- Email: [email protected]
A qualitative study of the factors influencing the submission for publication of research undertaken by students
Nurse Education Today (2008) 28, 744–750
Nurse Education Today www.elsevier.com/nedt
A qualitative study of the factors influencing the submission for publication of research undertaken by students Stephen Timmons *, Jennifer Park School of Nursing, University of Nottingham, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom Accepted 7 December 2007
KEYWORDS
Summary While there is general agreement that research capacity in nursing needs to be increased, there has not been a great deal of attention paid to the possibility of increasing publications by students of research undertaken for dissertations. This is potentially a useful way of increasing the evidence base in nursing. This paper reports a qualitative study undertaken in a School of Nursing in the UK, where supervisors (n = 10), students who had published a paper based on their dissertations (n = 10), and students who had not published were interviewed (n = 10). The findings show that while there is a great deal of enthusiasm for publishing students’ work from both students and supervisors, a variety of factors determine whether or not an individual dissertation leads on to a submission for publication. These factors are discussed, and recommendations are made to increase the number of this type of submissions. c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Writing for publication; Faculty–student relations; Theses and dissertations
Introduction It is acknowledged by the NHS and the nursing profession (Department of Health, 2000) that research capacity in nursing needs to be improved, in terms
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 115 8230897; fax: +44 115 9709955. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Timmons).
of both numbers of researchers and the skills of those researchers. This will enable nursing to generate the evidence from which care can become truly evidence-based. Various initiatives are in place to address this (Department of Health, 2000). At the same time, a large and increasing number of students of nursing are undertaking research as part of dissertations at undergraduate, and master’s level. In the school of nursing studied, this amounts to (in the region of) 150 dissertations per year. Only a small number of these are
0260-6917/$ - see front matter c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2007.12.002
A qualitative study of the factors influencing the submission for publication disseminated in the form of conference papers or journal articles, though those that are published are usually well received. While some students view the dissertation as purely an academic requirement, many are enthusiastic about taking their research further, but seem to be prevented from so doing. This paper reports on a study that sought to gain a better understanding of why some students publish, and others do not. We also asked students and supervisors for their advice and suggestions on how submission rates could be improved. The most substantial study of academic publication in nursing (in a UK context) is the Centre for Policy in Nursing Research (2001) report ‘‘Promoting research in nursing and the professions allied to medicine’’. This report shows that, though the number of academic publications in nursing grew rapidly in the years that it studied (1989–1999), nursing still lagged behind other comparable academic disciplines (notably education and social work). Hicks (1995) also shows that publication rates are lower in nursing than other disciplines. It is acknowledged that both of these sources do not cover data from 2000 onwards where it is possible that upward trend described in the Centre for Policy in Nursing Research (2001) report may have continued. Despite the potential of student research in extending the evidence base for nursing, we found only a small range of papers which consider this issue. Most are North American, many appear to be editorials (e.g. Giefer, 1996 or Highfield, 2000) and only a few reported on empirical studies. The most substantial empirical study appears to be Whitley et al. (1998) who surveyed authors in the journal ‘Nursing Research’ to see if they were graduate students. This was a large, well-conducted study. The authors conclude ‘‘Factors that influence graduate students to engage in the process include academic requirements, faculty involvement and support, and the ability to self-select the research topic’’ (p182). The limitations of this study, in our view, include that it was conducted only in the USA, and the period studied was 1987–1991. Mosher-Ashley et al. (2001) report on an initiative where student research (in psychology) completed as part of a course was developed for publication. Wing and Smith (2001) report their experience in this field. They are supportive of publication by students (not least because it can build students’ selfconfidence), and make some helpful suggestions on how to encourage it. The other papers that a CINAHL search for ‘‘student’’ and ‘‘publication’’ found were Banoub-Baddour and Gien (1991), Davidhizar (1993), Gay (1994), Broome and Richards (1999), and Sharps and Benjamin (1997) all of whom
745
suggest various approaches to faculty mentoring students writing for publication with little empirical data mentioned, and nothing on the issues studied in this paper. More recent papers (Heinrich et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2004; Sbaih, 1999) still seem to be largely focussed on persuading students to publish, and on advice about how best to facilitate this process, again, without much data that explores the reasons why students may or may not submit papers for publication. Likewise, the wider literature on building nursing research capacity (e.g. Tanner and Hale, 2002; Hicks, 1995; Sellick et al., 1996) does not seem to discuss this issue in detail. More directly relevant to the study we report in this paper is the systematic review by McGrail et al. (2006) of methods for increasing the publication output of academics (not students), in so far as it compares three principal methods (writing groups, writing courses and mentors). All were found to be effective, though to varying degrees.
Methods Ethical approval for the study was granted by the relevant research ethics committee. A purposive sample of 10 supervisors in the School of Nursing was interviewed. All academic staff who had supervised dissertations in the School of Nursing was invited to take part. Of those who agreed an effort was made to ensure that the sample included supervisors who had some experience of student publication, and others who had none. The supervisors interviewed had a total of 88 years experience supervising students, almost entirely within the School of Nursing (range 4–16 years, mean 8.5 years). During this time at least 254 dissertations had been supervised (range 9–50+ per person) 27 dissertations had been published (11%) and nine are currently undergoing this process (potential total 14%). Supervisors gave estimates that around 95 dissertations also had the potential to be published of which the maximum actually published is only 28%. If all 95 extra plus those published had been successful this would amount to 113 (52% of all dissertations supervised). Face to face interviews were conducted (by JP) in the School of Nursing lasting 30–50 min. A purposive sample of ten graduates who had and ten who had not published were interviewed. Alumni from the undergraduate masters degree programme, postgraduate masters degree programme, and post-registration bachelors programme were invited to take part. Of those who agreed to participate, a balance was sought in the sample between the three groups of students included. Characteristics of the interviewees are
746
S. Timmons, J. Park
Table 1 Qualifications of interviewees who had or had not published Degree BSc (post-registration) Undergraduate master’s (pre-registration) Master’s (post-registration) Total
Published Not published 3 6
7 2
1
1
10
10
given in Table 1. All interviews were conducted (by JP) by telephone at a time convenient to the interviewee and mostly by prior arrangement, around one third were conducted during the evening. Interviews lasted between 20–40 min. All but three of the graduates were working as nurses, the exceptions being a lecturer/practitioner, a research assistant and a trainee midwife. The interview schedules are attached. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and then analysed thematically using QSR Nvivo (by JP). Emerging themes were checked and validated by ST.
Findings Benefits of publication This study confirms what is suggested by the existing literature on this topic, which is that there are numerous benefits to student publication, for student, supervisor and the institution. These include personal gain in terms of being good for CVs and careers. Publication is now a ‘natural part of the nursing role’ and ‘it is justifiable to include this in the course’ (supervisors). It helps maintain a critical approach and further develops the individual. The enthusiasm of both students and supervisors was palpable: ‘Get on with it’ ‘Don’t leave it once started’ ‘Don’t be put off’, ‘It is not as daunting as it appears’ (students who published) One supervisor commented: ‘this is not a free gift but a good investment’.
ing the seed’, and suggested suitability for publication. From this point, or perhaps earlier, supervisors judge whether a student would be able to deliver an article. In doing so they acknowledge that requirement for their own input into the process varies enormously from academic guidance with little other involvement, through just an editorial role to a substantial rework of a students’ attempt. For a few supervisors this meant them taking complete charge ‘I will turn this into a publication’ expecting only the dissertation text and accurate references from the student. More frequently the student, now the dissertation author, and the supervisor, now a co-author, worked as a team. The role became that of facilitator, hand holder, involved discussion and encouragement, and provided chivvying, enthusiasm and stimulation to continue. The process of reducing 15,000 to a 5000 word article was seen as good experience for the graduate nurse.
Choice of topic for dissertation Most of the dissertation topics were chosen from practice as a result, at least in part, of personally detecting the need for further knowledge, guidelines or greater recognition for an aspect of practice. Students on the BSc course were encouraged to choose topics for their dissertation that had relevance to practice. Examples of these topics included infection of wound sites, patients lacking sleep on wards and services for young people newly experiencing psychosis. Many of the students also described their own interest in their chosen topic. Indeed for a minority their own interest was the main reason for their choice of topic. I was sick of people saying to me ‘Why are you going to be a nut nurse? (student who published) The way you are in a team influences how the team performs (student who published) Other reasons for their choice of topic included an assignment where not much evidence was found, an evolving awareness and honing of a suitable topic during conversation with a supervisor, coincidence with a module on a similar area and to evaluate a new practice such as nurses doing thrombolysis.
The supervisors’ role Supervisors’ experience of supporting students in publishing their dissertations ranged from seeing one to many publications through this process. Their role changed after submission of the dissertation to that of a protagonist and motivator, ‘plant-
Key factors in getting a dissertation published Almost all the students talked about the encouragement they had received from tutors/supervisors
A qualitative study of the factors influencing the submission for publication as being the main reason for achieving a publishable article. The tutor was more enthusiastic than I was (student who published) Knowing the supervisor would provide support and had several publications themselves helped push the student towards publishing. For others a conference presentation, their practice area and a more senior manager were also sources of encouragement to publish. Students described themselves as being proud of their work, wanting recognition and seeing encouragement to publish as a compliment. Supervisors on the other hand saw a students’ commitment or drive, their attitude having an intrinsic element, their ability as a researcher and writer, or wanting to ‘carve a niche’ for their career. There was also a focus on the combination of student and supervisor’s passion for their subject in which, in some cases, the supervisor drove the students’ enthusiasm. A ‘sound’ piece of work at the right academic level was something most supervisors and students thought necessary for publication. Confidence was boosted where an adequate or higher mark than expected was achieved though the task of publishing might previously have seemed daunting. Where student and supervisor had a good or enjoyable relationship this was more likely to motivate supervisors to continue to encourage publication. Although several mentioned the ease with which this could continue when they were geographically closer and met each other from time to time, other supervisors had readily continued a productive relationship on publication by email alone, though this did require motivation from both parties. Both supervisor and graduate had to see there being sufficient time for each to pursue publication. Most supervisors described their role as advising or debating the choice of journal for an article with the student. Several supervisors indicated seeking advice from colleagues closer to the topic’s field. Another supervisor suggested several journals for the student to select and one supervisor chose the appropriate journal but in discussion with the student.
Why graduates did not publish For some graduates, publishing was not a priority. The dissertation was a means to a degree enabling getting a job, job retention or possible promotion. By the end of the dissertation others felt ‘saturated’ or an anticlimax, there was, perhaps, no encouragement from managers and they were now away from the School of Nursing environment.
747
Despite being approached by supervisors, others just did not follow up the lead and the idea faded as work and family commitments took over. A few felt their dissertation work was not good enough to publish or they were dissatisfied with the product and this was exacerbated if their mark was also not high or they lacked confidence in the academic aspect of the work. One graduate had been put off by the constraints and procedure of applying for ethical approval. ‘The ethics form was like a whole project’: they felt that a research dissertation may have been easier to publish than their dissertation based on literature. Supervisors’ views of why students did not publish revolved around similar themes which were the graduates’ demanding lives, shortage of time, the quality of the study and students’ enthusiasm.
Introducing the idea of publication Supervisors regarded suggesting publication to students when appropriate as a part of their role. The timing of talking about publication with students could be as early as the point of allocation, although most waited till students showed the quality of their work, perhaps in the first draft or closer to submission of the dissertation. Delay in the suggestion was on the basis that it was not fair to set the student up to fail, in terms of making a publication suggestion early and then disappointing the student when the work was of insufficient quality. Most of the supervisors suggested publication repeatedly. Whether the suggestion was taken up depended on the interest that the student showed. There was one example of where the idea of publishing had been initiated by a student indicating to the supervisor that students were becoming more aware of this route. The idea of publishing had been put either during the course and/or by their supervisor to almost all the graduates who had not published. The graduates divided into three groups: those who felt unsure that they could have published either due to the results or quality of the study; those who had been encouraged to publish but did not have the time due to work or family commitments; and finally a group where the possibility of publishing was not dismissed. They reported that not publishing was a waste, they ‘wished they had published’ (student who did not publish).
The publication process For most of the graduates the bulk of the work for publication (70–95%) was theirs, in that they reduced the dissertation to article length and were
748 then guided by the supervisor. For some this was more of a 50:50 joint effort with meetings to consider what should be included in the paper. For several graduates communication after graduation was entirely by email. A few supervisors had taken over the process entirely, for one of those graduates they felt they ‘Wouldn’t have known where to begin’ and were pleased to be getting a publication though they had little idea of the stage reached. Only one graduate reported being given the choice to do it themselves, for the supervisor to do the work or to be done jointly. For graduates who had published the process had been initiated towards the end of the course and followed up subsequently. One rejection from a journal had not been pursued by the supervisor, and this graduate would need further encouragement to try elsewhere. Supervisors described their role as making suggestions and changes, editing, and writing redrafts, as the graduate is helped to produce a publishable article through multiple iterations. Rejections were also reworked. The process depended on the individual graduate. For one supervisor this entailed a considerable amount of persistence and pursuing of the graduate. For most the supervisor became corresponding author although one graduate would have preferred otherwise. Mostly they were grateful as one supervisor remarked ‘They are just so relieved’. Occasionally a graduate had been passed on to a more appropriate specialist for their topic. Supervisors all thought that students should usually be first author as it had been their work even though the supervisor might have put much effort into the publication. However there was a need for the supervisor to be able to stand by the work as second author and not ‘be embarrassed by it’. Being second author was described as ‘pay back’ for helping with the publication. In addition there was a need for the graduate to also be aware of the paper and feel responsible for it. For one non RAE-returner author order was not of importance.
Discussion There was general agreement that a number of dissertations, though of high quality, do not yet get published. In order to increase the number of submissions for publication, various measures which could be taken were discussed by interviewees.
Making the preparation of an article an assessed part of the course This was suggested by several students and supervisors. Variations on this theme included the idea
S. Timmons, J. Park that the nature of the dissertation could be changed to being more focussed on preparing an article for submission for publication. This could include amending one or two modules so that the assignment took the form of developing the dissertation into a publication. This would have the benefits of allowing students to learn to write academic, discursive or literature-based articles. It was also pointed out that some other assignments may be suitable for publishing and that supervisors and students be aware that they can be taken further. On one programme the students acknowledged that they were given a lecture on publishing but in general did not think there was much emphasis on publishing; if at all it was brief and towards the end of their course. This option is being actively pursued by the School of Nursing, and is also under consideration by the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning Centre in Applied Undergraduate Research Skills (University of Reading, 2006).
Support Both students and supervisors emphasised the importance of support, though their needs differed. Most graduates who had published advised seeking additional support as well as from their supervisor from, for example, someone else in practice who had published. Other support that students thought could be helpful included: A package of advice on how to write up the article, possibly in the form of Reusable Learning Objects. Provide a practical workshop for interested students given by students who have published to take place in the last module, after the dissertation has been handed in. The induction process for new supervisors should include some content on publishing. For those supervisors who had not published themselves it was suggested that bringing in a third author (an experienced writer) was very helpful. Building on this, some interviewees wondered if it would be possible to provide an allocated support person for providing advice on publishing within the School of Nursing.
Awareness It was thought important to alert students to the possibility of publishing at the start, or at least earlier in the dissertation process, and to remind and
A qualitative study of the factors influencing the submission for publication encourage them throughout. This motivates students and enables them to be thinking about the possibility. The approach about publishing should be face to face and not just in lectures. A change in culture is necessary to a point where there is an assumption that students will write articles, not the reverse. In order to do this, it was thought to be important to make students aware of student successes in publishing to increase morale. This could be achieved by developing a library of student publications, both academic and practice articles, on course websites. It is also important to dispel the view, held by some students, that only those with top marks are suitable and are targeted for publication.
Conclusion Publication of dissertations as articles is dependent on the enthusiasm of both the student/graduate and the supervisor. Where a good working relationship has developed interviewees thought there was more likelihood of a paper ensuing. However the students seemed to have variable experiences of both supervision and encouragement to publish. Encouraging the student to publish and following this through with continued enthusiasm, support and reminders helps to keep graduates on track once they have qualified and, for many, lost contact with the School of Nursing. Supervisors have to be willing to contribute their time and effort to this process, which may not by then be a priority. Recommendations from this project would include: ensuring that courses have an expectation that much of the students’ work is publishable and that this is made real for the students with evidence of previous student publications. The courses should also include information and guidance on publishing perhaps making workshops for both staff and supervisors possibly optional but available. Staff with responsibility for supporting publication would also be worth considering so making publishing a more collegiate activity. Students should be made aware of the possibility of publishing throughout their course and not expect only the highest marked dissertations to be worthy of submission. Students often do not believe or realise that their work is suitable. They should also be made aware of the advantages for their CVs, CPD, and their career that a publication can have. Graduates who have published appreciated embarking on this work near the end of their course. Additional contact from staff perhaps offering support on publishing within 2–4 months
749
of graduation might encourage some graduates who ‘needed a break’ but would otherwise be willing and able to pursue their writing up. These strategies are supported by the findings of the other empirical studies in this field (Whitley et al., 1998; Mosher-Ashley et al., 2001) and by the larger group of papers (such as Broome and Richards, 1999; Heinrich et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2004; Sbaih, 1999) that report on similar initiatives to support publication by students. Despite the evidence from this literature that publication by students has untapped potential, it appears to have been largely neglected in policy terms. This is slightly surprising, as concern still exists about a lack of research capacity in nursing, and an incomplete evidence base (UK Clinical Research Collaboration, 2007). Encouraging publication by students is a relatively cheap method to address (at least in part) both of these issues. Since this study was completed, the school of nursing studied has implemented several initiatives to increase the number of submissions for publication. On the undergraduate Master of Nursing Science programme, the final module (undertaken after dissertations have been completed and assessed) now has an assignment where the students prepare a paper suitable for publication. This assignment and module have evaluated well with the group of students who have undertaken it, and the number of submissions for publication is being monitored, though at the time of writing it was too early to tell if the number has increased. On the post-registration degree programme, students receive advice about publication (both written and in class) at the beginning and end of their dissertations. Again, there is no data about whether the number of submissions has increased yet.
Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the contribution of all of the interviewees and Mary Chapple.
References Banoub-Baddour, S., Gien, L., 1991. Student-faculty joint authorship: mentorship in publication. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research 23 (1), 5–14. Broome, M.E., Richards, D., 1999. Graduate student-faculty collaboration on research and publication. Journal of Child and Family Nursing 2 (2), 136–138. Centre for Policy in Nursing Research (CPNR), Association of Commonwealth Universities, CHEMS Consulting and R&D Forum Allied Health Professions, 2001. Promoting Research in Nursing and the Professions Allied to Medicine. London
750
S. Timmons, J. Park
Centre for Policy in Nursing Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Davidhizar, R., 1993. Mentoring nursing students to write. Journal of Nursing Education 32 (6), 280–282. Department of Health, 2000. Towards a Strategy for Nursing Research and Development: Proposals for Action. Department of Health, London. Gay, J.T., 1994. Teaching graduate students to write for publication. Journal of Nursing Education 33 (7), 328–329. Giefer, C., 1996. Publication of a thesis: the relationship between graduate student and thesis advisor. Nurse Author and Editor 6 (2), 7–8. Heinrich, K.T., Neese, R., Rogers, D., Facente, A.C., 2004. Turn accusations into affirmations: transform nurses into published authors. Nursing Education Perspectives 25 (3), 139– 145. Hicks, C., 1995. The shortfall in published research: a study of nurses’ research and publication activities. Journal of Advanced Nursing 21 (3), 594. Highfield, M., 2000. Facilitating student publication. Nurse Author & Editor 10 (3), 7–8. McGrail, M.R., Rickard, C.M., Jones, R., 2006. Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and Development 25 (1), 19–35. Mosher-Ashley, P., Futterman, A., French, E., 2001. Facilitating research and publications in aging at the undergraduate level through advanced research courses. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education 22 (3), 47–57.
Pearson, J.A., VanNest, R.L., Jasinski, D.M., 2004. Promoting publication by producing a student journal. Nurse Educator 29 (2), 68–70. Sbaih, L., 1999. Helping students convert assignments into articles: tips for teachers. Accident & Emergency Nursing 7 (2), 112–113. Sharps, P.W., Benjamin, F., 1997. Mentoring for publication. The Association for Black Nursing Faculty Journal 8 (3), 54– 57. Sellick, K., McKinley, S., Botti, M., Kingsland, S., Behan, J., 1996. Victorian hospital nurses’ research attitudes and activity. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 13 (4), 5–14. Tanner, J., Hale, C., 2002. Research-active nurses’ perceptions of the barriers to undertaking research in practice. Journal of Research in Nursing 7 (5), 363–375. University of Reading, 2006. CETL in Applied Undergraduate Research Skills at the University of Reading http:// www.rdg.ac.uk/cdotl/ctl-aurs/. UK Clinical Research Collaboration, 2007. Developing the best research professionals. Qualified graduate nurses: recommendations for preparing and supporting clinical academic nurses of the future Report of the UKCRC Subcommittee for Nurses in Clinical Research (Workforce). Wing, D., Smith, D., 2001. Undergraduate student–faculty publication outside the baccalaureate curriculum. Nurse Educator 26 (6), 256–258. Whitley, G.G., Oddi, L.F., Terrell, D., 1998. Factors influencing the publishing efforts of graduate students in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education 37 (4), 182–185.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Nurse Education Today www.elsevier.com/nedt
A qualitative study of the factors influencing the submission for publication of research undertaken by students Stephen Timmons *, Jennifer Park School of Nursing, University of Nottingham, Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, United Kingdom Accepted 7 December 2007
KEYWORDS
Summary While there is general agreement that research capacity in nursing needs to be increased, there has not been a great deal of attention paid to the possibility of increasing publications by students of research undertaken for dissertations. This is potentially a useful way of increasing the evidence base in nursing. This paper reports a qualitative study undertaken in a School of Nursing in the UK, where supervisors (n = 10), students who had published a paper based on their dissertations (n = 10), and students who had not published were interviewed (n = 10). The findings show that while there is a great deal of enthusiasm for publishing students’ work from both students and supervisors, a variety of factors determine whether or not an individual dissertation leads on to a submission for publication. These factors are discussed, and recommendations are made to increase the number of this type of submissions. c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Writing for publication; Faculty–student relations; Theses and dissertations
Introduction It is acknowledged by the NHS and the nursing profession (Department of Health, 2000) that research capacity in nursing needs to be improved, in terms
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 115 8230897; fax: +44 115 9709955. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Timmons).
of both numbers of researchers and the skills of those researchers. This will enable nursing to generate the evidence from which care can become truly evidence-based. Various initiatives are in place to address this (Department of Health, 2000). At the same time, a large and increasing number of students of nursing are undertaking research as part of dissertations at undergraduate, and master’s level. In the school of nursing studied, this amounts to (in the region of) 150 dissertations per year. Only a small number of these are
0260-6917/$ - see front matter c 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2007.12.002
A qualitative study of the factors influencing the submission for publication disseminated in the form of conference papers or journal articles, though those that are published are usually well received. While some students view the dissertation as purely an academic requirement, many are enthusiastic about taking their research further, but seem to be prevented from so doing. This paper reports on a study that sought to gain a better understanding of why some students publish, and others do not. We also asked students and supervisors for their advice and suggestions on how submission rates could be improved. The most substantial study of academic publication in nursing (in a UK context) is the Centre for Policy in Nursing Research (2001) report ‘‘Promoting research in nursing and the professions allied to medicine’’. This report shows that, though the number of academic publications in nursing grew rapidly in the years that it studied (1989–1999), nursing still lagged behind other comparable academic disciplines (notably education and social work). Hicks (1995) also shows that publication rates are lower in nursing than other disciplines. It is acknowledged that both of these sources do not cover data from 2000 onwards where it is possible that upward trend described in the Centre for Policy in Nursing Research (2001) report may have continued. Despite the potential of student research in extending the evidence base for nursing, we found only a small range of papers which consider this issue. Most are North American, many appear to be editorials (e.g. Giefer, 1996 or Highfield, 2000) and only a few reported on empirical studies. The most substantial empirical study appears to be Whitley et al. (1998) who surveyed authors in the journal ‘Nursing Research’ to see if they were graduate students. This was a large, well-conducted study. The authors conclude ‘‘Factors that influence graduate students to engage in the process include academic requirements, faculty involvement and support, and the ability to self-select the research topic’’ (p182). The limitations of this study, in our view, include that it was conducted only in the USA, and the period studied was 1987–1991. Mosher-Ashley et al. (2001) report on an initiative where student research (in psychology) completed as part of a course was developed for publication. Wing and Smith (2001) report their experience in this field. They are supportive of publication by students (not least because it can build students’ selfconfidence), and make some helpful suggestions on how to encourage it. The other papers that a CINAHL search for ‘‘student’’ and ‘‘publication’’ found were Banoub-Baddour and Gien (1991), Davidhizar (1993), Gay (1994), Broome and Richards (1999), and Sharps and Benjamin (1997) all of whom
745
suggest various approaches to faculty mentoring students writing for publication with little empirical data mentioned, and nothing on the issues studied in this paper. More recent papers (Heinrich et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2004; Sbaih, 1999) still seem to be largely focussed on persuading students to publish, and on advice about how best to facilitate this process, again, without much data that explores the reasons why students may or may not submit papers for publication. Likewise, the wider literature on building nursing research capacity (e.g. Tanner and Hale, 2002; Hicks, 1995; Sellick et al., 1996) does not seem to discuss this issue in detail. More directly relevant to the study we report in this paper is the systematic review by McGrail et al. (2006) of methods for increasing the publication output of academics (not students), in so far as it compares three principal methods (writing groups, writing courses and mentors). All were found to be effective, though to varying degrees.
Methods Ethical approval for the study was granted by the relevant research ethics committee. A purposive sample of 10 supervisors in the School of Nursing was interviewed. All academic staff who had supervised dissertations in the School of Nursing was invited to take part. Of those who agreed an effort was made to ensure that the sample included supervisors who had some experience of student publication, and others who had none. The supervisors interviewed had a total of 88 years experience supervising students, almost entirely within the School of Nursing (range 4–16 years, mean 8.5 years). During this time at least 254 dissertations had been supervised (range 9–50+ per person) 27 dissertations had been published (11%) and nine are currently undergoing this process (potential total 14%). Supervisors gave estimates that around 95 dissertations also had the potential to be published of which the maximum actually published is only 28%. If all 95 extra plus those published had been successful this would amount to 113 (52% of all dissertations supervised). Face to face interviews were conducted (by JP) in the School of Nursing lasting 30–50 min. A purposive sample of ten graduates who had and ten who had not published were interviewed. Alumni from the undergraduate masters degree programme, postgraduate masters degree programme, and post-registration bachelors programme were invited to take part. Of those who agreed to participate, a balance was sought in the sample between the three groups of students included. Characteristics of the interviewees are
746
S. Timmons, J. Park
Table 1 Qualifications of interviewees who had or had not published Degree BSc (post-registration) Undergraduate master’s (pre-registration) Master’s (post-registration) Total
Published Not published 3 6
7 2
1
1
10
10
given in Table 1. All interviews were conducted (by JP) by telephone at a time convenient to the interviewee and mostly by prior arrangement, around one third were conducted during the evening. Interviews lasted between 20–40 min. All but three of the graduates were working as nurses, the exceptions being a lecturer/practitioner, a research assistant and a trainee midwife. The interview schedules are attached. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and then analysed thematically using QSR Nvivo (by JP). Emerging themes were checked and validated by ST.
Findings Benefits of publication This study confirms what is suggested by the existing literature on this topic, which is that there are numerous benefits to student publication, for student, supervisor and the institution. These include personal gain in terms of being good for CVs and careers. Publication is now a ‘natural part of the nursing role’ and ‘it is justifiable to include this in the course’ (supervisors). It helps maintain a critical approach and further develops the individual. The enthusiasm of both students and supervisors was palpable: ‘Get on with it’ ‘Don’t leave it once started’ ‘Don’t be put off’, ‘It is not as daunting as it appears’ (students who published) One supervisor commented: ‘this is not a free gift but a good investment’.
ing the seed’, and suggested suitability for publication. From this point, or perhaps earlier, supervisors judge whether a student would be able to deliver an article. In doing so they acknowledge that requirement for their own input into the process varies enormously from academic guidance with little other involvement, through just an editorial role to a substantial rework of a students’ attempt. For a few supervisors this meant them taking complete charge ‘I will turn this into a publication’ expecting only the dissertation text and accurate references from the student. More frequently the student, now the dissertation author, and the supervisor, now a co-author, worked as a team. The role became that of facilitator, hand holder, involved discussion and encouragement, and provided chivvying, enthusiasm and stimulation to continue. The process of reducing 15,000 to a 5000 word article was seen as good experience for the graduate nurse.
Choice of topic for dissertation Most of the dissertation topics were chosen from practice as a result, at least in part, of personally detecting the need for further knowledge, guidelines or greater recognition for an aspect of practice. Students on the BSc course were encouraged to choose topics for their dissertation that had relevance to practice. Examples of these topics included infection of wound sites, patients lacking sleep on wards and services for young people newly experiencing psychosis. Many of the students also described their own interest in their chosen topic. Indeed for a minority their own interest was the main reason for their choice of topic. I was sick of people saying to me ‘Why are you going to be a nut nurse? (student who published) The way you are in a team influences how the team performs (student who published) Other reasons for their choice of topic included an assignment where not much evidence was found, an evolving awareness and honing of a suitable topic during conversation with a supervisor, coincidence with a module on a similar area and to evaluate a new practice such as nurses doing thrombolysis.
The supervisors’ role Supervisors’ experience of supporting students in publishing their dissertations ranged from seeing one to many publications through this process. Their role changed after submission of the dissertation to that of a protagonist and motivator, ‘plant-
Key factors in getting a dissertation published Almost all the students talked about the encouragement they had received from tutors/supervisors
A qualitative study of the factors influencing the submission for publication as being the main reason for achieving a publishable article. The tutor was more enthusiastic than I was (student who published) Knowing the supervisor would provide support and had several publications themselves helped push the student towards publishing. For others a conference presentation, their practice area and a more senior manager were also sources of encouragement to publish. Students described themselves as being proud of their work, wanting recognition and seeing encouragement to publish as a compliment. Supervisors on the other hand saw a students’ commitment or drive, their attitude having an intrinsic element, their ability as a researcher and writer, or wanting to ‘carve a niche’ for their career. There was also a focus on the combination of student and supervisor’s passion for their subject in which, in some cases, the supervisor drove the students’ enthusiasm. A ‘sound’ piece of work at the right academic level was something most supervisors and students thought necessary for publication. Confidence was boosted where an adequate or higher mark than expected was achieved though the task of publishing might previously have seemed daunting. Where student and supervisor had a good or enjoyable relationship this was more likely to motivate supervisors to continue to encourage publication. Although several mentioned the ease with which this could continue when they were geographically closer and met each other from time to time, other supervisors had readily continued a productive relationship on publication by email alone, though this did require motivation from both parties. Both supervisor and graduate had to see there being sufficient time for each to pursue publication. Most supervisors described their role as advising or debating the choice of journal for an article with the student. Several supervisors indicated seeking advice from colleagues closer to the topic’s field. Another supervisor suggested several journals for the student to select and one supervisor chose the appropriate journal but in discussion with the student.
Why graduates did not publish For some graduates, publishing was not a priority. The dissertation was a means to a degree enabling getting a job, job retention or possible promotion. By the end of the dissertation others felt ‘saturated’ or an anticlimax, there was, perhaps, no encouragement from managers and they were now away from the School of Nursing environment.
747
Despite being approached by supervisors, others just did not follow up the lead and the idea faded as work and family commitments took over. A few felt their dissertation work was not good enough to publish or they were dissatisfied with the product and this was exacerbated if their mark was also not high or they lacked confidence in the academic aspect of the work. One graduate had been put off by the constraints and procedure of applying for ethical approval. ‘The ethics form was like a whole project’: they felt that a research dissertation may have been easier to publish than their dissertation based on literature. Supervisors’ views of why students did not publish revolved around similar themes which were the graduates’ demanding lives, shortage of time, the quality of the study and students’ enthusiasm.
Introducing the idea of publication Supervisors regarded suggesting publication to students when appropriate as a part of their role. The timing of talking about publication with students could be as early as the point of allocation, although most waited till students showed the quality of their work, perhaps in the first draft or closer to submission of the dissertation. Delay in the suggestion was on the basis that it was not fair to set the student up to fail, in terms of making a publication suggestion early and then disappointing the student when the work was of insufficient quality. Most of the supervisors suggested publication repeatedly. Whether the suggestion was taken up depended on the interest that the student showed. There was one example of where the idea of publishing had been initiated by a student indicating to the supervisor that students were becoming more aware of this route. The idea of publishing had been put either during the course and/or by their supervisor to almost all the graduates who had not published. The graduates divided into three groups: those who felt unsure that they could have published either due to the results or quality of the study; those who had been encouraged to publish but did not have the time due to work or family commitments; and finally a group where the possibility of publishing was not dismissed. They reported that not publishing was a waste, they ‘wished they had published’ (student who did not publish).
The publication process For most of the graduates the bulk of the work for publication (70–95%) was theirs, in that they reduced the dissertation to article length and were
748 then guided by the supervisor. For some this was more of a 50:50 joint effort with meetings to consider what should be included in the paper. For several graduates communication after graduation was entirely by email. A few supervisors had taken over the process entirely, for one of those graduates they felt they ‘Wouldn’t have known where to begin’ and were pleased to be getting a publication though they had little idea of the stage reached. Only one graduate reported being given the choice to do it themselves, for the supervisor to do the work or to be done jointly. For graduates who had published the process had been initiated towards the end of the course and followed up subsequently. One rejection from a journal had not been pursued by the supervisor, and this graduate would need further encouragement to try elsewhere. Supervisors described their role as making suggestions and changes, editing, and writing redrafts, as the graduate is helped to produce a publishable article through multiple iterations. Rejections were also reworked. The process depended on the individual graduate. For one supervisor this entailed a considerable amount of persistence and pursuing of the graduate. For most the supervisor became corresponding author although one graduate would have preferred otherwise. Mostly they were grateful as one supervisor remarked ‘They are just so relieved’. Occasionally a graduate had been passed on to a more appropriate specialist for their topic. Supervisors all thought that students should usually be first author as it had been their work even though the supervisor might have put much effort into the publication. However there was a need for the supervisor to be able to stand by the work as second author and not ‘be embarrassed by it’. Being second author was described as ‘pay back’ for helping with the publication. In addition there was a need for the graduate to also be aware of the paper and feel responsible for it. For one non RAE-returner author order was not of importance.
Discussion There was general agreement that a number of dissertations, though of high quality, do not yet get published. In order to increase the number of submissions for publication, various measures which could be taken were discussed by interviewees.
Making the preparation of an article an assessed part of the course This was suggested by several students and supervisors. Variations on this theme included the idea
S. Timmons, J. Park that the nature of the dissertation could be changed to being more focussed on preparing an article for submission for publication. This could include amending one or two modules so that the assignment took the form of developing the dissertation into a publication. This would have the benefits of allowing students to learn to write academic, discursive or literature-based articles. It was also pointed out that some other assignments may be suitable for publishing and that supervisors and students be aware that they can be taken further. On one programme the students acknowledged that they were given a lecture on publishing but in general did not think there was much emphasis on publishing; if at all it was brief and towards the end of their course. This option is being actively pursued by the School of Nursing, and is also under consideration by the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning Centre in Applied Undergraduate Research Skills (University of Reading, 2006).
Support Both students and supervisors emphasised the importance of support, though their needs differed. Most graduates who had published advised seeking additional support as well as from their supervisor from, for example, someone else in practice who had published. Other support that students thought could be helpful included: A package of advice on how to write up the article, possibly in the form of Reusable Learning Objects. Provide a practical workshop for interested students given by students who have published to take place in the last module, after the dissertation has been handed in. The induction process for new supervisors should include some content on publishing. For those supervisors who had not published themselves it was suggested that bringing in a third author (an experienced writer) was very helpful. Building on this, some interviewees wondered if it would be possible to provide an allocated support person for providing advice on publishing within the School of Nursing.
Awareness It was thought important to alert students to the possibility of publishing at the start, or at least earlier in the dissertation process, and to remind and
A qualitative study of the factors influencing the submission for publication encourage them throughout. This motivates students and enables them to be thinking about the possibility. The approach about publishing should be face to face and not just in lectures. A change in culture is necessary to a point where there is an assumption that students will write articles, not the reverse. In order to do this, it was thought to be important to make students aware of student successes in publishing to increase morale. This could be achieved by developing a library of student publications, both academic and practice articles, on course websites. It is also important to dispel the view, held by some students, that only those with top marks are suitable and are targeted for publication.
Conclusion Publication of dissertations as articles is dependent on the enthusiasm of both the student/graduate and the supervisor. Where a good working relationship has developed interviewees thought there was more likelihood of a paper ensuing. However the students seemed to have variable experiences of both supervision and encouragement to publish. Encouraging the student to publish and following this through with continued enthusiasm, support and reminders helps to keep graduates on track once they have qualified and, for many, lost contact with the School of Nursing. Supervisors have to be willing to contribute their time and effort to this process, which may not by then be a priority. Recommendations from this project would include: ensuring that courses have an expectation that much of the students’ work is publishable and that this is made real for the students with evidence of previous student publications. The courses should also include information and guidance on publishing perhaps making workshops for both staff and supervisors possibly optional but available. Staff with responsibility for supporting publication would also be worth considering so making publishing a more collegiate activity. Students should be made aware of the possibility of publishing throughout their course and not expect only the highest marked dissertations to be worthy of submission. Students often do not believe or realise that their work is suitable. They should also be made aware of the advantages for their CVs, CPD, and their career that a publication can have. Graduates who have published appreciated embarking on this work near the end of their course. Additional contact from staff perhaps offering support on publishing within 2–4 months
749
of graduation might encourage some graduates who ‘needed a break’ but would otherwise be willing and able to pursue their writing up. These strategies are supported by the findings of the other empirical studies in this field (Whitley et al., 1998; Mosher-Ashley et al., 2001) and by the larger group of papers (such as Broome and Richards, 1999; Heinrich et al., 2004; Pearson et al., 2004; Sbaih, 1999) that report on similar initiatives to support publication by students. Despite the evidence from this literature that publication by students has untapped potential, it appears to have been largely neglected in policy terms. This is slightly surprising, as concern still exists about a lack of research capacity in nursing, and an incomplete evidence base (UK Clinical Research Collaboration, 2007). Encouraging publication by students is a relatively cheap method to address (at least in part) both of these issues. Since this study was completed, the school of nursing studied has implemented several initiatives to increase the number of submissions for publication. On the undergraduate Master of Nursing Science programme, the final module (undertaken after dissertations have been completed and assessed) now has an assignment where the students prepare a paper suitable for publication. This assignment and module have evaluated well with the group of students who have undertaken it, and the number of submissions for publication is being monitored, though at the time of writing it was too early to tell if the number has increased. On the post-registration degree programme, students receive advice about publication (both written and in class) at the beginning and end of their dissertations. Again, there is no data about whether the number of submissions has increased yet.
Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the contribution of all of the interviewees and Mary Chapple.
References Banoub-Baddour, S., Gien, L., 1991. Student-faculty joint authorship: mentorship in publication. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research 23 (1), 5–14. Broome, M.E., Richards, D., 1999. Graduate student-faculty collaboration on research and publication. Journal of Child and Family Nursing 2 (2), 136–138. Centre for Policy in Nursing Research (CPNR), Association of Commonwealth Universities, CHEMS Consulting and R&D Forum Allied Health Professions, 2001. Promoting Research in Nursing and the Professions Allied to Medicine. London
750
S. Timmons, J. Park
Centre for Policy in Nursing Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Davidhizar, R., 1993. Mentoring nursing students to write. Journal of Nursing Education 32 (6), 280–282. Department of Health, 2000. Towards a Strategy for Nursing Research and Development: Proposals for Action. Department of Health, London. Gay, J.T., 1994. Teaching graduate students to write for publication. Journal of Nursing Education 33 (7), 328–329. Giefer, C., 1996. Publication of a thesis: the relationship between graduate student and thesis advisor. Nurse Author and Editor 6 (2), 7–8. Heinrich, K.T., Neese, R., Rogers, D., Facente, A.C., 2004. Turn accusations into affirmations: transform nurses into published authors. Nursing Education Perspectives 25 (3), 139– 145. Hicks, C., 1995. The shortfall in published research: a study of nurses’ research and publication activities. Journal of Advanced Nursing 21 (3), 594. Highfield, M., 2000. Facilitating student publication. Nurse Author & Editor 10 (3), 7–8. McGrail, M.R., Rickard, C.M., Jones, R., 2006. Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research and Development 25 (1), 19–35. Mosher-Ashley, P., Futterman, A., French, E., 2001. Facilitating research and publications in aging at the undergraduate level through advanced research courses. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education 22 (3), 47–57.
Pearson, J.A., VanNest, R.L., Jasinski, D.M., 2004. Promoting publication by producing a student journal. Nurse Educator 29 (2), 68–70. Sbaih, L., 1999. Helping students convert assignments into articles: tips for teachers. Accident & Emergency Nursing 7 (2), 112–113. Sharps, P.W., Benjamin, F., 1997. Mentoring for publication. The Association for Black Nursing Faculty Journal 8 (3), 54– 57. Sellick, K., McKinley, S., Botti, M., Kingsland, S., Behan, J., 1996. Victorian hospital nurses’ research attitudes and activity. Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 13 (4), 5–14. Tanner, J., Hale, C., 2002. Research-active nurses’ perceptions of the barriers to undertaking research in practice. Journal of Research in Nursing 7 (5), 363–375. University of Reading, 2006. CETL in Applied Undergraduate Research Skills at the University of Reading http:// www.rdg.ac.uk/cdotl/ctl-aurs/. UK Clinical Research Collaboration, 2007. Developing the best research professionals. Qualified graduate nurses: recommendations for preparing and supporting clinical academic nurses of the future Report of the UKCRC Subcommittee for Nurses in Clinical Research (Workforce). Wing, D., Smith, D., 2001. Undergraduate student–faculty publication outside the baccalaureate curriculum. Nurse Educator 26 (6), 256–258. Whitley, G.G., Oddi, L.F., Terrell, D., 1998. Factors influencing the publishing efforts of graduate students in nursing. Journal of Nursing Education 37 (4), 182–185.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com