Your search found 5688 results.

Descriptors:
Public Agencies; Public Policy; Scientific Research; Periodicals; Access to Information; Federal Aid; Federal Government; Publishing Industry

Abstract:
The National Science Foundation (NSF), in carrying out the Obama administration's new push for greater public access to research published in scientific journals, will consider exclusivity periods shorter than the 12-month standard in the White House directive, as well as trade-offs involving data-sharing and considerations of publishers' financial sustainability. The administration's directive, announced on Friday after two years of deliberation, asks agencies that sponsor research to impose a 12-month upper limit on how long journals can hold subscription-only rights to articles describing research that was financed with federal funds. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) adopted such a requirement almost five years ago, and now all other federal agencies that spend at least $100-million a year on research and development are being given six months to draft a similar policy. The NIH announced this past November that it would soon begin enforcement by blocking the renewal of grant awards in cases where journal publications arising from the awards do not comply with its open-access rule. The NSF, the largest provider of federal money for basic scientific research after the NIH, will very likely follow the NIH in setting a 12-month period of exclusivity as its general rule. The White House science adviser, John P. Holdren, in announcing the new policy on Friday, described an expansion of public access to federally financed research as important to economic growth. Scientific research supported by the federal government spurs scientific breakthroughs and economic advances when research results are made available to innovators. Demands for open-access research have generated years of heated debate involving publishers, universities, researchers, and various advocacy groups. The NIH instituted its 12-month policy in April 2008, but only after strenuous objections from private publishing companies that fought back against an original proposal for six months. Congress has refused to pass a government-wide mandate, despite several years of attempts by some lawmakers. And only a year ago, the Obama administration appeared to have given up on the idea, after a year of studying the question. In the end, the plan outlined by Mr. Holdren does "a very good job of balancing interests" of libraries, universities, researchers, and publishers. Industry representatives appeared to agree. In a statement issued Friday, the Association of American Publishers said the new policy "outlines a reasonable, balanced resolution of issues around public access to research funded by federal agencies." Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Reputation; Institutional Characteristics; Periodicals; Educational Quality; Teacher Attitudes; College Applicants; College Choice; College Faculty; Foreign Countries; Economics

Abstract:
This paper estimates the effect that the league table published in the Sunday Times University Guide has on perceptions of the quality of universities by head teachers and academics, and on Home, EU and Overseas student applications, using data from 2005 to 2009 and a System GMM model for dynamic panel data. Our main result is that university rankings influence the perceptions of head teachers and academics, but have no statistically significant impact on student applications. There is evidence of persistence in perceptions and applications, suggesting the importance of reputational factors. Perceptions of head teachers and academics of pre-92 and post-92 universities are influenced by different criteria. (Contains 7 tables and 9 notes.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Pathology; Grief; Attachment Behavior; Patients; Innovation; Cooperation; Surveys; Periodicals; Symptoms (Individual Disorders); Psychotherapy

Abstract:
In the last few decades, grief and loss research in the psychological domain has focused almost exclusively on its dysfunctional nature. I examine what is underneath these questions about pathology and suggest that our discipline is suffering from an attachment wound where we have dissociated from our historical roots when it comes to the study of grief and loss. I argue that we need to ask new questions about grief and loss and present two examples of my collaborative work to illustrate innovative ways of thinking about and researching grief. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Psychometrics; Intellectual Disciplines; Periodicals; Statistics; Researchers; Role

Abstract:
In this paper, I will review some aspects of psychometric projects that I have been involved in, emphasizing the nature of the work of the psychometricians involved, especially the balance between the statistical and scientific elements of that work. The intent is to seek to understand where psychometrics, as a discipline, has been and where it might be headed, in part at least, by considering one particular journey (my own). In contemplating this, I also look to psychometrics journals to see how psychometricians represent themselves to themselves, and in a complementary way, look to substantive journals to see how psychometrics is represented there (or perhaps, not represented, as the case may be). I present a series of questions in order to consider the issue of what are the appropriate foci of the psychometric discipline. As an example, I present one recent project at the end, where the roles of the psychometricians and the substantive researchers have had to become intertwined in order to make satisfactory progress. In the conclusion I discuss the consequences of such a view for the future of psychometrics. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Social Work; Models; Epistemology; Educational Research; Qualitative Research; Journal Articles; Periodicals; Caseworkers; Power Structure

Abstract:
This study explores the epistemological foundations of qualitative social work research. A template-based review was completed on 100 articles from social work journals. Reviewers examined five things: (1) the purpose or aims of the research, (2) the rationale or justification for the work, (3) the populations studied, (4) the presence of four epistemological markers (addressing theory, paradigm, reflexivity, and power dynamics), and (5) the implications presented. Results underscore the exploratory nature of qualitative social work research; authors were most likely to use the word "explore" and least likely to use the term "understand" to describe their aims. The most common rationale given for the research was a gap in the literature (77%), followed by the severity or extent of the problem (50%). Authors emphasized the perspectives of respondents, who were most likely to be social work practitioners (39%) or clients (28%). Among the epistemological markers examined, authors were most likely to mention use of theory (55%) and a research paradigm (51%) and least likely to apply reflexivity (16%) or acknowledge power dynamics inherent in research (7%). Finally, authors were most likely to identify practice implications in their work (90%), followed by research (60%), theory (38%), and policy (29%). Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Speech Language Pathology; Allied Health Personnel; Genetics; Knowledge Level; Self Esteem; Attitudes; Genetic Disorders; Communication Disorders; Information Sources; Work Experience; On the Job Training; Independent Study; Newspapers; Periodicals; Client Characteristics (Human Services); Children

Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to determine (a) the general knowledge bases demonstrated by school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the area of genetics, (b) the confidence levels of SLPs in providing services to children and their families with genetic disorders/syndromes, (c) the attitudes of SLPs regarding genetics and communication disorders, (d) the primary sources used by SLPs to learn about genetic disorders/syndromes, and (e) the association between general knowledge, confidence, attitudes, the number of years of experience working as an SLP, and the number of children currently provided services with genetic disorders/syndromes on SLPs' caseloads. Survey data from a nationwide sample of 533 SLPs was analyzed. Results showed SLPs earned a median knowledge score about genetics of 66% correct responses. Their mean confidence and attitude ratings were in the "unsure" categories while they reported they learned about genetics from three main sources, (a) self-study via web and internet-based searches, (b) on-the-job training and (c) popular press magazines and newspapers. Analyses revealed that Confidence summary scores, Attitude Summary scores, the number of children with genetic disorders/syndromes on SLPs' caseloads are positively associated with the ratings of participants with the highest Knowledge scores. Learning outcomes: Readers will be able to (a) explain the important links between developmental and communication disabilities and genetics, (b) describe the associations between knowledge about genetics and confidence, attitudes, and the number of children with genetic disorders/syndromes on their caseloads, and (c) outline the clinical and theoretical implications of the results from this study. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Writing for Publication; Special Education; Guidelines; Periodicals; Peer Evaluation; Evaluation Methods

Abstract:
The evidence-based practice movement in special education has emphasized the use of the scientific process to assist with the identification of effective academic and behavioral strategies. An important but often overlooked aspect of this system is the peer review process in which manuscripts submitted for publication are reviewed by experts to ensure that the most significant and accurate information is being disseminated. The purpose of this systematic review was to describe the prevalence and content of guidelines developed to assist peer reviewers when conducting manuscript evaluations. Results demonstrated that peer review guidelines are commonly used in special education with many referring to similar aspects of submitted manuscripts. Despite these commonalities, however, there was considerable variability observed across guidelines regarding the specific criteria used to assess these common manuscript features. Findings are discussed within the context of the strengths and limitations of the peer review process with recommendations provided to foster a stronger community of researchers and practitioners. (Contains 1 table.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Productivity; Higher Education; Evaluation Criteria; Governance; Foreign Countries; Humanities; Global Approach; Competition; Reputation; Benchmarking; Educational Trends; College Faculty; Research; Faculty Publishing; Institutional Evaluation; Educational Policy; Financial Support; Periodicals; Citations (References); Social Sciences; Statistical Analysis; Academic Achievement; Excellence in Education; Student Recruitment

Abstract:
The increasing importance of the competition in global university ranking has resulted in a paradigm shift in academic governance in East Asia. Many governments have introduced different strategies for benchmarking their leading universities to facilitate global competitiveness and international visibility. A major trend in the changing university governance is the emergence of a regulatory evaluation scheme for faculty research productivity, reflected by the striking features of the recent changing academic profile of publication norms and forms that go beyond the territories of nation-states in the East and West. With the expansion of the Taiwanese higher education system in the last two decades, the maintenance of quality to meet the requirements for international competitiveness has become a key concern for policy makers. Since 2005, the Ministry of Education has introduced a series of university governance policies to enhance academic excellence in universities and established a formal university evaluation policy to improve the competitiveness and international visibility of Taiwanese universities. In so doing, the government has legalized a clear link between evaluation results and public funding allocation. Research performance is assessed in terms of the number of articles published in journals indexed by the Science Citation Index (SCI), the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), and the Arts and Humanities Citation Index and in terms of citation rates and associated factors. Therefore, evaluation has taken on a highly quantitative dimension. Despite the efforts of concerned parties to encourage academic excellence, the above-mentioned quantitative evaluation indicators have resulted in bitter complaints from the humanities and social sciences, whose research accomplishments are devalued and ignored by the current quantitative indicators. In this paper, the authors describe the recent petition for collective action initiated by university faculty to protest the privileging of SSCI and SCI publications as critical indicators for academic performance regardless of faculty discipline and specialization. The article concludes its argument with a group petition calling for more diverse and reliable indicators in recognizing the research of different natures and disciplines while creating culturally responsive evaluation criteria for social sciences and humanities in the Taiwanese academe. The article not only sheds light on academic evaluation literature, especially on the uncertain paradox of globalization and market economy, but also proposes alternatives to the evaluation system for humanities and social sciences in higher education. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Research Methodology; Counseling Techniques; Values; Periodicals; Journal Articles; Statistical Analysis; Authors; Gender Differences; Employment; Trend Analysis; College Faculty; Research Reports; Sample Size; Intervention

Abstract:
The authors reviewed publication patterns for articles published from 1990 to 2009 in the journal "Counseling and Values". Article content and author demographic characteristics (i.e., sex of authors, nation of domicile, employment setting of authors, frequently contributing individuals and universities) were analyzed by 5-year periods for trends over time. Specific attention was given to periodic changes in characteristics of research articles, including types of research designs, quantitative/qualitative approach, participant types, random assignment, sample size, intervention/nonintervention focus, and statistical procedures used. (Contains 4 tables.) Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website

Descriptors:
Emergent Literacy; Toddlers; Educational Research; Periodicals; Journal Articles; Trend Analysis

Abstract:
The paper examines publication trends in the United States regarding literacy development in toddlerhood from 1990 to 2009, exploring what features or elements of toddlers' literacy development have been documented, and how they have been documented, over the last 20 years, to indicate areas for further exploration. Articles were carefully selected with predetermined exclusion criteria within five chosen databases that cover professional and scholarly peer-reviewed journals in a variety of areas in education. The selected articles then were analyzed and categorized with predefined categories: publication year, type of article, participants, methodology, research setting, and purpose(s) of study. Note:The following two links are not-applicable for text-based browsers or screen-reading software. Show Hide Full Abstract

Related Items: Show Related Items

Full-Text Availability Options:

More Info:
Help | Tutorial Help Finding Full Text |  More Info:
Help Find in a Library |  Publisher's website