This study explored differences between a sample of highly productive scholars and a random sample of more typical scholars. Surprisingly, few demographic differences emerged; neither were large differences found in institutional responsibilities or sup -ports. Productive scholars evidenced a greater orientation toward theory and research, whereas more typical scholars were oriented toward issues in the field. Although the field has made substantial progress in attracting more women into the professorship, the small number of minority professors in educational administration remains a serious problem. Finally, five challenges are proposed that, if met, will improve the quality and use of research in educational administration.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, G. L. , & Jones, F. (2000). Knowledge generation in educational administration from the inside out: The promise and perils of site-based, administrator research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 428-464.
2.
Becher, T. (1989). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disci-plines. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
3.
Blackburn, R. T. , Behmer, C. E., & Hall, D. E. (1978). Research note: Correlates of faculty publi -cation. Sociology of Education, 51, 132-141.
4.
Blackburn, R. T. , & Havighurst, R. J. (1979). Career patterns of U.S. male academic social scien-tists. Higher Education, 8, 553-572.
5.
Braxton, J. M. (1983). Department colleagues and individual faculty publication productivity. Review of Higher Education, 6, 115-128.
6.
Bridges, E. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state-of-the-art, 1967-80. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12-33.
7.
Cameron, S. W. , & Blackburn, R. T. (1981, July-August). Sponsorship and academic career suc-cess. Journal of Higher Education, 52, 369-377.
8.
Campbell, R. F. , & Newell, L. J. (1973). A study of professors of educational administration: Problems and prospects of an applied academic field. Columbus, OH: University Council for Educational Administration.
9.
Clark, S. M. , & Corcoran, M. (1986, January-February). Perspectives on the professional social -ization of women faculty: A case of cumulative disadvantage?Journal of Higher Education, 57, 20-43.
10.
Clifford, G. J. , & Guthrie, J. W. (1988). Ed School. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
11.
Cuban, L. (1999). How scholars trumped teachers. New York: Teachers College Press.
12.
Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Liveright.
13.
Ducharme, E. R. , & Agne, R. M. (1986). Professors of education: Uneasy residents of academe. In R. Wisniewski & E. Ducharme (Eds.), The professors of teaching: An inquiry (pp. 67-86). Albany: State University of New York Press.
14.
Erickson , (1979). Research on educational administration. The state of the art. Educational Researcher, 8, 5-11.
15.
Finkelstein, B. (1982).Technicians, mandarins, and witnesses: Searching for professional understanding. Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 25-27.
16.
Firestone, W. A. (1990). Accommodation: Toward a paradigm-praxis dialectic. In E. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 105-124). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
Fulton, O. , & Trow, M. (1974). Research activity in American higher education. Sociology of Education, 47, 29-73.
18.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge. New York: Basic.
19.
Goodlad, J. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Gottlieb, D. (1961). Processes of socialization in American graduate schools. Social Forces, 40, 124-131.
21.
Gouldner, A. (1958). Cosmopolitans and locals: Toward an analysis of latent social roles—II. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 444-479.
22.
Griffiths, D. E. (1959). Research in Educational Administration. New York: Teachers College Press.
23.
Hallinger, P. , & Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of the empirical research, 1980-95. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1), 5-44.
24.
Heiss, A. M. (1970). Challenges to graduate schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
25.
Hogan, T. D. (1981). Faculty research activity and the quality of graduate training. Journal of Human Resources, 16, 400-415.
26.
Howe, K. R. (1992, February). Getting over the quantitative-qualitative debate. American Journal of Education, 236-256.
27.
Hunter, D. E. , & Kuh, G. D. (1987). The “Write Wing”: Characteristics of prolific contribu tors tothe higher education literature. Journal of Higher Education, 58, 443-462.
28.
Kennedy, D. (1997). Academic duty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
Kuh, G. D. , & McCarthy, M. M. (1980). Research orientation of doctoral students in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16, 101-121.
30.
Labaree, D. F. (1998). Educational researchers: Living with a lesser form of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 27(8), 4-12.
31.
Long, J. S. (1987). Productivity and academic positions in the scientific career. American Sociological Review, 43, 889-908.
32.
McCarthy, M. M. , & Kuh, G. D. (1997). Continuity and change: The educational leadership professoriate. Columbia, MO: University Council for Educational Administration.
33.
McCarthy, M. M. , Kuh, G. D., Newell, L. J., & Iacona, C. M. (1988). Under scrutiny: The educa-tional administration professoriate. Tempe, AZ: University Council for Educational Administration.
34.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: University of Chicago.
35.
Miller, L. , & Lieberman, A. (1988). School improvement in the United States: Nuance and num-bers. Qualitative Studies in Education, 1(1), 3-19.
36.
Newman, I. , & Benz, C. R. (1998). Qualitative-quantitative research methodology: Exploring the interactive continuum. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
37.
Owens, R. G. (1982). Methodological rigor in naturalistic inquiry: Some issues and answers. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 1-21.
38.
Pease, J. (1967). Faculty influence and professional participation of doctoral students. Sociological Inquiry, 37, 63-70.
39.
Reichardt, T. D. , & Cook, C. S. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 7-31). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40.
Reskin, B. (1977). Scientific productivity and the reward structure of science. American Sociological Review, 42, 491-504.
41.
Reskin, B. (1979). Academic sponsorship and scientists’ careers. Sociology of Education, 52, 126-146.
42.
Riehl, C. , Larson, C. L., Short, P. M., & Reitzug, U. C. (2000). Reconceptualizing research and scholarship in educational administration: Learning to know, know to do, doing to learn. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(3), 392-427.
43.
Salomon, G. (1991). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and sys-temic approaches to educational research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10-18.
44.
Schwebel, M. (1985). Research productivity of education faculty: A comparative study. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(4), 2-7.
45.
Shen, J. (1999). The school of education: Its mission, faculty, and reward structure. New York: Lang.
46.
Startup, R. , & Gruneberg, M. M. (1976). The rewards of research. New Universities Quarterly, 30, 227-238.
47.
Taylor, M. S. , Locke, E. A., Lee, C., & Gist, M. E. (1984). Type A behavior and faculty research productivity: What are the mechanisms?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 34, 402-418.
48.
Tyack, D. , & Hansot, E. (1982). Managers of virtue: Public school leadership in America, 1820-1980. New York: Basic.
49.
Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.
