Mark Hickson

An Analysis of Prolific Scholarship in Speech Communication, 1915-1985: Toward a Yardstick for Measuring Research Productivity.

Using the journals listed in the most recent index to journals in communication studies, publication patterns of prolific authors in speech communication between 1915 and 1985 were analyzed. Publication of as few as six articles in the journals studied places an individual in the top ten percent of scholars on the all‐time list. Publication of eleven articles places an individual in the top five percent. The data indicate publication early in a scholars career is very important, as is flexibility in selection of journals in which to publish.

Active Prolific Female Scholars in Communication: An Analysis of Research Productivity, II.

The authors analyzed the authors index in the 1992 Index to Journals in Communication Studies to answer several research questions regarding the productivity of female scholars in the field. A list of the top 25 was developed as well as information on where these researchers publish, where they teach, where they received their degrees, and when they received their degrees. Recommendations are made for future studies on service and teaching as well as research.

The status of research productivity in communication: 1915–1995

The researchers determined that while additional journals have been added to the Matlon Index, the authors who write a large number of articles remains the same. In addition, this study finds that there is a substantial similarity between authors who are frequently cited by others and the number of articles that have been published by these authors. Additionally, the most frequently published authors of journal articles also have an average of more than five books in print. The number of articles listed increased by 1,154 between 1990 and 1995. Authors increased in each category (ranging from one to more than 20). The vast majority of those who have published more than 28 articles listed in the Index teach in doctoral‐granting departments.

Active prolific scholars in communication studies: Analysis of research productivity, II

An analysis of research productivity of communication studies faculty provides a yardstick against which faculty and administrators can gauge productivity. Results suggest that a “productive” currently active scholar is one who has published six or more times (were in the top 5% of all publishers) in journals listed in the SCA Index to Journals in Communication Studies through 1990.

Research productivity in communication: An analysis, 1915–2001

This study is a replication of previous studies on the productivity of scholars who have been published in 24 journals found previously in the Matlon index. Between 1990 and 2001, the researchers found that the number of articles needed to place one in the top 100 most prolific researchers has grown from 15 to 23. The mode and median number of articles published during a career stands at one. The vast majority of researchers on the list teach in departments or schools which offer a doctoral program. The programs with the highest productivity during the period, 1915–2001 have been West Virginia, Michigan State, Georgia, Kent State, and Wisconsin. Highly productive scholars during the period are from West Virginia, Missouri, Texas Christian, Arizona, Wisconsin‐Milwaukee, Washington State, and Michigan State. Comparisons and contrasts are discussed beginning with one of the first studies undertaken in 1989.

Research productivity in communication: An analysis, 1996‐2001

The study provides an analysis of those scholars who produced a substantial number of articles in 24 communication journals during the period, 1996‐2001. The purpose of the study was to update the information provided in previous studies. Using data similar to that previously found in the Index to Journals in Communication Studies, the authors found that during the period a number of new names has appeared. As a result, the authors develop a list of the top one percent (50) of those researchers, as well as providing data on the institutions which these scholars represent. The minimum number of articles necessary during the period to be included was nine.

Prolific Scholarship in Communication Studies: Five Years in Review

The purpose of this study was to ascertain who the most prolific scholars (top one percent) in Communication Studies were as a function of their publication rates in 24 journals for the last five years. In addition, we sought to determine the most prolific scholars in a subset of journals considered to be most central to our discipline. Results indicated that 30 individuals could be considered prolific scholars for the years spanning 2007–2011 for the list of 24 journals, and six individuals could be considered prolific in the central journals. It took nine and eight articles within the five-year period to make each list, respectively. We also report the top 25 most prolific and active researchers since 1915. Results are discussed as they pertain to trends in the discipline.

Raising the Question #4: Why Bother Attending Conferences?.

Thirty-nine years ago during my first year in graduate school, I attended my first speech convention. I was quite the neophyte regarding the benefits and responsibilities of conventions. Thankfully, my department supported several of the graduate students’ attendance, assuming, of course, that we would save costs by driving 9 hours from Auburn, Alabama, to Little Rock, Arkansas. One of my undergraduate professors had discussed various researchers in the discipline, and I had read a number of books and articles by well-known scholars such as Waldo Braden, Franklin Knower, Carroll Arnold, Robert Oliver, Douglas Ehninger, and Frank Dance. I could not wait to meet them. Once I arrived at the convention, I found the sheer number of people in attendance overwhelming. I met the author of my undergraduate persuasion textbook, Wayne Minnick. The intimidation factor from meeting and interacting with these famous scholars was a bit much for me, and I had to wonder what I was doing there. My next conference was three years later in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, but this time I was seeking a teaching position. I spent much of my time interviewing and, as a result, I was offered my first position as an assistant professor at Mississippi State University. My mindset was quite different from my initial response in Little Rock. With four years of graduate school behind me, I felt more confident. As I looked around me, I realized that there were some amazing things going on at these meetings. Later when I attended my first national Speech Association (SAA) of America meeting in New Orleans (1970), I discovered that the meetings could be even more enlightening, frustrating, and challenging. All of the big named scholars were in attendance. Attendees searched for their former graduate school classmates and professors. People talked about research projects that were important to them. Others discussed their career moves. Some talked about new ways to teach their courses. Conversations around me centered on topics of phenomenology, locus and focus, costuming, the rhetoric of apologia, and multiple linear regression analysis. I noticed places where people simply ‘‘hung out.’’ Some attended each and every meeting. Others crowded around the placement center seeking positions or searching

Teaching the introductory communication theory course to undergraduates

This essay explores the introduction to communication theory course for undergraduates. The authors discuss several key notions for making the course valuable to the undergraduate: the attitude of the instructor, the attitude of the students, course requirements, and evaluation techniques.

A communication perspective on sexual harassment: Affiliative nonverbal behaviors in asynchronous relationships

The authors reviewed the sexual harassment and nonverbal communication literature to develop a communication perspective on sexual harassment in asynchronous relationships. In so doing, the authors developed a six‐step process. The value of such a perspective is that it allows potential victims (receivers) as well as colleagues and administrators to predict the occurrence of harassing behavior among faculty members in institutions of higher education. Finally, the authors make a number of suggestions for prevention of sexual harassment.