1
Perceptions of the Culture, Productivity, and Dissemination of Research
at the University of Wisconsin-Stout1
Markie L. C. Blumer, Ph.D.
Center for Applied Ethics Scholar
Elizabeth A. Buchanan, Ph.D.
Endowed Chair and Director Center for Applied Ethics
Jenny Klucarich, MA.
Center for Applied Ethics Graduate Assistant
June 2014
1
Please cite document as: Blumer, M. L. C., Buchanan, E. A., & Klucarich, J. (2014).
Perceptions of the culture, productivity, and dissemination of research at the University of
Wisconsin-Stout. Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stout Center for Applied Ethics.
2
Background
The genesis of this study was faculty initiated and emerged from the University of WisconsinStout (UW-Stout) Engagement Sessions on Opening day of the Fall 2013 semester, which
focused upon the idea of the university as an “emerging research institute”. The principle
investigator, particularly as a new faculty member, became curious about the existent research
culture and integrity practices in the context of the university being identified as an emerging
research institute, and how the overall research culture may change (or remain unchanged) via
this change in institutional classification. More specifically, the principle investigator was
interested in the research culture and expectations at this university, as over the last two decades
there has been more focus on the conducting of research, and a push towards obtaining external
funding and dissemination of research across almost all institutional types (Blackburn, Bieber,
Lawrence, & Trautvetter, 1991; Prince, Felder, & Brent, 2007). This classification change
seemed to be, at least in part, a reflection of such changes. In addition, it has become the case
that junior faculty are now expected to obtain tenure not merely on good to excellent
instructional ratings, but also on their scholarly record (Blackburn et al., 1991; Prince et al.,
2007). Thus, more information regarding the research expectations are helpful for faculty in this
ever-growing research-intensive university environment.
To the investigators’ knowledge, this is the first study of its kind at this university. This study
was made possible through grant-funding via the UW-Stout Center for Applied Ethics.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained in February of 2014 based upon its status as
exempt. The survey study took place between March and April of 2014. Participation in this
survey study was voluntary. The survey instrument was housed via Qualtrics and was
disseminated to UW-Stout populations via weblink to university email addresses from the
investigators. Participants agreed to informed consent before starting the survey. They were
given the option to not answer any query or to exit the survey at any time. Individuals are not
being identified in the reporting and only group data is being reported (e.g., the analysis includes
only aggregate data of any numbers in categories where there are less than 10 participants). All
data attained has been de-identified to the highest degree possible.
Survey items were of both a quantitative (75 items) and qualitative (10 items) nature making this
a mixed data survey study (Blumer, Hertlein, & Haider, 2013, in review; Gambrel & Butler,
2013). Queries included on the instrument were based upon relevant scholarly literature (Blumer,
Green, Murphy, & Palmanteer, 2007; Mumford et al., 2007; Thrush et al., 2007). This survey
study was also vetted by academic staff, administrators, students, and faculty in the Research
Services Office, the Center for Applied Ethics, and the Office of Planning, Assessment, Research
and Quality prior to dissemination. The survey was composed of the following sections: sample
demographics, research culture, research productivity, research collaboration, research
dissemination, and research integrity. Being reported in this summary is information from the
following sections: research culture, research productivity and research dissemination.
3
Sample Demographics
Overview
The researchers asked about sample demographics at the end of the survey. Data was collected
for myriad demographics. Reported here is information regarding position in the university,
division affiliation, length of time at the university, racial/ethnic background, sexual orientation,
gender identity, and age. Data was collected and is being reported for the campus community as
a whole (e.g., faculty, staff, administrators, students). This was an intentional decision by the
investigators in hopes of fairly representing the campus research culture as a whole, and also in
the context of the institute being a polytechnic university where not only faculty, staff, and
administrator feedback is highly valued, but student feedback is as well. This is contrary to most
of the previous research regarding the study of research culture and integrity practices in
university settings, as typically information is gathered and/or reported from only students or
faculty/staff/administrators within the university, and not all of these groups in totality.
Findings
1,002 surveys were 2returned representing the following:
 9.4% response rate3. Responses for UW-Stout by position were faculty/staff (40%), and
students (60%)
 Responses by UW-Stout division affiliation were 27% College of Education, Health, &
Human Sciences, 25% College of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics,
16% College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, 11% College of Management, 8%
Administrative and Student Life Services, 6% Graduate School, 5% Academic and
Student Affairs, 3% Chancellor’s Division
 Range of years at UW-Stout ranged from 6 weeks-40 years with a mean amount of time
of 7.4 years
 11% People of Color4; 89% European American or White
 12% of people identified as having an alternate sexual orientation (meaning gay, lesbian,
bisexual, questioning, or another self-identified orientation), 88% of people identified as
having a heterosexual sexual orientation
 61% identified as women, 37% as men, 1% as having an alternate gender identity
(meaning intersex, transgender, or another self-identified identity)
 Range of ages was 19-66 years of age with a mean age of 37.49 years
2
Response rate does not sum to 100% for multiple questions, because there were questions where: 1) responses
were dependent on previous response, 2) multiple responses were allowed, 3) only students responded, 4) only
faculty responded, and 5) an answer was not ipsative. In cases where the sum does not total 100% one of these
reasons will be articulated. Throughout the demographic data collection, responses were not ipsative so the
responses ranged from the total number of respondents to roughly 600 responses.
3
Caution is suggested in generalizing results with significantly lower response rates. In general, the results provided
here reflect participant’s beliefs and concerns with regard to the research culture.
4
While recognizing the vastly different experiences of people of various racial identities (e.g., Hispanic American
versus African-American or Native American versus Asian-American), and those experiences within these
identity categories (e.g. Hmong versus Chinese), it was necessary to collapse some of these categories to conduct the
analyses due to the small numbers of respondents in each of the individual categories.
4
Summary
The researchers believe the demographic sample is representative of the larger UW-Stout
community. First, the demographics are comparable to those reported by UW-Stout for the Fall
2013 enrollment numbers, which included the following: student enrollment totaled 9,286,
employment enrollment totaled 1,402 employees, 12% persons of color and 88% White or
Caucasian, gender representation ranged from 30% male- and 70% female-identifying amongst
graduate students and 50% male- and 50% female-identifying amongst the university as a whole.
The sample demographics attained in the current study are also similar to those reported in the
2011 Campus Climate Index Study results in which the following were reported: 9% people of
color and 88% White, 8% non-heterosexual and 92% heterosexual, 58% female- identifying and
41% male- identifying and <1% transgender-identifying (Kwaterski, Burton, & Mans, 2011).
Finally, our number of respondents ranged from 1,002 at its highest to 104 at its lowest, which
means that statistically speaking our confidence in our findings ranges from a 95% confidence
interval with less than a 3% sampling error to a 95% confidence interval with less than a 10%
sampling error (Sullivan, 2001).
Perceptions of Campus Research Culture
Overview
The first part of the survey study explored the research culture of the university. The research
culture was explored via queries in the following areas: definition of research of the university as
an emerging research institute, research endeavors of the university as a polytechnic institute,
experience in the role of researcher by campus members, benefits and drawbacks to engaging in
research as a researcher, ways the university can support and reward research activity, and the
degree to which faculty are able to balance teaching, research, and service.
Definitions and endeavors of research
During the 2013-2014 academic year a university-based committee was formed to explore the
university as situated as an “emerging” or “applied research institute.” Members of this
committee were from a variety of colleges and disciplines across the campus. One of the tasks
charged to this committee was to define what it means for UW-Stout to be an “emerging research
institute.” Toward this end, the definition of research at this university5 that was agreed upon was
the following, “The original, uniquely human endeavors that contribute intellectually or
creatively to a discipline.” This definition was included in the survey to determine its fit with the
perceived research culture of UW-Stout. Participants6 were given the definition and asked if this
definition of research conceptually aligns with their own. In answering this question, 91% (n =
907) reported “yes” and 9% (n = 90) reported “no” [see Figure 1. Alignment with proposed
definition of research at UW-Stout].
5
Source: Emerging Research Committee: Bomar, C., Lume, C. M., Wynn, S., Fanta, F., Brey, E., Budd, D.,
Neidmyer, G., Surdick, R., Lui, J., Gundala, R., Blumer, M. L. C., & Nold, S. (2014). Linking scholarly activities
and the mission of a polytechnic university: UW-Stout as an emerging research institute. Menomonie, WI:
University of Wisconsin-Stout.
6
Participation was not ipsative.
5
Yes
No
Fig 1. Alignment with proposed definition of research at UW-Stout
The committee7 was also tasked with articulating the research endeavors of UW-Stout in the
context of being a polytechnic. Toward this end, the committee stated that “…as a polytechnic
institution it is important that research endeavors at UW-Stout include:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Broad dissemination
Student involvement
Faculty, staff, student, and/or administrator participation
A focus on addressing societal and/or community needs
Support from the institution”
These endeavors were provided to participants to assess their fitness as part of the perceived
research culture of UW-Stout. Participants8 were given all of the forestated research endeavors,
as well as an “other” category, and asked to select all that apply. The responses of participants
from most to least frequent to this question, “…as a polytechnic institution, it is important that
research endeavors include…” were the following: 82% (n = 821 responses) faculty, staff, student,
and/or administrator participation, 80% (n = 796 responses) student involvement, 78% (n = 781
responses) support from the institution, 66% (n = 656 responses) a focus on addressing societal
and/or community needs, 50% (n = 500 responses) broad dissemination, and 7% (n = 74
responses) other [see Figure 2. Research endeavors important at UW-Stout as a polytechnic
institute].
7
Source: Emerging Research Committee: Bomar, C., Lume, C. M., Wynn, S., Fanta, F., Brey, E., Budd, D.,
Neidmyer, G., Surdick, R., Lui, J., Gundala, R., Blumer, M. L. C., & Nold, S. (2014). Linking scholarly activities
and the mission of a polytechnic university: UW-Stout as an emerging research institute. Menomonie, WI:
University of Wisconsin-Stout.
8
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, and participation was not
ipsative.
6
Broad Dissemination
Student Involvement
Faculty, Staff, Student, and/or
Administrator Participation
A Focus on Addressing Societal
and/or Community Needs
Support from the Institution
Other
Fig 2. Research endeavors important at UW-Stout as polytechnic institute
Experience as a researcher
Another part of exploring the research culture of the campus was inquiring about participation in
research. Most respondents9 indicated that they had not participated in research in the role of
researcher at this university (62%, n = 623). A little more than half (50.5%, n = 506) reported
that they would have interest in participating in research in the role of researcher at this
university in the future, with a number fewer than half (49.5%, n = 496) reporting that they
would not have interest in participating in research in the role of researcher.
Benefits and drawbacks of participating in research as a researcher
Those participants10 who had experience as a researcher were given the opportunity to respond to
questions regarding the benefits and drawbacks of research. The responses of participants from
most to least frequent to the question, “What do you believe are some of the benefits to engaging
in research activity…” were as follows: 81% (n = 520 responses) advances one’s field of study,
79% (n = 512 responses) encourages critical thinking in oneself and one’s students, 78% (n = 505
responses) opportunity for scholarly collaboration and networking, 74% (n = 479 responses)
professional responsibility, 70% (n = 449 responses) makes a contribution to the community or has
more global implications, 62% (n = 401 responses) enhance one’s teaching style and content, 48%
(n = 312 responses) helps secure future grant-funding, 43% (n = 277 responses) essential in the
promotion and/or tenure processes, 24% (n = 154 responses) promotes competition, and 5% (n =
34 responses) other. The responses of participants from most to least frequent to the query, “What
do you believe are some of the drawbacks to engaging in research activity”…were the following:
36% (n = 203 responses) requires additional training, knowledge, skills, and/or experience, 31% (n
= 178 responses) dislike of conducting research, 31% (n = 178 responses) lack of support from
university, 25% (n = 144 responses) promotes competition, 20% (n = 115) distracts from one’s
teaching style and content, 20% (n = 117) other, 17% (n = 95 responses) lack of support from
college/division, and 15% (n = 86 responses) lack of support from department.
9
Participation was not ipsative.
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, and participation was not
ipsative.
10
7
University reward and support for research activity
Those participants11 who had experience as a researcher were given the opportunity to respond to
a query regarding the ways in which they believe the university can best support or reward
engagement in research activity. Their responses from most to least frequent were as follows:
64% (n = 407 responses) offer more resources for research (e.g., equipment, staff, graduate
assistantships, etc.), 57% (n = 360 responses) promote a culture of research, 52% (n = 331
responses) release time, 49% (n = 307 responses) merit pay (e.g., bonuses distributed to
faculty/academic staff who exceed scholarly expectations), 42% (n = 263 responses)
dissemination of more scholarly awards and recognition, 42% (n = 264 responses) provide more
information to faculty/academic staff on funding opportunities that focus on higher dollar
awardings, 36% (n = 228 responses) encourage scholars to disseminate their work, and 10% (n =
66 responses) other.
Balancing of research, teaching, and service commitments
Participants12 were given the opportunity to respond to the following scaling question (scale of 15, with 5 being strongly agree, 3 being neither agree nor disagree, and 1 being strongly disagree),
“Faculty members at this university on average seem able to balance their teaching, research, and
service commitments.” See Graph 1: Ability of faculty to balance teaching, research, & service
commitments, below.
Faculty members at this university on average seem
able to balance their teaching, research and service
commitments.
5. Strongly Agree
81
4
164
3. Neither Agree Nor Disagree
203
2
85
1. Strongly Disagree
66
0
50
100
150
200
250
Graph 1. Ability of faculty to balance teaching, research, & service commitments
Summary
The participants in this study support the broad definition of research that was proposed by
Bomar et al., (2014) in the context of this university being defined as an emerging or applied
research institute. This definition, as well as the university support of it, is also supported by the
scholarly literature. For instance, an outcome from an extensive review of the literature on
11
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, and participation was not
ipsative.
12
Participation was not ipsative.
8
teaching and research with regard to recommendations on how to help improve what is a weak
correlation between faculty research and improvements in undergraduate teaching is the
broadening of the definition of research and scholarly activity (Prince et al., 2007). Specifically,
it was recommended that the definition be broad enough to include research on teaching and
learning, including methods of instruction, evaluation of student learning, and then that these
studies be used to improve one’s course outcomes, and be disseminated widely so that other
instructors can improve their teaching (Prince et al., 2007). Furthermore, the valuing of student
involvement and participation in research with faculty and staff has been demonstrated in the
literature to improve undergraduate student retention (Nagda, Gregerman, Jonides, Hippel, &
Lerner, 1998; Prince et al., 2007). Thus, the support for research endeavors at this university
being highest for faculty, staff, student, and/or administrator participation (82%, n = 821
responses), as well as student involvement (80%, n = 796 responses) is supported in the literature
as well.
How to best support or reward scholarly and research activity was also included in attending to
the research culture of this university. Generally speaking, there is virtually no research
examining faculty research and scholarship practices (Blackburn et al., 1991). In the little
existent literature, there a strong correlation between salary and scholarly dissemination in the
form of number of articles published (Tuckman & Leahey, 1975). However, other scholars have
found that such institutional incentives do not correlate with faculty behavior (Finkelstein, 1984).
In their review of the literature Prince et al., (2007), provided the following recommendations to
support and reward the scholarly activity of faculty: recognize faculty members who integrate
teaching and research, establish faculty development programs in research and teaching and the
ways to integrate the two, and recognize and reward academic departments and programs that
promote, recognize, and encourage the integration of teaching and research. Relatedly, findings
in the current study indicate that faculty believe that the way the university can best support or
reward their research activity is primarily by offering more resources (64%, n = 407 responses),
promoting a culture of research (57%, n = 360 responses), and providing release time (52%, n =
331 responses).
Lastly in terms of summarizing the findings around the research culture at this university, the
majority of all participants reported having interest in participating in research in the role of
researcher (50.5%, n = 506). However, often members of university communities like faculty,
report the drawbacks of conducting research include the the time it takes and the difficulty
balancing research, with teaching and service responsibilities (Blackburn et al., 1991). In our
study, the majority of participants agreed that faculty members seem able to balance their
teaching, research and service responsibilities at present. The difficulty will be as the university
shifts to being defined as an “emerging” or “applied research institute” being able to meet the
research expectations that may come with such a redefinition. In addition, there were drawbacks
to conducting research that were identified by participants and would need to be addressed in
order for this change to be viable. The most frequently reported drawbacks included: the
requirement of additional training, knowledge, skills, and/or experience (36%, n = 203
responses) to conduct research, lack of support from the university (31%, n = 178 responses),
and a disliking of conducting research (31%, n = 178 responses). These drawbacks and potential
barriers have been noted previously in the literature (Blackburn et al., 1991; Prince et al., 2007).
9
One way to address the requirement of additional training, knowledge, and skills is to offer
research mentoring, student and faculty research workshops, more opportunities for research
collaborations between more senior and junior level university members, as well as more
opportunities for continuing education focused upon conducting research (Prince et al., 2007).
Research Productivity
Overview
The second section of the survey explored research productivity. Participants who indicated they
had participated in research in the role of researcher had the option to answer a series of
questions regarding research productivity. The research productivity of the university was
explored via the following topical areas: composition of research teams, number of publications,
presentations, and grants authored, and perceptions and expectations regarding productivity.
Composition of research engagement
Of the participants13 who had participated in research in the role of researcher, the bulk (62%, n
= 80) reported that the majority of their research experience has been conducted collaboratively,
team based, and/or with others. In contrast, only 38% (n = 50) reported that the majority of their
research experience has been conducted independently, solely, and/or on one’s own [see Figure
3: Composition of research engagement].
Independent, Sole, On
my Own
Collaborative, TeamBased, With Others
Fig 3. Composition of research engagement
Participants14 whose research experience was primarily team-based had the opportunity respond
to a query regarding who were commonly members of their research teams. Their responses
from most to least frequent were as follows: 65% (n = 59) students, 46% (n = 42) inter-university
faculty, 41% (n = 37) departmental faculty, 33% (n = 30) intra-university, 24% (n = 22)
college/division faculty, 19% (n = 17) community members, and 11% (n = 10) academic staff or
administrators [see Figure 4: Composition of research team].
13
Participation was dependent on previous response, and participation was not ipsative.
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, and participation was not
ipsative.
14
10
Students
Departmental Faculty
College/Division Faculty
Intra-University Faculty
Inter-University Faculty
Academic Staff or
Administrators
Community Members
Fig 4. Composition of research team
Faculty presentation, publication, and funding productivity
Faculty and academic staff participants15, who had engaged in research, reported their total count
of presentations, publications, and secured grant funding in the last calendar year (2013
respectively). In terms of presentations, participants reported the following breakdown from
most to least frequent venues: 70% (n = 69) national professional conferences, 41% (n = 40)
university professional conferences, 37% (n = 36) international professional conferences, 34% (n
= 33) regional professional conferences, and 33% (n = 32) state professional conferences. For
publications, participants reported the breakdown from most to least frequent venues as follows:
57% (n = 48) peer-reviewed journal article. 36% (n = 30) other (e.g. workbook, curriculum),
33% (n = 28) book chapter, 27% (n = 23) journal article, 21% (n = 18) newsletter, 18% (n = 15)
video/web-cast, and 14% (n = 12) book or monograph. See “Graph 2: Sources of grants applied
for and secured” for responses regarding the numbers and sources of grants and applied for and
secured, below.
15
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, participants did not include
students, and participation was not ipsative.
11
160
138
140
122
120
100
80
60
60 59
40
51
Applied
42
27 21
Secured
20
0
UW-Stout
Grants
UW-System External to
Grants
the University
and University
System Grants
Total
Graph 2. Sources of grants applied for and secured
Perceptions and expectations around productivity
Participants16 answered a series of scaling questions (scale of 1-5, with 5 being strongly agree, 3
being neither agree nor disagree, and 1 being strongly disagree), focused upon perceptions and
expectations around productivity17. See Table 1: Perceptions and expectations around
productivity, below.
Statistic
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Standard
Deviation
Total Responses
16
On average,
students at this
university are
productive (e.g.,
publishing,
presenting,
securing research
grant-funding,
etc.).
Expectations
around publishing
for students are
clearly
communicated by
faculty members.
Expectations
around presenting
for students are
clearly
communicated by
faculty members.
Expectations
around grantwriting
activity for
students are
clearly
communicated
by faculty
members.
1
5
2.69
1.11
1
5
2.37
.82
1
5
2.80
1.10
1
5
2.22
.91
1.05
.90
1.05
.95
124
118
120
116
Student and non-student participants answered queries related to students and only non-student participants
answered queries related to faculty/academic staff, and participation was not ipsative.
17
Queries based upon Thrush, C. R., Putten, J. V., Rapp, C. G., Pearson, L. C., Berry, K. S., & O’Sullivan, P. S.
(2007). Content validation of the organizational climate for research integrity survey. Journal of Empirical Research
on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 2(4), 35-52.
12
Statistic
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
On average,
faculty/academic
staff members at
this university
are productive
(e.g., publishing,
presenting,
securing
research grantfunding, etc.).
Expectations
around
publishing for
faculty/academic
staff are clearly
communicated at
all levels of this
university.
Expectations
around
presenting for
faculty/academic
staff are clearly
communicated at
all levels of this
university.
Expectations
around grantwriting activity
for
faculty/academic
staff are clearly
communicated at
all levels of this
university.
1
5
3.21
1.21
1.10
128
1
5
2.50
1.44
1.20
124
1
5
2.62
1.48
1.22
125
1
5
2.48
1.37
1.17
126
Table 1. Perceptions and expectations around productivity
Summary
In the current study, the majority of participants reported conducting research collaboratively
(62%, n = 80) and with the most common members of their research team being students (65%, n
= 59). Such collaborative research practices are supported and called for in the literature.
Researchers have shown that it is essential that undergraduate students have an opportunity to
conduct research, and that faculty play an active part in mentoring them through the research
process (Prince et al., 2007). Researchers have also shown that when undergraduate students
have an opportunity to collaborate with faculty on research it improves student retention (Nagda
et al., 1998; Prince et al., 2007). The retention effect tends to be strongest for African American
and sophomore level students (Nagda et al., 1998). Positive retention trends have also been
demonstrated for Hispanic and White American students (Nagda et al., 1998).
Faculty and academic staff participants who engaged in research activity reported their total
number of publications, and presentations in the last calendar year (2013). The venues through
which they disseminated were the following (in order of most to least frequent): national
professional conferences (70%, n = 69), peer-reviewed journal articles (57%, n = 48), university
professional conferences (41%, n = 40), international professional conferences (37%, n = 36),
other (e.g., workbook, curriculum) (36%, n = 30), regional professional conferences (34%, n =
33), state professional conferences (33%, n = 32), book chapter (33%, n = 28), journal articles
(27%, n = 23), newsletter (21%, n = 18), video/web-cast (18%, n = 15), and book or monograph
(14%, n = 12).
For a point of comparison, the principle investigator reviewed the 2013 Scholarly Activity
section of StoutQuest: The Journal of Research at the University of Wisconsin-Stout 2013-2014
(Weissenburger, Foxwell, & Poling, 2013). The scholarly activity reported in StoutQuest
included the following: 93 reports of scholarship in totality with 60 presentations (65%) and 33
publications (35%). Of the 60 presentations the dissemination from most to least frequent was as
follows: national professional conferences (34%), state professional conferences (23%),
13
international professional conferences (15%), university professional conferences (15%), and
regional professional conferences (13%). Of the 33 publications the breakdown was as follows:
peer-reviewed journal articles (55%), journal articles (15%), other (15%), book chapter (9%),
newsletter (3%), and book or monograph (3%). From these two sources, it would seem that
faculty at this university are most frequently disseminating their research via national
professional conferences and peer-reviewed journal articles.
Research Dissemination
Overview
The fourth section of the survey explored research dissemination. Participants18 who indicated
they had participated in research in the role of researcher had the option to answer a series of
questions regarding research dissemination. Research dissemination was explored via the
following topical areas: benefits of dissemination, barriers of dissemination, and the perceptions
of the value and expectations regarding research at the university.
Benefits of and barriers to research dissemination
Participants19 who participated in research in the role of being a researcher had the chance to
answer queries related to their perceptions of the benefits of and barriers to disseminating
research. In relation to the benefits of disseminating research, participant responses from most to
least frequent were as follows: 94% (n = 110 responses) sharing of knowledge, 81% (n = 95
responses) advancing one’s field of study, 73% (n = 85 responses) opportunity for scholarly
collaboration and networking, 68% (n = 79 responses) university recognition, 65% (n = 76
responses) makes a contribution to the community or has more global implications, 65% (n = 76
responses) essential in the promotion and tenure processes, 56% (n = 65 responses) help secure
future grant-funding, 53% (n = 62 responses) opportunity for peer-reviewing, 48% (n = 56
responses) self-promotion, 46% (n = 54 responses) departmental recognition, 44% (n = 52
responses) college/division recognition, and 26% (n = 30 responses) team promotion. In relation
to the barriers to dissemination of research, responses from most to least frequent were the
following: 72% (n = 74 responses) lack of support from university, 46% (n = 47 responses) lack
of support from college/division, 44% (n = 45 responses) lack of support from department, 30%
(n = 31 responses) uncertainty about or inexperience with the disseminating process, 28% (n =
29 responses) self-promotion (e.g., fear of appearing boastful or prideful), 19% (n = 20
responses) experiencing of imposter-syndrome (e.g., difficulty internalizing accomplishments,
feelings, of one’s success, feeling underserving of one’s achievement, etc.), 14% (n = 14
responses) other, and 13% (n = 13 responses) team-promotion (e.g., fear of appearing boastful or
prideful or disagreement on how to disseminate as a team).
Value, expectations, and acknowledgment around dissemination
Participants20 answered a series of scaling questions (scale of 1-5, with 5 being strongly agree, 3
being neither agree nor disagree, and 1 being strongly disagree), focused upon the value and
18
Participation was dependent on previous response, and participation was not ipsative.
Participation was dependent on previous response, multiple responses were allowed, and participation was not
ipsative.
20
Student and non-student participants answered queries related to students and only non-student participants
answered queries related to faculty/academic staff, and participation was not ipsative.
19
14
expectations regarding research, as well as the acknowledgment of research productivity at this
university21. See Table 2: Values, expectations, acknowledgement, and dissemination, below.
Statistic
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Statistic
Research and
dissemination are
highly valued at this
university.
Student publications
are publicly
acknowledged at this
university.
Student
presentations are
publicly
acknowledged at
this university.
1
5
3.16
1.43
1.19
116
1
5
3.69
0.93
0.96
110
1
5
3.74
0.97
0.98
110
Grant-funded
projects by students
are publicly
acknowledged at
this university.
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Statistic
Min
Max
Mean
Variance
Standard Deviation
Total Responses
Disseminating research
Disseminating
through presenting is research through
expected in order to
publishing is
achieve tenure and/or
expected in
promotion at this
order to attain
university. Publications
tenure and/or
by students are
promotion at this
publicly recognized at
university.
this university.
1
5
3.61
1.23
1.11
104
1
5
3.68
1.31
1.14
108
1
5
3.82
1.34
1.16
113
Faculty/academic
staff publications
are publicly
acknowledged at
this university.
Faculty/academic staff
presentations are
publicly
acknowledged at this
university.
Grant-funded
projects by
faculty/academic
staff are publicly
acknowledged at
this university.
1
5
3.20
1.41
1.19
115
1
5
3.17
1.43
1.19
113
1
5
3.58
1.44
1.20
113
Table 2. Values, expectations, acknowledgment and dissemination
21
Queries based upon Thrush, C. R., Putten, J. V., Rapp, C. G., Pearson, L. C., Berry, K. S., & O’Sullivan, P. S.
(2007). Content validation of the organizational climate for research integrity survey. Journal of Empirical Research
on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, 2(4), 35-52.
15
Summary
In the current study, participants who had engaged in research reported the following as the top
benefits for the dissemination of research: sharing of knowledge (94%, n = 110 responses),
advancing one’s field of study (81%, n = 95 responses), opportunity for scholarly collaboration
and networking (73%, n = 85 responses), and university recognition (68%, n = 76 responses).
Previous literature has shared that one way to successfully integrate and support research in
institutions is through recognition of such efforts at the individual faculty level, as well as at the
departmental and programmatic levels (Prince et al., 2007). This information corroborates those
of this study with regard to the benefit of research being related to recognition.
Previously researchers have examined data from faculty across eight different institutional types
in terms of efforts towards research and dissemination (Blackburn et al., 1991). Across all
institutional types, the researchers found that self-valuation (i.e., self-competence and selfefficacy) significantly accounted for the bulk of the predictive behaviors towards faculty
engagement in research and related dissemination (Blackburn et al., 1991). This variable was
more predictive across institution types than others examined in the study, which including such
variables as gender, career age, career rank, quality of graduate school attended, consensus and
support, and colleague commitment to research. This previous finding corroborates ours’ around
identification of some of the barriers to disseminating research—namely uncertainty about or
inexperience with disseminating process (30%, n = 31 responses), self-promotion (28%, n = 29
responses), experiencing of imposter-syndrome (19%, n = 20 responses). Although these barriers
to research dissemination in our study were identified to a lesser extent than others (i.e., lack of
support from university (72%, n = 74 responses), lack of support from college/division (46%, n =
47 responses), etc.)—they were still noted as areas of concern.
References
Blackburn, R. T., Bieber, J. P., Lawrence, J. H., & Trautvetter, L. (1991). Faculty at work: Focus
on research, scholarship, and service. Research in Higher Education, 32(4), 385-413.
Blumer, M. L. C., Green, M. S., Murphy, M. J., & Palmanteer, D. (2007). Creating a
collaborative research team: Feminist reflections. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy:
An International Forum, 19(1), 41-55.
Blumer, M. L. C., Hertlein, K. M., & Haider, A. (2014, in review). Exploration of marriage and
family therapy web-based supervision: A mixed data survey. The Clinical Supervisor.
Bomar, C., Lume, C. M., Wynn, S., Fanta, F., Brey, E., Budd, D., Neidmyer, G., Surdick, R.,
Lui, J., Gundala, R., Blumer, M. L. C., & Nold, S. (2014). Linking scholarly activities
and the mission of a polytechnic university: UW-Stout as an emerging research institute.
Menomonie, WI: University of Wisconsin-Stout.
Finkelstein, M. J. (1984). The American Academic Profession: A Synthesis of the Social
Scientific Inquiry Since Worm War H. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Press.
Gambrel, L. E., & Butler, J. L. (2013). Mixed methods research in marriage and family therapy:
A content analysis. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 39, 163-181.
Kwaterski, J., Burton, J., & Mans, J. (2011). University of Wisconsin-Stout Campus Climate
Study. Menomonie, WI: UW-Stout Applied Research Center.
16
Mumford, M. D., Murphy, S. T., Connelly, S., Hill, J. H., Antes, A. L., Brown, R. P., &
Devenport, L. D. (2007). Environmental influences on ethical decision making: Climate
and environmental predictors of research integrity. Ethics and Behavior, 17(4), 337-366.
Nagda, B. A., Gregerman, S. R., Jonides, J., von Hippel, W., & Lerner, J. S. (1998).
Undergraduate student-faculty research partnerships affect student retention. Review of
Higher Education, 22, 55-72.
Prince, M. J., Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2007). Does faculty research improve undergraduate
teaching? An analysis of existing and potential synergies. Journal of Engineering
Education, 96(4), 283-294.
Sullivan, T. J. (2001). Methods of Social Research. Orlando, FL: Harcourt College Publishers.
Thrush, C. R., Putten, J. V., Rapp, C. G., Pearson, L. C., Berry, K. S., & O’Sullivan, P. S.
(2007). Content validation of the organizational climate for research integrity survey.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal,
2(4), 35-52.
Tuckman, H. P., & Leahey, J. (1975). What is an article worth? Journal of Political Economy,
83(5), 951-967.
University of Wisconsin-Stout. (2013). Facts about UW-Stout. Retrieved on June 25, 2014 from:
http://www.uwstout.edu/about/facts.cfm
Weissenburger, J., Foxwell, S., & Poling, J. (Eds.). (2013). StoutQuest: The Journal of Research
at the University of Wisconsin-Stout 2013-2014, 7. Menomonie, WI: UW-Stout Provost
Office.