No one is reading you was the title of a recent article describing scholarly publications. My brief summary would suggest the article claimed “most publications receive little attention even though some might offer useful information”.
The article reminds me of a story told by my wife’s sister who claims to have checked my dissertation out from the university library. At the time books had a little card in front that was marked with the “due date” and she said she was concerned there were no return dates on my masterpiece. I guess it makes a good story at family gatherings. I admit that I have never checked out a thesis or dissertation either. I did read many before students finished their work I thought that was enough.
A couple of quotes from the linked article will give you the flavor:
Even debates among scholars do not seem to function properly. Up to 1.5 million peer-reviewed articles are published annually. However, many are ignored even within scientific communities – 82 per cent of articles published in humanities are not even cited once. No one ever refers to 32 per cent of the peer-reviewed articles in the social and 27 per cent in the natural sciences.
If a paper is cited, this does not imply it has actually been read. According to one estimate, only 20 per cent of papers cited have actually been read. We estimate that an average paper in a peer-reviewed journal is read completely by no more than 10 people. Hence, impacts of most peer-reviewed publications even within the scientific community are minuscule.
Note that the examples in this article do not include educational research. I also could not determine the source for the data provided which prevented me from understanding the scope and method of the research. Citation frequency is easy enough to to check. With access to Google Scholar you can now check citation frequency and most of us are vain enough to know which of articles have drawn the most attention. I do agree that many cited articles are not read. I think people sometimes cite what other researchers cite without actually reading the publication beyond the abstract.
If few scholars read each others work (I think this statement is a serious exaggeration but I have only my own experience to go on), the chance that such work influences practice seems unlikely. I am more concerned about this issue especially as it applies to education. Clearly, from time to time, “trends” move through the educational community. These ideas must come from somewhere and I would hope the basis for innovations had some basis in careful scholarship. My concern is that this is not the case.
I am reading a book by educational historian Jack Schneider -From the Ivory Tower to the Classroom – that addresses the transfer issue in education. Based on his analysis of several specific ideas, Schneider argues that there are key characteristics of ideas that make the transition from research to practice
- Perceived significance – research offers a big picture approach rather than a piece of the puzzle.
- Philosophical compatibility – fits with the professional identity and values of teachers
- Occupational realism – fit within the professional constraints within which teachers operate – e.g., time
- Transportability – easy to communicate
Understand that the author is not attempting to identify the characteristics of research that is most meaningful research or ideas with the greatest potential. The author is attempting to identify ideas that seem to have been accepted/considered rather than ignored. His arguments through a kind of case study approach – here are some ideas that have been accepted and here are some ideas that have been ignored. I assume the approach assumes all are credible ideas and the arguments are based in an analysis of the factors that determine acceptance.
In a later post, I will provide a follow-up on two of his cases. I have particular interest in two of the cases – projects (accepted) and generative processing (ignored). Much of my writing on technology stems from a generative processing perspective. I see “writing to learn” as an extension of the generative position and I have morphed “writing to learn” into “authoring to learn” as a way to justify many of the tactics I propose.
I think this is a very important issue. I do not expect practicing educators to read basic research, but I do wish they accepted the value of research and read a little more of the secondary literature based on this research. Now retired, I consider myself no longer an active researcher, but I hope to spend some time reading the publications and writing to offer my perspective.
