.K., Eds.; De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin, 2015; forthcoming. [Google Scholar]
- Shenton, A.K.; Hayter, S. Strategies for gaining access to organisations and informants in qualitative studies. Educ. Info. 2004, 22, 223–231. [Google Scholar]
- Tardy, C.M. Building Genre Knowledge; Parlor Press: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hanauer, D.I.; Englander, K. Scientific Writing in a Second Language; Parlor Press: Anderson, SC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y. Chinese doctors connecting to the English publishing world: Literature access, editorial services, and training in publication skills. Publications 2014, 2, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y. Boundary crossing: Chinese orthopedic surgeons as researchers. J. Tech. Writ. Commun. 2014, 44, 423–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Read, S. The mundane, power, and symmetry: A reading of the field with Dorothy Winsor and the tradition of ethnographic research. Tech. Commun. Q. 2011, 20, 353–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dressen, D.F. Accounting for Fieldwork in Three Areas of Modern Geology: A Situated Analysis of Textual Silence and Salience; University of Michigan: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Alatas, S.F. Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences. Curr. Sociol. 2003, 51, 599–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alatas, S.F. Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Responses to Eurocentrism; Sage: New Delhi, India, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Canagarajah, A.S. A geopolitics of Academic Writing; University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh, PE, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Hvistendahl, M. China’s publication bazaar. Science 2013, 342, 1035–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qiu, J. Publish or perish in China. Nature 2010, 463, 142–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.; Flowerdew, J. International engagement versus local commitment: Hong Kong academics in the humanities and social sciences writing for publication. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 2009, 8, 279–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISTIC. Institute of S&T Information of China: Statistical Data of Chinese S&T Papers; ISTIC: Beijing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, R. Two sides of the same coin: Challenges and opportunities for scholars from ESL/EFL backgrounds. In Academic Writing in a Second or Foreign Language: Issues and Challenges Facing ESL/EFL Academic Writers in Higher Education Contexts; Tang, R., Ed.; Continuum: London, UK, 2012; pp. 204–232. [Google Scholar]
- Hennink, M.; Hutter, I.; Bailey, A. Qualitative Research Methods; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Wright, P.; Szeto, W.F.; Cheng, L.T.W. Guanxi and professional conduct in China: A management development perspective. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Man. 2002, 13, 156–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Fry, C.L.; Ritter, A.; Baldwin, S.; Bowen, K.J.; Gardiner, P.; Holt, T.; Jenkinson, R.; Johnston, J. Paying research participants: A study of current practices in Australia. J. Med. Ethics 2005, 31, 542–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Macfarlane, B. The disengaged academic: The retreat from citizenship. High. Educ. Q. 2005, 59, 296–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillipson, R.; Skutnabb-Kangas, T. Danish scholars and languages of scientific communication. In Papers in language policy: Papers from the language policy conference, 29 January 1996. Rolig-papir 56; Bakmand, B., Phillipson, R., Skutnabb-Kangas, T., Eds.; Roskilde University: Roskilde, Denmark, 1996; pp. 33–42. [Google Scholar]
- Fournier, V.; Grey, C. At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Hum. Relat. 2000, 53, 7–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergmann, L.S. Higher education, administration ownership, collaboration, and publication: Connecting or separating the writing of administrators, faculty, and students? In Who owns this text?: Plagiarism, Authorship, and Disciplinary Cultures; Haviland, C.P., Mullin, J.A., Eds.; Utah State University Press: Logan, UT, USA, 2009; pp. 129–155. [Google Scholar]
- Silverman, D. Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook, 2nd ed.; Sage: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
© 2015 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, Y. Accessing Fellow Academics as Research Participants: Constraints, Collegiality, and “Academic Citizenship”. Publications 2015, 3, 131-149. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3020131
Li Y. Accessing Fellow Academics as Research Participants: Constraints, Collegiality, and “Academic Citizenship”. Publications. 2015; 3(2):131-149. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3020131
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Yongyan. 2015. "Accessing Fellow Academics as Research Participants: Constraints, Collegiality, and “Academic Citizenship”" Publications 3, no. 2: 131-149. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3020131
APA StyleLi, Y. (2015). Accessing Fellow Academics as Research Participants: Constraints, Collegiality, and “Academic Citizenship”. Publications, 3(2), 131-149. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications3020131