Communication Scholars' Communication and Relationship with their IRBs

Using grounded theory, 57 narratives of communication scholars detailing their experiences and relationships with institutional review boards (IRBs) were examined. From this analysis, 24 concepts emerged constituting five larger categories characterizing the communication relationship between communication scholars and IRBs: antagonistic actions of IRBs, negative perceptions of IRBs, actions of researchers, positive perceptions of IRBs, and protagonistic actions of IRBs. Results indicate that the main difference between positive and negative experiences with IRBs was associated with the nature of the relationship between scholars and IRBs. Scholars who saw their IRBs as adversarial bureaucracies had the most negative experiences, whereas scholars who saw their IRBs as partners in the research process had the most positive experiences. Recommendations for how both IRBs and researchers can improve their relationships conclude this essay.     

项目知识管理研究综述

项目知识管理是由项目管理和知识管理之间存在的强交叉性而引发的新概念,已引起国内外研究者的关注,并取得不少研究成果。对项目知识管理的提出、项目管理与知识管理的关系、项目知识管理特征、项目知识管理理论框架4个方面的研究进行归纳、分析和评述,并对其未来发展从项目知识管理基础理论、流程和组织体系三方面提出完善建议。     

美国的人际传播研究及代表性理论

本文在前人研究的基础上,对美国人际传播的研究视角进行了划分,并梳理出每种视角的代表性理论。本文认为,美国人际传播研究的视角有情境、能力、关系、过程、规则、功能、文化和心理八个方面的视角。这些研究视角对我国学者从事人际传播研究,建立具有中国特色的人际传播理论具有重要的借鉴价值。     

Ten Steps in Scale Development and Reporting: A Guide for Researchers

Scale development involves numerous theoretical, methodological, and statistical competencies. Despite the central role that scales play in our predictions, scholars often apply measurement building procedures that are inconsistent with best practices. The defaults in statistical programs, inadequate training, and numerous evaluation points can lead to improper practices. Based on a quantitative content analysis of communication journal articles, scholars have improved very little in the communication of their scale development decisions and practices. To address these reoccurring issues, this article breaks down and recommends 10 steps to follow in the scale development process for researchers unfamiliar with the process. Furthermore, the present research makes a unique contribution by overviewing procedures scholars should employ to develop their dimensions and corresponding items. The overarching objective is to encourage the adoption of scale development best practices that yield stronger concepts, and in the long run, a more stable foundation of knowledge.     

国内外知识共享理论研究综述

知识管理理论的兴起带动了知识共享研究的发展。近年来,国内外学者从多角度出发,运用不同的方法对知识共享理论进行了研究。知识共享是一个包含众多因素的理论体系,其中知识共享的内涵可以从信息沟通/信息流动角度、组织学习角度、市场角度、系统角度来理解。除此之外,知识共享的过程、知识共享的影响因素、知识共享的支撑机制也是知识共享理论重要的组成部分,值得学者们继续进行深入研究。     

From praxis to pragmatism: Junior scholars and policy impact

ABSTRACT

Drawing on Buckingham’s observation that academic research either has to become public knowledge or its originators must have a high visibility in the public realm before their research can find inclusion into policymaking processes, this article offers a variety of examples of how academics have managed to bridge the gap between media and communication policy scholarship and policymaking. Contrary to the long-standing belief that policy impact is extremely difficult and rare to achieve, we argue that junior scholars have many opportunities to have their work become part of the policymaking process through new forms of conversation, collaboration, coalition-building, changing perceptions of public knowledge, and a more conceptual understanding of impact.     

Contradictions in surgical work teams

Teamwork and communication are essential to effective work groups in health care. This project investigated how an impending technology change spurred the staff in an ophthalmological surgical department to improve their teamwork and communication processes. Data were gathered using focus groups, key informant interviews, and workplace observations involving 56 employees. Qualitative, interpretive analysis indicated that lack of communication impacted team processes and job satisfaction. Participants indicated that sharing knowledge and developing policy knowledge were problematic, especially as those processes concerned job duties. Results were interpreted using structurating activity theory. Analysis identified system-level and structural-level contradictions that hindered activity accomplishment. Several practical implications of findings are offered, including using the experience of work team contradictions as opportunities to transform practices, implementing ongoing inter-professional training for work teams, and providing opportunities for work team members to be reflective about their team experiences. Future research suggestions are offered for extending findings.     

Voices from the Ground Up: Transfer of Learning within the Context of Research and Study Activities

A mid-sized university library system conducted a large-scale mixed-methods research project intended to understand better the student library experience and ways to enhance it. One aspect of the project included a detailed and iterative analysis of interview data. Using a grounded theory (GT) approach, researchers analyzed empirical data from student interviews and identified patterns of behavior. The results of data analyses suggested that students used knowledge and interactions from library class to inform them of how to study academic content and complete non-research tasks and vice versa. As a result, researchers generated an inductive (emerging from the data) theory that asserts that some research and study activities are mutually informative. The article describes the approach used to develop the theoretical construct in hopes that it will provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between research and studying behaviors and how academic libraries contribute to the greater academic landscape in ways not previously recognized.     

项目管理视角下图书馆阅读推广管理探究

基于实践调查及文献调研,结合图书馆阅读推广工作内容,分析项目管理理论应用于图书馆阅读推广的可行性与必要性。认为图书馆阅读推广管理的理论框架包括管理要素与管理流程,阐释组织管理、目标管理、规范管理、风险管理、沟通管理等静态管理要素,以及启动、实施、收尾等动态管理流程在图书馆阅读推广管理中的实现与应用,指出图书馆阅读推广管理实践应解决项目管理学科知识学习、管理类文档设计、人力资源管理问题。     

Communication’s forgotten narratives: the lost history of Charles Siepmann and critical policy research

The field of communication has much to recover from its intellectual history, particularly critical traditions that have been pushed to the margins. Such a project is inherently political: how scholars narrate the histories of their fields reflect tacit assumptions about discursive boundaries and what counts for legitimate scholarship. Prominent historical narratives typically emphasize certain sub-fields and research traditions while giving short shrift to others. Suggesting larger erasures and deeper tensions in the history of the field, this article aims to recover one such neglected thread, embodied by a reformist policy scholar who is all but forgotten in communication research: Charles Siepmann.     

A Foundation for Developing Digital Preservation Policy: The InterPARES Policy Framework

近年来,数字资源长期保存领域经历了从基础理论研究、个体实验,到最佳实践的发展过程。继2004年北京、2005年德国、2006年北美成功举办之后,2007年10月11-12日,数字资源长期保存国际会议(iPRES2007)再次回归北京,由国家科技图书文献中心主办,中国科学院国家科学图书馆组织承办。本次会议主题为"数字资源长期保存:项目进展和最佳实践",结合具体项目和实践经验,分别从数字资源长期保存的战略计划与基础设施、相关管理问题、技术研究与实践、认证与评估、教育与培训5个方面进行了介绍,并就面临的问题和下一步发展进行了交流。《现代图书情报技术》杂志作为此次会议协办媒体,组织部分参会论文形成专辑发表,集中反映国内外数字资源长期保存领域重大项目的研究进展以及实施路线,供广大研究人员参考、借鉴。     

Queering communication studies: a Journal of Applied Communication Research forum

ABSTRACT

Genders and sexualities continue to remain underexplored in the field of communication studies and the academy in general. This essay examines possibilities for incorporating queer perspectives into communication studies. At the invitation of the Journal of Applied Communication Research editor, 9 communication scholars who use queer theory or queer perspectives in their own work responded to a series of questions addressing how queer theory and perspectives can be used in the discipline, both by those who are new to queer theorizing and those who are looking to expand their knowledge and practices. The answers to these questions provide an understanding of what queer theory is and its relationship with LGBT studies; allow practical considerations for incorporating queer perspectives into communication scholarship in multiple methodological areas; offer considerations for welcoming queer voices in the classroom, the communication discipline, and the larger academy; and indicate several scholarly resources for those who want to learn more about queer theory and LGBT studies.     

Road to international publications: an empirical study of Chinese communication scholars

This paper examines factors motivating Chinese communication scholars to publish in international journals and how these factors shape their knowledge production. We also investigate these scholars’ treatment of particularity, which is central to debates on Asian approaches to communication scholarship. Based on in-depth interviews with 22 Chinese communication scholars, this study finds that Chinese scholars choose to publish overseas both as a result of institutional incentives and an attempt to relieve themselves from institutional and sociopolitical constraints in China. While promoting international publications, these institutional and sociopolitical factors also markedly influence the knowledge production process, leading to the segregation of international and local knowledge production; scholars’ active self-censorship; and their efforts to subject to perceived international biases. The study also demonstrates that while adopting an eclectic and pragmatic attitude toward particularity, Chinese communication scholars are generally cautious of advocating particularity. The attitudinal and behavioral eclecticism and institutional and sociopolitical constraints jointly result in a fragmented particularity in the international publication of Chinese communication scholars. The findings’ implications for Asian approaches to communication studies are discussed.     

基于分段线性回归模型的科学家个人科研产出规律研究——以杰青基金地球科学项目为例

[目的/意义] 科研论文产出时间序列的传统研究均基于科研人员整体的平均论文产出,此种方法研究所得规律能否代表全部科研人员个人的论文产出规律,既是科研人员成长规律研究的重要内容,也是科技政策评价的重要内容。[方法/过程] 实证分析以国家杰出青年科学基金地球科学项目为研究对象,通过构建分段线性回归模型对杰青基金资助前后杰青科学家个人论文产出规律进行研究,并与杰青科学家整体论文产出规律进行对比。[结果/结论] 研究结果显示,杰青基金资助前后,杰青科学家整体论文产出呈现持续增长的规律,杰青科学家个人论文产出呈现4种规律,其中31.7%的杰青科学家个人论文产出规律与杰青科学家整体论文产出规律不一致,科技政策定量评价时该方法可以将研究精确到每名科学家。     

强制性且带有激励措施的OA政策调研及实例分析

[目的/意义] 随着国际组织、国家和科研及基金资助机构对开放获取（OA）运动的支持力度进一步加强,开放获取政策不仅在数量上不断增加,其强制力度也在加深,促进了全球科研交流的发展。总结梳理强制性且带有激励措施的OA政策的实践进展,可为我国相关政策主体制定与改进相应的OA政策提供借鉴和参考。[方法/过程] 首先通过文献调研及网站调研强制性且带有激励措施的OA政策的制定现状,分别概括基金资助机构与科研机构的此类政策所包含的激励措施的特点;其次,以科研机构为例,利用机构WOS论文在机构指定的存储库中的存储情况来反映机构OA政策的执行效果,对比分析此类政策与未制定激励措施的强制性OA政策、鼓励性OA政策实施效果的差异。[结果/结论] 目前制定强制性且带有激励措施的OA政策的机构较少,基金资助机构主要采取削减项目资助资金或取消受资助者再次申请基金资格的惩罚性措施来督促科研人员遵守其OA政策,科研机构则将科研人员遵守OA政策的情况与其绩效评估相挂钩,借以激励机构成员实现研究产出的开放获取;实证分析发现强制性且带有激励措施的OA政策相比于另外两类OA政策执行力度更强、实施效果更好。     

Usage of E-journals by researchers in Aligarh Muslim University

Abstract

This article presents a study that seeks to examine the usage of e-journals by the researchers at Aligarh Muslim University. The survey reveals that all the researchers are aware of e-journals in AMU. From this survey, the investigator has been able to find out that many research scholars are consulting e-journals from their departmental labs and computer centers, not only for research purposes but also to update their own knowledge. However, the study also revealed several problems, including lack of training and slow downloading. The researchers’ feelings about the need for print journals as well as electronic journals are also discussed.     

中国传播学跨学科研究的反思

我国的传播学跨学科研究取得了不少有价值的成果,但有一些研究者简单地把传播学的概念和相关学科结合,研究泛化、浅层次化、实用化特征明显,冲淡了传播学本身的学术构架和理论话语。     

A methodological and theoretical exploration of a two-country,comparative study of collaboration between academics and library staff

Research articles discussing in detail how methodological decisions for a particular study have been made are not common in the literature. The set of choices related to methodological choices must be based on knowledge of research methodology. The present article critically discusses the methodology used for a published study, which explored factors that enable and constrain collaboration between academics and library staff, in universities in two contrasting countries, Australia and Vietnam. A key aim is to provide an understanding of how methodological choices were made, including knowledge of paradigms, methods, and techniques required for the study. Of particular focus is the interaction of methodological choices with the theoretical underpinnings of the research, in this case Giddens' (1984) structuration theory. This article would be beneficial to researchers seeking to evaluate the methodological planning process and its connection with theory development or could serve as a model for researchers wanting to build theory using case study research.     

Why do authors publish in predatory journals?

This study examines the reasons why authors publish in ‘predatory’ OA journals. In total, 50 journals were randomly selected from Beall's list of ‘predatory’ journals. Different methods, including WHOIS tracking, were utilized to query basic information about the selected journals, including location and registrant. Then, 300 articles were randomly selected from within selected journals in various scientific fields. Authors of the selected articles were contacted and sent survey questions to complete. A grounded theory qualitative methods approach was used for data collection and analysis. The results demonstrated that most of these journals were located in the developing world, usually Asia or Africa, even when they claimed they were in the USA or UK. Furthermore, four themes emerged after authors’ survey responses were coded, categorized, and sub‐categorized. The themes were: social identity threat, unawareness, high pressure, and lack of research proficiency. Scholars in the developing world felt that reputable Western journals might be prejudiced against them and sometimes felt more comfortable publishing in journals from the developing world. Other scholars were unaware of the reputation of the journals in which they published and would not have selected them had they known. However, some scholars said they would still have published in the same journals if their institution recognised them. The pressure to ‘publish or perish’ was another factor influencing many scholars’ decisions to publish in these fast‐turnaround journals. In some cases, researchers did not have adequate guidance and felt they lacked the knowledge of research to submit to a more reputable journal. More needs to be done by institutions and reputable journals to make researchers aware of the problem of ‘predatory’ journals.