- Email: [email protected]
Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals
Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549 – 558
Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals David Fabianic* Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA
Abstract An important dimension of university faculty life is publication expectation. Often the level of publication productivity is used to assess general program prestige or to evaluate individual faculty performance. The publication rates of faculty in PhD and master-level programs have been unclear. This study examined the publication rates using a general list of criminal justice journals, and a select list of the leading journals, over a five-year period. The faculty members were located in criminal justice programs that granted PhD and master degrees. Publication productivity rates were established for the two different degree level programs, and the institutions with the strongest publication rates were identified. Publication rates are only one factor used in the assessment of program quality and the relationship of publication rates to other program features is discussed. D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction An important area for criminal justice educators is that which addresses the characteristics and patterns of the criminal justice educator’s professional culture. Although only a modest amount of research has been done in this area, the information yielded is useful and of value to educators and administrators. Insights into the nature of criminal justice education facilitate a greater understanding of the issues that confront the field of criminal justice education and identify educator standards. The information can often be of value in the formation and evaluation of quality criteria as well as practices and policies which guide the educational process. The process of self-examination is useful for purposes of program assessment, faculty evaluation, and the generation of new pro-
* Tel.: +1-407-823-5940; fax: +1-407-823-5360. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Fabianic).
grams and policies that help define criminal justice education. Research of this nature also assists the process of identifying practices and policies that are based on inaccuracies or incorrect data. The body of literature on criminal justice education consists of research on journal prestige and readership (Cohn, Farrington, & Wright, 1998; Fabianic, 1980, 1981; Poole & Regoli, 1981; Regoli, Poole, & Miracle, 1982; Shichor, O’Brien, & Decker, 1981; Stack, 1987; Williams, McShane, & Wagoner, 1995); identification of prominent scholars in the field (Cohn & Farrington, 1994, 1998a; Green, 1997; Wright, 1995, 1996, 1997; Wright & Cohn, 1996); the quality of faculty and education in doctoral programs (DeZee, 1980; Fabianic, 1979, 1999; Greene, Bynum, & Webb, 1984; Thomas & Bronick, 1984; Travis, 1987; Ward & Webb, 1984); and citation index research (Allen, 1983; Cohn & Farrington, 1990, 1994, 1995, 1998b; Levi, 1995; Shichor, 1982; Thomas, 1987; Wright & Cohn, 1996; Wright & Soma, 1996). These efforts address different segments of the character of criminal justice
0047-2352/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 4 7 - 2 3 5 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 7 6 - 9
550
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
education, and each increases the understanding of the academic field of criminal justice. Included in these areas of interest is a small number of research reports focusing on program prestige or faculty productivity as measured by publication in professional journals (Cohn & Farrington, 1998b; Cohn, Farrington, & Sorensen, 2000; Sorensen, 1994). For the period 1972 through 1977, Parker and Goldfeder (1979) examined publications of faculty, located in graduate programs of criminal justice, in ten journals identified by heads of graduate programs as being most critical to the field of criminal justice. Although not specifically stated in their report, the data yielded an average publication rate in these journals of 0.60 publications per faculty person over the five-year period. Widmayer and Rabe (1990) sampled the 1987 – 1988 membership of the American Society of Criminology and asked the respondents to report publications for the previous five years. They cited the ‘‘sacred spark’’ theory of Cole and Cole (1973), personal stamina and persistence, and the cumulative advantages of better preparation and location at better schools as possible ways to account for variation in publication rates. Sorensen, Patterson, and Widmayer (1992, 1993) studied criminal justice program prestige by looking at several measures of scholarship, including faculty publications over a five-year period. The average number of publications indexed in criminal justice, social science, and law indexes per faculty member located at the twenty-three criminal justice programs examined for the five-year period of 1986 – 1990 was 2.92. Sorensen (1994) examined the locations of faculty publishing in a list of prestigious criminal journals from 1983 to 1992. His research produced a ranking of criminal justice programs according to the number of publications of affiliated faculty. Cohn and Farrington (1998a) reviewed the number of publications and citations of faculty in twenty criminal justice doctoral programs from 1991 to 1995. They found an average of 0.739 publications per faculty in six academic journals over the stipulated time period. Finally, Cohn et al. (2000) examined the quality of twelve doctoral programs in criminal justice by using the number of publications of graduates of the programs in criminology and criminal justice journals.
Journal publication One question which frequently arises, particularly on behalf of new faculty, concerns the necessity to publish in the academic journals that represent the field of criminal justice to the scholarly community. The need to publish in criminal justice journals is impressed upon new faculty as a matter of require-
ment for tenure and promotion. This expectation may be part of the oral tradition to which new faculty are exposed as they undertake an academic career, or it may appear as part of a written document which specifies performance expectations for new faculty. Regardless of which manner the message is conveyed, the importance of publication is impressed on new faculty. Publication rates are one measure or index of academic productivity and they are significant in several ways. First, they have value for faculty and administrators because they establish levels of expectations for academic productivity in research or other scholarly activities. Established publication rates can become very meaningful to provide levels of expected activity and subsequent assignment of faculty responsibilities. Publication rates also reflect faculty success in scholarship. Faculty spend time and effort producing manuscripts to be submitted to professional journals, and publication of the manuscript designates the accomplishment of the objective. The publication of a manuscript separates those who have met the professional criteria for an acceptable manuscript from those whose work has not yet reached that level. Publication in the scholarly journals is also important for criminal justice departments wishing to establish a strong reputation in the field. Having faculty work appear in the journals is taken as an indicator of scholarly activity and of an active, productive faculty. Department reputation is enhanced as faculty members publish in prestigious journals. Reputations are acquired for both individuals and departments as more and more publications appear with the department name attached. Department reputation is important for the recruitment of new students, new faculty, acquisition of resources, and internal political struggles. It must be emphasized that journal publications are not the only index for reputation and quality available, but clearly, they are accepted as one indicator. Department publication productivity is sometimes interpreted as an indicator of more than just individual faculty effort. Publications are facilitated by resources of various kinds such as the availability of graduate students, assignment of faculty load to research and scholarly activities, support funding, and a user-friendly university office of research. The extent to which a department can provide these resources is often reflected by the general publication reputation of the department. As stated previously, publication in criminal justice journals is not the only measure of faculty productivity or programs. Journal publication is only one measure or index of value or quality. There are many others, including publication in journals outside the
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
criminal justice discipline; publication of books and monographs; the acquisition of grants and contracts; and the successful education of students. Consequently, journal publication is only one of a complex of factors that provides reputation to criminal justice faculty and programs. While journal publication is important, in some departments and programs, the particular journal in which faculty publish is just as important as publication itself. For some faculty and departments, publication is a mark of scholarship and quality only if it occurs in specific journals that are regarded as more prestigious than others. For these faculty and departments, there is usually a list of journals, either written or informally understood, that is presented to new faculty and to promotion aspirants. Faculty are led to understand that directing their publication efforts toward those particular journals is either essential or at least of greater value than devoting effort to other sources. Publication in scholarly journals is clearly a function of faculty ability and effort. In addition, publication rates are dependent upon many other factors such as teaching load, availability of resources, institutional and departmental expectations. Leading departments of criminal justice are believed to be leaders in the publication of scholarly material in the journals. Publication of faculty is often taken as one indicator of the prestige of the department. One of the oldest maxims in higher education revolves around the ‘‘publish or perish’’ dilemma. Publication in academic journals is clearly a structural aspect of the academic culture of which criminal justice is a part. It is therefore important to consider the matter of publication productivity of criminal justice faculty, and in particular, to examine the productivity of faculty in leading criminal justice programs in select and prestigious criminal justice journals. One question that needs to be addressed is the identification of the rate of productivity for criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals, and in particular, in those journals regarded as the more prestigious ones. It is also valuable to compare the productivity of faculty associated with doctoral-level programs with faculty located in master-level programs. This study concerned the productivity rate in criminal justice journals in general and the productivity rate in prestigious or select criminal justice journals for faculty of doctoral and master degree granting programs.
Data To examine these questions, data from several sources were collected. The first task was to identify
551
those institutions hosting the faculty to examine more closely. By use of The Guide of Graduate Programs in Criminal Justice and Criminology, 1997 – 1998 (Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, 1997), prior research, and the Internet, twenty-eight institutions were identified as granting a doctorate in criminal justice through a department of criminal justice, a joint department, or a concentration in some other department. Departments offering just a concentration in criminal justice or criminology, and joint departments, were thought to confound the process by necessarily diluting the actual productivity to the criminal justice literature. This would occur because faculty would be devoting time and effort to publishing in other fields germane to the interests of the department or academic unit. As a result of this factor, the department faculty contribution to criminal justice literature would be diluted by faculty publishing in other fields or journals not specifically part of the criminal justice scholarly terrain being considered here. In addition, in some departments, it was impossible to determine which faculty members were dedicated to criminal justice or criminology and which to other academic disciplines. As a consequence, ten institutions were dropped from further consideration leaving eighteen for further review. These institutions were regarded as those that granted a doctorate from a criminal justice or criminology academic unit, and whose faculty were dedicated to criminal justice or criminology that could be identified. Similarly, a list of programs offering a master’s degree was compiled using The Guide to Graduate Programs in Criminal Justice and Criminology, 1997 – 98, prior research, and the Internet. Programs that offered a master’s degree but no doctorate, and listed at least ten faculty, were included. Instructors, visiting professors, adjuncts, and professor emeriti were not included in this count, nor were they included in any data for this study. When joint programs or multidisciplinary departments for which criminal justice or criminology faculty could not be identified were excluded, the list of master-level programs was reduced to seventeen. A list of current faculty for each academic unit was generated by using the Internet and going to the home page of each academic unit for a listing of faculty. Where information was incomplete or lacking, data were obtained from the Guide to Graduate Programs in Criminal Justice and Criminology, 1997 – 98 or the latest institution catalog. It was recognized that changes occur often in higher education as people relocate from one institution to another. It was recognized further that some institutions were more vigilant than others in keeping information current. As a consequence, the final list used in this report was an approximation of the
552
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
faculty affiliated with a program at a single moment. The inaccuracies that may have resulted were regarded as those resulting from circumstances that potentially affected all the programs and were believed to be minor in terms of the impact on the group data. The next step in the process was obtaining the list of publications in criminal justice journals. The primary source for this was the Criminal Justice Periodical Index, online (Criminal Justice Periodical Index, 1990). A period of five years was considered, that beginning in January 1995 and concluding in December 1999. As others have noted in their work, a curious omission in the Criminal Justice Periodical Index is that of Criminology. Criminology is considered a major outlet for criminal justice research and, as a result, volumes of it were considered separately for the relevant time period. The result of this process was the development of several lists. One was for institutions hosting doctorate granting programs in criminal justice and another for master degrees; the faculty associated with each program; and the publications of the faculty as listed in the Criminal Justice Periodical Index and Criminology. The counting of publications authored by each faculty member was calculated in two ways. The first credited each faculty person with a publication if they were listed as an author or co-author. This practice did not weight the contributions, favored those who published in groups, and is regarded by some as inflating the publication record of some faculty. As a consequence, a count of publications was also calculated based on the proportion of each author’s contribution to the publication. For example, using this weighing method, two listed authors for one publication would result in attributing 0.50 credit for authorship to each author. The total number of publications, weighted and unweighted, listed by the Criminal Justice Periodical Index, was calculated for all included faculty members at each institution. The Criminal Justice Periodical Index indexes publications in a wide variety of journals, some devoted to academic scholarship and others to applied matters of the practitioner. Two lists of publication sources were considered. The first was of Criminology and any periodical indexed by the Criminal Justice Publications Index. The second was of those journals considered to be the leading periodicals for criminal justice faculty. The selection of the journals to comprise the second list was determined using prior research. Eight journals were chosen as leading or select journals. In prior research using the reputational approach, Fabianic (1980) found the Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology (JCLC), Journal of Criminal Justice (JCJ), Criminology (CRIM), and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (JRCD) to be the most highly rated journals. Shichor et al. (1981) surveyed 150 American criminologists and produced a rating of forty-two journals, of which the six highest rated were JCLC, CRIM, JRCD, JCJ, Criminal Justice Review (CJR), and Federal Probation (FP). Regoli et al. (1982) surveyed 1,000 criminologists and the six most prestigious journals in the field were identified as CRIM, JRCD, JCLC, JCJ, Crime and Delinquency (CD), and Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB). In their survey of program directors, Parker and Goldfeder (1979) identified JCLC, CRIM, CD, JCJ, FP, JRCD, and CJB as the most prestigious journals. In citation research, Poole and Regoli (1981) identified JCLC, CRIM, CD, JRCD, FP, JCJ, and CJB as the most cited. Cohn and Farrington (1990) found in their research that CRIM, JCLC, JRCD, CD, JCJ, and CJB were the most cited. Stack (1987) also found many of these same journals being recognized in his citation research that listed as most frequently cited CRIM, JRCD, CD, JCLC, CJB, and JCJ. In a summary of studies of journal prestige, Sorenson et al. (1992) found that the most prestigious were JCLC, CRIM, JRCD, CD, JCJ, CJR, and CJB. In later research, Cohn et al. (1998) attempted to avoid some of the problems of the reputational and the citation approach in rating the prestige of journals by using the luminaries technique. The eleven unweighted journals in which luminaries published most often included: CRIM, JRCD, JQC, Criminal Justice Ethics, CD, JQ, JCLC, The Prison Journal, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, British Journal of Criminology (BJC), and JCJ. In their research, Williams et al. (1995) were able to add two established journals and two newer journals to previously identified lists, and found the most prestigious journals to be CRIM, Law and Society (LS), JCLC, Justice Quarterly (JQ), JRCD, CD, JCJ, BJC, Journal of Quantitative Criminology (JQC), and CJB. Their finding was compatible with other reports and also included the more recent periodical forums. Relying on the reputational approach, the original list for this study was that drawn from Williams et al. and included eight journals: CRIM, JQC, JRCD, JQ, CD, JCJ, CJB, and LS, five of which had been identified in at least seven of the ten studies concerned with journal ratings, and two were new journals but were recognized in the research by Cohn et al. (1998) and by Williams et al. The list was regarded as inclusive of journals most often recognized as important to the field.
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
553
Recognizing that the raw, unweighted count of publications resulted in disproportionate weight granted to multiple authored publications, the authorship of publications was weighted by proportioning publication credit according to the number of authors using the method cited above. The weighting of authorship served to reduce the effect of full credit being granted to all authors of a multiple-authored article and the results are presented in Table 2. Weighting authorship resulted in a total of 419.55 articles being authored by 330 faculty members in the eighteen criminal justice PhD granting departments, and 173.32 articles in select journals. The average number of weighted publications per faculty for PhD granting programs was 1.27, and the average of weighted publications in select journals was 0.52. The departments with the highest weighted publication rates were University of Cincinnati (3.26), Michigan State University (2.04), and University of Missouri at St. Louis (2.02). Programs with the highest weighted rate of publication in select journals were University of Cincinnati (1.78) and University of Missouri at St. Louis (1.73). The results for unweighted publications of masterlevel programs are presented in Table 3. There were seventeen master-level programs that were examined, with a total of 256 faculty members, 115 (44.9 percent) of whom published and 50 (19.5 percent) who published in select journals. The programs with the highest percentage of faculty publishing were the University of Central Florida (85.7 percent) and
Results Eighteen PhD granting programs were assessed and the number of faculty and their associated publications were tabulated. The results of this procedure are presented in Tables 1 – 4. In Table 1, a total of 330 faculty members made up the faculties of the programs, and 201 (60.9 percent) of them had published within the five-year time period. Of the 330, 127 (38.4 percent) had published in select journals. Programs with the highest percentage of faculty publishing in all journals were the University of Cincinnati (100 percent), Rutgers (92.3 percent), and SUNY at Albany (84.6 percent). Institutions with the highest percentage of faculty publishing in select journals were University of Missouri at St. Louis (78.5 percent), University of Cincinnati (75.0 percent), and Rutgers University (69.2 percent). In Table 1, the average unweighted publications per faculty person for the eighteen programs was 2.14. The programs with the highest unweighted publication rate in all journals were the University of Cincinnati (7.33), Michigan State University (3.40), University of Maryland (3.04), and University of Missouri at St. Louis (3.00). The average unweighted publication rate in select journals for all the programs was 1.03. The institutions with the highest average unweighted publication rate in select journals were University of Cincinnati (4.50), University of Missouri at St. Louis (2.64), and the University of Maryland (2.11).
Table 1 Unweighted publications of faculty in criminal justice PhD programs Institutions
Total number of faculty
Percentage of faculty who published (N)
Percentage of total faculty published in select journals (N)
Unweighted publications per faculty (N)
Unweighted publications in select journals per faculty (N)
University of Cincinnati University of Missouri-St. Louis University of Maryland Pennsylvania State University Temple University University of Nebraska-Omaha Michigan State University Sam Houston State University Rutgers University Indiana University Florida State University SUNY-Albany University of South Florida Indiana University of Pennsylvania American University California State University-Irvine Arizona State University John Jay College Total
12 14 28 12 14 20 20 28 13 12 21 13 15 19 16 13 21 39 330
100.0 78.6 75.0 75.0 57.1 70.0 70.0 53.5 92.3 66.7 57.1 84.6 66.7 47.4 50.0 61.5 23.8 35.9 60.9
75.0 78.5 50.0 66.7 57.1 50.0 40.0 35.7 69.2 58.3 28.5 46.1 26.7 31.5 12.5 30.7 9.5 7.6 38.4
7.33 3.00 3.04 2.08 2.28 2.40 3.40 2.14 2.38 1.75 1.86 2.15 2.53 1.21 1.19 1.46 0.38 0.87 2.14
4.50 (54) 2.64 (37) 2.11 (59) 1.58 (59) 1.50 (21) 1.15 (23) 1.10 (22) 0.93 (26) 0.85 (11) 0.75 (9) 0.71 (15) 0.62 (8) 0.60 (9) 0.58 (11) 0.38 (6) 0.31 (4) 0.14 (3) 0.10 (4) 1.03 (341)
(12) (11) (21) (9) (8) (14) (14) (15) (12) (8) (12) (11) (10) (9) (8) (8) (5) (14) (201)
(9) (2) (14) (8) (8) (10) (8) (10) (8) (7) (6) (6) (4) (6) (2) (4) (2) (3) (127)
(88) (42) (85) (25) (32) (48) (68) (60) (31) (21) (39) (28) (38) (23) (19) (19) (8) (34) (708)
554
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
Table 2 Weighted publications of faculty in criminal justice PhD programs Institutions
Weighted number of publications
Weighted number of publications in select journals
Weighted number of publications per faculty
Weighted number of select publications per faculty
University of Cincinnati University of Missouri-St. Louis University of Maryland Pennsylvania State University Temple University Indiana University University of Nebraska-Omaha Michigan State University Rutgers University Sam Houston State University University of South Florida SUNY-Albany American University Florida State University Indiana University of Pennsylvania California State University-Irvine Arizona State University John Jay College Total
39.10 28.23 52.37 12.31 16.02 16.50 26.88 40.97 20.74 30.72 24.65 15.67 14.00 30.46 10.47 12.32 4.33 23.81 419.55
21.42 24.23 26.78 9.48 10.96 8.00 12.40 11.82 6.41 9.80 5.08 4.16 5.00 6.30 4.57 2.33 2.00 2.58 173.32
3.26 2.02 1.87 1.02 1.14 1.38 1.34 2.04 1.60 1.09 1.64 1.20 0.88 1.45 0.55 0.95 0.21 0.61 1.27
1.78 1.73 0.96 0.79 0.78 0.67 0.62 0.59 0.49 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.24 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.52
Southwest Texas State University (80.0 percent). The master degree granting departments with the highest percentage of faculty publishing in select journals were the University of Central Florida (64.3 percent), and East Tennessee State University, University of Illinois at Chicago, and University of South Carolina (33.3 percent).
The rate of publication in all criminal justice journals for all faculty of master degree granting programs was 1.26 publications per faculty. The institutions with the highest rate of unweighted publications in all journals per faculty were the University of Central Florida (3.07), University of North Carolina at Charlotte (2.50), and University of South
Table 3 Unweighted publications of faculty in criminal justice master programs Institutions
Total number Percentage of Percentage of Unweighted of faculty faculty who total faculty publications published (N) published in per faculty (N) select journals (N)
University of Central Florida 14 University of South Carolina 15 University of Illinois-Chicago 15 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 10 Illinois State University 14 Northeastern University 13 Southern Illinois University 11 Eastern Kentucky University 44 University of Louisville 11 Southwest Texas State University 10 East Tennessee State University 6 California State University-Sacramento 22 Central Missouri State University 14 Indiana State University 14 Grambling State University 13 Mid-Tennessee State University 7 Western Illinois University 23 Total 256
85.7 33.3 66.7 30.0 28.6 61.5 54.5 38.6 36.4 80.0 33.3 22.7 35.7 64.3 7.7 42.8 30.4 44.9
(12) (10) (10) (8) (8) (8) (6) (17) (4) (8) (2) (5) (5) (1) (1) (3) (7) (115)
64.3 (9) 33.3 (5) 33.3 (5) 30.0 (3) 28.6 (4) 30.8 (4) 27.3 (3) 18.2 (8) 18.2 (2) 20.0 (2) 33.3 (2) 4.5 (1) 7.1 (1) 7.1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 19.5 (50)
3.07 2.27 1.73 2.50 1.36 1.31 1.09 1.16 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.32 0.93 0.93 0.08 0.57 0.61 1.26
(43) (34) (26) (25) (19) (17) (12) (51) (22) (20) (3) (7) (13) (13) (1) (4) (14) (324)
Unweighted publications in select journals per faculty (N) 1.92 (27) 0.80 (12) 0.47 (7) 0.70 (7) 0.43 (6) 0.62 (0) 0.36 (4) 0.39 (17) 0.18 (2) 0.20 (2) 0.33 (2) 0.04 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.38 (97)
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
555
Table 4 Weighted publications of faculty in criminal justice master programs Institutions
Weighted number of publications
Weighted number of publications in select journals
Weighted number of publications per faculty
Weighted number of select publications per faculty
University of Central Florida University of South Carolina University of Illinois-Chicago University of North Carolina-Charlotte Illinois State University Northeastern University Southern Illinois University Eastern Kentucky University University of Louisville Southwest Texas State University East Tennessee State University California State University-Sacramento Central Missouri State University Indiana State University Grambling State University Mid-Tennessee State University Western Illinois University Total
26.35 20.99 22.07 14.73 11.03 6.91 6.91 29.49 13.08 12.50 2.00 7.00 7.50 8.49 1.00 2.00 12.00 204.05
17.52 6.24 4.91 3.23 3.70 3.41 2.08 7.50 1.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0 0 0 53.59
1.88 1.40 1.47 1.47 0.79 0.53 0.63 0.67 1.19 1.25 0.33 0.32 0.54 0.61 0.08 0.28 0.53 0.80
1.25 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 0.21
Carolina (2.27). The average rate of publication in select journals for all the master-level programs was 0.38. The departments with the highest rate of publication in select journals were the University of Central Florida (1.92) and University of South Carolina (0.80). Using the weighting procedure described previously, there were 204.05 total publications among all the master degree granting programs, and 53.59 publications in select journals as presented in Table 4. The overall weighted publication rate was 0.80 publications per faculty, and 0.21 publications in select journals per faculty over the five-year period. The institutions with the highest weighted rate of publication were the University of Central Florida (1.88), University of Illinois at Chicago (1.47), University of North Carolina at Charlotte (1.47), and University of South Carolina (1.40). As expected, the rates of publication differed between the PhD and master-level programs with the PhD rates being higher. For faculty affiliated with a PhD program, this was the case for all the indices, weighted or unweighted. There was a higher publication rate per faculty member for all journals, and a higher rate of publication in select journals for faculty affiliated with PhD granting programs.
Discussion and conclusions The data indicate the productivity rate over a fiveyear period among faculty of PhD and master degree granting programs in criminal justice. The average
rates were higher for PhD programs than master-level programs. This difference was probably the result of better support services and resource availability in the PhD granting institutions. Traditionally, the teaching load is less in such programs, and graduate student support is also stronger. It is highly likely that greater publication expectations were placed on the faculties of PhD granting programs than master degree granting programs. The adequacy of the publication rate for any faculty is a local decision. The expected rate of publication for faculty should be established after considering other factors that are important to the accomplishment of department objectives. Blindly mandating publication expectations for faculty without connecting the expectation to legitimate organizational objectives can contribute to faculty demoralization. Examining both PhD and master-level programs together, five schools consistently were associated with the higher rates. They were the University of Cincinnati, Michigan State University, University of Maryland, University of Missouri at St. Louis, and the University of Central Florida. The productivity of the University of Central Florida, a master-level degree program, was competitive with the leading PhD granting institutions. It ranked within the top four for publication rate, weighted and unweighted, for general publications and select publications when the two different levels were considered together. Cohn and Farrington (1998a) examined the productivity of faculty in criminal justice doctoral programs using the citations that appeared in six journals
556
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
from 1991 to 1995. Some comparison with Cohn and Farrington’s research in 1998 is possible using the current study. They examined six journals (JQ, JCJ, CJB, CRIM, JQC, and JRCD) for citations of faculty in criminal justice doctoral programs, and they also determined the authorship of publications in the journals from 1991 to 1995. Using these data, they were able to rank the programs with respect to citations and publications of faculty in six criminology and criminal justice journals. There were several differences between the current study and that of Cohn and Farrington. The time period for the current study was 1995 to 1999 as compared to 1991 to 1995 for Cohn and Farrington. The Cohn and Farrington research utilized citations as the basis for one form of ranking and publications for another, and the present study utilized publications only. Eight journals were used in the current research and six were used by Cohn and Farrington. The lists of programs varied slightly in that Cohn and Farrington included some programs that the current study excluded, and vice versa. This necessitated dropping Washington State University, University of Illinois, University of Delaware, and Northeastern University from the Cohn and Farrington list, and Indiana University and the University of South Florida from the current study. Adjusting for the commonality of programs, it was possible to list the findings of Cohn and Farrington for publications, and the results for publications in the present study. Table 5 represents data drawn from Cohn and Farrington (1998a) and the present study after making the necessary adjustments. The rho was 0.79 between the two lists of rankings. The first four positions in both lists included the same programs which were the University of Cincinnati, University of Missouri at St. Louis, University of Maryland, and Pennsylvania State University. Seven programs common to both lists occupied the next eight ranks. The exception to compatibility was that the Cohn and Farrington list included the University of California at Irvine instead of the American University that was found in the current study. The last four ranks shared two programs, while differing on two. One or a combination of several factors can probably explain the minor variation in lists of rankings. First, the difference in time periods for the two studies permitted more time for JQ and JQC to mature. Commenced in 1984 and 1985, these journals were included in the Cohn and Farrington study in what can be considered their early years of publication. With the continued success of these publications, they may now be considered more established and more likely an outlet for scholars to address. Second, the present study included two journals that the Cohn and Farrington research did not review
Table 5 Publication rankings for two time periods Rank
Publication rankings Cohn and Farrington (1998a) Publication rates 1991 – 1995
1 2
University of Maryland University of Cincinnati
3
University of Missouri-St. Louis Pennsylvania State University SUNY-Albany University of Nebraska-Omaha Rutgers University
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
University of California-Irvine Sam Houston State University Temple University Florida State University Michigan State University Indiana University of Pennsylvania John Jay College American University Arizona State University
Present study Publication rates 1995 – 1999 University of Cincinnati University of Missouri-St. Louis University of Maryland Pennsylvania State University Temple University University of Nebraska-Omaha Michigan State University Rutgers University Sam Houston State University SUNY-Albany American University Florida State University Indiana University of Pennsylvania University of California-Irvine Arizona State University John Jay College
rs = 0.79. in their research. Programs commonly have emphases on particular perspective or topics and this can lead to favoring some journal outlets over others. Perhaps this is reflected in the ranking differences of the two studies. The results of the current study were also compatible with the limited data of prior research. Parker and Goldfeder (1979) found an unweighted publication rate in ten prestigious journals of 0.60. Cohn and Farrington (1998a) found a rate of 0.739 for criminal justice PhD faculty in six prestigious journals. The present research, utilizing a larger and slightly different list of journals, found an unweighted publication rate in select journals of 0.525. Based on these figures, program directors and administrators can gauge the publication rate of their respective faculties’ performance in this area. The determination of what level of productivity is appropriate or required can be made with the information of what the average rates are for PhD and master-level programs. In addition, the specific rates at high productivity institutions may
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
provide information useful for emulation or framing realistic expectations for faculty productivity. The programs considering the extant rates may also decide to increase productivity in an effort to enhance the general prestige of their program. Insistence on increased productivity alone will not be likely to produce the desired result. Heightened expectations are most meaningful when accompanied by supportive policies and adequate resources. There has been a tendency in higher education to often regard the faculty member as an independent variable. This strategy ignores the fact that faculty productivity is more properly regarded as a dependent variable in the system. That is, central administrations of universities sometimes behave as though acting directly upon the faculty member will produce desired results. In terms of publication rates, this means that departments are at times given to expecting an increase in faculty publications because a mandate has been issued requiring an increase in productivity. Often this manifests itself by the imposition or increase of research and scholarly production standards directly on faculty performance and this action is reflected in annual evaluation criteria or promotion and tenure criteria. Short-sighted administrative action of this type, with no other supporting initiatives, is perhaps misguided. Increasing the standards for faculty performance by itself will not likely produce the significant response administrative minds seek. Perhaps it would be more accurate if faculty members were regarded as people who would respond to changes in their environment, in addition to the change in standards that increased expectations in productivity. The faculty role is just one factor in creating a publication productive academic unit. There must be considerations of work assignments and teaching load, support services and facilities, personnel support, library resources, and technology availability. In addition, some consideration could also be given to a meaningful reward structure for those who engage in significant research and publication efforts. To meet productivity expectations, departments might do well to affect those things which contribute to greater productivity by enabling faculty to conduct research and engage in manuscript preparation, in contrast to exclusively insisting on increased productivity.
References Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (1997). The guide to graduate programs in criminal justice and criminology, 1997 – 98. Highland Heights, Kentucky: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Northern Kentucky University.
557
Allen, H. E. (1983). Comment: a reaction to ‘‘An analysis of citations in introductory criminology textbooks, JCJ 10(3)’’. Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 177 – 178. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1990). Differences between British and American criminology: an analysis of citations. British Journal of Criminology, 30, 467 – 482. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1994). Who are the most influential criminologists in the English-speaking world? British Journal of Criminology, 34, 204 – 225. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1995). Correspondence: the validity of citations as a measure of influence in criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 35, 143 – 145. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998a). Assessing the quality of American doctoral program faculty in criminology and criminal justice, 1991 – 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9, 187 – 210. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998b). Changes in the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 – 1990 and 1991 – 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 99 – 116. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Sorensen, J. R. (2000). Journal publications of Ph.D. graduates from American criminology and criminal justice programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11, 35 – 49. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Wright, R. A. (1998). Evaluating criminology and criminal justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Criminal Justice Periodical Index, 1990 – 2000. Accessed July – October 2000. DeZee, M. R. (1980). The productivity of criminology and criminal justice faculty. Chicago: Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards. Fabianic, D. (1979). Relative prestige of criminal justice doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 135 – 145. Fabianic, D. (1980). Perceived scholarship and readership of criminal justice journals. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8, 15 – 20. Fabianic, D. (1981). Institutional affiliation of authors in selected criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 9, 247 – 252. Fabianic, D. (1999). Educational backgrounds of most-cited scholars. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 517 – 524. Green, G. S. (1997). Using citation counts in criminology as measures of intellectual influence: a comment on Wright and Soma, myself, and others. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20, 179 – 190. Greene, J. R., Bynum, T. S., & Webb, V. J. (1984). Patterns of entry, professional identity, and attitudes toward crime-related education: a study of criminal justice and criminology faculty. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 39 – 59. Levi, M. (1995). Correspondence: the use and misuse of citations as a measure of influence in criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 35, 138 – 142. Parker, C., & Goldfeder, E. (1979). Productivity ratings of
558
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
graduate programs in criminal justice based in publications in ten critical journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 125 – 133. Poole, E., & Regoli, R. (1981). Periodical prestige in criminology and criminal justice: a comment. Criminology, 19, 470 – 478. Regoli, R., Poole, E., & Miracle, A. (1982). Assessing the prestige of journals in criminal justice: a research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 57 – 67. Shichor, D. (1982). An analysis of citations in introductory criminology textbooks: a research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 231 – 237. Shichor, D., O’Brien, R. M., & Decker, D. L. (1981). Prestige of journals in criminology and criminal justice. Criminology, 19, 461 – 469. Sorensen, J. R. (1994). Scholarly productivity in criminal justice: institutional affiliation of authors in the top ten criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 535 – 547. Sorensen, J. R., Patterson, A. L., & Widmayer, A. G. (1992). Publication productivity of faculty members in criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3, 1 – 33. Sorensen, J. R., Patterson, A. L., & Widmayer, A. G. (1993). Measuring faculty productivity in a multidisciplinary field: a response to professor Marenin. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 193 – 196. Stack, S. (1987). Measuring the relative impacts of criminology and criminal justice journals: a research note. Justice Quarterly, 4, 475 – 484. Thomas, C. W. (1987). The utility of citation-based quality assessments. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 165 – 171. Thomas, C. W., & Bronick, M. J. (1984). The quality of doctoral programs in deviance, criminology, and criminal justice: an empirical assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 21 – 57.
Travis, L. F. (1987). Assessing the quality of doctoral programs in deviance, criminology, and criminal justice: a response to Thomas and Bronick. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 157 – 163. Ward, R. H., & Webb, V. J. (1984). Quest for quality. New York: University Publications. Widmayer, A. G., & Rabe, G. (1990). Publication productivity among American criminologists: an analysis of gender, regional, and work differences. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 1, 99 – 110. Williams, F. P., McShane, M. D., & Wagoner, C. P. (1995). Differences in assessments of relative prestige and utility of criminal justice and criminology journals. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 215 – 238. Wright, R. A. (1995). The most-cited scholars in criminology: a comparison of textbooks and journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 303 – 314. Wright, R. A. (1996). Do introductory criminology textbooks cite the most influential criminologists? Estimating the ‘‘match’’ between what journals report and what textbooks discuss. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 225 – 235. Wright, R. A. (1997). Do introductory criminal justice textbooks cite the most influential criminal justicians? Further estimations of the ‘‘match’’ between what journals report and what textbooks discuss. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 8, 81 – 89. Wright, R. A., & Cohn, E. G. (1996). The most-cited scholars in criminal justice textbooks, 1989 – 1993. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 459 – 467. Wright, R. A., & Soma, C. (1996). The most-cited scholars in criminology textbooks, 1963 to 1968, 1976 to 1980, and 1989 to 1993. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 45 – 60.
Publication productivity of criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals David Fabianic* Department of Criminal Justice and Legal Studies, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL 32816, USA
Abstract An important dimension of university faculty life is publication expectation. Often the level of publication productivity is used to assess general program prestige or to evaluate individual faculty performance. The publication rates of faculty in PhD and master-level programs have been unclear. This study examined the publication rates using a general list of criminal justice journals, and a select list of the leading journals, over a five-year period. The faculty members were located in criminal justice programs that granted PhD and master degrees. Publication productivity rates were established for the two different degree level programs, and the institutions with the strongest publication rates were identified. Publication rates are only one factor used in the assessment of program quality and the relationship of publication rates to other program features is discussed. D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction An important area for criminal justice educators is that which addresses the characteristics and patterns of the criminal justice educator’s professional culture. Although only a modest amount of research has been done in this area, the information yielded is useful and of value to educators and administrators. Insights into the nature of criminal justice education facilitate a greater understanding of the issues that confront the field of criminal justice education and identify educator standards. The information can often be of value in the formation and evaluation of quality criteria as well as practices and policies which guide the educational process. The process of self-examination is useful for purposes of program assessment, faculty evaluation, and the generation of new pro-
* Tel.: +1-407-823-5940; fax: +1-407-823-5360. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Fabianic).
grams and policies that help define criminal justice education. Research of this nature also assists the process of identifying practices and policies that are based on inaccuracies or incorrect data. The body of literature on criminal justice education consists of research on journal prestige and readership (Cohn, Farrington, & Wright, 1998; Fabianic, 1980, 1981; Poole & Regoli, 1981; Regoli, Poole, & Miracle, 1982; Shichor, O’Brien, & Decker, 1981; Stack, 1987; Williams, McShane, & Wagoner, 1995); identification of prominent scholars in the field (Cohn & Farrington, 1994, 1998a; Green, 1997; Wright, 1995, 1996, 1997; Wright & Cohn, 1996); the quality of faculty and education in doctoral programs (DeZee, 1980; Fabianic, 1979, 1999; Greene, Bynum, & Webb, 1984; Thomas & Bronick, 1984; Travis, 1987; Ward & Webb, 1984); and citation index research (Allen, 1983; Cohn & Farrington, 1990, 1994, 1995, 1998b; Levi, 1995; Shichor, 1982; Thomas, 1987; Wright & Cohn, 1996; Wright & Soma, 1996). These efforts address different segments of the character of criminal justice
0047-2352/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 4 7 - 2 3 5 2 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 7 6 - 9
550
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
education, and each increases the understanding of the academic field of criminal justice. Included in these areas of interest is a small number of research reports focusing on program prestige or faculty productivity as measured by publication in professional journals (Cohn & Farrington, 1998b; Cohn, Farrington, & Sorensen, 2000; Sorensen, 1994). For the period 1972 through 1977, Parker and Goldfeder (1979) examined publications of faculty, located in graduate programs of criminal justice, in ten journals identified by heads of graduate programs as being most critical to the field of criminal justice. Although not specifically stated in their report, the data yielded an average publication rate in these journals of 0.60 publications per faculty person over the five-year period. Widmayer and Rabe (1990) sampled the 1987 – 1988 membership of the American Society of Criminology and asked the respondents to report publications for the previous five years. They cited the ‘‘sacred spark’’ theory of Cole and Cole (1973), personal stamina and persistence, and the cumulative advantages of better preparation and location at better schools as possible ways to account for variation in publication rates. Sorensen, Patterson, and Widmayer (1992, 1993) studied criminal justice program prestige by looking at several measures of scholarship, including faculty publications over a five-year period. The average number of publications indexed in criminal justice, social science, and law indexes per faculty member located at the twenty-three criminal justice programs examined for the five-year period of 1986 – 1990 was 2.92. Sorensen (1994) examined the locations of faculty publishing in a list of prestigious criminal journals from 1983 to 1992. His research produced a ranking of criminal justice programs according to the number of publications of affiliated faculty. Cohn and Farrington (1998a) reviewed the number of publications and citations of faculty in twenty criminal justice doctoral programs from 1991 to 1995. They found an average of 0.739 publications per faculty in six academic journals over the stipulated time period. Finally, Cohn et al. (2000) examined the quality of twelve doctoral programs in criminal justice by using the number of publications of graduates of the programs in criminology and criminal justice journals.
Journal publication One question which frequently arises, particularly on behalf of new faculty, concerns the necessity to publish in the academic journals that represent the field of criminal justice to the scholarly community. The need to publish in criminal justice journals is impressed upon new faculty as a matter of require-
ment for tenure and promotion. This expectation may be part of the oral tradition to which new faculty are exposed as they undertake an academic career, or it may appear as part of a written document which specifies performance expectations for new faculty. Regardless of which manner the message is conveyed, the importance of publication is impressed on new faculty. Publication rates are one measure or index of academic productivity and they are significant in several ways. First, they have value for faculty and administrators because they establish levels of expectations for academic productivity in research or other scholarly activities. Established publication rates can become very meaningful to provide levels of expected activity and subsequent assignment of faculty responsibilities. Publication rates also reflect faculty success in scholarship. Faculty spend time and effort producing manuscripts to be submitted to professional journals, and publication of the manuscript designates the accomplishment of the objective. The publication of a manuscript separates those who have met the professional criteria for an acceptable manuscript from those whose work has not yet reached that level. Publication in the scholarly journals is also important for criminal justice departments wishing to establish a strong reputation in the field. Having faculty work appear in the journals is taken as an indicator of scholarly activity and of an active, productive faculty. Department reputation is enhanced as faculty members publish in prestigious journals. Reputations are acquired for both individuals and departments as more and more publications appear with the department name attached. Department reputation is important for the recruitment of new students, new faculty, acquisition of resources, and internal political struggles. It must be emphasized that journal publications are not the only index for reputation and quality available, but clearly, they are accepted as one indicator. Department publication productivity is sometimes interpreted as an indicator of more than just individual faculty effort. Publications are facilitated by resources of various kinds such as the availability of graduate students, assignment of faculty load to research and scholarly activities, support funding, and a user-friendly university office of research. The extent to which a department can provide these resources is often reflected by the general publication reputation of the department. As stated previously, publication in criminal justice journals is not the only measure of faculty productivity or programs. Journal publication is only one measure or index of value or quality. There are many others, including publication in journals outside the
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
criminal justice discipline; publication of books and monographs; the acquisition of grants and contracts; and the successful education of students. Consequently, journal publication is only one of a complex of factors that provides reputation to criminal justice faculty and programs. While journal publication is important, in some departments and programs, the particular journal in which faculty publish is just as important as publication itself. For some faculty and departments, publication is a mark of scholarship and quality only if it occurs in specific journals that are regarded as more prestigious than others. For these faculty and departments, there is usually a list of journals, either written or informally understood, that is presented to new faculty and to promotion aspirants. Faculty are led to understand that directing their publication efforts toward those particular journals is either essential or at least of greater value than devoting effort to other sources. Publication in scholarly journals is clearly a function of faculty ability and effort. In addition, publication rates are dependent upon many other factors such as teaching load, availability of resources, institutional and departmental expectations. Leading departments of criminal justice are believed to be leaders in the publication of scholarly material in the journals. Publication of faculty is often taken as one indicator of the prestige of the department. One of the oldest maxims in higher education revolves around the ‘‘publish or perish’’ dilemma. Publication in academic journals is clearly a structural aspect of the academic culture of which criminal justice is a part. It is therefore important to consider the matter of publication productivity of criminal justice faculty, and in particular, to examine the productivity of faculty in leading criminal justice programs in select and prestigious criminal justice journals. One question that needs to be addressed is the identification of the rate of productivity for criminal justice faculty in criminal justice journals, and in particular, in those journals regarded as the more prestigious ones. It is also valuable to compare the productivity of faculty associated with doctoral-level programs with faculty located in master-level programs. This study concerned the productivity rate in criminal justice journals in general and the productivity rate in prestigious or select criminal justice journals for faculty of doctoral and master degree granting programs.
Data To examine these questions, data from several sources were collected. The first task was to identify
551
those institutions hosting the faculty to examine more closely. By use of The Guide of Graduate Programs in Criminal Justice and Criminology, 1997 – 1998 (Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, 1997), prior research, and the Internet, twenty-eight institutions were identified as granting a doctorate in criminal justice through a department of criminal justice, a joint department, or a concentration in some other department. Departments offering just a concentration in criminal justice or criminology, and joint departments, were thought to confound the process by necessarily diluting the actual productivity to the criminal justice literature. This would occur because faculty would be devoting time and effort to publishing in other fields germane to the interests of the department or academic unit. As a result of this factor, the department faculty contribution to criminal justice literature would be diluted by faculty publishing in other fields or journals not specifically part of the criminal justice scholarly terrain being considered here. In addition, in some departments, it was impossible to determine which faculty members were dedicated to criminal justice or criminology and which to other academic disciplines. As a consequence, ten institutions were dropped from further consideration leaving eighteen for further review. These institutions were regarded as those that granted a doctorate from a criminal justice or criminology academic unit, and whose faculty were dedicated to criminal justice or criminology that could be identified. Similarly, a list of programs offering a master’s degree was compiled using The Guide to Graduate Programs in Criminal Justice and Criminology, 1997 – 98, prior research, and the Internet. Programs that offered a master’s degree but no doctorate, and listed at least ten faculty, were included. Instructors, visiting professors, adjuncts, and professor emeriti were not included in this count, nor were they included in any data for this study. When joint programs or multidisciplinary departments for which criminal justice or criminology faculty could not be identified were excluded, the list of master-level programs was reduced to seventeen. A list of current faculty for each academic unit was generated by using the Internet and going to the home page of each academic unit for a listing of faculty. Where information was incomplete or lacking, data were obtained from the Guide to Graduate Programs in Criminal Justice and Criminology, 1997 – 98 or the latest institution catalog. It was recognized that changes occur often in higher education as people relocate from one institution to another. It was recognized further that some institutions were more vigilant than others in keeping information current. As a consequence, the final list used in this report was an approximation of the
552
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
faculty affiliated with a program at a single moment. The inaccuracies that may have resulted were regarded as those resulting from circumstances that potentially affected all the programs and were believed to be minor in terms of the impact on the group data. The next step in the process was obtaining the list of publications in criminal justice journals. The primary source for this was the Criminal Justice Periodical Index, online (Criminal Justice Periodical Index, 1990). A period of five years was considered, that beginning in January 1995 and concluding in December 1999. As others have noted in their work, a curious omission in the Criminal Justice Periodical Index is that of Criminology. Criminology is considered a major outlet for criminal justice research and, as a result, volumes of it were considered separately for the relevant time period. The result of this process was the development of several lists. One was for institutions hosting doctorate granting programs in criminal justice and another for master degrees; the faculty associated with each program; and the publications of the faculty as listed in the Criminal Justice Periodical Index and Criminology. The counting of publications authored by each faculty member was calculated in two ways. The first credited each faculty person with a publication if they were listed as an author or co-author. This practice did not weight the contributions, favored those who published in groups, and is regarded by some as inflating the publication record of some faculty. As a consequence, a count of publications was also calculated based on the proportion of each author’s contribution to the publication. For example, using this weighing method, two listed authors for one publication would result in attributing 0.50 credit for authorship to each author. The total number of publications, weighted and unweighted, listed by the Criminal Justice Periodical Index, was calculated for all included faculty members at each institution. The Criminal Justice Periodical Index indexes publications in a wide variety of journals, some devoted to academic scholarship and others to applied matters of the practitioner. Two lists of publication sources were considered. The first was of Criminology and any periodical indexed by the Criminal Justice Publications Index. The second was of those journals considered to be the leading periodicals for criminal justice faculty. The selection of the journals to comprise the second list was determined using prior research. Eight journals were chosen as leading or select journals. In prior research using the reputational approach, Fabianic (1980) found the Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology (JCLC), Journal of Criminal Justice (JCJ), Criminology (CRIM), and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (JRCD) to be the most highly rated journals. Shichor et al. (1981) surveyed 150 American criminologists and produced a rating of forty-two journals, of which the six highest rated were JCLC, CRIM, JRCD, JCJ, Criminal Justice Review (CJR), and Federal Probation (FP). Regoli et al. (1982) surveyed 1,000 criminologists and the six most prestigious journals in the field were identified as CRIM, JRCD, JCLC, JCJ, Crime and Delinquency (CD), and Criminal Justice and Behavior (CJB). In their survey of program directors, Parker and Goldfeder (1979) identified JCLC, CRIM, CD, JCJ, FP, JRCD, and CJB as the most prestigious journals. In citation research, Poole and Regoli (1981) identified JCLC, CRIM, CD, JRCD, FP, JCJ, and CJB as the most cited. Cohn and Farrington (1990) found in their research that CRIM, JCLC, JRCD, CD, JCJ, and CJB were the most cited. Stack (1987) also found many of these same journals being recognized in his citation research that listed as most frequently cited CRIM, JRCD, CD, JCLC, CJB, and JCJ. In a summary of studies of journal prestige, Sorenson et al. (1992) found that the most prestigious were JCLC, CRIM, JRCD, CD, JCJ, CJR, and CJB. In later research, Cohn et al. (1998) attempted to avoid some of the problems of the reputational and the citation approach in rating the prestige of journals by using the luminaries technique. The eleven unweighted journals in which luminaries published most often included: CRIM, JRCD, JQC, Criminal Justice Ethics, CD, JQ, JCLC, The Prison Journal, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, British Journal of Criminology (BJC), and JCJ. In their research, Williams et al. (1995) were able to add two established journals and two newer journals to previously identified lists, and found the most prestigious journals to be CRIM, Law and Society (LS), JCLC, Justice Quarterly (JQ), JRCD, CD, JCJ, BJC, Journal of Quantitative Criminology (JQC), and CJB. Their finding was compatible with other reports and also included the more recent periodical forums. Relying on the reputational approach, the original list for this study was that drawn from Williams et al. and included eight journals: CRIM, JQC, JRCD, JQ, CD, JCJ, CJB, and LS, five of which had been identified in at least seven of the ten studies concerned with journal ratings, and two were new journals but were recognized in the research by Cohn et al. (1998) and by Williams et al. The list was regarded as inclusive of journals most often recognized as important to the field.
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
553
Recognizing that the raw, unweighted count of publications resulted in disproportionate weight granted to multiple authored publications, the authorship of publications was weighted by proportioning publication credit according to the number of authors using the method cited above. The weighting of authorship served to reduce the effect of full credit being granted to all authors of a multiple-authored article and the results are presented in Table 2. Weighting authorship resulted in a total of 419.55 articles being authored by 330 faculty members in the eighteen criminal justice PhD granting departments, and 173.32 articles in select journals. The average number of weighted publications per faculty for PhD granting programs was 1.27, and the average of weighted publications in select journals was 0.52. The departments with the highest weighted publication rates were University of Cincinnati (3.26), Michigan State University (2.04), and University of Missouri at St. Louis (2.02). Programs with the highest weighted rate of publication in select journals were University of Cincinnati (1.78) and University of Missouri at St. Louis (1.73). The results for unweighted publications of masterlevel programs are presented in Table 3. There were seventeen master-level programs that were examined, with a total of 256 faculty members, 115 (44.9 percent) of whom published and 50 (19.5 percent) who published in select journals. The programs with the highest percentage of faculty publishing were the University of Central Florida (85.7 percent) and
Results Eighteen PhD granting programs were assessed and the number of faculty and their associated publications were tabulated. The results of this procedure are presented in Tables 1 – 4. In Table 1, a total of 330 faculty members made up the faculties of the programs, and 201 (60.9 percent) of them had published within the five-year time period. Of the 330, 127 (38.4 percent) had published in select journals. Programs with the highest percentage of faculty publishing in all journals were the University of Cincinnati (100 percent), Rutgers (92.3 percent), and SUNY at Albany (84.6 percent). Institutions with the highest percentage of faculty publishing in select journals were University of Missouri at St. Louis (78.5 percent), University of Cincinnati (75.0 percent), and Rutgers University (69.2 percent). In Table 1, the average unweighted publications per faculty person for the eighteen programs was 2.14. The programs with the highest unweighted publication rate in all journals were the University of Cincinnati (7.33), Michigan State University (3.40), University of Maryland (3.04), and University of Missouri at St. Louis (3.00). The average unweighted publication rate in select journals for all the programs was 1.03. The institutions with the highest average unweighted publication rate in select journals were University of Cincinnati (4.50), University of Missouri at St. Louis (2.64), and the University of Maryland (2.11).
Table 1 Unweighted publications of faculty in criminal justice PhD programs Institutions
Total number of faculty
Percentage of faculty who published (N)
Percentage of total faculty published in select journals (N)
Unweighted publications per faculty (N)
Unweighted publications in select journals per faculty (N)
University of Cincinnati University of Missouri-St. Louis University of Maryland Pennsylvania State University Temple University University of Nebraska-Omaha Michigan State University Sam Houston State University Rutgers University Indiana University Florida State University SUNY-Albany University of South Florida Indiana University of Pennsylvania American University California State University-Irvine Arizona State University John Jay College Total
12 14 28 12 14 20 20 28 13 12 21 13 15 19 16 13 21 39 330
100.0 78.6 75.0 75.0 57.1 70.0 70.0 53.5 92.3 66.7 57.1 84.6 66.7 47.4 50.0 61.5 23.8 35.9 60.9
75.0 78.5 50.0 66.7 57.1 50.0 40.0 35.7 69.2 58.3 28.5 46.1 26.7 31.5 12.5 30.7 9.5 7.6 38.4
7.33 3.00 3.04 2.08 2.28 2.40 3.40 2.14 2.38 1.75 1.86 2.15 2.53 1.21 1.19 1.46 0.38 0.87 2.14
4.50 (54) 2.64 (37) 2.11 (59) 1.58 (59) 1.50 (21) 1.15 (23) 1.10 (22) 0.93 (26) 0.85 (11) 0.75 (9) 0.71 (15) 0.62 (8) 0.60 (9) 0.58 (11) 0.38 (6) 0.31 (4) 0.14 (3) 0.10 (4) 1.03 (341)
(12) (11) (21) (9) (8) (14) (14) (15) (12) (8) (12) (11) (10) (9) (8) (8) (5) (14) (201)
(9) (2) (14) (8) (8) (10) (8) (10) (8) (7) (6) (6) (4) (6) (2) (4) (2) (3) (127)
(88) (42) (85) (25) (32) (48) (68) (60) (31) (21) (39) (28) (38) (23) (19) (19) (8) (34) (708)
554
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
Table 2 Weighted publications of faculty in criminal justice PhD programs Institutions
Weighted number of publications
Weighted number of publications in select journals
Weighted number of publications per faculty
Weighted number of select publications per faculty
University of Cincinnati University of Missouri-St. Louis University of Maryland Pennsylvania State University Temple University Indiana University University of Nebraska-Omaha Michigan State University Rutgers University Sam Houston State University University of South Florida SUNY-Albany American University Florida State University Indiana University of Pennsylvania California State University-Irvine Arizona State University John Jay College Total
39.10 28.23 52.37 12.31 16.02 16.50 26.88 40.97 20.74 30.72 24.65 15.67 14.00 30.46 10.47 12.32 4.33 23.81 419.55
21.42 24.23 26.78 9.48 10.96 8.00 12.40 11.82 6.41 9.80 5.08 4.16 5.00 6.30 4.57 2.33 2.00 2.58 173.32
3.26 2.02 1.87 1.02 1.14 1.38 1.34 2.04 1.60 1.09 1.64 1.20 0.88 1.45 0.55 0.95 0.21 0.61 1.27
1.78 1.73 0.96 0.79 0.78 0.67 0.62 0.59 0.49 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.31 0.30 0.24 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.52
Southwest Texas State University (80.0 percent). The master degree granting departments with the highest percentage of faculty publishing in select journals were the University of Central Florida (64.3 percent), and East Tennessee State University, University of Illinois at Chicago, and University of South Carolina (33.3 percent).
The rate of publication in all criminal justice journals for all faculty of master degree granting programs was 1.26 publications per faculty. The institutions with the highest rate of unweighted publications in all journals per faculty were the University of Central Florida (3.07), University of North Carolina at Charlotte (2.50), and University of South
Table 3 Unweighted publications of faculty in criminal justice master programs Institutions
Total number Percentage of Percentage of Unweighted of faculty faculty who total faculty publications published (N) published in per faculty (N) select journals (N)
University of Central Florida 14 University of South Carolina 15 University of Illinois-Chicago 15 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 10 Illinois State University 14 Northeastern University 13 Southern Illinois University 11 Eastern Kentucky University 44 University of Louisville 11 Southwest Texas State University 10 East Tennessee State University 6 California State University-Sacramento 22 Central Missouri State University 14 Indiana State University 14 Grambling State University 13 Mid-Tennessee State University 7 Western Illinois University 23 Total 256
85.7 33.3 66.7 30.0 28.6 61.5 54.5 38.6 36.4 80.0 33.3 22.7 35.7 64.3 7.7 42.8 30.4 44.9
(12) (10) (10) (8) (8) (8) (6) (17) (4) (8) (2) (5) (5) (1) (1) (3) (7) (115)
64.3 (9) 33.3 (5) 33.3 (5) 30.0 (3) 28.6 (4) 30.8 (4) 27.3 (3) 18.2 (8) 18.2 (2) 20.0 (2) 33.3 (2) 4.5 (1) 7.1 (1) 7.1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 19.5 (50)
3.07 2.27 1.73 2.50 1.36 1.31 1.09 1.16 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.32 0.93 0.93 0.08 0.57 0.61 1.26
(43) (34) (26) (25) (19) (17) (12) (51) (22) (20) (3) (7) (13) (13) (1) (4) (14) (324)
Unweighted publications in select journals per faculty (N) 1.92 (27) 0.80 (12) 0.47 (7) 0.70 (7) 0.43 (6) 0.62 (0) 0.36 (4) 0.39 (17) 0.18 (2) 0.20 (2) 0.33 (2) 0.04 (1) 0.07 (1) 0.07 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0.38 (97)
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
555
Table 4 Weighted publications of faculty in criminal justice master programs Institutions
Weighted number of publications
Weighted number of publications in select journals
Weighted number of publications per faculty
Weighted number of select publications per faculty
University of Central Florida University of South Carolina University of Illinois-Chicago University of North Carolina-Charlotte Illinois State University Northeastern University Southern Illinois University Eastern Kentucky University University of Louisville Southwest Texas State University East Tennessee State University California State University-Sacramento Central Missouri State University Indiana State University Grambling State University Mid-Tennessee State University Western Illinois University Total
26.35 20.99 22.07 14.73 11.03 6.91 6.91 29.49 13.08 12.50 2.00 7.00 7.50 8.49 1.00 2.00 12.00 204.05
17.52 6.24 4.91 3.23 3.70 3.41 2.08 7.50 1.50 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50 0 0 0 53.59
1.88 1.40 1.47 1.47 0.79 0.53 0.63 0.67 1.19 1.25 0.33 0.32 0.54 0.61 0.08 0.28 0.53 0.80
1.25 0.42 0.33 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0 0 0 0.21
Carolina (2.27). The average rate of publication in select journals for all the master-level programs was 0.38. The departments with the highest rate of publication in select journals were the University of Central Florida (1.92) and University of South Carolina (0.80). Using the weighting procedure described previously, there were 204.05 total publications among all the master degree granting programs, and 53.59 publications in select journals as presented in Table 4. The overall weighted publication rate was 0.80 publications per faculty, and 0.21 publications in select journals per faculty over the five-year period. The institutions with the highest weighted rate of publication were the University of Central Florida (1.88), University of Illinois at Chicago (1.47), University of North Carolina at Charlotte (1.47), and University of South Carolina (1.40). As expected, the rates of publication differed between the PhD and master-level programs with the PhD rates being higher. For faculty affiliated with a PhD program, this was the case for all the indices, weighted or unweighted. There was a higher publication rate per faculty member for all journals, and a higher rate of publication in select journals for faculty affiliated with PhD granting programs.
Discussion and conclusions The data indicate the productivity rate over a fiveyear period among faculty of PhD and master degree granting programs in criminal justice. The average
rates were higher for PhD programs than master-level programs. This difference was probably the result of better support services and resource availability in the PhD granting institutions. Traditionally, the teaching load is less in such programs, and graduate student support is also stronger. It is highly likely that greater publication expectations were placed on the faculties of PhD granting programs than master degree granting programs. The adequacy of the publication rate for any faculty is a local decision. The expected rate of publication for faculty should be established after considering other factors that are important to the accomplishment of department objectives. Blindly mandating publication expectations for faculty without connecting the expectation to legitimate organizational objectives can contribute to faculty demoralization. Examining both PhD and master-level programs together, five schools consistently were associated with the higher rates. They were the University of Cincinnati, Michigan State University, University of Maryland, University of Missouri at St. Louis, and the University of Central Florida. The productivity of the University of Central Florida, a master-level degree program, was competitive with the leading PhD granting institutions. It ranked within the top four for publication rate, weighted and unweighted, for general publications and select publications when the two different levels were considered together. Cohn and Farrington (1998a) examined the productivity of faculty in criminal justice doctoral programs using the citations that appeared in six journals
556
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
from 1991 to 1995. Some comparison with Cohn and Farrington’s research in 1998 is possible using the current study. They examined six journals (JQ, JCJ, CJB, CRIM, JQC, and JRCD) for citations of faculty in criminal justice doctoral programs, and they also determined the authorship of publications in the journals from 1991 to 1995. Using these data, they were able to rank the programs with respect to citations and publications of faculty in six criminology and criminal justice journals. There were several differences between the current study and that of Cohn and Farrington. The time period for the current study was 1995 to 1999 as compared to 1991 to 1995 for Cohn and Farrington. The Cohn and Farrington research utilized citations as the basis for one form of ranking and publications for another, and the present study utilized publications only. Eight journals were used in the current research and six were used by Cohn and Farrington. The lists of programs varied slightly in that Cohn and Farrington included some programs that the current study excluded, and vice versa. This necessitated dropping Washington State University, University of Illinois, University of Delaware, and Northeastern University from the Cohn and Farrington list, and Indiana University and the University of South Florida from the current study. Adjusting for the commonality of programs, it was possible to list the findings of Cohn and Farrington for publications, and the results for publications in the present study. Table 5 represents data drawn from Cohn and Farrington (1998a) and the present study after making the necessary adjustments. The rho was 0.79 between the two lists of rankings. The first four positions in both lists included the same programs which were the University of Cincinnati, University of Missouri at St. Louis, University of Maryland, and Pennsylvania State University. Seven programs common to both lists occupied the next eight ranks. The exception to compatibility was that the Cohn and Farrington list included the University of California at Irvine instead of the American University that was found in the current study. The last four ranks shared two programs, while differing on two. One or a combination of several factors can probably explain the minor variation in lists of rankings. First, the difference in time periods for the two studies permitted more time for JQ and JQC to mature. Commenced in 1984 and 1985, these journals were included in the Cohn and Farrington study in what can be considered their early years of publication. With the continued success of these publications, they may now be considered more established and more likely an outlet for scholars to address. Second, the present study included two journals that the Cohn and Farrington research did not review
Table 5 Publication rankings for two time periods Rank
Publication rankings Cohn and Farrington (1998a) Publication rates 1991 – 1995
1 2
University of Maryland University of Cincinnati
3
University of Missouri-St. Louis Pennsylvania State University SUNY-Albany University of Nebraska-Omaha Rutgers University
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
University of California-Irvine Sam Houston State University Temple University Florida State University Michigan State University Indiana University of Pennsylvania John Jay College American University Arizona State University
Present study Publication rates 1995 – 1999 University of Cincinnati University of Missouri-St. Louis University of Maryland Pennsylvania State University Temple University University of Nebraska-Omaha Michigan State University Rutgers University Sam Houston State University SUNY-Albany American University Florida State University Indiana University of Pennsylvania University of California-Irvine Arizona State University John Jay College
rs = 0.79. in their research. Programs commonly have emphases on particular perspective or topics and this can lead to favoring some journal outlets over others. Perhaps this is reflected in the ranking differences of the two studies. The results of the current study were also compatible with the limited data of prior research. Parker and Goldfeder (1979) found an unweighted publication rate in ten prestigious journals of 0.60. Cohn and Farrington (1998a) found a rate of 0.739 for criminal justice PhD faculty in six prestigious journals. The present research, utilizing a larger and slightly different list of journals, found an unweighted publication rate in select journals of 0.525. Based on these figures, program directors and administrators can gauge the publication rate of their respective faculties’ performance in this area. The determination of what level of productivity is appropriate or required can be made with the information of what the average rates are for PhD and master-level programs. In addition, the specific rates at high productivity institutions may
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
provide information useful for emulation or framing realistic expectations for faculty productivity. The programs considering the extant rates may also decide to increase productivity in an effort to enhance the general prestige of their program. Insistence on increased productivity alone will not be likely to produce the desired result. Heightened expectations are most meaningful when accompanied by supportive policies and adequate resources. There has been a tendency in higher education to often regard the faculty member as an independent variable. This strategy ignores the fact that faculty productivity is more properly regarded as a dependent variable in the system. That is, central administrations of universities sometimes behave as though acting directly upon the faculty member will produce desired results. In terms of publication rates, this means that departments are at times given to expecting an increase in faculty publications because a mandate has been issued requiring an increase in productivity. Often this manifests itself by the imposition or increase of research and scholarly production standards directly on faculty performance and this action is reflected in annual evaluation criteria or promotion and tenure criteria. Short-sighted administrative action of this type, with no other supporting initiatives, is perhaps misguided. Increasing the standards for faculty performance by itself will not likely produce the significant response administrative minds seek. Perhaps it would be more accurate if faculty members were regarded as people who would respond to changes in their environment, in addition to the change in standards that increased expectations in productivity. The faculty role is just one factor in creating a publication productive academic unit. There must be considerations of work assignments and teaching load, support services and facilities, personnel support, library resources, and technology availability. In addition, some consideration could also be given to a meaningful reward structure for those who engage in significant research and publication efforts. To meet productivity expectations, departments might do well to affect those things which contribute to greater productivity by enabling faculty to conduct research and engage in manuscript preparation, in contrast to exclusively insisting on increased productivity.
References Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences (1997). The guide to graduate programs in criminal justice and criminology, 1997 – 98. Highland Heights, Kentucky: Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Northern Kentucky University.
557
Allen, H. E. (1983). Comment: a reaction to ‘‘An analysis of citations in introductory criminology textbooks, JCJ 10(3)’’. Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 177 – 178. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1990). Differences between British and American criminology: an analysis of citations. British Journal of Criminology, 30, 467 – 482. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1994). Who are the most influential criminologists in the English-speaking world? British Journal of Criminology, 34, 204 – 225. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1995). Correspondence: the validity of citations as a measure of influence in criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 35, 143 – 145. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998a). Assessing the quality of American doctoral program faculty in criminology and criminal justice, 1991 – 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9, 187 – 210. Cohn, E. G., & Farrington, D. P. (1998b). Changes in the most-cited scholars in major American criminology and criminal justice journals between 1986 – 1990 and 1991 – 1995. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 99 – 116. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Sorensen, J. R. (2000). Journal publications of Ph.D. graduates from American criminology and criminal justice programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 11, 35 – 49. Cohn, E. G., Farrington, D. P., & Wright, R. A. (1998). Evaluating criminology and criminal justice. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Cole, J., & Cole, S. (1973). Social stratification in science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Criminal Justice Periodical Index, 1990 – 2000. Accessed July – October 2000. DeZee, M. R. (1980). The productivity of criminology and criminal justice faculty. Chicago: Joint Commission on Criminology and Criminal Justice Education and Standards. Fabianic, D. (1979). Relative prestige of criminal justice doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 135 – 145. Fabianic, D. (1980). Perceived scholarship and readership of criminal justice journals. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8, 15 – 20. Fabianic, D. (1981). Institutional affiliation of authors in selected criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 9, 247 – 252. Fabianic, D. (1999). Educational backgrounds of most-cited scholars. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 517 – 524. Green, G. S. (1997). Using citation counts in criminology as measures of intellectual influence: a comment on Wright and Soma, myself, and others. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20, 179 – 190. Greene, J. R., Bynum, T. S., & Webb, V. J. (1984). Patterns of entry, professional identity, and attitudes toward crime-related education: a study of criminal justice and criminology faculty. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 39 – 59. Levi, M. (1995). Correspondence: the use and misuse of citations as a measure of influence in criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 35, 138 – 142. Parker, C., & Goldfeder, E. (1979). Productivity ratings of
558
D. Fabianic / Journal of Criminal Justice 30 (2002) 549–558
graduate programs in criminal justice based in publications in ten critical journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 7, 125 – 133. Poole, E., & Regoli, R. (1981). Periodical prestige in criminology and criminal justice: a comment. Criminology, 19, 470 – 478. Regoli, R., Poole, E., & Miracle, A. (1982). Assessing the prestige of journals in criminal justice: a research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 57 – 67. Shichor, D. (1982). An analysis of citations in introductory criminology textbooks: a research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 231 – 237. Shichor, D., O’Brien, R. M., & Decker, D. L. (1981). Prestige of journals in criminology and criminal justice. Criminology, 19, 461 – 469. Sorensen, J. R. (1994). Scholarly productivity in criminal justice: institutional affiliation of authors in the top ten criminal justice journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 535 – 547. Sorensen, J. R., Patterson, A. L., & Widmayer, A. G. (1992). Publication productivity of faculty members in criminology and criminal justice doctoral programs. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3, 1 – 33. Sorensen, J. R., Patterson, A. L., & Widmayer, A. G. (1993). Measuring faculty productivity in a multidisciplinary field: a response to professor Marenin. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 193 – 196. Stack, S. (1987). Measuring the relative impacts of criminology and criminal justice journals: a research note. Justice Quarterly, 4, 475 – 484. Thomas, C. W. (1987). The utility of citation-based quality assessments. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 165 – 171. Thomas, C. W., & Bronick, M. J. (1984). The quality of doctoral programs in deviance, criminology, and criminal justice: an empirical assessment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 12, 21 – 57.
Travis, L. F. (1987). Assessing the quality of doctoral programs in deviance, criminology, and criminal justice: a response to Thomas and Bronick. Journal of Criminal Justice, 15, 157 – 163. Ward, R. H., & Webb, V. J. (1984). Quest for quality. New York: University Publications. Widmayer, A. G., & Rabe, G. (1990). Publication productivity among American criminologists: an analysis of gender, regional, and work differences. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 1, 99 – 110. Williams, F. P., McShane, M. D., & Wagoner, C. P. (1995). Differences in assessments of relative prestige and utility of criminal justice and criminology journals. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 215 – 238. Wright, R. A. (1995). The most-cited scholars in criminology: a comparison of textbooks and journals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 303 – 314. Wright, R. A. (1996). Do introductory criminology textbooks cite the most influential criminologists? Estimating the ‘‘match’’ between what journals report and what textbooks discuss. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 225 – 235. Wright, R. A. (1997). Do introductory criminal justice textbooks cite the most influential criminal justicians? Further estimations of the ‘‘match’’ between what journals report and what textbooks discuss. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 8, 81 – 89. Wright, R. A., & Cohn, E. G. (1996). The most-cited scholars in criminal justice textbooks, 1989 – 1993. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 459 – 467. Wright, R. A., & Soma, C. (1996). The most-cited scholars in criminology textbooks, 1963 to 1968, 1976 to 1980, and 1989 to 1993. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 45 – 60.