Search Our Essay Database

Essay Instructions: Module 4:
Collaborative Learning Community: EBP Literature Search/Appraisal of Evidence

1) Fit the reference list into the Figure 2.1, Evidence hierarchy pyramid, in the textbook.
2) Locate case studies, relevant clinical articles written by experts (not research per se), generally accepted knowledge in textbooks and scientific principles, and theory that may guide the identification of appropriate solutions.
3) Appraise the evidence using the guidelines provided on pages 37-40 in the textbook.
a. Use these guidelines to discard references that are untrustworthy or irrelevant.
b. Use Box 2.2 to help with this decision-making process.
4) Use the following to organize the evidence by commonalities and/or contrary findings:
a. Chapter 5 in the textbook provides information regarding how to synthesize the article findings.
b. Using the example in Figure 5.5 in the textbook, create a literature review protocol for each reference.
c. List each article, using the Methodologic Matrix shown in Figure 5.6 in the textbook.
5) Refer to Figure 5.8 in the textbook to develop an Evaluation Matrix for each resource.
6) Use Table 5.1, on page 120 of the textbook to prepare a thematic analysis.
7) Record all communication in the CLC Forum.

Essay Instructions: You are to write a 2-page paper. Read the article below. State the question first and then continue to answer. Do Not Use Outside Sources.

Question
1.Were you surprised by any of the findings reported by Taylor? Specifically, were the topics of research and the types of research he reported?
2.What you would have expected in a 10-year survey of research in our field (Adult Education)?

ADULT EDUCATION QUARTERLY FROM 1989 TO 1999: Taylor

Academic publications represent the knowledge base of a given discipline and reflect the discipline’s history, trends, research norms, and social structures of communication among scholars. By analyzing the publication activity of a given journal, much can be learned about a field of study (see Foley, Keener, &Branch, 1994; Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, & Shrikanth, 1997; Ongel & Smith, 1994). This practice of analyzing journals has also been a custom of scholarly publications in the field of adult education, particularly with Adult Education Quarterly (AEQ), the preeminent journal in the field as judged by the professorate (Rachal & Sargent, 1995). During the past 30 years, there have been numerous analyses looking for publication patterns in length of articles, citations, subject and methodology, and the journal’s receptivity to feminist and international issues, to mention a few (see Dickinson & Rusnell, 1971; Hayes, 1992; Kim, 1991; Long & Agyekum, 1974). However, the decade of the 1990s has yet to be explored. In addition, most content analyses of scholarly journals, as well as those of AEQ, have involved only published articles because rejected manuscripts are difficult to access. Published articles are a product of an extensive, peer-review process that is often so thorough that only a small percentage of manuscripts, especially in the social science fields, are published (see Beyer, 1978; Jauch &Wall, 1989; Schwier, 1994). For example, Henson (1997) reported from a survey of editors of educational, scholarly journals, that more than one fifth have an acceptance rate of less than 10% and that almost 40% have an acceptance rate of less than 30%. Although
rejected submissions are found unsuitable for publication for a variety of concerns (see Northridge & Susser, 1994; Zaruba, Toma, & Stark, 1996), “most papers rejected by prestigious journals will still find print, if their authors are persistent, through less-known, perhaps un-refereed outlets” (Biggs, 1990, p. 161). This thorough publication process is also found in AEQ, which from 1989 to 1993 had an average acceptance rate around 16%. To put this in more concrete terms, of the 386 manuscripts that were submitted during this time, only 58 were accepted (Taylor, 1993). It is these 58 articles that become, along with other adult education publications, representative of the scholarly body of knowledge of the discipline. However, what do the unpublished manuscripts (more than 80%) say about the discipline? By looking at all submissions, what research trends would be revealed about the field? Rejected manuscripts represent an unexamined perspective about the field of adult education. Although at times uninformed, poorly written and researched, this perspective is important enough for adult educators to give the time and energy to write about and has a good opportunity of being published in some other outlet in the field. Recently, access was gained to all submissions over the past decade to AEQ. By conducting an analysis of these submissions, a more accurate picture could be discerned about the recent trends of the adult education field over the past decade.
Therefore, the intent of this study is twofold: to conduct a comprehensive analysis of AEQ from 1989 to 1999 and to explore the significance of a content analysis including both accepted and rejected submissions to a scholarly journal. It is hoped that this study will tell us more about the construction of knowledge in the field based on not only what has been published but also what has been accepted for publication in AEQ. In addition, it will offer a long overdue analysis of AEQ publication activity for the past 10 years, with a particular focus on general trends of the field.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
There are several important functions of content analysis of scholarly journals. First, an “analysis of the research reported in a journal provides empirical insight into the areas of research deemed relevant and worthy of publication” (Buboltz, Miller,&Williams, 1999, p. 496). In addition, by determining what is significant to a particular discipline by the types of articles published, it helps identify neglected areas of research as well as brings to light implicit values that frame the conceptualization of the field (Ongel&Smith, 1994). Second, content analyses help to categorize scholarly publications. Through the development of operational definitions, greater clarity and communication are promoted among researchers in the field. Third, an analysis offers insight into a journal’s preferences, providing future
researchers a better understanding about the suitability, or lack of suitability, of a manuscript they are considering for submission (Buboltz et al., 1999). Fourth, a content analysis can be used to probe for the extent of balance or “possible publication bias concerning gender and other characteristics” (Hernon, Smith, & Croxen, 1993, p. 304). It can act as a mirror for the editors of the journal, providing them an opportunity to reflect on the consistency of their publication decisions in relationship to the journal’s mission statement and policies. Types of content analyses generally involve two approaches: one that is comprehensive and the other thematic (Rachal & Sargent, 1995). Comprehensive analysis classifies articles into a wide variety of different categories (e.g., gender of author,
research design, subject). Examples of comprehensive analysis include Dickinson and Rusnell’s (1971) and Long and Agyekum’s (1974) analyses of AEQ. Thematic analysis focuses on the degree of inclusion of different articles of a particular theme. Examples of thematic analyses include Hayes’ (1992) research that studied the impact of feminist research and Fisher and Martin’s (1987) research on adult literacy in AEQ. Most content analyses, as previously mentioned, include only acceptances, because “few investigators have access to manuscripts submitted for publication” (Hernon et al., 1993, p. 305). Only two studies, both of the College and Research Libraries journal, were identified that included all submissions in a content analysis of a journal. One focused on the readability (measured by formulas) of submissions, where it found rejected manuscripts to have a significantly higher readability than those accepted (Metoryer-Duran, 1993). The second study, by Hernon et al. (1993), reviewed all submissions as well as all peer-reviewer comments over a decade of publication activity (1980 to 1991). Most significant to this study was the
percentage of rejected manuscripts that were eventually published by other outlets. More than “40% of the rejections were ultimately published” (Hernon et al., 1993, p. 314). To set the context for this study, it is important to look at previous content analyses of AEQ over the past 30 years. Eight studies were identified, with the earlier studies taking a comprehensive approach identifying trends of the field and the more recent studies offering a thematic analysis. Beginning with the earliest study, Dickinson and Rusnell (1971) conducted a review of AEQ from 1964 to 1973 and
found trends of an increase in publication activity by university faculty, longer articles and larger numbers of citations, an emphasis on research-based articles with “lesser emphasis on program descriptions and statements of personal beliefs or experiences” (p. 184). In response, Long and Agyekum (1974) conducted a review from 1964 to 1973 with the intent to improve on the previous study, by exploring the reasons behind the changes in publication activities and by lessening the effect of multiple editorships by shortening the time period of investigation. Their findings
were similar, revealing an increase in research design sophistication, an increase in descriptive research, a small percentage of research based on doctoral dissertations, an increase in article length, and “some relationship between the editor and institutional affiliation of contributors” (Long & Agyekum, 1974, p. 114). During roughly the same time period, Boshier and Pickard (1979) looked at citation patterns to demonstrate that the field of adult education has its own unique body of knowledge as evidenced by the increasing reliance of scholars on theories and concepts developed within the field. Along with determining that researchers had a strong tendency to cite literature unique to the field, they found a predominance of participation research and that AEQ was the major publication for dissemination of research in the field.
The number of studies in AEQ with a more thematic analysis increased during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Fisher and Martin (1987) looked at AEQ along with other adult education journals from 1976 to 1986 for research involving adult literacy, the extent to which the journals tested or generated theory, and what aspects of adult literacy received the greatest attention. Even though they did not separate their findings according to each journal, the combined findings seem to support a trend of adult education research in general, that of an emphasis on participation variables, with limited attention to research design and theory generation or testing about adult literacy. Kim (1991) sought to find out if AEQ(1986 to 1990)was truly a “forum for facilitating dialogue, recognition, and appreciation of differences and similarities among the peoples of the world, their views and perspective, in order to promote
awareness” (p. 160). She concluded that there was a predominance of quantitative research, “dominated by crude behaviorism that neglects or trivializes the influence . . . of human subjectivity” (p. 165); that most articles focused on instructional materials and methods, program planning, and adult learning; and that few studies dealt with adult education as a field of study, philosophy, or an international perspective.
Along a similar vein, Hayes (1992) looked for inclusiveness trends in topics concerning women and gender differences in British and American adult education journals over a 23-year period. She found the American journals to have a greater proportion of articles on women and gender in the early periods but, following the period from 1976 to 1980, the British journals reflected higher percentages. Furthermore, the content analysis revealed “that general research studies frequently do not treat gender as significant, by both integrating it into data analysis and discussing
gender-related differences” (Hayes, 1992, p. 136).Working with this same data from the 1992 study, Hayes (1994) sought to clarify the dominant perspectives of women in adult education publications. The major conclusions were the disturbing nature of a deficit-oriented perspective of women and education, the lack of attention to diversity in women’s experiences, and “the lack of attention to how gender as a socially and culturally defined construct has influenced educational programs and the learning experiences of women” (Hayes, 1994, p. 217). The two most recent studies of AEQ used the journal to explore the publication productivity of adult education institutions and of graduate students. Rachal and Sargent (1995), using publication productivity in AEQ and other leading journals in
the field from 1983 to 1992 as an indicator of program quality, identified the foremost adult education institutions in North America as well as determined the most important journals for adult education research. AEQ was “almost universally cited by the professors as one of the top journals” (Rachal & Sargent, 1995, p. 66). Most significant to this review was the predominance of single-author publications (more than 76%) as well as the high number of publications from non-education institutions. Finally, Blunt and Lee (1994) attempted to “shed some light on aspects
of knowledge production and dissemination processes in graduate adult education programs” (p. 125). The findings revealed that graduate students as single authors and coauthors contributed more than 128 published articles to AEQ (1969 to 1988), representing 46% of all articles published during that time period. Looking back at all the studies of AEQ methodologically, the quality of these studies has evolved, with most reflecting the degree of current research sophistication in its publication time period. Earlier studies demonstrate little control for researcher bias and few details on how the articles were analyzed, whereas some later studies use intricate instruments, multiple judges for article analysis, and a greater number of journals and articles. However, none of the studies ever had access to or included in their analysis articles that were rejected for publication. Therefore, as the journal moves into the new millennium it becomes important not only to complete a comprehensive analysis of the remaining decade but also to expand how content analyses have traditionally been conducted.

METHOD
The methodology of this study was a simple, quantitative, content analysis similar to previous studies of AEQ (Hayes, 1992; Long& Agyekum, 1974). It builds on an analysis of all submissions to AEQ that the author began in 1993 while an editorial assistant with the journal at the University of Georgia. Since that time, the editorship moved to the University of Nebraska and Michigan State University. The former editors were contacted, and permission was arranged to have all the submissions shipped to Penn State, Harrisburg. A grant supporting this research was
secured from the university to pay for research assistants and shipping expenses. A total of 752 submissions from 1989 to 1993 were included in the analysis of this study, except for a gap of missing submissions from January 1993 to June 1993. In addition, all manuscripts designated as out of scope (10.5%) were eliminated from the study because most of these submissions had been returned to the author. Recognizing the ethical concerns about reviewing all submissions to the journal, a thorough procedure was established that not only promoted rigor in the analysis of the data but also helped maintain the anonymity of the author(s) of each submission. Most of these procedures were taken from the few other studies that had access to all submissions (e.g., Hernon et al., 1993; Metoryer-Duran, 1993). First, to lessen researcher bias, two additional judges, both doctoral students in adult education, tested the accuracy of the categories (provided below), resulting in an interrelate reliability ranging from 75% to 90%. Second, each manuscript was separated from its corresponding file and coded for all the various categories in a logbook. In the coding process, nothing was recorded in the logbook that referred to the identity of the author(s). Third, following the analysis of each manuscript, the author’s name was blacked out. Once the initial analysis was completed, two research assistants coded into separate logbooks each submission except for the categories that required the author names (gender of author and number of authors). This process helped ensure that no submissions were referred to by author names. At the completion of the analysis, the researcher and the assistants met to discuss the coding of each manuscript. Most disagreements of coding were resolved by a
majority, although at times the manuscript was reviewed again by the group if there was strong disagreement. Once the coding was confirmed, the data were inputted into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for two analyses: One gave the percentage of submissions per year of each category, and the other analysis gave two different acceptance rates, the acceptance rate across each category (identifying the percentage of acceptances in relationship to all acceptances) and the rate within each category (identifying the percentage of acceptances in relationship to submissions in each category). The categories used for coding were similar to previous studies (Long, 1983; Long& Agyekum, 1974) to promote reliability when discussing trends. They are described below. 1. The year of the article was determined by its date of submission. 2. The gender of the author was categorized as male(s), female(s), or male and female coauthor, based on the first name of the author. 3. Single and multiple authorship were categorized single or multiple by simply counting the number of authors listed on the manuscripts. 4. The profession of authorship was categorized as academic, nonacademic, student, or any combination (mixed) of those classifications. It was determined by examining the titles provided by the author(s). An academic title (e.g., core instructor, assistant) had to be provided along with an institution for the submission to be coded academic. If
nothing was provided, it was coded nonacademic. An article was coded student only if it was specifically noted (e.g., graduate student, doctoral candidate) on the submission. 5. Geographic region was determined by the address of the first author. The various countries were grouped according to their like geographic region. The geographic regions
were Africa, Asia, Australia/New Zealand, Canada, Europe, the Middle East, South America, and the United States. The number of submissions determined the variation between continents and countries. 6. Type referred to the article’s research approach and was categorized as one of the following: forum, historical, quantitative, qualitative, or theoretical formulation. Multiple- method studies were not identified as a separate category because the number was too small, and therefore they were coded based on the method that was predominantly relied on in reporting the findings. Also, theoretical types consisted of conceptual manuscripts that did not have a definitive methodology.
7. Subject referred to the article’s general topic and was categorized as adult development, adult learning, adult education as a movement, evaluation/testing, gender and ethnic issues, literacy, program development, philosophy, participation, research methods, teaching and curriculum, or training/continuing professional education (CPE).
It is important to note that an analysis of institutional rankings of the research publication productivity of adult education programs (e.g., Rachal & Sargent, 1995) was not included because of the potential for compromising author confidentiality and because of the small size of many adult education programs in North America.

Limitations
Before revealing the findings, it is important to discuss some limitations of this study. First, this analysis is post-dictive instead of predictive. It is an attempt to look back at the publication activity of AEQ over the past 10 years, and therefore a discussion concerning inferences of future publication practices are limited. Second, this content analysis involves only one scholarly journal located in a discipline of which there are many publications. Also, it has predominantly been a conduit of research for adult education faculty in North America. Therefore, when generalizing trends of research, this factor has to be a part of the analysis. Third, and most significant,
because this study reviewed all submissions, it could easily be assumed that much insight into the biases of the editors of the journal would be gained. However, caution needs to be taken when making assumptions in this direction, particularly considering this is a comprehensive not a thematic analysis. Also, there are a variety of reasons for a submission to be rejected, such as a lack of contribution to the field, weak rationale, poorly defined purpose, and flawed methodology, just to mention a few (e.g., Coelho & La Forge, 2000; Hernon et al., 1993; Northridge & Susser, 1994; Wolff, 1970). Without including all the information in the analysis (e.g., reviewer comments, editor letters), inferences about biases of the journal are problematic.

FINDINGS
The findings focus on two aspects of the analysis of all submissions to AEQ. First, the focus is on trends over the past decade based on all submissions. Second, the focus is on what has been accepted by the journal in relationship to what has been submitted, in hopes of revealing a more accurate perspective of the publication pattern of AEQ.

Trends
To understand the trends over the past 10 years, Table 1 is organized with each category listed in the far-left column followed by the percentage of submissions for each year beginning with 1989 and ending in 1999. The final two columns reflect the total number of submissions for that category and the average percentage for that time period. For example, beginning with gender of author the trends of the field, based on the mean percentage of submissions to AEQ from 1989 to 1999, indicate that men (M = 44.9) still dominate, followed by women (M = 35.7) and shared male and female authorship (M = 19.4). However, looking historically the trend seems to be shifting toward an increase of submissions by women. In 1989 they represented 28.0% of all submissions and in 1999 they submitted more than 36.4% of submissions. In contrast, submissions by men have shifted from a high of 58.1% in 1989 to a percentage slightly less than that of submissions by women in 1999. In addition, for 4 years during the decade, women surpassed their male counterparts in percentage of submissions. Men and women publishing together has also increased, but the pattern has been somewhat inconsistent throughout the decade. Other factors explored were the percentages of single and multiple authorship and profession of the author(s). Single authorship submission still dominates the field, although there has been a small, inconsistent decline, from 69.9% in 1989 to 56.8% in 1999, with an obvious and equal increase in multiple authorship. Changes have also been seen in the profession of the authors who submit to AEQ. Even though academics, like single authorship, still dominate the number of submissions,
they experienced a small decline, from 72.0% in 1989 to 68.2% in 1999. In contrast to the academic submissions, there has been a significant increase of submissions by nonacademic’s, almost doubling from 11.8% in 1989 to more than 20% in 1999. Joint submissions by mixed professions and by students have been fairly marginal over the past decade, with a pattern that is too inconsistent to determine any plausible trend. With regard to the geographic region from where the submission originated, a preponderance of articles over the past decade continues to come from the United States (M = 75.3). The low rate of international submissions is even more pronounced when Canada and the United States are combined, which together make up more than 84% of all submissions. Furthermore, during the same period, AEQ received only 33 manuscripts from non-Western countries, less than 5% of all submissions.
There have been several years during the decade when the journal received no submissions from Asia, Africa, South America, or the Middle East. Analyzing the type of research reveals that quantitative submissions have been
declining, from 45.2% in 1989 to 34.1% in 1999. The reverse is true for qualitative research, which shows a dramatic increase, from 8.6% to 34.1% respectively. On the other hand, theoretical pieces have remained fairly constant, reflecting about a third of all submissions. Also, there are few submissions reflecting historical research (M = 2.9) and literature reviews (M = 1.7), with some years reflecting no submissions in these categories. Finally, it is difficult to discern much about trends of forums because they are generally requested submissions by the editorship. Finally, looking at the total number of submissions for a particular subject of an article, adult learning (M= 29.9), participation (M= 10.6), and teaching/curriculum (M= 9.6) were the major topics of interest. However, when analyzed over a span of 10 years, the subject of participation reflects a marked decline as a research interest, from 18.3% of submissions in 1989 to 2.3% in 1999. Subject areas that were not identified in previous reviews that reflect a growing interest include gender/diversity (M = 9.7) and training/CPE submissions (M = 5.7). Other subjects such as adult development, evaluation/testing, literacy, program development, philosophy, and research methods continued to remain fairly consistent in their rate of submission over the decade. Besides participation, only adult education as a movement reflected a marked decline in submissions.

Analyzing Acceptances: Across Categories and Within Categories
The second analysis looks at acceptances of each category in relationship to all acceptances and in relationship to all submissions (both acceptances and rejections) during 1989 to 1999. As seen in Table 2, the findings are organized with the following information for each category: total number of acceptances, acceptances
across categories (percentage in relationship to total number of acceptances), total number of submissions, and acceptances within each category (percentage in relationship to all submissions). For example, beginning with the category of gender, women had 44 manuscripts accepted over the past decade. Those acceptances reflect 27.7% (acceptances across categories) of all articles accepted (N= 159). It is this percentage, identifying just published and accepted articles, that previous content analyses have been limited to when analyzing AEQ. However, this study looks at the number of articles by women accepted in relationship to the total number submitted. For this same time period, women submitted 268 articles with an acceptance rate of 16.4% (within categories). It is the second analysis that allows a comparison with the overall mean acceptance rate of the journal, which during the past decade was 21.1% (noted at the bottom, right corner of Table 2). Using this mean acceptance rate as a standard, women fall below the average and men (M = 26.2) above.
These differences in acceptance rates (across and within categories) can also be seen in other categories. For example, acceptance rates (within categories) of both single and multiple authorship fall close to the average acceptance rate of the journal. However, when looking at only acceptances (across categories), single authorship
manuscripts reflect 67.9% of all articles published. Similarly, profession of the author reveals a high number of publications for academics (across categories). Although, when acceptances are analyzed in relationship to all submissions by academics, it reveals only a marginally higher than average acceptance rate (M= 23.4).

DISCUSSION
Over the past 10 years, much about the publication activity of AEQ has remained constant, while at the same time new trends have started to emerge, reflecting a possible change in research interests in the field of adult education. Also, identifying trends based on all submissions, instead of just what is published, enhances our understanding of the publication activity of a scholarly journal and the direction of a discipline. These issues frame the discussion section: trends and the significance of analyzing all submissions when looking at the publication activity of a scholarly journal.

Trends
This study finds much consistency with the previous analyses of AEQ, such that submissions of single authorship from men of academic profession, from the United States, conducting quantitative research about subjects of adult learning and participation, have dominated the submissions over the past decade. Despite the continuity with the past, there are several areas that are indicative of an emerging change in pattern of submissions, possibly foretelling new trends. The first significant sign of change is the growing submission rate by women, reflected in the latter part of the decade where the rate has begun to surpass the submission rate of men. This increase is consistent with other content analyses. For example, Metz (1989) found in a statistical profile of College and Research Libraries that “a dramatic increase in representation of women among CRL’s authors has been perhaps the most notable change in the journal’s recent history” (p. 44). One possible explanation for this increase is that more women are entering
the professorate of adult education. This would also be consistent with the national figures on the increasing number of women earning doctorates (Fox, 1999;Willie & Williams, 1986) and the greater number of women becoming faculty in higher education (Glazer-Raymo, 1999). However, the increase in submissions is not resulting in an equivalent increase in publications. This discrepancy among women and men is consistent with other academic journals. Fox (1999) reported that “although particular levels of gender difference vary by field, women are found to publish significantly fewer articles than men in chemistry, biochemistry, ecology, and psychology, as well as four social science fields” (p. 450). More research is needed in this area to understand why women are publishing less than men. In contrast to the change found in the gender, two trends, that of profession of author and geographic region, continue to remain constant in relationship to previous analyses (Blunt & Lee, 1994; Kim, 1991) of AEQ. Academic submissions continue to dominate, even though during some years there has been a significant increase in submissions by nonacademic’s and students in the field. One explanation for this somewhat erratic pattern is the inherent limitation of attempting to code the profession of the author based on the title noted on the manuscript. Many academics and nonacademic’s could have more than one title, particularly those that hold joint positions. Also, students may not publish their research until they have acquired nonacademic or faculty positions, further complicating the analysis. The geographic origin of submission also continues to be consistent with previous
analyses such that there are a dismal number of international submissions to AEQ, particularly from non-Western countries (Kim, 1991). Clearly, part of the problem is that many of these authors lack the necessary fiscal resources for sophisticated research, experience language barriers and poor working conditions, and have inadequate library facilities that cannot afford subscriptions to AEQ. When looking at the type of submissions, two significant trends need to be discussed. One is an increase in qualitative submissions, particularly in the latter part of the decade. A probable explanation is that education programs and journals in general have become increasingly receptive to this form of research, reflected in greater publications and less debate about its validity as a research method (see Elmore & Woehilke, 1998; Gilner, 1994; Zaruba et al., 1996). A second explanation, although requiring further analysis, is that the increase in qualitative research relates to the increase in submissions by women. Qualitative research in contrast to quantitative places an emphasis on the subjective and descriptive nature of the phenomenon
under study. This research perspective has been found by many women to be more meaningful and informative to their work (Miller & Treitel, 1991). In contrast to the increase of qualitative submissions, there continues to be a lack
of historical research submitted to AEQ. Historical research began to emerge in greater numbers in the 1970s (Dickinson & Rusnell, 1971; Long & Agyekum, 1974), although, as an area of interest, it has never really taken off among those who submit articles to AEQ. This pattern seems consistent with an earlier study by Brookfield (1982) who noted that AEQ had a penchant for statistical studies, and it was their British counterparts that were more receptive to historical research. Until recently, a major barrier to historical manuscripts was the journal’s editorial policy, that of a small word length permitted for manuscripts, which was often too constraining for historical submissions. Finally, subject area trends reveal a number of changes in the field of adult education. Subjects that are showing an increase as the decade progresses are those of gender/diversity, training/CPE, and teaching/curriculum. In contrast, participation reflects a marked decline, from a high of 18% in 1989 to a lowof2%of submissions 10 years later. The increase in gender/diversity submissions can possibly be explained by greater receptiveness as a consequence of the recent historical feminist challenge to the androcentric biases found in most academic journals and higher education in general (Blunt & Lee, 1994). It would also reflect a reverse in a trend identified earlier by Hayes (1992) that the field is becoming more receptive to articles that are gender related. In addition, other journals in the social science field are also experiencing an increase in submissions related to diversity issues (see
Dillon et al., 1992; Buboltz et al., 1999; Scoy & Oakland, 1991; Williams & Buboltz, 1999). Similar to Blunt and Lee’s (1994) study of AEQ, this current analysis does not portray a field that is “enigmatic, eclectic, and paradigmatically pluralistic” (p. 139) as most would suspect. Rather, the findings show that over the past decade almost 70% of all the submissions fall within just 5 of the 12 categories, those of adult learning, participation, gender/diversity, adult education as a movement, and teaching/curriculum. In addition, adult learning makes up more than 25% of all
submission, implying that a core area of content exists within the field of adult education.


Analyzing All Submissions
By looking at all the submissions, a number of factors are identified that demonstrate significance when conducting content analyses of scholarly journals. First, looking at all submissions allows for a more accurate analysis of the receptivity of the journal and the field to particular topics and subjects in adult education. When involving only accepted manuscripts, an analysis is often incomplete and inconsistent (see Hernon et al., 1993; Zamora & Adamson, 1982). Having access to all submissions allows for a determination of the average acceptance rate of the journal, providing a standard rate of comparison for the acceptance rates of individual categories. For example, Kim (1991) criticized both the field and the journal for its dominant Western perspective, not only because of a lack of international publications but also for a propensity for quantitative research. However, when looking at individual submissions in relationship to acceptances in AEQ, over the past decade, a different landscape emerges. Because the journal receives so few international submissions, it results in few international publications. Despite the low publication rate, some of the submissions from countries outside the United States have a higher than average acceptance rate.
A second factor related to accuracy is the issue of timeliness of the content analysis. Most publications in a journal, particularly in the social science field, can take anywhere from 1 year to 2 years from the time the manuscript is submitted to the time it is actually published (see Beyer, 1978; Biggs, 1990; Henson, 1995). This gap between date of submission and date of publication allows for an inaccurate analysis of trends. For example, this study identified that in just 1 year (1989 to 1990) quantitative submissions dropped from 45.2% to 32.9% and qualitative submissions
increased more than threefold from 8.6% to 26.3%. Also, at this same period of time, submissions about participation dropped from 18.3% to 13.2%, reflecting a decline that continued throughout the decade. This drastic change
raises a number of interesting questions: Was lack of interest by the field in participation, which was predominantly quantitative research, the cause for the decline in quantitative submissions? Was the increase in qualitative submissions a backlash to the dominance of quantitative research and a reflection of qualitative research’s
growing acceptance by the larger education field? Without having access to all submissions, these subtle, but significant, changes in submission patterns would often be overlooked and delayed in a typical content analysis, resulting in a less informed understanding of the direction of the discipline. Third, looking at all publication activity provides the opportunity to carry out even more in-depth analyses about the individual categories of submissions. For example, more analysis is needed to understand why women, who are submitting manuscripts in an ever-increasing number, still lag behind men in number of acceptances. This pattern was also found in the review of all submissions and peer-review comments to the College and Research Libraries journal (Hernon et al., 1993). That study concluded that because the peer reviewers did not comment on gender and because the journal practices a double-blind review process that “gender did not play a role in rendering an editorial decision” (Hernon et al., 1993, p. 316). Fierber and Teiman’s (1980) study of journal publishing by women economists supported this conclusion, with findings that “point towards sex-discrimination among journals which do not have double blind refereeing” (p. 193). A more in-depth analysis could help narrow the focus of manuscripts that reflect unusually high or low acceptance
rates and could offer even greater insight into why women experience higher rejection rates than their male counterparts. Finally, by analyzing all submissions the content analysis of a journal can better address its objectives, those of identifying neglected areas of research, implicit values that frame the field, preferences of topics and methods, and issues of receptivity (Buboltz et al., 1999; Ongel & Smith, 1994). In particular for AEQ this means, for
example, exploring ways to encourage greater historical and international submissions. It also means investigating with greater depth why there is such a significant difference in acceptance rates between quantitative and qualitative research and why women, despite their increase in submissions, experience a lower acceptance rate than men. By addressing these concerns, as well as others, the editors of AEQ can better understand its publication activity and can provide a more responsive and informed journal in the field of adult education.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the significance of this study is that it provides another 10 years of analysis of AEQ, continuing a tradition that started in the 1950s of offering a historical perspective to the issues and trends dominant to the scholarship of adult education. Along with this review and other analyses, new insights can be gained, giving
those who have a committed interest in the field the power to chart a specific direction that would address aspects often overlooked or given little attention in the field. Second, it begins to provide greater clarification about some of the issues raised in previous reviews about the receptivity of AEQ, such as the lack of international publications, gender receptivity, and its overreliance on quantitative research. With this new understanding, the present and future editors are empowered with greater foresight to make the journal more responsive to the interests and needs of its readers. Finally, this study offers a new approach to the process of reviewing academic journals—one that is more holistic and accurate in the interpretation of the publication activity of a journal.

Essay Instructions: This is what the university has suggested.The total number of words need to be 18000 but I need help with 12000 words.Can you please fit 12000 words in the following chapters.
Prelimnary literature review
Methodology/method
critical review
Analysis
discussion
conclusion
I can then add the abstract and introduction and some points in the discussion to make it 18000.


ALSO MY TOPIC IS VERY FLEXIBLE.IF THE GIVEN TOPIC IS DIFFICULT I CAN CHANGE IT TO JUST SOMETHING RELATED TO WHIPLASH AND PHYSIOTHERAPY.i HAVE ARTICLES THAT I HAVE PUT TOGETHER AND CAN SEND YOU THAT IF YOU ARE HAPPY TO GO AHEAD WITH MY PROJECT.I DONT HAVE A LOT OF TIME SO I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO RECEIVE IT BY FRIDAY THE 17TH PLEASE.I CAN EXTEND IT BY ANOTHER DAY IF NEEDED.IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE CAN YOU PLEASE LET ME KNOW ASAP.

TITLE:
The Physiotherapeutic management of psychosocial factors following whiplash injury: A Literature Review.

Abstract:

This dissertation examines the role of Physiotherapy in the management of psychosocial aspects of whiplash. It attempts to describe interventions to manage the psychosocial aspects in Whiplash associated disorders (WAD) and how much of it can be used within Physiotherapy practice. The review also examines the use of ICF (International classification of function) by Physiotherapists and its role in the assessment and management of psychosocial aspects of WAD(optional)
Method: It is a critical appraisal to assess the quality of the included studies. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapists (CSP) published the guidelines for the Physiotherapy management of WAD in 2004.It was published following a systematic review of all whiplash related studies until March 2004.This study therefore includes only those studies published after 2004.
Results: summarise themes from the thematic analysis
Discussion: summary of what was written in the discussion
Conclusion: summary of what was written in the conclusion


Introduction:



Preliminary Literature review:

Demonstrate rich library searching skills, justify clinical decisions based on evidence, identify gaps in current knowledge, find the body of knowledge, generating new knowledge. Summarise the body of knowledge abt the topic. justify your indepth research. why are you doing this topic. Concerns abt patient care. factors preventing good patient care. what assumptions do you have. if there is a problem and the cause of it.
State the research question at the end of preliminary review.

Methodology:

don’t discuss topic in this chapter. philosophical discussion on critical review. also justify why you have chosen it to be your methodology. justify why critical review. You understand critical review as a way of doing research. Importance of searching literature, using appropriate search terms and using Boolean search, demonstrate that you aware of databases available and you can make decisions to justify the database that are most appropriate for this study, importance of inclusion and exclusion criterion, aware of critiquing framework available. Understand importance of thematic analysis, ethical implications of doing a critical review and why it is imp to use other people findings in a honest and fair way. Explaining imp of above points and why they are imp. reference from research books and articles about research.

Method:
tells exactly what you did. searches, databases used, inclusion exclusion criterion, critiquing framework and tools used. Dates, gender, age, context, language.

Critical review:
3000 words
To be convinced that the articles you are using are high quality data.
Beginning of chapter state what articles I found .how many. May also include exclusion criterion. what kind articles. RCT, surveys qualitative, opinions etc. which articles were selected and why. then critique using a framework. Need to summarise these critiques in a summary grid. table of findings. full critiques to be in the appendices. What was found when the articles were critiqued that is 3000 words. There are many frameworks recommended CASP. Use headings from the framework to do the 3000 word essay. write under each heading.

ANALYSIS: 3000 words
Taking the findings from the articles and look at the findings and grouping them. come up with themes and find common themes.use a table if required. there can be major and minor themes.Discuss major themes and minor themes.
Different ways of analysing. taking other peoples data and reworking them to answer your research question. this is known as thematic analysis. generation of new theories and ideas. Also think of whether you trust the articles that you have looked at. link it with your review chapter. how much does it match.Do an indepth analysis. look at analysis tools if you need to. which tools to use depends on what your research question is.Finally, need to ask have you answered your research question. present a clear and consise answer to the research question.

Discussion:
What each of these themes mean and how do hey relate to the papers discussed in preliminary literature review. can you show how you have increased the body of work by doing this review. Implications for work place or organisation, for patients and families, improving patient care. Ethical implications, Need for Questions for further research.
Limitations of critical review as a methodology.Limitations for your use of the methodology.eg language of critical literature review, number of papers(finding articles) and cultural differences, reflect your use of the process, enjoyed it, hated it, learn about yourself. whether you like RCTs better.

Conclusion:
summary of what you have learnt. findings of the analysis in a logical manner. discuss any new findings. any new ideas you have come up with, personal theories discuss. link the theory to research question. aims in introduction. clear link with prelimnary literature review. no references
Make recommendations, what would you like to see done as a result of your findings, how realistic is it, what is the culture at the work place, who can block it. who will you speak to, how will you argue your point, how would you prioritise your recommendations


There are faxes for this order.

Essay Instructions: Assignment: Strategic position, strategic choices and strategy implementation (3,000 words maximum)

Please choose one of the following strategic management issues and structure your report as follows:
1. Introduction (15 marks): Introduce your topic and explain its importance; introduce your case studies; explain the main focus of your report
2. Theoretical Background (30 marks): Drawing on the reading list of your topic, discuss the current theoretical debate and present the resultant analytical framework of your report
3. Case Studies (30 marks): Within-case analysis & cross-case analysis - Firstly, apply your analytical framework to each case seperately; secondly, compare findings across cases
4. Conclusions & Suggestions (15 marks)
5. References (10 marks)

Please note that the textbook of this module (Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2008), Exploring Corporate Strategy: Text and Cases, 8th edition, FT/Prentice Hall) is an important source of information for this assignment. The case studies of each topic are included in the textbook and the website of the textbook provides complementary information.

Following the sequence of the topics below, every week during the seminar we will analyse the theoretical background of a topic and apply resultant analytical frameworks to short illustrations and/or case examples from the textbook. Every week the students are expected to be familiar with the reading list of the corresponding topic (see correspondence between topics and seminar weeks below).

Strategic Management Issues

1. Resources and Capabilities (seminar discussion: weeks 2 & 3)
1.1 Reading list:
? Textbook
? Barreto, I. (2010), "Dynamic Capabilities: A Review of Past Research and an Agenda for the Future", Journal of Management, 36 (1), 256-280
? Crook, T.R., Ketchen, D.J., Jr., Combs, J.G. and Todd, S.Y. (2008), "Strategic resources and performance: A meta-analysis", Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1141-1154
? Hall, R. (1993), "A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage", Strategic Management Journal, 14 (8), 607-618
? Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1990), "The core competence of the corporation", Harvard Business Review, 68 (3), 79-91.
1.2 Case studies: Amazon (B), p.629 AND Formula One, p.652

2. Corporate Governance (seminar discussion: week 4)
2.1 Reading list:
? Textbook
? Davies, S., Lukomnik, J. and Pitt-Watson, D. (2006), The New Capitalists, Harvard Business School Press
? Monks, R. and Minow, N. (2003), Corporate Governance, 3rd Edition, Blackwell
? Solomon, J. (2007), Corporate Governance and Accountability, 2nd Edition, Wiley
? Sonnenfeld, J. (2002), "What makes great boards great", Harvard Business Review, 80 (9), 106-113.
2.2 Case studies: Manchester United, p.662 AND Eurotunnel, p.685

3. Social Responsibility (seminar discussion: week 5)
3.1 Reading list:
? Textbook
? Mirvis, P. and Googins, B. (2006), "Stages of corporate citizenship", California Management Review, 48 (2), 104-126
? McWilliams, A. and Seigel, D. (2001), "Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective", Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127
? Vogel, D. (2005), "Is there a market for virtue? The business case for corporate social responsibility", California Management Review, 47 (4), 19-45
? Barnett, M.L. and Salomon, R.M. (2006), "Beyond dichotomy: the curvilinear relationship between social responsibility and financial performance", Strategic Management Journal, 27 (11), 1101-1122.
3.2 Case studies: Pharmaceutical Industry, p.608 AND Bayer MS, p.677

4. Culture (seminar discussion: week 6)
4.1 Reading list:
? Textbook
? Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture's Consequences, 2nd Edition, Sage
? McSweeney, B. (2002), "Hofstede's model of national cultural differences and their consequences: a triumph of faith - a failure of analysis", Human Relations, 55 (1), 89-118
? Alvesson, M. (2002), Understanding Organizational Culture, Sage.
4.2 Case studies: Eurotunnel, p.685 AND Forestry Commission (textbook website)

5. International Strategy (seminar discussion: week 7)
5.1 Reading list:
? Textbook
? Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.E. (1977), "The internationalisation process of the firm - a model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitment", Journal of International Business Studies, 8 (1), 23-32
? Johanson, J. and Vahlne, J.-E. (2009), "The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership", Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1411-1431
? Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (1994), "Toward a theory of international new ventures", Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (1), 45-64
? Jones, M.V., Coviello, N. and Tang, Y.K. (2012), "International Entrepreneurship research (1989??"2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis", Journal of Business Venturing, article in press.
5.2 Case studies: MacPac, p.746 AND Ekomate, p.755

6. Strategic Leadership (seminar discussion: week 8)
6.1 Reading list:
? Textbook
? Goleman, D. (2000),"Leadership that gets results", Harvard Business Review, 78 (2), 78-90
? Farkas, C.M and Wetlaufer, S. (1996), "The ways chief executive officers lead", Harvard Business Review, 74 (3), 110-112
? Waldman, D.A., Ramirez, G.G., House, R.J. and Puranam, P. (2001), "Does leadership matter? CEO leadership attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty", Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1), 134-143
? Kets de Vries, M.F.R. (1994), "The leadership mystique", Academy of Management Executive, 8 (3), 73-89.
6.2 Case studies: News Corporation, p.712 AND Marks & Spencer (B), p.831

7. Innovation and Entrepreneurship (seminar discussion: week 9)
7.1 Reading list:
? Textbook
? Oviatt, B.M. and McDougall, P.P. (1994), "Toward a theory of international new ventures", Journal of International Business Studies, 25 (1), 45-64
? Jones, M.V., Coviello, N. and Tang, Y.K. (2012), "International Entrepreneurship research (1989??"2009): A domain ontology and thematic analysis", Journal of Business Venturing, article in press
? Brown, T.E., Davidsson, P. and Wiklund, J. (2001), "An operationalization of Stevenson's conceptualization of entrepreneurship as opportunity-based firm behavior", Strategic Management Journal, 22, 953-968
? Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.M. and Wright, M. (2000), "Strategy in Emerging Economies", Academy of Management Journal, 43, 249-267.
7.2 Case studies: Brown Bag Films, p.766 AND ACME, p.770

8. Managing change (seminar discussion: week 10)
8.1 Reading list:
? Textbook
? Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2002), "The unintended consequences of culture interventions: a study of unexpected outcomes", British Journal of Management, 13 (1), 31-49
? Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000), "Cracking the code of change", Harvard Business Review, 78 (3), 133-141
? Kotter, J. (1995), "Leading change: why transformation efforts fail", Harvard Business Review, 59-67
? Balogun, J. (2006),"Managing change: steering a course between intended strategies and unanticipated outcomes", Long Range Planning, 39, 29-49.
8.2 Case studies: Marks & Spencer (B), p.831 AND Haram, p.840

9. Public sector / not-for-profit management (seminar discussion: week 11)
9.1 Reading list:
? Textbook
? Denis, J.-L., Lamothe, L. and Langley, A. (2001), "The dynamics of collective change leadership and strategic change in pluralistic organizations", Academy of Management Journal, 44 (4), 809-837
? Ambrosini, V., Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (1998), Exploring Techniques of Analysis and Evaluation in Strategic Management, Prentice Hall
? Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (2000), Exploring Public Sector Strategy, Prentice Hall.
9.2 Case studies: BBC, p.800 AND NHS Direct, p.817

10. Small Business Strategy (seminar discussion: week 12)
10.1 Reading list:
? Textbook
? Coviello, N.E. and McAuley A. (1999), "Internationalisation and the Smaller Firm: A Review of Contemporary Empirical Research", Management International Review, 39 (3), 223-256
? Wheeler C., Ibeh, K. and Dimitratos, P. (2008), "UK Export Performance Research", International Small Business Journal, 26 (2), 207-239
? Gilbert, B.A., McDougall, P.P. and Audretsch, D.B. (2006), "New Venture Growth: A Review and Extension", Journal of Management, 32 (6), 926-950
? Westhead, P., Wright, M. and Ucbasaran, D. (2001), "The internationalization of new and small firms: a resource-based view", Journal of Business Venturing, 16, 333??"358
? Lu, J.W. and Beamish, P.W. (2001), "The internationalization and performance of SMEs", Strategic Management Journal, 22, 565??"586.
10.2 Case studies: Ekomate, p.755 AND Web Reservations International, p.811



There are faxes for this order.