Habits of Research Productivity
These insights are excerpted from Robert Boice's book The New Faculty Member (1992, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers). His research has something to contribute to all faculty who have interest in sustaining a productive research agenda.
Contradicting the stereotype that researchers are isolated and unconnected on their campuses, research indicates that faculty who find the greatest early success as productive researchers show balance among teaching, research and collegial networking. They also tend to show high student
ratings and spend as much time on networking as they do writing.
Because research is typically a private, self-mastered activity, and rarely discussed beyond its findings, it can be difficult for faculty to find solutions to the difficulties they encounter trying to balance an effective project agenda with the demands of teaching, service and life in general. The insights below address the realities of establishing a steady and productive research and writing plan.
Four Insights into Research Productivity
- Productivity is enhanced by "automaticity"—a lack of self-consciousness that improves fluency. Productive writers write with only casual awareness of the words they use, relying mostly on images rather than on carefully selected words. Those who are less productive
labor over each word and become their own disruptive background editor.
- Productivity has no magic source—it is more a result of hard work and borrowing than of inspiration. A regular, and moderate, schedule for research activity establishes a benchmark that can scold or encourage a struggling researcher according to their current level of activity.
- Productivity depends on effective cognitive strategies—fluent researchers develop problem-solving strategies for figuring out how to complete projects and manuscripts. Some talk aloud as they work at the writing parts of their projects. Others keep positive and specific
self-talk at the forefront—giving themselves realistic points of completion, for example, "I'll spend this one hour I have available finishing the table and its explanation," as contrasted to more negative cognition emphasizing perfectionism and impatience, "Why
even start—I can't finish the chapter in just an hour."
- Productivity in research depends on networking—there are habits and social skills that correspond to productivity and success. Colleagues can provide strategies for meeting the expectations of editors, coping with rejections in the review process, finding connections for
collaboration and preparing manuscripts with the audience in mind.
These insights reveal some of the ways productivity can be stifled. Researchers whose attempts to write manuscripts are self-conscious, with interference from an overactive self-editor often find themselves victims of "writer's block." When they work without regular discipline,
without the benefit of positive self-encouragement and without knowledge of how best to deal with the gatekeepers of publishing their productivity will almost certainly be restrained. These steps offer suggestions for sustaining a research agenda.
Nurturing Research Productivity: Getting Going and Keeping Going
Step 1: Establish ideas and momentum for research
Once under way, projects build their own momentum; the biggest difficulty for most faculty is getting started. The insights above tell us that a primary obstacle to momentum is self-consciousness. One of the most effective solutions for self-consciousness is simply beginning to write quickly without editing, effectively silencing your internal editor. Peter Elbow (1973) explains the free writing process: "The idea is simply to write for ten minutes—. Don't stop for anything. Go quickly without rushing. Never stop to look back, to cross ssomething out—to wonder what word or thought to use, or to think about what you are doing. If you can't think of a word or a spelling, just use a squiggle or else write 'I can't think of it." Just put down something" (p. 1).
Step 2: Establish a regimen
While free writing can get you started, it cannot assure regular writing, and it can (without adequate assessment) result in a false sense of productivity. Faculty often put off working on research projects because they believe that doing so will result in a better project because it will be done and written at some ideal time. However, the pressing matters of meeting classes each day, service responsibilities and family commitments create significant roadblocks to finding long, uninterrupted periods free for research activities.
The research literature (Boice 1989) indicates that as faculty we are trained, particularly in graduate school, to believe that, "the best research is done in big blocks of undisrupted time and only after the writer is fully prepared, highly motivated and in possession of a clever
idea. Done properly, [faculty believe] these 'binges' require substantial warm-up time. They believe the best times for writing are vacations and sabbaticals." The research shows that this "bingeing" point of view corresponds to low research productivity.
High productivity is found among faculty who view research as an activity deserving moderate priority, one that can be handled in brief daily sessions amid other, more pressing tasks. These faculty know that when a project is worked on every day, little or no warm-up time is needed; perfectionism is best reserved for final revisions, not in initial drafts; and that projects are
best undertaken as a leap of faith, because one never feels truly ready.
In fact, literature on research productivity shows that new faculty and others are far more productive when following a regimen of brief daily sessions than in a binge pattern. Research (Boice 1987) with new faculty shows that those who find only an hour per weekday to work on their
research generally manage to submit about 1.5 manuscripts per year, an output level consistent with the expectations of tenure and promotion committees on many campuses. Moreover, faculty who adopt the regimen of brief daily periods for research projects typically experience fewer feelings of stress at managing their time and lives.
Step 3: Establish comfort
Regimen is great, but works only to a point. It does increase productivity, but does nothing to increase comfort with research activity. Nearly two-thirds of faculty studied who experienced "writers' block" had negative attitudes about their progress (for example,
"This will probably be rejected"). Research and writing have become aversive to many of us because of the negative stressful expectations we create around it. Looming deadlines for post-tenure or promotion and tenure reviews connect stressful stimuli with the activity we
want to do. Positive attitudes toward the research process can be built through both self-management and collaboration with colleagues.
Step 4: Make writing a socially skilled act
It is important to seek out experienced colleagues who can share their expertise on how to cope with the editorial process and the inevitable disappointments of revisions and rejections. Sharing plans for your projects, as well as outlines and drafts for manuscripts makes writing less private. Early feedback both improves the quality of the work as well as providing experience in a
review and revision process that mirrors the editorial process. Welcome criticism—ask for it.
Additional References:
- Boice, R. 1987. Is released-time an effective device for faculty development? Research in Higher Education 26: 311-326.
- Boice, R. 1989. Procrastination, busyness, and bingeing. Behavior Research and Therapy 27: 605-611.
- Elbow, P. 1973. Writing Without Teachers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Back
|
