Faculty Productivity Barriers and Supports at a School of Education

All programs in a midwestern university recently embarked on a path to help increase the scholarly productivity of faculty. The effort to develop a research emphasis within the School of Education required determining the needs of tenure-track faculty regarding meeting the new requirements. The purposes of our study were to investigate these needs and identify the individual, environmental, and leadership factors that affect faculty productivity. Findings revealed a need to transform the School’s service and teaching culture to a culture of research and scholarship. Recommendations for helping other schools of education to become more research-oriented are provided. While the study focuses on data from a particular School of Education, the implications may generalize to faculty productivity within other institutions, particularly within professional schools. Susan A. Santo  received a Ph.D. in Instructional Technology from the University of Virginia and is currently an Associate Professor of Adult and Higher Education at the University of South Dakota. Her research interests include faculty productivity in higher education and improving distance learning. Mary E. Engstrom  received an Ed.D. from the University of South Dakota in Curriculum and Instruction. She is currently the Associate Director of Extended Learning Services at the University of Montana. Her research interests include instructional design for online learning and professional development for educators. Linda Reetz  received an Ed.D. from the University of North Dakota in Teacher Education and serves as the Associate Dean of the School of Education at the University of South Dakota. Her research interests include higher education practices for teacher education programs and mild disabilities. William Schweinle  received a Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Arlington in Psychology and serves as an Assistant Professor at the University of South Dakota. His research interest area is in statistics. Kristine Reed  received a Ph.D. from the University of Nebraska at Lincoln in Curriculum and Instruction/Administration and serves as a faculty member in Curriculum and Instruction, University of South Dakota. Her research emphases include multicultural education and rural education.     

Progress,innovation and regulatory science in drug development: the politics of international standard-setting

This paper examines international standard-setting in the toxicology of pharmaceuticals during the 1990s, which has involved both the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies in an organization known as the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The analysis shows that the relationships between innovation, regulatory science and 'progress' may be more complex and controversial than is often assumed. An assessment of the ICH's claims about the implications of 'technical' harmonization of drug-testing standards for the maintenance of drug safety, via toxicological testing, and the delivery of therapeutic progress, via innovation, is presented. By demonstrating that there is not a technoscientific validity for these claims, it is argued that, within the ICH, a discourse of technological innovation and scientific progress has been used by regulatory agencies and prominent parts of the transnational pharmaceutical industry to legitimize the lowering and loosening of toxicological standards for drug testing. The mobilization and acceptance of this discourse are shown to be pivotal to the ICH's transformation of reductions in safety standards, which are apparently against the interests of patients and public health, into supposed therapeutic benefits derived from promises of greater access to more innovative drug products. The evidence suggests that it is highly implausible that these reductions in the standards of regulatory toxicology are consistent with therapeutic progress for patients, and highlights a worrying aspect embedded in the 'technical trajectories' of regulatory science.     

Daily Companionship in Late Childhood and Early Adolescence: Changing Developmental Contexts

The study employs time-sampling data to examine age differences in the quantity and quality of children's and young adolescents' daily experience with their families, friends, and alone. Participants (ages 9-15) carried electronic pagers for 1 week and reported their companionship, location, and affect at random times when signaled by the pagers. Findings show a dramatic decline in amount of time spent with family, with older students reporting half as much time with their families as younger students. Among boys, this family time was replaced by time spent alone; among girls, by time alone and with friends. Affect reported when with family became less positive between the fifth and seventh grade, but was more positive again in the ninth grade for boys. Affect with friends became more favorable across this age period; affect when alone did not vary. These age differences suggest changes in adolescents' daily opportunities for cognitive growth, emotional development, and social support.