Part IV
Current Issues and
Emerging Possibilities
18 Where Can We Go from Here?
Throughout this book I have taken a decidedly positive view of scholarly publishing. As a writer and composition theorist, I am quick to celebrate the significance of the creative process. I know that writing stimulates thinking, imagination, and learning. I know that scholarly writing and publishing can be personally rewarding. I believe that we have a better chance of solving the problems confronting our society if we can involve more of our colleagues in research and scholarship. And on a solely practical level, I know that being active as scholars helps us serve as mentors to students. By being aware of what important conversations are taking place in scholarly publications, we can guide students toward original research projects and better understand research and writing problems that they confront.
While the techniques presented in this book can help scholars Write more effectively and find publishers for their ideas, we also must recognize that some of our most gifted colleagues will turn away from our invitations to write and participate in scholarly discourse. Although books like this one can help active scholars and researchers write and publish more, they can be compared to yelling in a hurricane if the goal is perceived to be involving faculty who are not publishing their ideas or conducting research. Barring major improvements in our economic and political conditions, we have no reason to hope that more of the 85 or 90 percent of faculty who are now quiet will share their views by publishing them. If we are ever to involve more professors in scholarship, then we need to resolve the teaching versus scholarship debate, redefine what we mean by scholarship, and question how institutions, professional organizations, and faculty members can help encourage scholarship.
MUST WE CHOOSE BETWEEN TEACHING AND SCHOLARSHIP?
Recent critics of higher education have accused us of abandoning the classroom. In the media, we have been portrayed like an obsessive compulsive alcoholic who can identify only two choices: to drink excessively or stay stone sober; that is, critics often charge that we cannot teach well because of the terrific emphasis administrators place on publishing scholarship. For instance, Emst L. Boyer, President of the Carnegie Foundation, has written elegantly that we need to reclaim teaching as an inspiring and significant responsibility. In Scholarship Reconsidered, Boyer argues that professors work hardest as scholars because they are not rewarded for effective classroom teaching:
In the current climate, students all too often are the losers…. In the glossy brochures, they’re assured that teaching is important, that a spirit of community moves the campus, and that general education is the core of the undergraduate experience. But the reality is that, on far too many campuses, teaching is not well rewarded, and faculty who spend too much time counseling and advising may diminish their prospects for tenure and promotion. (xi_xii)
In his survey of more than 5,000 faculty members, Boyer found that 52 percent of the respondents at four_year colleges and 14 percent at two_year institutions believed “observations of teaching by colleagues and/or administrators” to be “very unimportant” or “fairly unimportant” in determining who was granted tenure. Forty_four percent of his respondents at four_year institutions “disagreed with reservations” or “strongly disagreed” that “teaching effectiveness should be the primary criterion for promotion of faculty.” In contrast, only 4 percent of the faculty at two_year colleges felt this way. As any academic knows from personal experience or from reading professional magazines and newspapers such as the Chronicle of ~Iigher Education, these results are not surprising: after all, professors at four_year universities are expected to publish. Unlike their colleagues at two_year colleges, they are provided with course_load releases to conduct scholarly research. Instead of being expected to teach four or five sections each semester, they may have a three_two load, or if they are at a first_rate research institution, a two_two or a one_two load. Since they are expected to publish, it makes sense to evaluate their efforts at scholarship as much as their efforts at teaching.
However, it is important to note that 46 percent of the faculty at four_year institutions “strongly agree” or “agree with reservations” that “the pressure to publish reduces the quality of teaching at my university.” In tum, 14 percent of the professors at two_year colleges feel this way. Because we cannot know how involved these faculty members are as scholars, we cannot conclude that they are necessarily correct in their assumption that time spent working as scholars detracts from their work in the classroom. It is possible, for instance, that many of these faculty members have never conducted any scholarship or that their contributions have been minimal. Perhaps they are simply angry about the professor down the hall who received a higher merit raise because of an influential book. After all, 13 percent of the faculty members at four_year inStitutions who responded to Boyer’s survey have published no essays, and 30 percent of them have published one to five essays.
Even more damning was the finding that 49 percent of these respondents have written or edited no books. Naturally fewer academics have published at two_year institutions: 52 percent had published no articles, and 69 percent had written or edited no books.
Yet, as any resident of California would be quick to t perception is reality. No matter how sure we are of the benefits of scholarship and of the interrelationship between teaching and scholarship, we cannot afford to bury our heads in the sand, hoping that the critics of higher education will move along and find something else to critique.
It is, for instance, quite obvious to anyone remotely associated with higher education that professors are not rewarded for teaching well. It should not be surprising, therefore, that some faculty at research universities focus on research at the expense of teaching. When facing low salaries and few rewards for teaching, some professors work hard at chasing consulting contracts and grant money instead of focusing on their students’ needs. And thanks to the luxury of tenure, some faculty members have just tuned out, turning their attention toward hobbies, TV, sports, and family. We all know a few professors who waste their students’ time rather than teaching them. Although we lack statistics on faculty productivity after all, objective assessments of quality are impossible to determine we can guess that a good many faculty member used tenure as a shield from working hard in the classroom, library, and lab.
The woeful lack of emphasis our society places on education tears at the heart of even the most cynical academicians. Throughout the country teachers are being asked to teach more and more students. It is not uncommon for lecture classes to have 300 students, making it unrealistic for faculty members to assign writing or essay tests. While professional organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English and the Conference College Composition and Communication argue in proclamation after proclamation that writing classes should be limited to fifteen students, these classes are getting larger and larger, moving toward twenty_five and thirty students in a section. If the current disregard for teaching continues, we will soon have two castes: the educated in private schools and the illiterate in dangerous public schools.
We college professors and secondary educators are certainly not responsible for our society’s lack of concern for how we educate our people, so we shouldn’t hold ourselves solely responsible for the literacy crisis or the epidemic of violence and poverty decaying our country. Yet we do need to work with our colleagues and administrators to reaffirm teaching as a fundamental and significant act at research universities. We need to step out of our classrooms and address our society’s appalling lack of support for education. We can reward our colleagues who find their greatest joy in teaching as opposed to conducting research by acknowledging their efforts and accomplishments. And to offer our colleagues some extra time to conduct significant research, we can expect nonpublishing colleagues to maintain heavier teaching loads than colleagues who are involved heart and soul in scholarly endeavors. It certainly seems reasonable to me to expect academicians at the four_year level who are not engaged in research projects to have the same teaching load as professors at the two_year level. Yet these should be flexible tracks, not rigid publisher versus nonpublisher tracks. After all, we want to engage the imagination and intellect of all of our colleagues. Rather than separating academia into two camps, we should work to establish a more holistic view of scholarship and teaching.
Although we need to be vigorous in reestablishing the importance of teaching at research universities, this does not mean that we should throw the baby out with the bath water by failing to emphasize scholarship. Just because teaching has received short shrift in higher education does not mean that the emphasis on scholarship is to blame. Such a conclusion ignores the adjustments in teaching loads that occur at the four_year level. The real truth, as examined in the opening chapter of this book, is that scholarship can promote better teaching. As any reasonably experienced teacher would be quick to mention, effective teaching is grounded in extensive scholarship.
Yet no matter how clearly we demonstrate the benefits of scholarship, some of our colleagues will refuse to participate. As any seasoned professor knows, many of our brightest colleagues have grown bitter about the publish or perish approach. Some faculty are resentful that their efforts in the classroom go unnoticed while other less capable teachers receive raises for conducting research. Few in academia would dispute that current administrative practices of rewarding scholarship and ignoring teaching have driven an arbitrary wedge between scholars and teachers. Given the anger and disenchantment felt by our nonpublishing colleagues, we cannot hope that our silent colleagues will join our scholarly discourse if the conditions for teaching are not improved. In addition, because they lack training in writing and publishing, some faculty are unfamiliar with the generative nature of language, of how creative ideas evolve out of scholarly participation, and of how to submit and market their work.
To improve teaching at research universities, we can follow the path taken by Stanford, UCLA, Pennsylvania State University, and the University of South Florida and encourage research universities to develop teaching institutes. However, all of the institutes for faculty development will fail if we do not provide financial incentive for teaching well. As a whole, I think we can agree that few are in academia for the money. Yet at some point mortgages, health care, and even an occasional night on the town are necessary for our spiritual well_being. Unlike the clergy, we did not, after all, take a vow of poverty.
Rather than choosing between scholarship and teaching, we should focus our energies on improving both activities. We can do this by rewarding excellence in the classroom as well as excellence in scholarship. Moreover, as I explore in more detail below, we must redefine scholarship so that it includes practical and pedagogical applications.
HOW CAN WE REDEFINE SCHOLARSHIP?
The popular phrase, “Well, that’s academic” is often used to suggest that a subject is superfluous, suitable only for those who have time for leisurely discourse about insignificant issues. Critics of higher education frequently satirize the work of academics in an attempt to make all scholarship seem poorly written and absurdly impractical. For example, Page Smith writes:
The vast majority of the so_called research turned out in the modern university is essentially worthless. It does not result in any measurable benefit to anything or anybody. It does not push back those omnipresent “frontiers of knowledge” so confidently evoked; it does not in the main result in greater health or happiness among the general populace or any particular segment of it. It is busywork on a vast, almost incomprehensible scale. It is dispiriting; it depresses the whole scholarly enterprise; and, most important of all, it deprives the student of what he or she deserves__the thoughtful and considerate attention of a teacher deeply and unequivocally committed to teaching; in short, it robs the student of an education. (7)
For us adequately to respond to these important criticisms, we need to do more than improve our writing style. As Ernst Boyer has argued in Scholarship Reconsidered, we need to evaluate what we mean by scholarship and discuss with our peers and administrators guidelines for rewarding different kinds of scholarship.
Boyer has suggested four primary modes of scholarship: discovery, integration, application, and teaching. Essentially, discovery involves contributing “not only to the stock of human knowledge but also to the intellectual climate of a college or university” ( 17). Integration refers to “making connections across disciplines, placing the specialties in a larger context, illuminating data in a revealing way, often educating nonspecialists” (18). Application refers to solving consequential problems, such as heart disease and acid rain. Finally, Boyer notes the interdependence between leaching and scholarship and suggests that teaching should be viewed as a form of scholarship since good teachers research their subjects before transforming and extending knowledge through engendering speculative class discussions and intriguing course materials.
While we certainly should continue rewarding scholarship that aims to discover new insights, we should reconsider our tendency to denigrate practical scholarship. After all, extensive research and innovative thinking can be involved in writing a textbook or a pedagogical article, yet these genres traditionally are viewed as inferior to quantitative research. In turn, professors who are able to write well enough to inspire the imaginations of nonspecialists are put down as popularizers or journalists. For example, after receiving the Pulitzer Prize and the Bancroft Award for The Social Transformation of American Medicine, Paul Starr was denied tenure and let go from his assistant professor position at Harvard “because he won’t publish in the itty bitty academic journals” (Bell, qtd. in Sykes 126). In the Harvard Crimson “members of the ad hoc committee” evaluating Starr’s application for tenure “sniped that Starr was ‘overrated’ because he ‘merely synthesized old research and presented no new information” (Sykes 127_128).
While we are not privy to the politics at play in this case, the judgment of Starr’s tenure committee is not surprising to experienced faculty members: the love affair academics have with “hard research”__that is, quantitative methodologies is undemlining hermeneutical studies, qualitative research, and practical scholarship. While there are no golden tablets that say “thou shalt pursue only original ideas through statistical formulae,” the notion that all original scholarship is quantitative is endemic at many research universities. And yet we seriously have not questioned what it takes to be defined as original. To those accustomed to political infighting and the subjective nature of interpretation, it is not surprising that the scholarly community has no well_defined terms for what constitutes an original creation. And while we cannot hope for a rigid definition of what it is to be original, we should do more than shrug our shoulders and say, “I’ll know it when I see it; it will be dressed in numbers and fancy jargon.” Yes, we can expect increased specialization and use of jargon in our disciplines, but we also need to set aside the absurd assumption that pedagogical and practical articles cannot be original or significant. Many of us fear that our society is collapsing around us. Drugs and violence, the spoiling of the environment, AIDS, the collapse of the schools__these are serious problems that academics should be rewarded for examining. And before giving up on their desire to be of service to our society, academics should study the vitae of those who are calling them popularizers and journalists. Guided by their desire to establish a nationally recognized research institution, many senior scholars apply standards for tenure and promotion that they couldn’t hope to achieve.
WHAT CAN THE INSTITUTIONS DO TO ENCOURA GE SCHOLARSHIP ?
Many colleges and universities are failing to provide adequate support for faculty. While in the past a few scholars felt impelled to research and publish their ideas, now nearly all academicians at four_year universities are expected to publish to gain tenure, promotion, and respect. Nevertheless, in what amounts to a shortsighted sink_or_swim mentality, most institutions and professional organizations fail to provide the training and social milieu necessary to engender scholarly work. Below I outline some of the changes that we should call for at our institutions to encourage scholarship.
Academic Writers Need to Be Educated about Composition Theory
First, faculty and administrators need to recognize that writing is not a simple, mechanical process. We do not stop learning to Write in grammar, middle, or high school, nor should we expect to stop improving as writers after earning our undergraduate and graduate degrees. Instead, writing is an apprenticeship, a lifelong process. Second, we must shatter the assumption that thinking and writing can be separated, that first one thinks and then one writes. Publishing scholars should hold workshops with faculty to help illustrate how the process of writing promotes discovery and creativity.
Faculty Should Be Encouraged to Work Collaboratively
Even though we know that business people work collaboratively to develop better ideas, we tend to expect professors in the humanities and fine arts to write and publish documents by themselves. In fact, when professors do coauthor manuscripts, we tend to frown on their contributions.
Even if faculty choose not to coauthor manuscripts, they still need opportunities to exchange ideas with colleagues in their disciplines as well as other disciplines. Because intradepartmental rivalries can taint the commentary faculty give to each other when exchanging manuscripts, universities and colleges should establish research institutes where faculty in different departments and different disciplines can meet to exchange criticisms of each other’s projects.
Publishing Scholars Should Receive Financial Support
Scholarship takes tremendous energy. It is blatantly unfair to expect faculty to put in an extra twenty to forty hours a week as researchers if institutions are not prepared to offer rewards for such work. Faculty who are putting in sixty_ or seventy_hour weeks, who are struggling to excel as researchers and teachers, deserve compensation and course_load releases. We can assume that the 10 percent of the faculty who are presently active scholars will probably continue writing without compensation, but think about the possible contributions that the nonpublishers might make to our disciplines if institutions recognized their value and rewarded their efforts at scholarly publishing.
In turn, faculty who prefer to teach rather than conduct scholarship should be permitted to teach more and publish less. Yet, given the important benefits of conducting scholarship, even faculty holding teaching contracts at research universities should be expected to write about their teaching goals and pedagogical insights and to make connections to theory in professional journals. Writing is an essential form of thought that should be encouraged.
Institutions Should Attempt to Account for the Quality Rather Than the Quantity of a Scholar’s Contributions
Although we lack inforrnation about how many articles and books different universities expect from faculty before awarding tenure or promotion, we do know that faculty are under tremendous pressure to publish as much as possible. The pressure to publish voluminously may explain why reports of plagiarism in the Chronicle of Higher Education are now so common. Thanks to the pressure to produce quickly, some scholars are taking whole sections from others’ work and pawning them off as their own. Other scholars are guilty of fictionalizing their research results.
A more common result of the pressure to publish is the LPU, the least publishable unit. To make themselves look productive, faculty will take an idea suitable for one 2,500_word article and carve it into as many vitae lines as possible. Thus a simple pedagogical insight can become the subject of an on_campus presentation, a statewide conference, a national conference, and a brief how_to article, and then be described as a practical implication in the conclusion to a speculative essay.
Assessing the current and potential quality of a scholar’s work is a Herculean task. Given the highly specialized nature of most academic work, few academicians have colleagues at their home institutions who are qualified to evaluate their work. Even if qualified critics are available, interpretation is terribly subjective and political infighting is bound to taint the evaluative process. In his entertaining and insightful analysis of why Johann Sebastian Bach would not receive tenure in today’s academic climate, Jared Diamond points out a third problem with evaluating a colleague’s contributions: academicians in different disciplines tend to mature at different times in their career:
There are many scholars in fields such as physics and pure mathematics whose brilliant early insights are not matched later in their career. Conversely, scholars in other fields tend to mature later in life. Evolutionary biologists, for instance, have to develop a large body of technical information before they can begin to synthesize their knowledge and their early papers may give few hints of future greatness. The four monographs on barnacle taxonomy that Darwin wrote between the ages of 37 and 45 would have given a university promotions committee little reason to suspect that the same man would publish a truly revolutionary treatise at the age of nearly 51. (100)
Boyer also notes this problem with evaluating the potential of a colleague’s work: “Mathematicians and physicists, for example, are most productive in their younger years, while historians and philosophers tend to be most productive later on. Einstein propounded his special theory of relativity at age twenty_six, while Kant’ s seminal work, The Critique of Pure Reason, did not appear until he was fifty_seven” (47).
To be as fair as possible, we need to develop disciplinaryspecific standards for tenure and promotion that allow faculty to balance their responsibilities as teachers and researchers. These varied criteria should be public knowledge, and the portfolios that faculty present to illustrate their work as teachers and scholars need to be evaluated by on_campus committee members rather than by a single chairperson. In the best of possible worlds, these portfolios should be sent to qualified colleagues at other institutions as is done when deciding on tenure and promotion. Committee members should be paid for their work and expected to read a sample of each faculty member’s work rather than merely scanning the vitae and counting the scholarly documents published. The final report to faculty members should include a completed dichotomous scale that lists all of the pertinent criteria as well as a one_page synthesis.
Institutions Should Fund Frequent Participation at Scholarly Conferences
When faced with financial problems, institutions are often quick to cut funding for travel expenses to scholarly conferences. While it is true that conference presentations usually require less work than publishing in refereed journals, many scholars use conference presentations to try out new ideas, to develop a better sense of audience, to listen in on what the leaders in the field are discussing, and to meet with editors to discuss projects. Institutions that fail to support reasonable travel expenses should not expect significant scholarship or publishing.
Institutions Should Provide Necessary Computer Hardware and Software
Productive faculty should be provided with computers in their offices. To help establish a productive community, faculty should be connected to each other via computer modem.
WHAT CAN PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS DO TO PROMOTE SCHOLARSHIP?
The Peer_Review System Must Be Improved
Because people’s careers are often determined by what they publish, we should be troubled by recent research suggesting that reviewers’ decisions to accept articles or fund grants are often arbitrary or political.
Interpretation will always be subjective, yet we should look into ways to make it more objective. Professional organizations and journal editors need to examine how reviewers for manuscripts are selected and how they make decisions. Perhaps journal editors can work with their reviewers to standardize the criteria used by reviewers to evaluate manuscripts. Meanwhile, we should act on what we know and make the following changes:
1. Scholars should not be expected to wait longer than three months to hear whether their submissions are accepted or rejected. Current practices of expecting academicians to wait a year or longer to hear whether an essay is accepted are unconscionable.
2. The submissions should be blind__that is, the author’s name and institution should not be made known to the reviewers. The star system should be abandoned so that new voices can enter the conversation.
3. As an acknowledgment of their efforts, reviewers should receive an honorarium, even if it’s a minor one such as a free journal subscription.
The Variations in Documentation Styles and Descriptors for Computerized Databases Should
Be Ditched
It is simply ludicrous to have so many different formats for documenting sources. These variations cause needless busywork. Professional organizations should agree on one or two dominant ways of citing sources. Likewise, we need to encourage the producers of on_line and CD_ROM databases to use one standard list of descriptors.
Professional Organizations Should Work to Clarify the Standards for “Fair Usage” and to Make Permission Fees More Reasonable
Some important books are not publishable because of excessive perrnission fees. It is nearly impossible, for example, to publish a book that analyzes contemporary song lyrics. It can also be impossible to publish a collection of reprinted scholarly articles because the journals in which the articles were originally published require high reprint fees. Considering that the authors of schol~rly essays often receive little or no compensation for their manuscripts when originally published, the demand for high reprint fees seems unfair. Professional organizations need to work with publishers and producers of songs, films, cartoons, and the like to help them better understand the economics and goals of scholarly publishing.
WHAT CAN FACUL7Y DO TO PROMOTE SCHOLARSHIP?
Faculty Should Stop Signing Their Rights Away
Desperate to publish to gain tenure or promotion, academicians agree to pay part of the costs of publishing; they prepare documents in camera_ready format; they give up royalties or accept ridiculously low ones; and, worst of all, they give copyright to the publisher. As discussed in the chapter on writing book proposals, acceptability conditions and assignment conditions, which publishers are quick to call standard boilerplate, skew their contracts to enslave academicians.
Yet what can we realistically do? In “A Writer’s Union for Academics?,” Stanley Aronowitz has argued persuasively that we should join the National Writers Union, which “was established in 1983 to organize writers to bargain with their employers including book publishers, periodicals, and companies contracting with a wide variety of freelance technical and PR writers” (43). Likewise, in “Composition Textbooks: Publisher_Author Relationships,” W. Ross Winterowd suggests that academicians can escape enslavement by “joining the Textbook Authors Association (founded by Mike Keedy, Purdue professor emeritus of mathematics), which held its first meeting in December of 1987″ (146).
If we are ever to get a taste of the $147. 8 million brought in from university press sales (Aronowitz 41 ) and the billions that textbook publishers bring in, we will need to speak as a group and demand more equitable contracts. Otherwise, we will remain trapped by a system that perpetuates enslavement and poverty.
FINAL COMMENTS
Writing can be an invigorating way of engaging the imagination, of learning, and of staying intellectually alive. As Boyer has argued, we need to encourage and reward scholarship that discovers, integrates, applies, and ~xtends knowledge. Yet we cannot expect our silent colleagues to join and enrich our scholarly conversations if we do not tackle the serious problems undermining higher education.
Many faculty members have grown embittered about the emphasis on scholarship. We have been accused of abandoning the classroom and of pursuing narrow, relatively insignificant subjects in a blind pursuit of “original knowledge.” While conveniently ignoring the adjustments research universities make to the teaching loads of faculty members, numerous critics have ridiculed contemporary scholarship as indecipherable busywork. In part these criticisms are justified. Current ways of evaluating scholars emphasize quantity over quality. And the importance of teaching has been undermined by our lack of willingness to assess it or reward it. As scholars and teachers, we need to step out of the classroom and address these criticisms. We need to let administrators and legislators know more about our pedagogical and scholarly efforts. We need to educate those blinded by the limitations of dualistic or even egocentric thought. We must drive a stake into the heart of the scholarship versus teaching debate. We must recognize that some academicians are fine scholars even if they are reluctant writers. After all, we all know people who read widely and freely share their insights with colleagues and students. We must embrace applied forms of scholarship, philosophical and historical treatments, and qualitative methods (such as ethnography and case study). We need to take a hard look at our use of jargon in technical articles. And we need to reach out in our writing to our colleagues in other disciplines and to interested people in general.
In short, we need to clean house, And this means that we need you to write, to share your voice with us. Help us tackle the problems now colToding the foundation of higher education.
WORKS CITED
Aronowitz, Stanley. “A Writer’s Union for Academics?” Thought and Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal 4:2 (Fall 1988): 41_46.
Boyer, Ernst. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princeton, N.J.: Camegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990.
Diamond, Jared. “Publish or Perish.” Discover (July 1989): 96-101.
Smith, Page. Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America. New York: Viking, 1990.
Sykes, Charles J. ProfScam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1988.
Winterowd, W. Ross. “Composition Textbooks: Publisher_Author Relationships.” College Composition and Communication 40 (May 1989): 139-151.
Selected Bibliography
GENERAL INFORMATION SOURCES FOR ACADEMIC WRITERS
Association of American University Presses Directory. New York: AAUP (Association of American University Presses), annual.
Katz, Bill, and Linda Sternberg Katz, eds. Magazines for Libraries. 6th ed. New York: Bowker, 1989.
Koester, Jane, and Bruce Hillman, eds. Writer’s Market. Cincinnati: Writer’s Digest Books, annual.
Lingua Franca: The Review of Academic Life. Mamaroneck, N.Y.: Lingua Franca, bimonthly.
Literary Market Place. New York: Bowker, annual.
Standard Periodical Directory. New York: Oxbridge, annual.
Ulrich’s International Periodicals Directory. New York: Bowker, annual.
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT ACADEMIC WRITING, POLITICS, AND SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING
Academic Publishing Journal. Lincoln, Nebr.: Theraplan, quarterly.
Boyer, Ernst. Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. Princcton, N.J .: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, 1990.
Parsons, Paul. Getting Published: The Acquisition Process at University Presses. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1989.
Scholarly Publishing. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, quarterly.
Smith, Page. Killing the Spirit: Higher Education in America. New York: Viking, 1990.
Sykes, Charles J. ProfScam: Professors and the Demise of Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Gateway, 1988.
PROPOSALS__WRITING THEM AND FINDING FUNDING SOURCES
Annual Register of Crant Support. Chicago: Marquis Academy Media, annual.
Foundation Center. Corporate Foundation Profiles. 7th ed. New York: Foundation Center, 1992.
_______. The Foundation Directory. 1992 cd. New York: Foundalion Ccnler, annual.
_______. The Foundation Directory Supplement. Ncw York: FoundaLion C~ntcr, 1992.
_______. The Foundation Directory Part 2. 1991/1992 cd. Ncw York: Foundation Center, annual.
_______. Foundation 1000.1992 ed. New York: Foundation Ccnter, annual. . Crant Cuides. 1991/92 ed. New York: Foundalion Center, 1992.
_______. The National Directory of Corporate Civing. 2nd ed. Ncw York: Found~tion Center, 1991.
_______. National Data Book of Foundations. 1992 c~l. New York: Foundalion Ccnter, 1992.
Park, Karin R., and Beth Luey. Publication Grants for Writers and Publishers. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1991.
Schumacher, Dorin. Get Funded! A Practical Guide for Scholars Seeking Research Support from Business. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1992.
Taft Group. 1991 Taft Foundation Reporter.Rockville, Md.: TartGroup, 1991.
White, Virginia, ed. (Grant Proposals That Succeeded. New York: Plenum Press, 1984.
SUBJECT AREA GUIDES
This section lists some of the most prominent guides to academic journals and scholarly presses in the fields of business and economics, education, health and medicine, the humanities, library and inforrnation science, social and behavioral sciences, and technology and science. Most of these guides offer infonnation about the submission and editorial policies of the journals referenced in them. Because editors of scholarly journals frequently serve short terms, however, you should check a specific periodical for the current editor’s name and address.
If you work in a very specialized area, consult your professional association to determine whether a guide is available for your subject area. (If none is available, consider putting one together.)
Business and Economics
Cabell, David, ed. Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Business and Economics. 4th ed. Beaumont, Tex.: Cabell, 1988.
Fisher, William, comp. Einancial Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide to Accounting, Banking, Finance, Insurance, and Investment Periodicals. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Miller, A. Carolyn, and Victoria J. Punsalan, comps. Refereed and Nonrefereed Economic Journals: A Guide to Publishing Opportunities. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1988.
Sichel, Beatrice, and Werner Sichel, comps. Economics Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Vargo, Richard J. The Author’s Guide to Accounting and Financial Reporting Publications. Rev. ed. New York: Harper, 1986.
Vocino, Michael C., comp. Labor and Industrial Relalions Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1989
Education
Cabell, David, ed. Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Education. 2 vols. Beaumont, Tex.: Cabell, 1989.
Collins, Mary Ellen, comp. Education Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Scrials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1988.
Judy, Stephen N., ed. Publishing in English Education. Montclair, N.J.: Boynton Cook, 1982.
Levin, Joel. Getting Published: The Educator’s Resource Book. New York: ARCO, 1983.
Manera, Elizabeth S., and Robert Wright. Annotated Writer’ s Guide to Professional Journals. Scottsdale, Ariz.: Bobets, 1982.
Silverman, Robert J. Getting Published in Education Journals. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1982.
Health and Medicine
Barnes, Joan, comp. The Medical and Scientific Author’s Guide: An International Reference Guide for Authors to More than 500 Medical and Scientific Journals. New York: Le Jacq, 1984.
Hesslein, Shirley B., comp. Serials on Aging: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Kowitz, Aletha, comp. Dentistry Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1988.
Vaillancourt, Pauline M., comp. Cancer Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subjcct Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1988.
Warner, Steven D., and Kathryn D. Schweer. Author’s Guide to Journals in Nursing and Related Fields. Author’s Guide to Journals Series. New York: Haworth, 1982.
The Humanities
Dawsey, James M. Scholar’s Cuide to Academic Journals in Religion. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1988.
Fieg, Eugene C., Jr., comp. Religion Journals and .Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1988.
Harner, James L .MLA Direclory of Scholarly Presses. New York: MLA, 1992.
Kent, Kathleen L., comp. MLA Directory of Periodicals: A Guide lo Journals and Series in Languages and Lileratures. New York: MLA, biennial.
Ruben, Douglas H., comp. Philosophy Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographics of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985.
Alley. Brian, and Jennifer Cargill. Librarian in Search of a Publisher: How to Get Published. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1986.
Bowman, Mary Ann, comp. Library and Information Science Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotaled Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1985.
Stevens, Norman D., and Nora B. Stevens, eds. Author’s Guide to Journals in Library and Information Science. Author’s Guide to Journals Series. New York: Haworth, 1982.
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Fife, Janet, comp. History Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn .: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Mendelsohn, Henry N. An Author’s Guide to Social Work Journals. 2nd ed. Silver Spring, Md.: National Association of Social Workers, 1987.
Wang, Alvin Y. Author’s Guide to Journals in the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum Associales, 1989.
Williams, John T., comp. Anthropology Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Technology and Science
Balachandran, Sarojini. Directory of Publishing Sources: The Researcher’s Guide to Journals in Engineering and Technology. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 1982.
Barnett, Judith B., comp. Marine Science Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Jensen, Richard D., Connie Lamb, and Nathan M. Smith, comps. Agricultural and Animal Sciences Journals and Serials: An Analytical Guide. Annotated Bibliographies of Serials: A Subject Approach Series. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1986.
WRITING AND STYLE MANUALS
American Psychological Association. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: APA, 1983.
Boice, Robert. Professors as Wrilers: A Self_Help Guide to Productive Writing. Stillwater, Okla.: New Forums Press, 1990.
Chicago Manual of Style. 13th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, l982.
Cook, Claire Kehrwald. Line by Line: How to Improve Your Own Writing. New York: MLA, 1985.
Day, Robert A. How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper. 3rd ed. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1988.
Elbow, Peter. Writing Without Teachers. London: Oxford University Press, 1973.
Fox, Mary Frank. Scholarly Writing & Publishing: Issues, Problems, and Solutions. Boulder: Westview Press, 1985.
Gibaldi, Joseph, and Walter S. Achtert. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. New York: Modern Language Association, 1988.
Luey, Beth . Handbook for Academic Authors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
Michaelson, Herbert B. How to Write and Publish Engineering Papers and Reports. 3rd ed. Phoenix: Oryx Press, 1990.
Moxley, Joseph M., ed. Writing and Publishing for Academic Authors. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1992.
Strunk, William, Jr., and E. B. White. The Elements of Style. 3rd ed. New York; Macmillan, 1979.
vanLeunen, Mary_Claire. A Handbook for Scholars, Revised Edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Williams, Joseph M. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. 2nd ed. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1985.
Zinsser, William. On Writing Well. 3rd ed. New York: Harper and Row, 1985.
Index
abstracls, 61_64; importance, 63_ a publisher, 81; idcal tcxt syn64; when to write, 64 drome, 82; perceived value of, acknowlcdgments, 137_138 79_80 anthology of original essays, 105_ Boyer, Ernst L., 172_174 111; arranging for quality sub_ Bump, Jerome, 102 missions, 110_111; finding the right publishcr, 107_109; per_ Christcnscn, Francis, 74_75 ceived value of, 105_106, 111; cluster diagram. See drarling and selecting contributors, 105_110 organi7ing slralcgics audience, 15,143,145, ISlt 152, collaboration, 18,180; coaulhoring 153, 162; caplive, 67 manuscripls wi~h collcagues, 18_21; convcrsalion wilh Boice, Robert, 5, 7_9, 13 peers,10, 81, 171; peer crilibook proposals, 113_120; eval uat_ cism, 18 ing the competition, 115; find_ computcr printcrs: dot_matrix, 46; ing the right publisher, ink_jct, 46; lascr, 46 113_116. See also textbook pub_ computer programs: Data Link lishing Plus Transfcr, 111; WP Citabook rcviewers, 79 tion, 44 book reviews, 79_83; evaluating compulcri~.cd dalabases, 17_18; books to review, 81; evalualing CD_ROM, 17_18,184; on_line, your qualificalions, 81; finding 17
conclusions, 68~9, 92, 94, 98, 14S guidclincs, 124; rcjcclion and rccopy_editing stralcgies, 111, 149_ v icw rcadcrs, 123, 126; rc.scarch 167. See also revision funding agcncics, 121_123 copyright law, 135_137; fair usage, 136_137 Hc~Un, Larcadio, 8 Coughlin, Ellcn, 12, 13, 20 inlroducLions, 65_68. .Se~ also orDay, Robert, 152 gani7_ing a documcnt Diamond, Jarcd, 181 invisiblc collcge, 105, 108_111 dictation. See drafting and organiz_ issue lrCe. See drafling and organi%ing strategies ing stratcgies Direc~ory of the Association of University Presses, 55 lalongo, Mary, 4_6 documentation, 127_135 jargon, 18,150_153 drafting and organizing strategies, 27_44; cluster diagram, 28, 30_ Kronik, John W., 13 31; dictate drafts, 28_31; formal outline, 28, 34; freewriting, 28_ Icast publishable uniL, 181 31; issue tr~e, 28, 33; pie dia_ Lippincoll, Wallcr, 6 gram, 28, 31_32. See also lilcrary language, 93_102; images, wriling and research notebook 101; mc~phor, 100,102 Literary Marketplace, 55 edit for economy, 162_167. See litcrary nonfiction, 94_102; provalso copy_editing strategies crbs and dialogue, 98_100; editors, caretaker vs. Ieadership showing rather than telling, 100; role, 49 tone, 95_102. See also qualitaEureka Phenomenon, 9, 42, 143 liVC rcsearch firsl person, 24, 96, 98,150, 154_ markcling scholarly documcnts, 157 45_58; finding Lhc righl pubFiske, Douglas, 11 lisher, 54_5~; scholarly books, Fogg, Louis, 11 54_58 format, 147; headings and sub_ memory, short lcrm, 159_160 headings, 48; margins, 46; standard running head, 47 ncgoliating with publishcrs, 119freewriting, 28_31 120, 185_186; acceptability condition, 119; assignmcnt generative nature of language, 25, condilion, 119; guaranlee of ex67,171 clusivily, 56; right of first rcGoodrich, Chris, 72, 152 fusal, 56 grant proposals, 121_126; audience nonrcferecd journal, 49 and voice, 124_125; budget sec_ Norlh, Slcphen, 79 tion, 125; evaluating proposal nouns, 160_161, 162
Indcx
organizing a document, 27_35; ask qualilativc research rcports, 93_102 crilical queslions, 145; outline, quanlilative rescarch report, 85_92; 27; procecd from givcn informa_ abslract, 85; acknowledgments, tion to ncw information, 65; pro_ noles, and bibliography, 92; disvide a dcductive ovcrview, 65. cussion, 85, 91, 92; malcrials See also wriling and research uscd and mclhods followed, 85, nolebook 87_89; rcsearch qucslion, hyoulline~ See drafling and organiz_ polhesis, or problem, 85_87; rcing stralegics sults, 85, 89_90; rcview of lileralurc, 85, 87 paragraph, 71_77; ask crilical ques_ query and covcr lellcrs, 52_54; lions, 117; consider visual whal cdilors look ror, 53_54; imagc of text, 77; establish logi_ when lO query, 52 cal connections bctween paragraphs, 75; establish unity, 74; rcferecd journal, 49 organize malerial deductively, rejeclion, 40, 49, 52, 92, 115, 119, 72; proceed from given informa_ 141 tion lO new informalion, 72_73; rescarch runding agencics, 121usc an induclive slructure for 123; developmcnt office pcrsondramalic conclusions, 73; vary nel, 122; The Foundalion length according to message, Directory, 1222; I;oundation 76. See also organizing your 1,000, 122. See also grant prodocument posals paraphrasing, 129_131 research institutes, 180 Parsons, Paul, 54 rcvision, 10,16, 21, 25, 29, 50, 80, passive voice, 11, 62, 93, 96, 150, 107, 118, 120, 121, 126, 141 154,155_158,162 148. See also copy_ediling stratpecr_review process, 11, 49t 183_ egies 184; review readers, 50 rhelorical silualion, 15, 23 Pelers, Douglas P., and Slephen J. Ceci, 12, 14 salary, lenure, and promolion, 20, pie diagram. See drafling and or_ 114, 116,141,172_176 ganizing strategies scholarship. See salary, lenure, and prcpositions, 161 promolion; teaching vs. scholarprewriting, 15, 27, 38. See also ship debate computerizeddatabases secondary sourccs, 127_135; ask purpose, 15, 23, 34, 39, 64, 66, 68, critical questions, 146; avoid ex72, 74_76, 85, 107,129, 144 cessive quoling, 129; conlext qualilative research, 93_102; prov_ and credibilily, 131_133; paraerbs and dialogue, 98,100; phrasing, 129_131; power showing ralher than telling, 100; quoles, 134_135 tone, 95_102. See also lilerary serlence Icngth and paltcrn, 158nonfiction 1 60
Smilh, Page, 152, 153, 168, 177 Smilh, Paul, 118 vcrbs, 150, I 57_158, 160_161, Star System, 79, 81 162,167 subvention, 51 visuals, 48, 90 Sykes, Charles, 14, 101, 131_133, voice, 15; passion, 94_98 152, 168 Winlerowd, ~. Ross, 11′~_120,185 teaching. See salary, lcnure, and writing and resc~uch nolcbook, 37promoiion; teaching vs. scholar_ 44; bibliogr~lphy, 43; doubleship debate entry nolcbook rorm, 41~2; teaching instiluteS, 176 mainlain a log, 38_39; rcading teaching vs. scholarship debate, 4, noles and lhoughlrul exccrp~s, 6, 172_179,18~187 40~2; rccord of ncw wriling tcxlbook publishing, 11~120; au_ and rescarch idcas, 42~3; dience 117, chance of success, schcdulc (~f goals, 3~_39; sclf117_1 i9; negotiating lhe con_ rellcxivc wriling, 39~0 tract, 119; salary, tenure, and wriling mylhs, 3_13 promoiion, 1 16 About the Author
JOSEPH M. MOXLEY is Associate Professor of English at the University of South Florida, Tampa. He teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in composition theory and rel~ted subjects and also conducts writing seminars for university fac_llty. The author of many schol~rly articles and book chapters on aspects of writing, as well as published fiction and poetry, his books include Creative Writing in America: Theory and Pedagogy and a composition text, Eureka: lvriters at Work. Moxley has also served in various editorial capacities on the Journal of Advanced Composition, Technical Comntunication, and other academic journals.