Search

Culture is a key determinant of children's development both in its own right and as a measure of generalizability of developmental phenomena. Studying the role of culture in development requires information about participants' demographic backgrounds. However, both reporting and treatment of demographic data are limited and inconsistent in child development research. A barrier to reporting demographic data in a consistent fashion is that no standardized tool currently exists to collect these data. Variation in cultural expectations, family structures, and life circumstances across communities make the creation of a unifying instrument challenging. Here, we present a framework to standardize demographic reporting for early child development (birth to 3 years of age), focusing on six core sociodemographic construct categories: biological information, gestational status, health status, community of descent, caregiving environment, and socioeconomic status. For each category, we discuss potential constructs and measurement items and provide guidance for their use and adaptation to diverse contexts. These items are stored in an open repository of context-adapted questionnaires that provide a consistent approach to obtaining and reporting demographic information so that these data can be archived and shared in a more standardized format.

Although there has been forward movement in identifying and addressing diverse learning needs, social justice education is not a significant part of the current standards for beginning teachers or K-12 students in the U.S. Throughout our standards-based history, social justice has been more of a hidden curriculum. To attain the 50 Million Strong by 2029 goal, it is vital to acknowledge that physical education is a social justice issue. Without consideration of the historical, political, and social contexts that permeate and frame physical education, along with the social identities and lived experiences of our future teachers and students, it is unlikely that this goal will be sustained. While concerns have been voiced relative to the standards-based teaching movement, in a country that espouses standards-based education, a first step in moving any educational reform forward is to formalize its inclusion in the national standards that serve to guide our discipline. A philosophical shift may be what is needed for change to occur regarding social justice education in an attempt to enhance the learning opportunities for all students. A forward step in creating this change is to address the research and pedagogical practices of our current physical education teacher education and K-12 programs, along with the physical education standards and policies at the national and state levels. We specifically articulate connections between social justice education and four key, interconnected research areas related to (a) occupational socialization, (b) curriculum, instruction, and assessment, (c) technology, and (d) professional development.

The aim of this research was to set a proposed strategy for achieving institutional integrity in the University of Ha'il (UoH), Saudi Arabia, in the light of the National Centre of Assessment and Academic Accreditation (NCAAA) Standards. This was accomplished through acknowledging theoretical and philosophical frameworks of institutional integrity and their obstacles in university educational institutions and displaying the institutional standards of the National Centre of Assessment and Academic Accreditation. This research depended on the descriptive method and employed the (SWOT) Analysis to examine the status of UoH. The research confirmed that UoH implemented policies to support institutional values and research integrity. Furthermore, the university has employed mechanisms and procedures for institutional values and mentorships and has a declared policy for disclosure of information and access of necessary information to all beneficiaries. The university needs to set some mechanisms in place to ensure fairness and equality in performance assessments or to implement integrity standards in processes of employment and recruitment.

Background: A review of research priorities completed by WHO technical units was undertaken. Results of the mapping were recorded in a database that was used to generate analysis and compare research priorities and the different methodological approaches used in their development., Methods: A total of 116 documents were reviewed for this study. The documents were published between 2002 and 2017 by the technical programmes of WHO headquarters and deposited in the institutional repository, IRIS. Research priorities were extracted from documents into a standard template and mapped to a five-category research cycle type framework defined in the WHO Strategy on Research for Health covering research to describe the research problem, identifying the cause and risk factors, developing solutions and new interventions, understanding the barriers to implementation, and evaluation of the impact of response. Details of the research priority methods were recorded. A database with user interface was created using Microsoft Excel 2010., Results: A total of 2145 research priorities were extracted from the 116 documents meeting the inclusion criteria. The priorities specifically address 73 diseases/health topics. The document types were 26% Report, 22% WHO Guideline, 26% Research Prioritisation publication and 11% Meeting Notes. The most widely reported method used to identify priorities was expert consultation. Expert consultation was used to identify 86% of the priorities categorised here, with 26% (561) reporting it as the sole method; 52% (1111) explicitly listed a literature review as contributing to the identification of priorities. When the 2145 priorities were categorised across the research cycle framework, the largest portion (43%) addressed implementation challenges. The database is published here under an open access licence., Conclusion: Comparing research priorities between diseases/health topics requires standardisation and the research cycle type framework is one approach that can be applied across all the health topics found in public health. There is great variation in the use of research priority-setting methodology at WHO Headquarters. Therefore, a standard reporting approach, linked to established good practice, should be an area for future development by the WHO Global Health R&D Observatory. The database reported here can also be used to quickly access and analyse the research priorities for a specific health topic or to compare across a range of health topics.

This descriptive study aimed to answer two research questions: (a) what are the assessment, evaluation, and research (AER) competencies necessary for three educator types (teachers, K-12 administrators, and higher education student affairs professionals); and (b) what are the similarities and differences in competencies by educator type? Current professional standards for each educator type were identified and coded for alignment with AER topics, then reviewed for similarities and differences. Results suggest that teacher competency standards focus heavily on assessment; administrator competencies focus on ethical decision making and continuous improvement; and student affairs professional standards focus on advocacy and supporting institutional mission. These results imply that education preparation programs may need to adjust AER course curriculum and instruction to align with distinct educator needs.

Educational practitioners are often reluctant, if not actively resistant, to their participation in production and consumption of educational research. Based on my research experience with educational practitioners, I try to deconstruct this phenomenon using dialogic Bakhtinian and Aristotelian sociocultural frameworks. I consider two major related breakdowns in the educational practice: 1) a lack of self-correcting process in the educational practice, while reliance on accountability policy to achieve the practice quality, and 2) a breakdown between educational research and educational practice. I argue that the first breakdown is caused by viewing teaching as poiesis, aiming at preset curricular endpoints, and not as praxis, critically defining its own values, goals, and virtues. As to the second breakdown, I argue that current mainstream and even innovative research is defined through the technê and epistêmê ways of knowing, which correspond to a poiesic vision of educational practice. I suggest that educational practice primarily involves the phronêtic and sophic ways of knowing, which correspond to a praxis vision of educational practice. I describe phronêtic research of teaching through a case of my students, preservice teachers, working on revisions of their lessons that they conducted at an urban afterschool program. Finally, I consider recommendations for institutional support for phronêtic research on teaching.

The primary purpose of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) is to protect the rights and welfare of human research participants. Evaluation and measurement of how IRBs satisfy this purpose and other important goals are open questions that demand empirical research. Research on IRBs, and the Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs) of which they are often a part, is necessary to inform evidence-based practices, policies, and approaches to quality improvement in human research protections. However, to date, HRPP and IRB engagement in empirical research about their own activities and performance has been limited. To promote engagement of HRPPs and IRBs in self-reflective research on HRPP and IRB quality and effectiveness, barriers to their participation need to be addressed. These include: extensive workloads, limited information technology systems, and few universally accepted or consistently measured metrics for HRPP/IRB quality and effectiveness. Additionally, institutional leaders may have concerns about confidentiality. Professional norms around the value of participating in this type of research are lacking. Lastly, obtaining external funding for research on IRBs and HRPPs is challenging. As a group of HRPP professionals and researchers actively involved in a research consortium focused on IRB quality and effectiveness, we identify potential levers for supporting and encouraging HRPP and IRB engagement in research on quality and effectiveness. We maintain that this research should be informed by the core principles of patient- and community-engaged research, in which members and key stakeholders of the community to be studied are included as key informants and members of the research team. This ensures that relevant questions are asked and that data are interpreted to produce meaningful recommendations. As such, we offer several ways to increase the participation of HRPP professionals in research as participants, as data sharers, and as investigators.

Background: In the era of evidenced based healthcare, nursing is required to demonstrate that care provided by nurses is associated with optimal patient outcomes, and a high degree of quality and safety. The use of standardized nursing terminologies and classification systems are a way that nursing documentation can be leveraged to generate evidence related to nursing practice. Several widely-reported nursing specific terminologies and classifications systems currently exist including the Clinical Care Classification System, International Classification for Nursing Practice(®), Nursing Intervention Classification, Nursing Outcome Classification, Omaha System, Perioperative Nursing Data Set and NANDA International. However, the influence of these systems on demonstrating the value of nursing and the professions' impact on quality, safety and patient outcomes in published research is relatively unknown., Purpose: This paper seeks to understand the use of standardized nursing terminology and classification systems in published research, using the International Classification for Nursing Practice(®) as a case study., Methods: A systematic review of international published empirical studies on, or using, the International Classification for Nursing Practice(®) were completed using Medline and the Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature., Results: Since 2006, 38 studies have been published on the International Classification for Nursing Practice(®). The main objectives of the published studies have been to validate the appropriateness of the classification system for particular care areas or populations, further develop the classification system, or utilize it to support the generation of new nursing knowledge. To date, most studies have focused on the classification system itself, and a lesser number of studies have used the system to generate information about the outcomes of nursing practice., Conclusions: Based on the published literature that features the International Classification for Nursing Practice, standardized nursing terminology and classification systems appear to be well developed for various populations, settings and to harmonize with other health-related terminology systems. However, the use of the systems to generate new nursing knowledge, and to validate nursing practice is still in its infancy. There is an opportunity now to utilize the well-developed systems in their current state to further what is know about nursing practice, and how best to demonstrate improvements in patient outcomes through nursing care., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

As concern about anthropogenic noise and its impacts on marine fauna is increasing around the globe, data are being compared across populations, species, noise sources, geographic regions, and time. However, much of the raw and processed data are not comparable due to differences in measurement methodology, analysis and reporting, and a lack of metadata. Common protocols and more formal, international standards are needed to ensure the effectiveness of research, conservation, regulation and practice, and unambiguous communication of information and ideas. Developing standards takes time and effort, is largely driven by a few expert volunteers, and would benefit from stakeholders' contribution and support.

Research-oriented universities are known for prolific research activity that is often supported by students in faculty-guided research. To maintain ethical standards, universities require on-going training of both faculty and students to ensure Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). However, previous research has indicated RCR-based training is insufficient to address the ethical dilemmas that are prevalent within academic settings: navigating issues of authorship, modeling relationships between faculty and students, minimization of risk, and adequate informed consent. U.S. universities must explore ways to identify and improve RCR concerns for current (faculty) and future researchers (students). This article reports the findings of a self-study (N = 50) of research stakeholders (students and faculty) at a top tier research institution. First, we report on their perceived importance of applying RCR principles. Second, we explore relationships between stakeholder backgrounds (e.g., prior training, field, and position) and how they ranked the degree of ethical concerns in fictitious vignettes that presented different unethical issues university students could encounter when conducting research. Vignette rankings suggested concerns of inappropriate relationships, predatory authorship and IRB violations which were judged as most unethical, which was dissimilar to what sampled researchers reported in practice as the most important RCR elements to understand and adhere to for successful research. Regression models indicated there was no significant relationship between individuals' vignette ethics scores and backgrounds, affirming previous literature suggesting that training can be ineffectual in shifting researcher judgments of ethical dilemmas. Recommendations for training are discussed.

U.S. federal regulations and standards governing the care and use of research animals enacted in the mid- to late 1980s, while having positive effects on the welfare and quality of the animals, have resulted in dramatic increases in overall research costs. In addition to the expenses of housing and caring for animals according to the standards, establishing the requisite internal compliance bureaucracies has markedly driven up costs, in both institutional monetary expenditures and lost research effort. However, many institutions are increasing these costs even further through additional self-imposed regulatory burden, typically characterized by overly complex compliance organizations and unnecessary policies and procedures. We discuss the sources of this self-imposed burden and recommend strategies for avoiding it while preserving an appropriate focus on animal well-being and research success., (© FASEB.)

Neoliberalism is invariably presented as a governing regime of market and competition-based systems rather than as a set of migratory practices that are re-setting the ethical standards of the academy. This article seeks to explore the way in which neoliberalism is shifting the prevailing values of the academy by drawing on two illustrations: the death of disinterestedness and the obfuscation of authorship. While there was never a golden age when norms such as disinterestedness were universally practiced they represented widely accepted aesthetic ideals associated with academic life. By contrast, neoliberal academics embrace a new set of assumptions and norms that stand in sharp relief to many of the values that were previously espoused. Practices that might have been regarded as ethically dubious by earlier generations of academics, such as grantsmanship, self-justificatory expressions of interestedness and tangential claims to authorship, are now regarded as legitimate and positive virtues in a more aggressive age of hyper-performativity.

The aim of this study was to provide an international panoramic of fair play and sporting competition; identifying, categorising and analysing the scientific articles about this topic. Using a systematic search in the Scopus and Web of Science databases, relevant studies were identified that met previously established inclusion criteria. The guidelines laid out in the PRISMA Statement were followed in order to ensure the quality of the review process. The search yielded 367 published articles, from which articles whose content was not related to sporting competition and fair play were eliminated. The final sample was 163 articles. The articles were and classified according to their thematic categories. The process of categorisation was carried out following in-depth reading of each article, through an inductive procedure. Analyses were initially carried out by two researchers, with a third researcher resolving any disagreements. Articles are grouped according to three main research topics: the theoretical-philosophical conceptualisation of fair play (13.49%), fair play in relation to equal opportunities (36.81%) and fair play from a psychosocial perspective (49.69%). The theoretical-philosophical conceptualisation of fair play highlights that there is no univocal way of understanding this concept. In relation to fair play and equal opportunities, two lines of research are identified. The first is related with rule breaking and financial inequality of sports clubs and, the second is linked to inequality in classification systems (for questions of gender, diversity and the planning of competition schedules). With respect to the consideration of fair play from a psychosocial perspective, examination of goal orientation, motivational climate and intrinsic motivation relating to sportspersonship, stands out. Studies were also identified that were related to sociodemographic aspects of sportspersonship, sportspersonship measurement scales and the analysis of sportspersonship interventions. The present review reveals that the role of fair play extends beyond the field of play.

Academics have always been endowed with the privilege of autonomy, but the diffusion of evaluation systems based on publication outcomes potentially jeopardizes the benefits deriving from behaviors that address other pillars of higher education. Besides research and teaching, academic citizenship, i.e., the service behaviors carried out within and outside organizational boundaries, are in fact cornerstones of university functioning. We investigate the relationship between academic citizenship and research after the introduction of an evaluation system that moves research performance to center stage on a dataset collecting publication records and service activities of 353 Italian scholars in the accounting discipline in the 2004-2013 period. A cluster analysis reveals different academics' orientations towards research and academic citizenship. We contribute to the debate on academic choices by showing that a large number of university members tend to focus on a single type of academic citizenship or to adopt a research orientation, while a significant part remains stuck in the middle without achieving satisfying performance in any domains according to international standards, and discuss implications for the design of behavioral incentives.

Purpose: Higher education institutions (HEIs) worldwide are required to acquire accreditation for the sake of their academic reputation at the institutional as well as programs levels. Meeting the requirements of standards established by accrediting bodies can be daunting for HEIs undergoing accreditation for the first time. Drastic organizational change is required to overhaul and implement systems to meet the requirements of quality standards. HEIs in the Sultanate of Oman are determined to acquire and maintain institutional accreditation from the Oman Academic Accreditation Authority (OAAA). The purpose of this paper is to describe how a HEI has undergone organizational change to meet the requirement of the research-teaching nexus standard using Lewin's and McKinsey 7-S change management models. Design/methodology/approach: This is a qualitative research which made use of primary and secondary data. The primary data were collected through focus group discussions and workshops, and documents analysis while internet resources were used for secondary data. The dimensions of the research-teaching nexus were determined through review of the literature which became the basis for evaluating the HEI's practices in the area. Lewin's and McKinsey 7-S change management models were combined to provide the conceptual framework for describing the process of change the HEI undertook. Findings: Lewin's and McKinsey 7-S change management models allowed for a systemic and systematic perspective of the change required for the HEI to meet the research-teaching nexus standards and acquire institutional accreditation. The HEI documented its practices, conducted an evaluation and instituted the changes in the dimensions of the research-teaching nexus and the supporting 7-S elements. As final result, the HEI was granted institutional accreditation. Research limitations/implications: This is a case study of the experience of an HEI in the Sultanate of Oman in its effort to acquire institutional accreditation from the OAAA. However, this case study can provide insights to a larger audience of institutions in Oman and within the Gulf region (or even outside the region) that are in the process of going through a similar experience. For those who have already undergone a similar exercise, this case study can provide a valuable comparison. Practical implications: The practical experience of the HEI in the Sultanate of Oman can provide valuable lessons/insights to those in the praxis of educational management and quality assurance in education. Social implications: Quality in education is a social issue. HEIs are pressured to acquire and maintain accreditation as evidence of quality. The case study provides the larger audience a perspective of how much effort HEIs place in this aspect. Originality/value: This paper documented the experience of an HEI in the Sultanate of Oman. This is the first paper describing an HEI's change process in a country which is also implementing a new academic accreditation system. In this paper, two change models -- Lewin's and McKinsey's 7-S -- were integrated to provide a more comprehensive perspective in analyzing organizational change. Review of the literature has shown that these two models have not been used together in one paper, providing novelty to otherwise "classic" models. This paper should be valuable to HEIs pursuing accreditation. It is a "universal" knowledge that acquiring accreditation is a major goal of all HEIs worldwide. The described process of organizational change should be insightful to those who are responsible for steering this process with the goal of acquiring accreditation. Educational leaders at the forefront and center of the change process should find in this paper a valuable reference material, providing a systemic and systematic view of the change they have to lead in order to acquire the much-coveted accreditation. Faculty, staff and students of HEIs can be advocates or sources of resistance. This paper should provide better understanding of the process of change and how they, as stakeholders, benefit from it. Finally, students of educational management and leadership should find this paper as a useful case study for class discussion.

Currently, Russian academics are facing significant demands because of a new, urgent requirement to pursue their research in accordance with international standards. Until recently, these academics were used to working within a familiar community and communicating their research via the Russian language, but now, they are expected to move beyond that and function on a global level, which can challenge their academic identities. A qualitative study was carried out in a research-intensive Russian university. The aim was to explore academics' experiences and perceptions of the dynamic changes in their academic work with a particular focus on the limitations and pressures they meet in their career path towards global research. The data were collected by means of reflective journals during a course on English for academic purposes. Thematic analysis was employed for data analysis. The results showed that global trends turned out to be unachievable for Russian academics due to the lack of specific knowledge, attributes and skills required to do research globally. This might be the first study from Russia contributing to the literature on academic identity construction. The article provides insights into the experiences and perceptions of Russian academics and offers a research agenda for further investigation to bridge identity shifts in academia. In terms of practical purposes, the results will be used as a source of preliminary data within a broader research project aimed at supporting Russian academics in their research in an international English-speaking academic context.

Faculty are often evaluated on perceptions of their teaching effectiveness, their service activities, and their research productivity. To meet their institutional standards in each area, the faculty must properly allocate and manage their time. Administrators and department chairs have the means to facilitate or hinder faculty research productivity through teaching and service assignments. This paper provides administrators and faculty with a framework to evaluate each faculty member's annual workload to ensure that adequate time should be available to meet institutional expectations. This framework illustrates the negative effects that multiple course preparations and heavy teaching loads have on research productivity. Institutional policies should be adjusted to consider these effects on their faculty's research productivity.

2016 marks an important milestone for the American Association of School Librarians (AASL). Despite the ever-changing and always-challenging economic, political, and societal landscape, for nearly sixty-five years the association has grown and prospered within the structure of the American Library Association (ALA) and remains "the only national professional membership organization focused on school librarians and the school library community" (AASL, 2014c). This article provides an overview of the history of AASL by discussing the following: (1) Humble Beginnings; (2) Continuing Education: National Conference, Fall Forum; (3) Standards and GuidSchool Librarielines; (4) Publications; (5) Awards; (6) Certification of School Librarians; (7) National Board for Professional Teaching Standards; (8) Partners; (9) Affiliate Assembly; (10) Community and Communications; (11) Research; and (12) Advocacy, Legislation, and Influence. Though AASL has accomplished much in the past sixty-five years, important work remains.

After North Carolina State University developed recommendations for departments and faculty to integrate learning, discovery, and engagement through the scholarship of engagement, the issue was raised: "What do department heads think, and how do they support engagement especially during promotion, tenure, and reappointment of engaged faculty?" This study found that 75% of departments say they value community-engagement scholarship when making promotion and tenure decisions, 73% of the departments include standards to reward community-engagement scholarship, and 20% of the departments have no expectations for faculty to be community-engagement scholars. When asked if community engaged participatory research was valued, it ranked between minimally valued and somewhat valued. Department heads reported that they are not likely to promote faculty who publish in peer reviewed community engagement journals. These journals were reported as only somewhat valued.

While much literature has considered feedback and professional growth in formative peer reviews of teaching, there has been little empirical research conducted on these issues in the context of summative peer reviews. This article explores faculty members' perceptions of feedback practices in the summative peer review of teaching and reports on their understandings of why constructive feedback is typically non-existent or unspecific in summative reviews. Drawing from interview data with 30 tenure-track professors in a research-intensive Canadian university, the findings indicated that reviewers rarely gave feedback to the candidates, and when they did, comments were typically vague and/or focused on the positive. Feedback, therefore, did not contribute to professional growth in teaching. Faculty members suggested that feedback was limited because of the following: the high-stakes nature of tenure, the demands for research productivity, lack of pedagogical expertise among academics, non-existent criteria for evaluating teaching, and the artificiality of peer reviews. In this article I argue that when it comes to summative reviews, elements of academic culture, especially the value placed on collegiality, shape feedback practices in important ways.

This paper focuses on the Janus face-teacher educator and researcher. Drawing on existing international literature, our aim is to position ourselves in the discussion relating to our own and other research. In this paper we limit ourselves to discuss two main components, namely teaching and research in relation to which teacher educators seem to experience a rather strong tension. We maintain that the quality of teaching does not become inferior to research and publishing in teacher education. This necessitates that sufficient resources are provided for assuring the quality of teaching and for research; subsequently the two activities are complementary and not contradictory to each other. Our claim is that teacher educators in most settings are Janus-faced due to the competing demands of excellence in both research and teaching. However, we strongly believe that the two main responsibilities of teacher educators which form the Janus face, can melt into each other in the face of a researching teacher educator.

The paper develops a new model of the essential factors required to be a top business school in the world for the benefit of schools recognized by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) in Pakistan. Globally, top business schools are those that excel in research, attract strong faculty, and successfully foster student development. The present research considers these factors in relation to HEC recognition; HEC's stringent criteria are disliked by many educational entrepreneurs, for whom the profit motive can sometimes trump the delivery of high-quality programs, resulting in the awarding of spurious degrees. HEC's criteria are intended to prevent situations like this, which became increasingly common in Pakistan and reduced educational quality. Under HEC recognition, top business schools and programs can once again be recognized. However, many business schools in Pakistan still have unqualified faculty, poor student development, and little or no research output. The present study shows that business schools in Pakistan can only survive if they explicitly or implicitly follow criteria based on the Faculty, Research, Use of Technology, Corporate Office, and Extracurricular Activities (FRUCE) model presented herein. The main motivation for presenting the FRUCE model is to help Pakistani business schools meet international standards. As context, this research also reports on the slow progress of some universities in achieving adequacy in the areas included in the FRUCE model, including not only the areas mentioned above but also administration/governance and advising. The FRUCE model has the ability to address all these areas.

In a context of increasing attention to issues of scientific integrity in university research, it is important to reflect on the governance mechanisms that universities use to shape the behaviour of students, researchers, and faculty. This paper presents the results of a study of 47 Canadian university research integrity/misconduct (RIM) policies: 41 institutions (87%) had distinct policies dealing with research misconduct, 37 (90%) of which took the form of research integrity/misconduct policies. For each of these 41 documents, we assessed the stated policy objectives and the existence (or not) of procedures for managing allegations of misconduct, definitions of misconduct, and sanctions. Our analysis revealed that, like their American counterparts, most Canadian universities had policies that contained the key elements relevant to protecting research integrity and managing misconduct. Yet, there was significant variability in the structure and content of these policies, particularly with regard to practical guidance for university personnel and review bodies. (Contains 6 notes and 3 tables.)

In an effort to foster research integrity, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation mandate education of all trainees in the responsible conduct of research (RCR). Nevertheless, recent studies suggest that rates of questionable research practices and scientific misconduct are both high and considerably underreported. In part, this may be due to the fact that some ethical norms (e.g., authorship assignment) are far from clear and researchers are unsure how to respond to perceived misconduct. With funding from the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI), we convened four panels of experts to develop a consensus on the overarching goals and teaching content of RCR instruction. Our panelists recommended nine overarching objectives for RCR instruction that require us to rethink common modes of instruction, and they identified issues and standards that should be covered within controversial areas such as authorship assignment and whistle-blowing. Additionally, our experts recommended two new core areas for RCR instruction: The "social responsibilities of scientists" and "current topics in RCR." (Contains 9 tables.)

The assessment of research based on the journal in which it is published is a widely adopted practice. Some research assessments use the Web of Science (WoS) to identify 'high quality' journals, which are assumed to publish excellent research. The authority of WoS on journal quality stems from its selection of journals based on editorial standards and scientific impact criteria. These can be considered as universalistic criteria, meaning that they can be applied to any journal regardless of its place of publication, language, or discipline. In this article we examine the coverage by WoS of journals produced in Latin America, Spain, and Portugal. We use a logistic regression to examine the probability of a journal to be covered by WoS given universalistic criteria (editorial standards and scientific impact of the journal) and particularistic criteria (country, language, and discipline of the journal). We find that it is not possible to predict the inclusion of journals in WoS only through the universalistic criteria because particularistic variables such as country of the journal, its discipline, and language are strongly related to inclusion in WoS. We conclude that using WoS as a universalistic tool for research assessment can disadvantage science published in journals with adequate editorial standards and scientific merit. We discuss the implications of these findings within the research evaluation literature, specifically for countries and disciplines not extensively covered by WoS.

U.S.-based counselor education faculty increasingly are participating in transnational experiences, such as global research and study abroad. The purpose of this study was to develop guidelines for U.S.-based counselor educators when working transnationally. Using Delphi methodology, 69 consensus guidelines were developed from an expert panel. Implications for the counseling profession are discussed.

In many professions there are qualifications to gain and professional standards to achieve. Lawyers pass the bar and doctors pass their boards. In academic life the equivalent is a doctorate, closely followed by a profile of peer-reviewed publication. To hold a doctoral degree is the common requirement to become "academic" but does it prepare individuals to advance in an academic career? In choosing the idiom "paying the piper" (i.e. where one must pay the costs and accept the consequences of one's actions) we recognise that in seeking to develop our scholarly profiles we had to choose to adapt successfully to global workplace expectations, modify our professional aspirations or refuse to participate. In this paper we examine the challenges we faced as academics in physical education as we progressed from beginning to mid-career stages. We focus particularly on challenges related to seeking external research funding, exploring our assumptions about academic life and the perceived expectations that lie under the surface around research funding, teaching and service. Through the use of self-study we demonstrate how our perceptions of academic career progress meant paying personal and professional costs that we were largely (and perhaps naively) unaware of when we entered the academic workforce. Data consisted of Ashley's reflective diaries generated over the past six years, which were analysed deductively based on an understanding of salient experiences of academic life, most notably, those related to the pursuit of funding and its relationship to academic advancement. Tim played the role of critical friend by asking probing questions, relating personal experiences to instances in Ashley's data, and offering alternative interpretations of Ashley's insights. By sharing our experiences we hope early career academics (ECAs) may relate to and learn from our naivety. In this way, there may be implications for the induction and mentoring of future ECAs.

The Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) was first developed to establish a standard of practice in research ethics by the three federal agencies responsible for funding institutional research in Canada: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC). In 2010, a second edition of the policy, known as the TCPS 2, was released with updated information and expanded coverage of research ethics issues. According to the TCPS 2, the Agencies' mandate is "to promote research that is conducted according to the highest ethical standards," and the TCPS 2 serves as a benchmark for this with respect for human dignity as its underlying value. Research institutions receiving Agency funding are to comply with this policy statement by forming Research Ethics Boards (REBs) to review all research involving human participants. The intention behind this review requirement is to provide a proportionate assessment of the benefit-to-risk ratio of the research, and in that process, to safeguard "respect for persons", express a "concern for welfare", and uphold "justice" (CIHR, SSHRC, NSERC 2010, p. 8). Research may not proceed until ethics approval is granted by an institution's REB. The current study evaluates REB members' perspectives on their knowledge of research ethics, and juxtaposes these perceptions with those of researchers. Specifically, we are interested in the extent to which REB members with less experience read the TCPS 2, and whether those with less experience have decreased confidence in their ethics knowledge.

"Language Learning & Technology" ("LLT") was launched in the mid-1990s out of a collaboration between the University of Hawai'i National Foreign Language Resource Center (NFLRC) and the Michigan State University Center for Language Education Research (CLEAR). Like other online journals started in the 1990s, "LLT" sought to enhance the speed of publication and the accessibility of published research. Yet "LLT" had an additional goal: to raise the rigor of published research in its targeted area. Thus, rather than seeking to be defined principally by its mode or style of publication, "LLT" sought to be the highest quality journal in an emerging area of inquiry. This sounds like an obvious goal, but "LLT" was going against the grain. By the time the first issue of "LLT" appeared in 1997, there was already a popular notion of a dichotomy between print journals (which alone printed rigorous peer reviewed research) and online journals (which were accessible but not rigorously reviewed). Indeed, at the time, many academics refused to submit work to online journals, believing (or knowing) that their institutions would fail to recognize articles published in online venues. To break out of this stereotype, "LLT" recruited a top notch editorial board, including leading applied linguistics from around the world. For its inaugural issue in July 1997, the journal invited internationally recognized applied linguistics to submit papers on the topic Language Learning & Technology: Defining the Research Agenda. The resources of the NFLRC and CLEAR were used to achieve broad publicity. "LLT" quickly gathered broad attention. With questions of funding, peer review, and other matters still under debate, the future of academic journal publishing is very much in flux. When the history of the transition from print to online publishing is written, the important role of "LLT" should be noted as one of the first journals to demonstrate that publishing exclusively on the Internet was fully compatible with being among the best academic journals in the world.

This document analysis provides a summary of the research from high-impact journals published between 2008 and 2013 with the explicit purpose of determining the extent to which the current empirical evidence supports the individual 2011 Educational Leadership Constituent Council Program Standards and their elements. We found that the standards are unevenly represented and supported in the research. In general, the research was stronger for Standards 2 and 3 and building-level leadership standards. Without a more substantial research foundation for leadership preparation, program faculty are limited in their ability to design evidence-supported learning content and experiences for the next generation of educational leaders.

This article reviews U.S. administrative licensure regulations, focusing on type of school leader licensure, provider types, and leadership quality. Licensure obtained through university-based and alternative routes is examined. Due to limited research on alternative school administrative licensure, regulations in medicine, psychology, engineering, law, and teaching are reviewed, as well as research on their effectiveness, to identify policies potentially relevant to school leadership. Licensure regulations are uniform in medicine, psychology, and engineering, with some variation in law, and licensure options vary greatly in teaching and school administration. The article concludes with recommendations for research, policy, and practice in school administrative licensure.

This article investigates the persistent and change elements of educational testing and assessment from 1920 to the present day. I show by examining the addresses and texts of American Educational Research Association presidents a continuing focus on schools, from early experiments and development up through applications in accountability systems. Continuing topics include sources of test content and uses of tests for equity, effectiveness, support of teaching, and comparisons of alternative methods through experiments or references to standards. Although early writers appeared very close to school practices, later discussions expanded implications for policy uses.

As of the 2016-2017 academic year, all schools undergoing Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business accreditation will be assessed on the new standards that were ratified in 2013, which include the assessment of the impact of portfolios of intellectual contributions. The authors discuss key ideas underlying a business school's research portfolio, its alignment with its mission, and its expected impact. Next the authors leverage these ideas to develop a model of mission-guided expected impact. They then show how the model can be operationalized for the case of an undergraduate-only business school. The authors conclude with a discussion of the potential contribution of our model.