Submitted to: Commission on the Status of Women
Length: 3626 words
Gender, Scholarship and AEJMC:
How Well Are Women Doing? A Ten-Year Study
An earlier seven-year census of research accepted to the Convention of AEJMC
offered evidence that women--who represent about 28 percent of the
organization's membership--are out-producing men on a per capita basis. It
documented a slow and steady rise in the percentage of papers authored by women
from 1987 to 1993. But has this trend continued, or has it peaked? This present
study reports the percentage of papers produced by women through 1996, providing
a viewing of the current status of women as well as a 10-year perspective. It
also identifies research preferences by gender by using AEJMC divisions as
Findings from this study indicate that women have widened the per capita
productivity gap over men--in both AEJMC-refereed divisional paper competition
(now producing 40.9%, well above their numeric representation)and when all
blindly-reviewed papers (including commissions, interest groups and certain
committees) presented at convention are considered (43.5%). In recent years
(since 1993), women have produced 46.6 percent of divisional research and 47.9
percent of all refereed research presented at convention.
Additionally, this study provides evidence that progress has been made toward
meeting the spirit of the 1989 AEJMC resolution (which seeks 50 percent
representation by women in journalism and mass communication education).
Submitted to: Commission on the Status of Women
Length: 3626 words
Authors: Edward E. Adams, Angelo State University
John V. Bodle, Middle Tennessee State University
Gender, Scholarship and AEJMC:
How Well Are Women Doing? A Ten-Year Study
Send correspondence to:
John V. Bodle, Department of Journalism, Middle Tennessee State University,
P.O. Box 64, Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (615) 898-5871
Gender, Scholarship and AEJMC: How Well Are Women Doing? A Ten-Year Study
It was in 1989 that the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication (AEJMC) set as a goal 50 percent representation by women and
minorities on journalism and mass communication faculties and among
administrators by the year 2000. The organization itself reflected this
gender disparity. A census of its membership in 1992 by Viswanath, Kosicki and
Creedon revealed that women accounted for just 28 percent of AEJMC membership in
1992, up from the 24 percent reported in Schamber's 1988 study of the
While gender-based faculty employment ratios remain at odds with the near
balance in society, other areas reflect that women may be reaching a sustained
position of representative equality. Figures from the 1995-96 academic year
indicate that women now hold 50.68 percent of the divisional leadership
positions within AEJMC, up 4.17 percent from the preceding year. Also, while
women represent just 28 percent of the organization's membership (at the last
reported census), this minority produced nearly half the refereed research
presented at the Convention of AEJMC--with an average of 45.3 percent of the
blind-reviewed papers from 1991-1993.
But has this trend continued, or has it peaked? This present study reports the
percentage of papers produced by women through 1996, providing a viewing of the
current status of women as well as a 10-year perspective. It also identifies
research preferences by gender by using AEJMC divisions, commissions and
interest groups as categories.
Several studies have found that in recent years women have been producing
research at a per capita rate higher than men--despite certain institutional
disadvantages. Viswanath, Kosicki and Creed reported that a greater proportion
of men hold the doctorate or its equivalent, and that male faculty are more
likely to be supported through graduate assistants than are female faculty.
While their findings would suggest that scholarship by women is probably at a
percentage rate lower than their employment rate, several studies have indicated
this has not occurred.
Dupagne, Potter and Cooper determined in their study of eight communication
journals that scholarship by women (single-gender and in collaboration with men)
in 1989 accounted for 39.5 percent of the published research during a period
when females accounted for about 20 percent of journalism and mass communication
faculty. Similarly, Adams and Bodle documented a slow and steady rise in the
percentage of papers authored by women from 1987 to 1993 that were accepted to
the Convention of AEJMC--a time period when the organization's 28 percent female
membership accounted for nearly half of the refereed convention research.
Dupagne et al. offered no clear-cut explanation for their findings, and the
Adams et al. study could only suggest that women may find more success within
certain divisions, commissions and interest groups, or feel more encouraged to
submit their work there. This present study updates the Adams et al. work
through a quantitative assessment of scholarship productivity from 1994 to 1996,
allowing for a decade-long assessment. It also more fully compares gender
productivity rates between divisions, commissions and interest groups than the
earlier study, allowing for a determination as to which of these refereed arenas
accounts for these gender productivity differences. Additionally, by using
AEJMC's divisions as categories of research emphasis, this study is able to
determine scholarship preferences by gender. It also supplies a measure of
evidence as to whether progress continues to be made toward meeting the spirit
of the 1989 AEJMC Convention resolution, which seeks equal representation by
Additionally, since many journal articles are first submitted to academic
conventions, an increase or decrease in scholarship by women presenting to the
Convention of AEJMC is one indicator as to whether journals should expect an
increase or decrease in publishing by women. Editors of three primary AEJMC mass
communication journals --Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, Journalism &
Mass Communication Quarterly and Newspaper Research Journal-- all expressed the
belief that the acceptance of a research paper to the Annual Convention of AEJMC
is an indicator of the ability to eventually produce journal articles.
Beyond the work of Dupagne et al. and Adams et al., no study has been located
that reports whether scholarship by women in mass communication is increasing.
Hickson, Stacks and Amsbary reported the top female communication researchers in
nineteen journals in 1992, but they did not report whether the volume of
research produced by women was significantly more than in earlier years.
Cooper, Stewart and Friedley, in their examination of five national and three
regional communication journals from 1967 to 1986, found that women were
generally underrepresented in article authorship. But, as with the Hickson et
al. study, they did not include any mass communication journals in their pool of
Other researchers have ranked faculty research productivity among mass
communication scholars and institutions, but they have not indicated what
percentage of the scholarship was produced by women or whether their production
increased or decreased.  An analysis of six journals by Cole and Bowers
reported the most prolific producers of research notes and full articles on U.S.
journalism faculties from 1962 to 1971. No women were named.  Schweitzer
ranked the top-50 mass communication researchers from 1980 to 1985; five were
women, with the highest ranked tenth. In 1996, Atkin studied article
productivity in telecommunications research by rank, school, and author.
Although the study did not examine gender, it did emphasize the importance of
documenting research productivity, as declining higher education budgets place
greater pressure to justify budget allocations.
Vincent identified the most active researchers and institutions from 1984
through 1989, based on their publication of broadcast articles in fifteen
communications journals. But his study was limited to telecommunications
research, and he reported initials for first names, making it difficult to
delineate gender. From sixteen journals, Soley and Reid calculated the
publishing rates for graduate students, educators by rank, and by discipline
affiliation and publication segment, but their research was limited to articles
on advertising, and they did not report productivity by women.
As evidenced from this review of literature, few studies have determined or
ranked research productivity by gender or any other variable within journalism
and mass communication. But the practice is fairly common in other areas of
Barker, Hall, Roach and Underberg investigated the quantity of articles produced
in the communication discipline by institution from 1970-1978. Their study
essentially was a ranking of research productivity. They repeated the study in
1980, breaking it into a journal-by-journal and a year-by-year analysis. They
repeated the study a third time, analyzing institutions on the basis of the
highest degree conferred.
Burroughs, Christophel, Ady and McGreal determined the top-published authors in
communication studies from 1915 to 1985. Hickson, Stacks and Amsbary
replicated the Burroughs et al. procedures to rank the top producers of research
in speech communication during the same period. They also extended the study to
look at active prolific scholars in speech communication in an updated analysis
of that discipline from 1985-1990. Additionally, they extended the study to
measure research productivity among administrators in speech communication.
In 1991, Scott and Hickson analyzed prolific scholarship in mass communication
from 1924 through 1985. In 1992, Hickson, Scott, Stacks and Amsbary analyzed
scholarship in mass communication from 1915 - 1990, identifying those still
active in research, and ranking them. It should be noted that many of the
aforementioned studies on communication research omitted Newspaper Research
Journal, Journalism & Mass Communication Educator and other publications which
considered public relations and advertising because they were not listed in
Index to Journals in Communication Studies, 1985. The index was the primary
source for many of these cited studies.
Research within disciplines other than communication also have considered the
productivity of scholarship by gender.
Hypotheses and Rationale
It was hypothesized in this study that the trends of the recent past (1987 to
1993) would continue into the present years (1994-1996); that women would
continue to produce convention papers at a per capita rate higher than men (H1).
Similarly, the Adams and Bodle study determined that there were research
preferences by gender (using AEJMC's divisions as categories of research
emphasis ; see the Methods section). This present study hypothesized that these
gender preferences would continue to increase in a manner historically found
within each division (H2).
While previous research did report separately the number of refereed papers from
AEJMC divisions versus those refereed in non-divisional settings (interest
groups, commissions and designated committees), it did not quantitatively assess
percentage differences between these two, nor did it consider the steady
increase in the number of refereed opportunities within interest groups,
commissions and special committees. Based on the limited analysis and
speculations found in the Adams et al. study (and reported in the Literature
section of this study), it was hypothesized that a partial explanation for this
dramatic increase in scholarship productivity by women was related to a stronger
representation than men before non-divisional refereed paper sessions (H3).
This study is limited to an analysis of AEJMC convention papers for four
reasons. First, convention paper productivity by gender was one of five segments
of literature suggested by Dupagne et al. for testing the generalizability of
their findings. Second, since journal articles often cannot be categorized
cleanly by mass communication discipline (i.e., articles about advertising are
not definitively separated from public relations, etc.), a study of AEJMC
convention papers by division (listed in the Methods section) makes it possible
to identify and delineate specific disciplines in which women have gained
significantly greater representation in scholarship. (Since each author chooses
the division for submission, women are actually self-categorizing their research
into the discipline they believe best reflects their scholarship.) Third, Adams
and Bodle provided surprising confirmation of Dupagne's conclusion that women
are producing more scholarship than men on a per capita basis, and it is
important to determine whether what they found initially is continuing to occur.
Such an analysis of research productivity rates by gender and by interest area
will assist AEJMC members in assessing their progress toward equal
representation by women. Fourth, trends in convention paper production may
assist in predicting gender productivity rates for journal articles in coming
This study is a content analysis by authorship and research preference of all
refereed papers accepted to the Convention of AEJMC from 1994 to 1996.
Additionally, it serves as an update to the Adams and Bodle study which, using
identical procedures, documented the progress made by women from 1987 to
1993. Together, the two studies yield a decade of data on scholarship by
women, and this 10-year tracking is presented here. Variables include gender and
AEJMC division, thus making it possible to determine not only the overall
scholarship status of women within the organization but also to identify
representation levels with respect to each specific area of discipline. These
research preference categories were defined by the organization itself, using
its divisional structure: Advertising, Communication Technology & Policy,
Communication Theory & Methodology, Visual Communication, History, International
Communication, Magazine, Newspaper, Mass Communication & Society, Media
Management & Economics, Public Relations, Radio/Television, Scholastic (high
school) Journalism, Minorities, Law and Qualitative Studies. Additionally,
refereed papers were submitted to interest groups (Graduate Education, Lesbian,
Gay and Family Diversity, Mass Communication Bibliographers, SCI Group, and the
Status of Persons with Disabilities), standing committees (Professional Freedom
& Responsibility, Research and Teaching Standards) and commissions (Status of
Minorities and Status of Women). All were coded by gender. Results are reported
individually for each division and as a whole for the other groups.
The convention program for each of the 10 years considered served as the source
for this census of AEJMC refereed paper production since 1987. Simple
frequencies (percentages) tested the first hypothesis, which sought to determine
whether scholarship by gender continued to outpace membership percentages. Since
this content analysis includes the population of refereed papers to the
convention, the findings reflect the true picture of research productivity by
gender, eliminating the need for Chi Squares or other statistical tests.
Scholarship productivity by sex was determined by counting the papers produced
during the study period and noting the researcher's gender. Researchers were
given a measure of credit for each article based on the number of authors, in
concert with previous studies. Single-author studies received a "score" of
1.00, dual-author papers received half credit (.50) per author, papers with
three authors recorded one-third (.33), etc.
To determine whether women continue to produced refereed papers for the
Convention of AEJMC at a rate above their numeric representation, as
hypothesized (H1), refereed scholarship from 1994 to 1996 was compared to the
earlier seven-year data compiled by Adams and Bodle. This production is reported
by division in Table 1 for each year and as an average for the decade of study.
The annual totals reveal that in recent years women have widened the per capita
productivity gap over men--in both AEJMC-refereed divisional paper competition
as well as with blindly-reviewed papers accepted to commissions, interest groups
and committees. During the initial seven years, women produced 38.3 percent of
the scholarship accepted to divisions and 41 percent overall. During the most
recent three-year period, women have produced 46.6 percent of the divisional
scholarship (an 8.3% increase since 1993) and 47.9 percent overall (up 6.9%
since 1993). This census of refereed research indicates that what Adams and
Bodle found in their seven-year study is continuing and increasing: Over the
last decade, women have steadily increased their per capita scholarship rate,
producing 40.9 percent of the divisional blindly-refereed research and 43.5 of
all refereed papers presented at the annual convention of AEJMC.
Throughout the mid-1980s and mid-1990s, women have steadily accounted for a
greater share of the scholarship in 13 of the 16 divisions: Advertising
(producing 45% during the first seven years, 56.2% during the most recent three
years, for a 10-year average of 49.6%), Minorities & Communication (43.8%,
60.3%, 57% respectively), Public Relations (40.6%, 54.6%, 46.4%), Scholastic
Journalism (39.3%, 47.8%, 43.9%), Media Management & Economics (39.4%, 52.9%,
40.4%), Communication Theory and Methodology (37.6%, 42%, 40.2%), History
(37.4%, 41.6%, 39.9%), Mass Communication & Society (36.5%, 38.5%, 38.7%),
International Communication (29.6%, 45.2%, 38.1%), Newspaper (34.3%, 41.9%,
36.9%), Visual Communication (26.9%, 48%, 35.2%), Communication Technology &
Policy (31.1%, 39.3%, 32.3%), and Radio/Television Journalism (24.6%, 40%,
Scholarship by women declined in three divisions: Magazine (producing 62.6%
during the first seven years, 57.5% during the most recent three years, for a
10-year average of 62.1%), Qualitative (44.5%, 43.5%, 44% respectively), and Law
(40.5%, 33%, 36.6%). Even with these slight declines, women in these divisions
still produced at a per capita rate greater than men.
Despite the decline, the Magazine Division has for the last decade led all other
divisions in their ability to attract scholarship by women. That division (with
57.5%) was followed by Minorities (57%), Advertising (49.6%), Public Relations
(46.4%), Qualitative (44%), Scholastic (43.9%), Media Management & Economics
(40.4%), Communication Theory and Methodology (40.2%), History (39.9%), Mass
Communication & Society (38.7%), International (38.1%), Newspaper (36.9%), Law
(36.6%), Visual Communication (35.2%), Communication Technology & Policy
(32.3%), and Radio/TV Journalism (29.9%).
While the rate of gender preference and success differed by division, all
reported a percentage of scholarship for women higher than their numeric
representation in the organization, as hypothesized (H2).
Refereed papers accepted to commissions, interest groups and certain committees
represented 10.1 percent of all such scholarship presented at the Convention of
AEJMC from 1987 to 1993 and 12.7 percent from 1994 to 1996. This indicates that
the organization has increased its emphasis on non-divisional research by 2.6
percent since 1993 (based on its willingness to increase the number of refereed
papers from that arena). Non-divisional papers averaged 9.96 percent of total
refereed production during the 10-year period analyzed.
Women kept pace with this increased emphasis on non-divisional scholarship, but
in recent years their gains have been primarily from divisional paper
competition. During the first seven-year period, non-divisional scholarship was
responsible for increasing the percentage produced by women from 38.3 percent
(divisional total) to 41 percent--a 2.7 percent increase. However, during the
recent three-year period, scholarship went from 46.6 percent (divisional) to
47.9 percent (non-divisional)--a 1.3 percent increase. These figures indicate
that women are finding most of their scholarship success and gains within
divisional refereed paper competition, contrary to the hypothesis (H3). However,
women have authored an average of 67 percent of the non-divisional refereed
research over the 10-year period (which, as noted earlier, accounted for
9,96 percent of all organizational scholarship) and 56.8 percent of the
non-divisional research during the recent three-year period.
Conclusions and Implications
This census of refereed research presented to the Convention of AEJMC indicates
that women are not only continuing to out-produce men on a per capita basis but
that their advantage is increasing. Women, who represent about 28 percent of the
organization's membership, have in recent years been producing nearly half of
the refereed convention research. During the most recent three-year period
(since 1993), women have produced 46.6 percent of the divisional scholarship and
47.9 percent of all blindly refereed scholarship (including interest groups,
commissions and certain committees). Over the last decade, women produced 40.9
percent of the divisional blindly-refereed scholarship (up 2.6% since 1993) and
43.5 of all refereed papers presented at the annual convention of AEJMC (up 2.5%
But these gains have not come primarily from an emphasis on non-divisional
research. While women authored 62.3 percent of non-divisional research (interest
groups, commissions and special committees) during the decade considered here,
women still produced 40.9 percent of divisional productivity--well above their
28 percent numeric representation within the organization's membership. The
amount of non-divisional scholarship authored by women actually decreased during
the recent three-year period--to 56.7 percent--during a period when women
produced 46.6 percent of the divisional scholarship. Non-divisional refereed
research has accounted for 9.96 percent of all scholarship presented during the
decade considered here.
This study also contributes to the understanding of differences in research
preference by gender. By identifying paper acceptance rates by AEJMC division,
it was possible to determine areas of increasing scholarship by women and even
areas of dominance. Women now produce refereed research in all 16 divisions at a
rate higher than their numeric representation in the organization-- for the
first time for two divisions: Visual Communication and Radio/Television
Journalism. Women have had the most success or interest in the Magazine and
Minority divisions, were the majority of accepted papers were authored by women
during the last decade. They also showed strong representation in the
Advertising and Public Relations divisions.
It is unclear why women have this productivity advantage. How is it that women,
who have represented just over one-fourth of the membership of AEJMC in recent
years, produced nearly one-half of the blindly-refereed papers to the Annual
Convention of AEJMC? Dupagne et al. offered no clear-cut explanation when
arriving at a similar conclusion from their study of journal productivity,
nor could Adams et al. The authors of this study, too, cannot categorically
determine the reason or reasons. But the findings reported here, along with
evidence collected by earlier researchers, do point the direction for further
A thorough look into the dynamics of the Magazine Division of AEJMC may assist
in discovering why women produce more research than men. Manifest by its
pace-setting acceptance of scholarship by women throughout the study period,
answers may be found there as to why women find more success in that division,
or feel more encouraged to submit their work there. The greatest increase in
scholarship by women since 1993 was found in the divisions of Visual
Communication (up 21.1% over the 1987-1993 period) and Minorities &
Communication (up 16.5%). A historical look at these two divisions also may help
to explain why scholarship by women has continued to increase.
The percentage of convention papers produced by women increased nearly every
year during this 10-year study. This progressively stronger per capita showing
may relate to an increase in the percentage of women holding the rank of
assistant professor. Junior faculty members, with an inherent heightened
concern over fulfilling tenure and promotion requirements, may be more motivated
to produce convention papers. This explanation, however, is at odds with earlier
research. Schweitzer found that per capita research production by assistant
professors is not significantly higher than for other faculty ranks, but he
added that assistant professors produced more articles because there were more
faculty holding that rank.
Other factors also may add to an understanding of this high per capita rate of
production. These scholarship gains may be an indication that women are more
actively being recruited into top doctoral programs and thereby receiving better
research training. Also, some faculty hold the perception that women must work
harder than men of the same rank to meet the tenure and promotion criteria
created primarily by men.
It also must be considered that AEJMC has an agenda to encourage refereed papers
about groups identified as being historically disadvantaged. For instance,
there is no Commission on the Status of Men, while such an interest group does
exist for women. This organizational encouragement to all divisions for the
creation of paper sessions specifically in support of such topics as women,
minorities, disabled, and gay and lesbians could lead to a gender-based skewing
An identification of submission-to-acceptance ratios by gender and by division
also would assist in determining whether women submit more papers then men, or
whether women are more thorough in their research, or both.
It also seems that progress has been made toward meeting the spirit of the 1989
AEJMC resolution, which sought 50 percent representation by women in journalism
and mass communication. While the resolution calls for such equal representation
for minorities and women in faculty and administrative hiring -- an
organizational goal still unattained -- it appears that, at least in terms of
research productivity, a certain measure of progress has been gained.
See AEJMC 1989 Convention Resolution, the text of which is printed in
Journalism Educator 48 (Spring 1993): 78; also the President's Report in the
AEJMC News, March 1994.
 K. Viswanath, Gerald M. Kosicki and Pamela J. Creedon, see Women in Mass
Communication, edited by Creedon, as cited in the President's Report of the
AEJMC News, March 1994. The AEJMC organizational headquarters does not keep a
record of membership by gender and deletes the names of those who allow their
membership to expire (Richard J. Burke, AEJMC business manager, telephone
interview with author, February 1995).
 Linda Schamber, "Women in Mass Communication: Who is Teaching Tomorrow's
Communicators," ed. Pamela J. Creedon, Women in Mass Communication (Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1989): 148-159.
 AEJMC News, January 1997, pg. 11. No author cited.
 Edward E. Adams, and John V. Bodle, "Research Presented at Conventions: How
Well Are Women Doing," Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 50 (Summer
1995) 2: 14-22.
 Adams and Bodle, "Research Presented at Conventions," 14-22; and Michel
Dupagne, W. James Potter, and Roger Cooper, "A Content Analysis of Women's
Published Mass Communication Research, 1965-1989," Journalism Quarterly 70
(Winter 1993): 815-823.
 Viswanath et al., "Women in Mass Communication," 2.
 Dupagne, Potter, and Cooper, "A Content Analysis of Women's," 815-823. The
authors' percentage included 17.3 percent for female only authorship, and the
remaining 22.2 percent was shared authorship with males.
 David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit, "Profile of JMC Educators: Traits,
Attitudes and Values," Journalism Educator 43 (Summer 1988): 4-41.
 The Adams and Bodle study did report separately the number of refereed
papers from AEJMC divisions and those refereed in other settings (primarily
interest groups or commissions) and provided annual percentages by gender. It
did not, however, quantitatively assess percentage differences between these two
nor the steady increase in the number of refereed opportunities within interest
groups and commissions. Such an effort could have provided a partial explanation
as to the source of these scholarship gains for women.
 Telephone interviews with Journalism Educator editor James A. Crook (Oct.
26, 1993) and Journalism Quarterly editor Jean Folkerts (Oct. 27, 1993); fax
from Newspaper Research Journal editor Ralph Izard (Nov. 2, 1993). Izard added
that paper acceptance to AEJMC does not necessarily translate into automatic
journal acceptance. "More papers may be selected for convention presentation,
while the journals must set higher standards to accommodate both limited space
and the requirements of their audiences." Additionally, each journal has
differing needs, he said, which may preclude interest in a given conference
paper or require considerable rewriting to match the publication's audience.
 Mark Hickson, III, Don W. Stacks and Jonathan H. Amsbary, "Active Prolific
Female Scholars in Communication: An Analysis of Research Productivity,
Communication Quarterly, 40 (1992): 350-356.
 Pamela J. Cooper, Lea P. Stewart, and Sheryl A. Friedley, "Twenty Years of
Research By and About Women in Major Communication Journals: 1967-1986, "
Bulletin of the Association for Communication Administration," (January 1989):
 John C. Schweitzer, "Research Article Productivity by Mass Communication
Scholars," Journalism Quarterly 65(Summer 1988): 479-484. See also Robert D.
King and Stanley J. Baran, "An investigation of the Quantity of Articles
Produced in Mass Communication by Institutions: 1970-1979," Bulletin of the
Association for Communication Administration," 37 (August 1981): 40-48.
 Richard R. Cole and Thomas A. Bowers, "Research Article Productivity of
U.S. Journalism Faculties," Journalism Quarterly 50 (Summer 1973): 246-254.
 John C. Schweitzer, "Research Article Productivity by Mass Communication
Scholars," Journalism Quarterly 65 (Summer 1988): 479-484. He reported that 86
percent of journal articles found in the nine primary mass communication
journals were produced by those holding the rank of assistant professor or
higher. He did not stratify the remaining 14 percent, indicating only that this
was the combined product of Ph.D. candidates, instructors, and authors who could
not be identified.
 David Atkin, "Telecommunications Research Article Productivity in the
U.S.: 1985-1993, Journal of the Association of Communication Administration
(January 1996): 1-11.
 Richard C. Vincent, "Telecommunications Research Productivity of U.S.
Communication Programs: 1984-1989," Journalism Quarterly 61 (Winter 1991):
 Soley and Reid, "Advertising Article Productivity," 464-469, 542.
 L. Barker, R. Hall, D. Roach, and L. Underberg, "An Investigation of the
Quantity of Articles Produced in the Communication Discipline by Institution:
1970 - 1978," Association for Communication Administration Bulletin 30 (1979):
8-22. See also L. Barker, R. Hall, D. Roach, and L. Underberg, "An Investigation
of Articles Produced in the Communication Discipline by Institution: A
Journal-by-Journal, Year-By-Year Analysis, Association for Communication
Administration Bulletin 34 (1980): 37-48; L. Barker, R. Hall, D. Roach, and L.
Underberg, "An Analysis on the Basis of Highest Degree Conferred," Association
for Communication Administration Bulletin 37 (1981): 34-39.
 N.F. Burroughs, D. Cristophel, J. C. Ady, E.A. McGreal, "Top published
Authors in Communication Studies: 1915 - 1985," Association for Communication
Administration Bulletin 67 (1989): 37-45.
 M. Hickson, D. W. Stacks, and J. H. Amsbary, "An Analysis of Prolific
Scholarship in Speech Communication, 1915-1985," Communication Education 38
(1989): 230-236. See also M. Hickson, D. W. Stacks, and J. H. Amsbary,"
Administrator-Scholars in Speech Communication: An Analysis of Research
Productivity," Association for Communication Administration Bulletin 79 (1992):
66-74; M. Hickson, D. W. Stacks, and J. H. Amsbary, "Active Prolific Scholars in
Speech Communication: An Analysis of Research Productivity," Communication
Education 79 (in press): 66-74.
 R.K. Scott and M. Hickson, "Prolific Scholarship in Mass Communication:
1924-1985," Association for Communication Administration Bulletin 75 (1991):
 M. Hickson, R.K. Scott, D.W. Stacks and J. H. Amsbary, "Scholarship in
Mass Communication, 1915 - 1990: An Analysis of Active Researchers'
Productivity," The Association for Communication Administration Bulletin, 82
 See Van W. Kolpin and Larry D. Singell, Jr., "The Gender Composition and
Scholarly Performance of Economics Departments: A Test for Employment
Discrimination," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 49 (April 1996)3:
408-23; and Michael T. Nettles and Laura W. Perna, "Sex and Race Differences in
Faculty Salaries, Tenure, Rank and Productivity: Why, on Average, Do Women,
African Americans, and Hispanics Have Lower Salaries, Tenure and Rank?",
presented paper, ASHE Annual Meeting, a National Study of Postsecondary Faculty,
ERIC NO. ED391402. Koplin and Singel, using data gathered from university
economic departments, found that research output by women in the 1970s was
greater than that by men at comparable institutions. Nettles and Perna found
after controlling for race, education, experience, instructional and research
activities, postsecondary faculty women had higher levels of "career
productivity" standardized by teaching field than men.
 Adams and Bodle, "Research Presented at Conventions," 14-22.
 Determining scholarship by gender is important to the organization for at
least three reasons. First, barriers faced by women in their pursuit of tenure
and promotion must be identified and discussed if they are ever to occupy half
of the journalism and mass communication faculty positions nationally. Second, a
glimpse back over the last seven years of AEJMC convention productivity provides
a quantitative hint as to whether women are gaining in their ability to meet
these scholarship requirements. Third, by allowing the organizational divisions
to serve as categories, it becomes possible to determine the extent to which
women are making research contributions and gaining expertise in specific areas
of journalism and mass communication. (See Viswanath et al. and also Dupagne et
 No consistent period of study was found in the literature to guide this
study. Cole and Bowers considered a ten-year period while Schweitzer analyzed
six. The seven-year period here reflects the most recent years of AEJMC
convention production and the availability of the annual convention program.
 Vincent, "Telecommunication Research Productivity," 840-851. This method
of quantification and support for these procedures is discussed by Vincent. He
provides many citations from the literature. Also see Bradley S. Greenberg and
John C. Schweitzer, "Mass Communication Scholars' Revisited and Revised,"
Journalism Quarterly 66(Summer 1989): 473-475; Cole and Bowers, "Research
Article Productivity," 246-254; and Schweitzer, "Productivity by Mass
Communication Scholars," 479-484. Dupagne et al. did not report percentages of
authorship by gender; rather they placed published work into one of three
categories: male only, male/female, and female only. Since some articles within
their male/female category presumably had more than two authors, their method
made it impossible to compare specific percentages by gender with those found in
 See Viswanath et al., "Women in Mass Communication," 2.
 As noted in Table 1 under the 10-year average, women produced 40.9 percent
of divisional scholarship, or 1297.35 divisional papers. (Note that authorship
was proportioned; see Methods section.) They also produced 43.5 percent of all
scholarship, or 1,532.5 papers. The difference between these two figures (235.2
papers) is the number of non-divisional papers authored by women. When that
figure is divided by the number of papers accepted in non-divisional competition
during the 10-year period (351 papers), the product indicates that 67 percent of
all non-divisional scholarship came from women. The same procedures were used to
determine the recent three-year period percentage.
 Dupagne, Potter, and Cooper, "A Content Analysis of Women's Published,"
815-823. The authors said that female research productivity is "linked to their
low numbers in the profession, not to a condition of underachievement. To the
contrary, our data would suggest that females are proportionately more
productive than males."
 Adams and Bodle, "Research Presented at Conventions," 14-22.
 Schweitzer, "Research Article Productivity," 484. The author reported that
(of those publishing any articles during the six-year period considered)
assistant professors produced 1.36 articles, associate professors, 1.20; and
full professors, 1.32. As discussed in the text, assistant professors produced
more articles because there were more faculty holding that rank. "Taken in this
light, " wrote Schweitzer, "the productivity of journal articles by academic
rank is nearly equal."