Why Academicians Don't Write

Author(s): Robert Boice and Ferdinand Jones

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 55, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct., 1984), pp. 567-582
Published by: Ohio State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1981822 .
Accessed: 17/10/2012 11:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Ohio State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal
of Higher Education.

http://www.jstor.org
 RobertBoice
FerdinandJones

WhyAcademicians
Don'tWrite

Writingforpublicationis notonlylaboriousand
slow, it may also engenderaversion:"Tellinga writerto relaxis like
tellinga man to relax while being prodded for a hernia. ... He thinks
thathis articlemustbe of a certainlengthor it won'tseemimportant.
He thinkshow augustitwilllook in print.He thinksof all thepeople
who will read it. He thinksthat it must have the solid weightof
authority. He thinksthatitsstylemustdazzle. No wonderhe tightens"
[109, p. 21]. Yet writingis one of the mostimportantthingsan aca-
demiciancan do. Publicationweighsheavilyin decisionsabout hiring,
promotion,and tenurein academicand otherprofessionalsettings[3].
Writing, morethananyotherprofessionalactivity, bringsrewardslike
visibility[59]. And writingand publicationcan providea unique and
importantkind of self-education:"I would urge you to write,not
because it is a good thing,not because it is nice to see yourname in
print,notevenbecauseitis relevantto fullmembership in our society,
butratherbecause you willreallygetto knowa fieldonlyifyou con-
tribute to it. ... Writing ultimately becomes important not only
because of whatit does forothersbut also forwhatit does forone-
self' [70, p. 4].
Nonetheless,fewof us writeforpublication[55]. The mediannum-
berof scholarlypublicationsforeventhemostprolificdisciplineslike
psychologyis zero [2]. Most academicianswho do writecontribute
infrequently; as fewas 10 percentof writersin specificareas account
forover 50 percentof the literature[17]. Whydo so fewof us write
RobertBoice is professorofpsychology,State Universityof New York,Albany.
FerdinandJonesis directorof psychologicalservicesand professorof psychology,
Brown University.
Journalof HigherEducation, Vol. 55, No. 5 (September/October
1984)
Copyright? 1984 by the Ohio State UniversityPress
568 Journalof HigherEducation

forpublication?This questiongenerallyhas been ignored,at leastin

print,perhapsbecause thosewho alreadywriteand publishneed not
be concerned.It may be, giventhe flood of manuscriptssubmitted
forpublication[104],thatwe shouldbe further discouragedfromwrit-
ing. Similarly,it can be argued thatmuch of what is writtenis incon-
sequential[80]. But we mightdo well to base our attitudesand prac-
ticesregardingwriterson moresystematic study.Many scholarswith
valuable ideas maynotbe publishing;widerparticipationin publica-
tion mightbenefitscholarlyactivitiesincludingteaching[103].
This paper examinesthe factorsthatdiscouragewritersin higher
education. It surveysemergingconcernswithundemocraticand ex-
clusionarypoliciesin theeditorialprocess[78]. It reviewssome of the
fromcompositionresearchthatsuggests
literature waysof makingwrit-
ing easier and more effective
[31, 65, 110], and it proposes alterna-
tivesto currentpracticesand attitudesregarding scholarlywriting and
publishing.

Reasons Most AcademiciansDon't Write

No doubtthegreatestforceagainstwritingforpublicationis lack
of momentum.The longera writerrefrains,the more difficultit is
to begin again [66]. The more one publishes,evidently,the readier
theacceptanceof one's articlesforpublication[60]. Butinsightsabout
momentumdo littleto explainwhatinhibitswriting in thefirstplace.
A surveythatasked facultymemberswhat keptthemfromwriting
as muchas theywouldhavepreferred mayprovidemoreinsight[11].
Distractionsand Lack of Time
The scatteredliteratureon thepsychologyof writingconfirmsthe
most common complaint:Teachingcan conflictwithwriting[26].
Administrative someof themostcompetent
work,too, distracts faculty
frommoreleisurelypursuitslikewriting[37]. Of coursedecisionsto
makewriting a lowerprioritythanotherendeavorsmayalso be volun-
tary[32]. For instance,some blacks in academehave arguedthatpro-
vidingdirect servicesand promoting social changeshouldcomebefore
writing[52, 84]. Similarly,some feminists questionthewisdomof try-
ingto writein themale "genderlect"formale-dominated media [61].
Finally,colleagues wizened withexperience and securein theirjobs
1Fourhundredfacultymembers,selectedfromall the schools and collegesof a
doctoralgrantinguniversity, returned221 useable questionnaires.The frequencyof
and to open-endedquestionsaboutwriting
responsesto checklists distractions
provided
the rankedlist of headingsthat follows.
 Why AcademiciansDon't Write 569

occasionallyadviseus to waitto publishuntilaided bygreaterinsight

and less urgency[50].
Despitetheirattractiveness,reasonsof distractionand too littletime
explainverylittle.Surveysindicatethatacademicianswho writehave
no morefreetimeor no fewercommitments to social actionthancol-
leagues who do notwrite those
[11, 12]. Instead, whowriteoftensimply
make time.For theseindividuals,successfulwritingdoes not neces-
sarilyrequirelarge,continuousblocks of time [32]. Even supposed
constraintssuch as marriageand family[69] correlatepositively,to
a reasonableextent,withsuccess[17]. Whatdoes seemrelevantabout
distractionis that successfulwritersare not easily distractedfrom
writing;indeed,theypreoccupythemselves withideas about it almost
daily [40].
WritingBlocks
A commonreasonfornotwriting
is a block. Althougha vagueand
circular concept (". . . an obstacle to the free expression of ideas on
paper" [58, p. 15]), thenotionof a writingblock helpsexplainwhat
makes writingdifficult[8].
Early experience.Writingblock therapistsgenerallyemphasize
criticaland intimidatingteachersas blockingagents[64]. Earlyexperi-
enceswithanonymousand aggressivereviewersmightinducesimilar
trepidations[12]. Therapiesderivedfromtheseviewsprescribedisso-
ciationfrompast influencesand writingin situationswherecriticism
is minimized[53, 88, 93].
Grandiosity andperfectionism. Jonesconcludesthatblockedwriters
simultaneously discount their to writewhileemployinggran-
abilities
diose expectationsof originalityand significance
to a vaguelyplanned
writingproject [51].
Writing anxiety.Fears of writing,much like testanxiety,involve
fearof evaluation[22]. The potentialforavoidancemaybe seenwhen
a crampedwriteris physicallyunable to writebecause of spasms,
tremors,or paralysesthatoccur witheach attemptto write[82, 87].
Personalityassessments of crampedwriters showthatthey,morethan
fluentwriters,sharetraitssuchas hypersensitivity and conscientious-
ness [20]. A relatedinsightmaybe gleanedfromTypeA individuals.
These heart-attack pronepeople tryto achievemorein less timeand
may subvert theircreativepotentialswithoverlydemandingdeadlines
and standards[34]. Impatienceis a powerfulally of procrastination
in writing[12].
Cognitions.Self-talkcontributesto writingproblemsin muchthe
570 Journalof HigherEducation

same way as it does to testanxiety[62]. Both test-anxiousstudents

and problemwriters worryaboutcomparisons withothers;theydevalue
the task or settingof writing;and theyanticipatea loss of esteem.
Patientsof both sortsbeginby buildingan awarenessof theirnega-
tiveself-talkand thenlearnto challengenonadaptivethoughtsbefore
substituting more adaptive statementslike "I will not stop, and I'll
postponejudging"[12]. Cognitionsalso influence compositionanother
way; blockerstellthemselvesto editprematurely whilenonblockers
proceed withriskieradjustmentsin plans [85].
Establishingmomentum.Despite romanticbeliefsthatgood writ-
ingmustbe spontaneous,thereis increasingacceptanceof thenotion
thatmomentumcan be establishedwithspecial techniqueslike free-
writing[28]. This techniqueof writinganythingthatcomes to mind
quicklyis reminiscent of what helps block writing-editingprema-
turely.Free-writing overcomeblocking[81]. A relatedtechnique
can
of automaticwriting (a semi-hypnotic methodof inducingwriting with-
out consciousawarenessor responsibility) also establishesmomentum
[14].
Maintainingmomentum.Gettingstartedthroughfree-writing or
othertechniquesmay produce dramaticaccountsof relief[98], but
it is no guaranteethata writerwillremainunblocked[8, 49]. Many
writersseem to continuewritingonly if theyare forcedby external
pressures.The best way, evidently,of usingexternalpressuresis to
replacehabitsof writing franticallyformajordeadlineswithmoderate
habits of writingregularly.
Witha fewexceptions[51], behavioraltherapistshave advocated
pressuringthe blocked writerregardlessof mood or inspiration[10,
74]. Kindredapproachesto schedulingcan be foundin therepertoire
of successfulwriters[38, 76]. Despitetheclearsuccessof contingency
managementin maintainingmomentum,one reservationpersists.
Won't forcingwritinginterfere withits qualitativeaspectslike crea-
tivity[46]? The evidencesuggeststhat,ifanything, contingency man-
agementcan do muchmorethanmerelyinducequantity[1]. Blocked
academicianswho wroteregardlessof mood producedfarmorecrea-
tiveideas than did counterpartswho eitherwrotespontaneouslyor
who abstainedfromwriting[13]. Is, then,a block a legitimatereason
fornot writing?To theextentthatblockingimputessomethingmys-
teriousand uncontrollable[5], it is not. In fact,writingblocks are
easilyand reliablytreatedby inducingand maintainingmomentum
[10].
 Why AcademiciansDon't Write 571

Personalityand Gender
Personalityand genderwererelativelyuncommonamong reasons
fornotwriting [11].Nonetheless,therecentliterature
on thepsychology
of writingsuggeststhatthesetwo variablescan be powerfuldetermi-
nantsof who writes.Considerfirstthe possibilityof distinguishing
writersin termsof fourenduringstylesas publishers:prolific,per-
fectionistic,silent,and mass-producers[18]. The silentcategory,not
surprisingly,comprisessomethree-quarters of physicists
sampled.This
typology corresponds with
significantly other personalityfactors.Mass-
producers,forinstance,tendto be highlycompetitive but,curiously,
do not persistin writingwhentheirarticlesare neitherwell-received
nor citedfrequently [45]. Men are morelikelyto be mass-producers
or prolificwriters;womenare morelikelyto be silentor perfectionistic
writers[72].
Whethergenderdifferences in publishingreflectinborntraitsor
situationalfactorssuchas social pressures,womenwriteforpublica-
tion less oftenthan men [30]. Consequently,womenin the sciences
and in academics may be more likelyto be unemployed,less likely
to gain prestigiousappointments,and slowerto receiveawards such
as tenure,promotion,and salaryincreasesthanmen [3; cf. 30]. The
reason,surprisingly, does not seemto be centeredsolelyin subtledis-
criminatory practices;whenmenand womendid produceresearchand
writingof equal quality,differences in academicrewardsdisappeared
[17]. And whenwomenhave written,theirarticlesmay be as likely
to be citedas are men's[72,73]. Why,then,do womenwritelessoften?
The road to gettingpublishedincludesmembership in an invisiblecol-
lege- a group of individualswho can exertenormousinfluenceon
thepopularityof topicsin journals [7]. Advantagealso mayinvolve
theMatthewEffect(Matt. 25:29 "For untoeveryonethathath,more
shall be given . . ."), or the tendencyforthose who are already estab-
lishedto reap morecitationsand recognitionfromotherswho pub-
lish associated work [63].

ExclusionaryFactors
Only a few respondents,all minorityor femaleacademicians,cited
discriminatory practicesas a reason for not writing.
Reviewingpractice. While suspicions of exclusionarypractices
remainmostlyjustthat- suspicions- themachinery forcarefulexami-
nation is being put into place. The journal reviewprocess, when
exposedto scrutiny,appearsunfair;reviewersseemmoretolerantof
572 Journalof HigherEducation

papers thatconfirmtheirown beliefs[57, 96]. Citingoneselfin the

reference sectionmayenhanceratingsbyreviewers[60],and thestatus
of an author'saffiliationmightaffecteditorialdecisions [78]. Pre-
liminarystudiesalso suggestimprecisereviewingpractices.Reports
of poor agreementamongreviewersappear often[102; cf. 91]. Even
wherereviewers used specificratingscales,theywereonlymoderately
reliableon overallquality,weaklyreliableon the qualityof writing,
and notreliableon theimportanceof thetopic [106]. Petersand Ceci
have producedthemostnotoriousindicationof an unreliableeditorial
process[78]. Previouslypublishedarticles,whenslightly disguisedand
resubmitted, were neither recognizedby reviewersnor accepted for
publication.Whilethatstudycontainsmethodological and ethicalfail-
ings [36], it nonethelessdoes littleto encouragesubmissionsby aca-
demicianswho feel disenfranchised.
Inflation.Increasesin publicationratesmightalso discouragewrit-
ing. The numberof publicationsrequisiteforpromotionsand other
rewardshas risendramaticallyin the past decade or two [15, 100].
It may seem increasinglydifficultto catch up withthose who are
alreadywriting successfully.Inflationaryeffects
includea growingcoin-
age of the LPU (least publishableunit)-that is, theminimummate-
rial acceptable as an article.

Writing as Pathological
None of thefacultysurveyedcheckedthisreason[11],butthesuspi-
cion thatwritingis inherently unhealthyseemedto lurkin theback-
groundonce respondents beganto reflecton theirfeelingsabout writ-
ing. Impetusforthisviewcomesin partfromliteraryanalysesof the
personalitiesof famouswriters[67]. Most often,assumptionsabout
pathologyand writing come frompsychoanalysts. Bergler,who coined
theconceptof writing blocks,saw all writing
as neurotic,as an attempt
to substitutea flowof wordsfortheflowof milkdesiredfroma reject-
ing mother [5]. So, theargumentcontinues,thesameneuroticreasons
thatdrivepeople to writealso make the completionof writingtasks
difficult;a writerpresumablystops writingto gain revengewithhis
or hermother[92]. Ellenberger, perhapsunintentionally, portrayssuc-
cessfulwriters likeFreudas opportunistic, and
insensitive, urgent[29].
Relativelyunskilledwriterssuch as Adler come across as healthy,
beloved, and patient.Some observers,finally,claim thatsickness-
eitherphysicalor emotional-provides thebestconditionforwriting
[79].
Empiricalstudiesprovidea morefavorable,albeitmixed,viewof
 Why AcademiciansDon't Write 573

writing.Developing competenceas a writermay bringpersonality

changeslikedecreasedself-doubt and increasedsocial dominance[24],
but a moreextensiveinvestigation suggeststhan an increasein writ-
ing productivity correlateswitha decreasein interpersonalorienta-
tion [45]. This could mean thatproductivewritersmustbe recluses,
or it could mean thatfacultywho do not writeare too accessibleto
studentsand colleagues.More to thepoint,creativeprocessesinclud-
ingwriting evidently dependon theabsenceof neuroses[81]. Accord-
ingto recentevidencecollectedby Perkins,thecreativeprocessesdo
not relyon unconsciousdeterminants [77]. Rather,creativewriting
seems to be most clearlydependenton hardworkand organizedhabits
[27].
Writing as InherentlyDifficult
Whatmakeswritingseemso difficult? First,we mayunderestimate
itsdemands.Writing is nota mechanicalskillthat,liketyping,merely
transcribes ideas; rather,itclarifiesand exploresrelationships between
ideas [68]. Second, writing makesveryspecialdemandson thewriter.
Rose approachesthedifficulty of writingvia Huxley'searlierconclu-
sions-that writingis exhaustingbecause of demandsto continually
focuson thecomplextaskat hand [86]. In Rose's view,thereal diffi-
cultyin gettingintothe flowof writinglies in theresultingmoments
of loss of self-control. DeBeaugrande,on theotherhand,emphasizes
thespecialneedsof readersas distinctfromhearers[23]. Skillfulwrit-
ingrequiresmarkedlydifferent standardsof whatis necessaryor ex-
pendable, of what is clear or ambiguous, and of whatis repetitious
or concise than talkingdoes.
Third,because writingskillsare not generallyunderstood,writers
oftenattachelaborateritualsto theirtasks. One of these-writingin
marathonsessions- seemsto be a carry-over of habitslearnedas stu-
dents; it doubtless contributes to the common associationbetween
writingfatigueand anxiety.When academicianshave changedtheir
workinghabitsto regimensof briefbut regularsessions,writingre-
portedlybecomesincreasingly effortlessand easy [10]. Anecdotesof
writerswho could notwritewithouttheproperconditionssuchas the
smellof rottingapples helpperpetuatetheimageof writingas a mys-
teriousact. Social scientistsare infamousfortheirritualisticwriting
styleswhichincludelengthy titlesthatare dividedbycolons,dysrhyth-
mic, and difficultto decipher[25]. Fourth,and largelyexternalto the
act of writing,highrejectionrates,lengthydelaysin reviewing,and
limitedreadershipand recognitiondiscouragewriting[4, 71, 107].
574 Journalof HigherEducation

Deficienciesin Instruction
This factor,too, was not selectedas a reason but was recognized
as an importantfactorin whatmighthave helpedwithwriting.Most
of us are productsof a systemwherewritingskillsare largelyself-
taught[9]; consequently,academiciansoftenpresenttheirwork in
remarkablynaive ways [94]. We may implicitlyassume that good
writersare born and not made [108].

Consequences of Not Writing

Academicianswho don'twriteare, again,unlikelyto securethebest
rewardsand to develop fullyas scholars,teachers,and researchers
[70, 103]. Considerthe possibilitythatmuchof whatnow getscom-
municatedmaynotrepresent thebestthatcan be offered.Most pub-
licationscome fromauthorswho are far fromreachingtheirpeaks
of eminence[111] and, arguably,frommatureviewsof theirsubject
areas [50, 80]. Whenthenonwriters belongto alreadydisadvantaged
groupssuchas minorities and women,theloss in communication may
be even greater.When thesepeople do not write,the studentswho
model themmaypersistin a stylethathelpsensurecontinueddisen-
franchisement.

Solutions and Alternatives

Democratizingthe PublicationProcess
What,beyondcurrentbeginningsto open membership on editorial
and reviewpanels [19],willencouragemoredemocraticparticipation
in publishing?Journalscould reserveregularamountsof space for
manuscriptssolicitedfromnew or renewedwriters.Walbydescribes
workshopswhereeditorialstaffstrainauthorsin effective waysof pre-
paringarticles[99]. Orne and his editorialcolleaguesdemystify the
processof publishing the of
byexplaining purpose compiling an article,
the way to manage a literaturereview,and the basis for reviewers'
decisions [33, 35, 70].
Anothersolutioncould be coachingreviewersto make comments
in a sociallyskilledfashionwithcriticisms precededand followedby
with
supportivestatements, impersonalcomplaints,and withspecific
suggestions forimprovement [21]. Editorsmightdo morethanencour-
age such a format;theycould insiston it as a basis forusinga re-
viewer'sdecision[89, 91]. Changesin whatappears a harshlyunfair
systemmightalso includean objectiveand broad-basedmethodfor
selectingreviewers[6], and opportunitiesforauthorsto respondto
reviewsbeforeeditorialdecisionsare made [16].
 Why AcademiciansDon't Write 575

In themidstof a trendto criticizereviewers, authors'contributions

to problemsin editorialprocessesmaybe overlooked.Reviewers, most
of themunpaid and unappreciated,do help"hold back theliterature
at the floodgatesa littlelonger"[43, p. 216]. Gordon concludesthat
thedecisionto publishshouldbe directedmoreto authorswho could
be given"theoption(and responsibility) forpublishinga manuscript
provided it was accompaniedby the unanswered commentsof the
refereewhererelevant.Such a systemwouldnotonlyleavetherespon-
sibilityof publishingwiththe authors,to whom it mustultimately
belong,but would be moreconsistentwiththe onlyreal, and in fact
theonlyrealizable,goal of therefereeing process,namelyto provide
as effectivean evaluationof a submittedmanuscriptas is practical,
butwithoutanyimplicationof infallibility on thepartof thereferees,
journals, or authors" [39, p. 214].

TeachingWriting Skills
The literatureon rhetoric and compositioncontainsa wealthofideas
forteachingwritingskills[9]. The best-knownworkin thatarea re-
sulted fromcollaborationbetweena compositionresearcherand a
cognitivepsychologist [31]. Flowerand Hayes teachheuristics as prob-
lem solvingapproachesto the writingsituation(e.g., audience), to
thegoals of writing(e.g., creatingan identity),and to thegeneration
of ideas forwriting(e.g., by usingstoredproblemrepresentations).
Once mastered,theseheuristicspresumablyhelp writersthroughthe
major process of writing:planningand organizing;translationof
mentalimages into prose; and the readingand editingof what has
been written.Curiously,moreintuitivetechniquescan also facilitate
writing,by makingwritersless self-conscious[83]. These new and
specificways of teachingskillsare graduallydisplacingtraditional
notionsabout writing.Romanticnotionsabout writersworkingwith
the aid of a muse merelydivertstudentsfromhard truthsabout the
methodicaland disciplinedwork of good writing[38, 76].
Anotherchangein theteachingof writingcomes fromsocial scien-
tistswho have masteredwritingforpublicationand who are sharing
theirskillswithcolleagues.Stolz [97] helpsprospectiveauthors,par-
ticularlywomen,deal withthe inhibitionsthattypicallydeterthem
fromwriting articles.She proposesa numberof solutions,amongthem
approximating a written draftbypresenting an oral versionto a class.
Scarrportraystheessentialqualitiesa successfulauthormustdevelop:
(a) readinessto acceptrejections;(b) readinessto submita manuscript
to other,possiblyless prominent,outlets;(c) preparednessto reply
to criticismrationally,especiallywhenit is unfair;(d) willingnessto
576 Journalof HigherEducation

reviseand cut writing;(e) persistencein theface of failureand readi-

ness to learnfromfailures;and (f) inclinationto act like a colleague
instead of the "lonelyvictimof arbitraryjustice" [90, p. 16].
TechnologicalAdvances
Wordprocessorsmaychangewritinghabitsby allowingwritersto
compose and reviseon a screenbeforetouchinga keyto producea
typedmanuscript.Problemssuchas misspelling, overlycomplexsen-
tences,and poorusageare flaggedin computer-aided composition[42].
Programs thatassist with more intangiblefactors of good writing such
as flowand voice are beingdeveloped.Considerthe ease of writing
withword processorswhichwould transposespoken wordsdirectly
into displayedtext.
Technologicaladvances will not, of course,make some of us any
more cheerfulabout writing.Indeed, reservationsabout how much
time,if any,is actuallysaved by text-editing have alreadyappeared;
modifying one's texton a wordprocessormaytake moretimein for-
matting,textpositioning,in reviewingthe formatted version,and in
making more changes than might occur with traditionalprocedures
[41; cf. 56]. And oncewordprocessing is fullyautomatic,traditionalists
will inevitablycomplainthat writingis no longeran art.
In a situationwhereeveryacademicianwill potentiallybe both a
producerand a transmitter of information [48],anotherproblemseems
likely- an of
explosion printed material. Scientificjournalsof all types
have increasedfromone in 1665to morethan 100,000currently. The
numberof scientific articleshas doubledeverytwelveto fifteen years
in the past two and a halfcenturies[43]. By the end of thiscentury,
informedspecialistswill need to read fourtimesmorethan theydo
now [54].
One advantageto this discouragingprospectmay be the end of
printedformatsas we now know them."For a varietyof reasonsit
seemsthatlearnedjournalswillbecomeobsoletein thefuture.Scien-
tificinformation willbe distributedin abstractsand storedin a form
available formechanicalprocessing,so thatit can be automatically
retrieved"[101,p. 231]. So althoughmoreliterature willbe available,
individualswould not need to accumulateas manyjournals as they
now do. Instead,subscriberscould simplyscan abstracts,skimrele-
vantarticles,and thenhave onlythoseworthhardcopyactuallyrepro-
duced on paper. Electronicjournalswillevidentlydevelopslowly,in
partbecause of thereluctanceof academiciansto giveup theircollec-
tionsof traditionally producedjournals [95]. But electronicjournals
can ease two strainsof publishingin highereducation-specialized
 Why AcademiciansDon't Write 577

journalsusingan informalstyleshouldmake writingeasier [47], and

withoutthe presentconstraintsof limitingjournals to so fewbound
pages, scholarlyjournalscould be less exclusionary and harshin their
reviewing processes[75]. An optimisticview of journalsalso
electronic
helpsexpandtheemphasesof thispaper.Writing forpublicationcould
become less the provinceof an exclusivegroupof academicians[32,
48, 105] because more of us mightroutinelydevelop our ideas for
teachingand researchin written format[103] ratherthanwriting only
for publication.

References
1. Ballard, K. D., and T. Glynn."BehavioralSelf-management in StoryWriting
withElementarySchool Children."Journalof Applied BehaviorAnalysis,8
(Winter1975), 387-98.
2. Barlow,D. H. "On theRelationof ClinicalResearchto ClinicalPractice:Current
Issues,New Directions."Journalof Consulting and ClinicalPsychology,49 (April
1981), 147-55.
3. Bayer,A. E., and H. S. Astin."Sex Differentials in theAcademicRewardSys-
tem." Science, 88 (May 1975), 796-802.
4. Beaver, D. D. "On the Failure to Detect PreviouslyPublished Research."
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 199-200.
5. Bergler,E. The Writerand Psychoanalysis.Garden City: Doubleday, 1950.
6. Bernard,H. R. "Computer-assisted RefereeSelectionas a Means of Reducing
PotentialEditorialBias." Behavioraland Brain Sciences,5 (June 1982), 202.
7. Blashfield,R. K. "Reighneret al., InvisibleColleges,and theMatthewEffect."
SchizophreniaBulletin,8 (1982), 1-12.
8. Boice, R. "Increasingthe WritingProductivityof 'Blocked' Academicians."
BehaviourResearch and Therapy,20 (1982), 197-207.
9. . "Teachingof Writingin Psychology."Teachingof Psychology,9 (April
1982), 143-47.
10. . "Clinical VersusExperimentalTreatments of WritingBlocks." Journal
of Consultingand Clinical Psychology,51 (April 1983), 183-91.
11. . "FacultyDevelopmentBased AroundWritingBlock Therapies."Paper
presentedat EasternPsychologicalAssociation,Philadelphia,April 1983.
12. . "Psychotherapies forWritingBlocks." In Writing Problems,editedby
M. Rose. New York: Guilford,forthcoming.
13. . "The NeglectedThirdFactor in Writing:Productivity."College Com-
position and Communication,in press.
14. Boice, R., and P. Myers."AutomaticWriting."Unpublishedmanuscript,State
Universityof New York at Albany, 1983.
15. Bornstein,M. H. "PublicationRatesAmongDistinguished AmericanPsycholo-
gists: A Cohort Effect?" Bulletin of the BritishPsychological Society, 33
(November1980), 424.
578 Journalof HigherEducation

16. Chubin, D. E. "ReformingPeer Review: From Recyclingto Reflexivity." Be-

havioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 204.
17. Cole, J. R. "Womenin Science." AmericanScientist,69 (July/August1981),
385-91.
18. Cole, J. R., and S. Cole. Social Stratification
in Science. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1973.
19. Cole, S., K. Rubin,and J. R. Cole. "Peer Reviewand theSupportof Science."
ScientificAmerican,237 (October 1977), 34-41.
20. Crisp,A. H., and H. Moldofsky."A PsychosomaticStudyof Writer'sCramp."
BritishJournalof Psychiatry,111 (December 1965), 841-58.
21. Curran,J.P., and P. M. Monti.Social SkillsTraining. New York:Guilford,1972.
22. Daly, J. A., and M. D. Miller."The EmpiricalDevelopmentof an Instrument
to Measure WritingApprehension."Research in the Teachingof English, 9
(Winter1975), 242-49.
23. DeBeaugrande,R. "CognitiveProcessesand TechnicalWriting:Developmental
Foundations."Journalof TechnicalWriting and Communications,12 (1982),
121-45.
24. Denman, M. L. "PersonalityChanges ConcomitantWith LearningWriting."
Research in the Teachingof English, 15 (May 1981), 170-71.
25. Dillon, J. T. "The Emergenceof theColon: An EmpiricalCorrelateof Scholar-
ship." AmericanPsychologist,36 (August 1981), 879-84.
26. Dorsel, T. N. "ConflictingGoals: A Dilemma for the Teacher-Researcher."
Teachingof Psychology,8 (February1981), 52-53.
27. Downey,J. E. "A Programfora Psychologyof Literature."JournalofApplied
Psychology,2 (1918), 366-77.
28. Elbow, P. WritingwithPower. New York: OxfordUniversityPress, 1981.
29. Ellenberger,H. Discoveryof the Unconscious.New York: Basic Books, 1970.
30. Emmons,C. A. "A LongitudinalStudyof theCareersof a Cohortof Assistant
Professors in Psychology."American Psychologist,37 (November 1982),
1228-38.
31. Flower,L. S., and J. R. Hayes. "The Dynamicsof Composing:MakingPlans
and JugglingConstraints."In CognitiveProcessesin Writing, editedby L. W.
Greggand E. R. Steinberg.Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1980.
32. Fox, M. F., and C. A. Faver. "The Process of Collaborationin ScholarlyRe-
search." ScholarlyPublishing,13 (July1982), 327-39.
33. Frankel, F. H. "ReportingHypnosis in the Medical Context." International
Journalof Clinical and ExperimentalHypnosis, 34 (January1981), 10-14.
34. Friedman,M., and R. H. Rosenman.TypeA Behaviorand YourHeart. Green-
wich: Fawcett, 1974.
35. Fromm,E. "How to Writea ClinicalPaper." InternationalJournalof Clinical
and ExperimentalHypnosis, 24 (January1981), 5-9.
36. Geen,R. G. "ReviewBias: Positiveor Negative,Good or Bad?" BehavioralBrain
Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 211.
 Why AcademiciansDon't Write 579

37. Glidden,L. M. "Confessionsof an ExperimentalPsychologist:How I Triedto

Do Researchin theTeachingof Psychologyand Failed,and Did Not TryAgain."
Teachingof Psychology,3 (October 1975), 130-31.
38. Goldiamond, I. "LiteraryBehavior Analysis." Journalof Applied Behavior
Analysis, 10 (Fall 1977), 527-29.
39. Gordon,R. A. "OptionalPublishedRefereeing." Behavioraland BrainSciences,
5 (June 1982), 213-14.
40. Gould, J. D. "Experimentson ComposingLetters:Some Facts, Some Myths,
and Some Observations."In CognitiveProcesses in Writing, editedby L. W.
Greggand E. R. Steinberg.Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1980.
41. . "Composing LettersWith Computer-BasedText Editors." Human
Factors, 23 (October 1981), 593-606.
42. Hartley,J. "Introduction." In ThePsychologyof WrittenCommunication, edited
by J. Hartley.New York: Nichols, 1980.
43. . "ScientificCommunication:So Where Do We Go From Here?" Be-
havioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 215-16.
44. Hayes, J. R., and L. S. Flower. "Identifyingthe Organizationof WritingPro-
cesses."In CognitiveProcessesin Writing,editedbyL. W. Greggand E. R. Stein-
berg. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1980.
45. Helmreich,R. L. et al. "Makingitin Psychology:Demographicand Personality
Correlatesof Attainment."Journalof Personalityand Social Psychology,39
(May 1980), 896-908.
46. Henning,L. H. "Paradox as a TreatmentforWriter'sBlock." Personneland
Guidance Journal,32 (October 1981), 112-13.
47. Hiltz, S. R. "Impact of a ComputerizedConferencingSystemUpon Scientific
ResearchSpecialties."Journalof Research CommunicationStudies, 1 (March
1978), 117-24.
48. Horowitz,I. L., and M. E. Curtis."The Impact of Technologyon Scholarly
Publishing."ScholarlyPublishing,14 (April 1982), 211-28.
49. Hull, G. A. "Effectsof Self-management on JournalWriting
Strategies byCollege
Freshmen."Research in the Teachingof English, 15 (May 1981), 135-48.
50. Jahoda,M. "To Publishor Not to Publish?"Journalof Social Issues,37 (Winter
1981), 208-20.
51. Jones,A. C. "GrandiosityBlocks WritingProjects." TransactionalAnalysis,5
(October 1975), 415.
52. Jones, F. "The Black Psychologistas Consultantand Therapist." In Black
Psychology,edited by F. Jones. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.
53. Kronsky,B. J. "Freeingthe CreativeProcess: The Relevanceof Gestalt."Art
Psychotherapy,6 (1979), 233-40.
54. Kulik,J. A., C. C. Kulik,and P. Cohen. "A Meta-Analysisof OutcomeStudies
of Keller'sPersonalizedSystemof Instruction."AmericanPsychologist,34 (April
1979), 307-18.
55. Ladd, E. C., and S. M. Lipset. Final Report: Surveyof the Social, Political
580 Journalof HigherEducation

and EducationalPerspectives ofAmericanCollegeand University Faculty.Storrs:

Universityof ConnecticutPress, 1978.
56. Latamore,G. B. "A FluidWellforYourWords."PersonalComputing, 7 (January
1983), 106-10.
57. Lindsey,D. The ScientificPublicationSystemin Social Science. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass,1978.
58. Mack, K., and E. Skjei. OvercomingWriting Blocks. Los Angeles:J. P. Tarcher,
1979.
59. Mahoney,M. J. "Psychology of theScientist."
Social Studiesof Science,9 (August
1979), 349-75.
60. Mahoney,M. J., A. E. Kazdin, and M. Kenigsberg."GettingPublished."Cog-
nitiveTherapyand Research,2 (March 1978), 69-70.
61. McConnell-Ginet,S. "Linguisticsand the FeministChallenge."In Womenand
Language in Literatureand Society,editedby S. McConnell-Ginet,R. Barker,
and N. Furman. New York: Praeger, 1980.
62. Meichenbaum,D., and R. Cameron."The ClinicalPotentialof Modifying What
ClientsSay to Themselves."In Self-Control,editedby J. Mahoneyand C. E.
Thoreson. Monterey:Brooks/Cole, 1974.
63. Merton,R. K. "The MatthewEffectin Science." Science, 159 (January1968),
56-63.
64. Minninger, J. "Reteachering:
UnlearningWriting Blocks."Transactional Analysis,
7 (January1977), 71-72.
65. Mullins,C. J. The CompleteManuscriptPreparationGuide. EnglewoodCliffs:
Prentice-Hall,1982.
66. Murray,D. M. "Writing BeforeWriting."College Compositionand Communi-
cation, (December 1978), 375-81.
29
67. Nixon, H. K. Psychologyfor the Writer.New York: Harper, 1928.
68. Nodine, B. "TeachingWritingto PsychologyStudents."APA Monitor, 12
(February1982), 54.
69. Olsen, T. "One out of Twelve:WomenWho are Writersin Our Century."In
Working It Out,editedbyS. Ruddickand P. Daniels.New York:Pantheon,1979.
70. Orne,M. T. "The Whyand How of a Communicationto theLiterature."Inter-
nationalJournalof Clinicaland Experimental Hypnosis,29 (January1981),1-4.
71. Oromaner,M. "WhenPublicationsPerish."ScholarlyPublishing,10 (July1979),
339-44.
72. Over,R. "ResearchProductivity and Impactof Male and FemalePsychologists."
AmericanPsychologist,37 (January1982), 24-31.
73. . "What is the Source of Bias in Peer Review?"Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 229-30.
74. Passman, R. H. "A ProcedureforEliminatingWriter'sBlock in a College Stu-
dent."Journalof BehavioralTherapyand Experimental Psychiatry, 7 (Septem-
ber 1976), 297-98.
75. Paul, A. "ScholarsPropose Methodsof ImprovingthePeer Reviewof Journal
Articles."Chronicleof HigherEducation, 23 June 1982, 19-20.
 Why AcademiciansDon't Write 581

76. Pear, J. J. "Introduction

to and Discussionof Self-Control
Techniquesof Famous
Novelists,by IrvingWallace." Journalof Applied BehaviorAnalysis,4 (Fall
1977), 515-25.
77. Perkins,D. N. The Mind's Best Work.Cambridge:Harvard University Press,
1981.
78. Peters,D. P., and S. J. Ceci. "Peer-ReviewPracticesof PsychologicalJour-
nals: The Fate of PublishedArticles,SubmittedAgain." Behavioraland Brain
Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 185-95.
79. Pickering,G. CreativeMalady. New York: Delta, 1974.
80. Quaytman,W. "Psychotherapist's WritingBlock." Voices, 14 (Winter1968),
13-17.
81. Rainer, T. The New Diary. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher,1978.
82. Reavley,W. "The Use of Biofeedbackin the Treatmentof Writer'sCramp."
Journalof Behavior Therapyand ExperimentalPsychiatry,6 (1975), 335-38.
83. Rico, G. L. Writing theNatural Way:UsingRight-BrainTechniquesto Release
your ExpressivePowers. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher,1983.
84. Robert,H. (ed.). Doing FeministResearch.London: Routledgeand KeganPaul,
1981.
85. Rose, M. "Rigid Rules, InflexiblePlans, and theStiflingof Language: A Cog-
nitiveAnalysisof Writer'sBlock." College Compositionand Communication,
31 (December 1980), 389-401.
86. . "TeachingUniversity Discourse."In Teaching/Writing/Learning,edited
by I. Pringleand A. Freedman.Ottawa: Canadian Council of Teachersof Eng-
lish, 1981.
87. Sanavio, L. "A Wider Model of Writer'sCramp." Behavior Analysis and
Modification,4 (1979), 17-27.
88. Scanlon,L. "Writing Blocksin an Interdisciplinary
Programor GettingAround
the ProfessionalBlock." RIE Report (September1979), 1-4.
89. Scarr, S. "AnosmicPeer Review: A Rose by AnotherName is EvidentlyNot
a Rose." Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 237-38.
90. . "An Editor Looks forthe PerfectManuscript."In Understanding the
ManuscriptReviewProcess: IncreasingtheParticipationof Women,editedby
D. Loeffler.Washington,D.C.: AmericanPsychologicalAssociation, 1982.
91. Scarr, S., and B. L. R. Weber."The Reliabilityof Reviewsforthe American
Psychologist."AmericanPsychologist,33 (October 1978), 935.
92. Schuman,E. P. "A WritingBlock TreatedwithModernPsychoanalyticInter-
ventions."PsychoanalyticReview, 68 (Spring 1981), 113-34.
93. Sears, P. "A TechniqueforTreatingWriter'sBlock." RIE Report (September
1979), 18.
94. Silverman,R. J. "MarketingScholarship."Knowledge: Creation,Diffusion,
Utilization,3 (June 1982), 503-20.
95. Singleton,A. "The ElectronicJournaland itsRelatives."ScholarlyPublishing,
12 (October 1981), 3-18.
96. Spender,D. "The Gatekeepers:A FeministCritiqueof AcademicPublishing."
582 Journalof HigherEducation

In Doing FeministResearch,editedbyH. Roberts.London: Routledge& Kegan

Paul, 1981.
97. Stolz, S. B. "OvercomingCommonBarriersto PublishingPsychologicalWork."
In Understanding theManuscriptReviewProcess: IncreasingtheParticipation
of Women,editedby D. Loeffler.Washington,D.C.: AmericanPsychological
Association, 1982.
98. Valian, V. "Learningto Work." In WorkingIt Out, editedby S. Ruddickand
P. Daniels. New York: Pantheon, 1977.
99. Walby,B. J. "Trainingthe ScientificAuthor."Journalof ResearchCommuni-
cation Studies, 3 (April 1981), 111-20.
100. Walford,G. "Publishingfor Survival-the View from Britain." Journalof
TeacherEducation, 31 (September/October 1980), 5.
101. Wason,P. "On WritingScientificPapers." In The Psychologyof Written Com-
munication,editedby J. Hartley.New York: Nichols, 1980.
102. Watkins,M. W. "Chance and Interrater Agreementon Manuscripts."American
Psychologist,34 (September1979), 796-97.
103. Weaver,F. S. "Teaching,Writingand Developing."Journalof HigherEduca-
tion, 53 (September/October 1982), 586-92.
104. Webb,W. W. "Concentration of Power."AmericanPsychologist,35 (November
1980), 1146-47.
105. White,K. D., L. Dalgleish,and G. Arnold."Authorship Patternsin Psychology:
National and InternationalTrends."Bulletinof the PsychonomicSociety,20
(October 1978), 190-92.
106. Whitehurst, G. J. "The Quandaryof ManuscriptReviewing."Behavioraland
Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 241-42.
107. Wilson,E. K. "The Sociologistas RejectedScriveneror Vital Issues Affecting
Lengthof Vita."Unpublishedmanuscript, Universityof NorthCarolinaat Chapel
Hill, 1976.
108. Young, R. E. "Arts, Crafts, and Knacks: Some Disharmoniesin the New
Rhetoric." VisibleLanguage, 14 (1980), 341-50.
109. Zinsser,W. On WritingWell.New York: Harper and Row, 1980.
110. Zoellner,R. "Talk-Write: A BehavioralPedagogy for Composition." College
English,30 (January1969), 267-320.
111. Zusen, L. "Age and Achievementin Psychology."AmericanPsychologist,31
(November1976), 805-7.