Why Academicians Don't Write

Author(s): Robert Boice and Ferdinand Jones

Source: The Journal of Higher Education , Sep. - Oct., 1984, Vol. 55, No. 5 (Sep. - Oct.,
1984), pp. 567-582
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1981822

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of Higher Education

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Robert Boice
Ferdinand Jones

Why Academicians Don't Write

Writing for publication is not only laboriou

slow, it may also engender aversion: "Telling a writer to
telling a man to relax while being prodded for a hernia. .
that his article must be of a certain length or it won't seem
He thinks how august it will look in print. He thinks of all
who will read it. He thinks that it must have the solid
authority. He thinks that its style must dazzle. No wonder h
[109, p. 21]. Yet writing is one of the most important th
demician can do. Publication weighs heavily in decisions ab
promotion, and tenure in academic and other professional se
Writing, more than any other professional activity, brings
visibility [59]. And writing and publication can provide a
important kind of self-education: "I would urge you to
because it is a good thing, not because it is nice to see yo
print, not even because it is relevant to full membership in
but rather because you will really get to know a field only i
tribute to it. ... Writing ultimately becomes important
because of what it does for others but also for what it does for one-
self' [70, p. 4].
Nonetheless, few of us write for publication [55]. The median num-
ber of scholarly publications for even the most prolific disciplines like
psychology is zero [2]. Most academicians who do write contribute
infrequently; as few as 10 percent of writers in specific areas account
for over 50 percent of the literature [17]. Why do so few of us write
Robert Boice is professor of psychology, State University of New York, Albany
Ferdinand Jones is director of psychological services and professor of psychology
Brown University.

Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 55, No. 5 (September/October 1984)

Copyright ? 1984 by the Ohio State University Press

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
568 Journal of Higher Education

for publication? This question generally has been ignored, at least in

print, perhaps because those who already write and publish need not
be concerned. It may be, given the flood of manuscripts submitted
for publication [104], that we should be further discouraged from writ-
ing. Similarly, it can be argued that much of what is written is incon-
sequential [80]. But we might do well to base our attitudes and prac-
tices regarding writers on more systematic study. Many scholars with
valuable ideas may not be publishing; wider participation in publica-
tion might benefit scholarly activities including teaching [103].
This paper examines the factors that discourage writers in higher
education. It surveys emerging concerns with undemocratic and ex-
clusionary policies in the editorial process [78]. It reviews some of the
literature from composition research that suggests ways of making writ-
ing easier and more effective [31, 65, 110], and it proposes alterna-
tives to current practices and attitudes regarding scholarly writing and
publishing.

Reasons Most Academicians Don't Write

No doubt the greatest force against writing for publication

of momentum. The longer a writer refrains, the more diffic
to begin again [66]. The more one publishes, evidently, the
the acceptance of one's articles for publication [60]. But insights
momentum do little to explain what inhibits writing in the firs
A survey that asked faculty members what kept them from
as much as they would have preferred may provide more insigh

Distractions and Lack of Time

The scattered literature on the psychology of writing confirm
most common complaint: Teaching can conflict with writin
Administrative work, too, distracts some of the most competent
from more leisurely pursuits like writing [37]. Of course decisio
make writing a lower priority than other endeavors may also be
tary [32]. For instance, some blacks in academe have argued t
viding direct services and promoting social change should come
writing [52, 84]. Similarly, some feminists question the wisdom
ing to write in the male "genderlect" for male-dominated me
Finally, colleagues wizened with experience and secure in the
1Four hundred faculty members, selected from all the schools and coll
doctoral granting university, returned 221 useable questionnaires. The frequ
responses to checklists and to open-ended questions about writing distraction
the ranked list of headings that follows.

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Why Academicians Don't Write 569

occasionally advise us to wait to publish until aided by greater insight

and less urgency [50].
Despite their attractiveness, reasons of distraction and too little time
explain very little. Surveys indicate that academicians who write have
no more free time or no fewer commitments to social action than col-
leagues who do not write [11, 12]. Instead, those who write often simply
make time. For these individuals, successful writing does not neces-
sarily require large, continuous blocks of time [32]. Even supposed
constraints such as marriage and family [69] correlate positively, to
a reasonable extent, with success [17]. What does seem relevant about
distraction is that successful writers are not easily distracted from
writing; indeed, they preoccupy themselves with ideas about it almost
daily [40].

Writing Blocks
A common reason for not writing is a block. Although a vague and
circular concept (". . . an obstacle to the free expression of ideas on
paper" [58, p. 15]), the notion of a writing block helps explain what
makes writing difficult [8].
Early experience. Writing block therapists generally emphasize
critical and intimidating teachers as blocking agents [64]. Early experi-
ences with anonymous and aggressive reviewers might induce similar
trepidations [12]. Therapies derived from these views prescribe disso-
ciation from past influences and writing in situations where criticism
is minimized [53, 88, 93].
Grandiosity and perfectionism. Jones concludes that blocked writers
simultaneously discount their abilities to write while employing gran-
diose expectations of originality and significance to a vaguely planned
writing project [51].
Writing anxiety. Fears of writing, much like test anxiety, involve
fear of evaluation [22]. The potential for avoidance may be seen when
a cramped writer is physically unable to write because of spasms,
tremors, or paralyses that occur with each attempt to write [82, 87].
Personality assessments of cramped writers show that they, more than
fluent writers, share traits such as hypersensitivity and conscientious-
ness [20]. A related insight may be gleaned from Type A individuals.
These heart-attack prone people try to achieve more in less time and
may subvert their creative potentials with overly demanding deadlines
and standards [34]. Impatience is a powerful ally of procrastination
in writing [12].
Cognitions. Self-talk contributes to writing problems in much the

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
570 Journal of Higher Education

same way as it does to test anxiety [62]. Both test-anxious students

and problem writers worry about comparisons with others; they devalue
the task or setting of writing; and they anticipate a loss of esteem.
Patients of both sorts begin by building an awareness of their nega-
tive self-talk and then learn to challenge nonadaptive thoughts before
substituting more adaptive statements like "I will not stop, and I'll
postpone judging" [12]. Cognitions also influence composition another
way; blockers tell themselves to edit prematurely while nonblockers
proceed with riskier adjustments in plans [85].
Establishing momentum. Despite romantic beliefs that good writ-
ing must be spontaneous, there is increasing acceptance of the notion
that momentum can be established with special techniques like free-
writing [28]. This technique of writing anything that comes to mind
quickly is reminiscent of what helps block writing- editing prema-
turely. Free-writing can overcome blocking [81]. A related technique
of automatic writing (a semi-hypnotic method of inducing writing with-
out conscious awareness or responsibility) also establishes momentum
[14].
Maintaining momentum. Getting started through free-writing or
other techniques may produce dramatic accounts of relief [98], but
it is no guarantee that a writer will remain unblocked [8, 49]. Many
writers seem to continue writing only if they are forced by external
pressures. The best way, evidently, of using external pressures is to
replace habits of writing frantically for major deadlines with moderate
habits of writing regularly.
With a few exceptions [51], behavioral therapists have advocated
pressuring the blocked writer regardless of mood or inspiration [10,
74]. Kindred approaches to scheduling can be found in the repertoire
of successful writers [38, 76]. Despite the clear success of contingency
management in maintaining momentum, one reservation persists.
Won't forcing writing interfere with its qualitative aspects like crea-
tivity [46]? The evidence suggests that, if anything, contingency man-
agement can do much more than merely induce quantity [1]. Blocked
academicians who wrote regardless of mood produced far more crea-
tive ideas than did counterparts who either wrote spontaneously or
who abstained from writing [13]. Is, then, a block a legitimate reason
for not writing? To the extent that blocking imputes something mys-
terious and uncontrollable [5], it is not. In fact, writing blocks are
easily and reliably treated by inducing and maintaining momentum
[10].

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Why Academicians Don't Write 571

Personality and Gender

Personality and gender were relatively uncommon among reasons
for not writing [11]. Nonetheless, the recent literature on the psychology
of writing suggests that these two variables can be powerful determi-
nants of who writes. Consider first the possibility of distinguishing
writers in terms of four enduring styles as publishers: prolific, per-
fectionistic, silent, and mass-producers [18]. The silent category, not
surprisingly, comprises some three-quarters of physicists sampled. This
typology corresponds significantly with other personality factors. Mass-
producers, for instance, tend to be highly competitive but, curiously,
do not persist in writing when their articles are neither well-received
nor cited frequently [45]. Men are more likely to be mass-producers
or prolific writers; women are more likely to be silent or perfectionistic
writers [72].
Whether gender differences in publishing reflect inborn traits or
situational factors such as social pressures, women write for publica-
tion less often than men [30]. Consequently, women in the sciences
and in academics may be more likely to be unemployed, less likely
to gain prestigious appointments, and slower to receive awards such
as tenure, promotion, and salary increases than men [3; cf. 30]. The
reason, surprisingly, does not seem to be centered solely in subtle dis-
criminatory practices; when men and women did produce research and
writing of equal quality, differences in academic rewards disappeared
[17]. And when women have written, their articles may be as likely
to be cited as are men's [72, 73]. Why, then, do women write less often?
The road to getting published includes membership in an invisible col-
lege- a group of individuals who can exert enormous influence on
the popularity of topics in journals [7]. Advantage also may involve
the Matthew Effect (Matt. 25:29 "For unto everyone that hath, more
shall be given . . ."), or the tendency for those who are already estab-
lished to reap more citations and recognition from others who pub-
lish associated work [63].

Exclusionary Factors
Only a few respondents, all minority or female academicians, cited
discriminatory practices as a reason for not writing.
Reviewing practice. While suspicions of exclusionary practices
remain mostly just that - suspicions - the machinery for careful exami-
nation is being put into place. The journal review process, when
exposed to scrutiny, appears unfair; reviewers seem more tolerant of

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
572 Journal of Higher Education

papers that confirm their own beliefs [57, 96]. Citing oneself in the
reference section may enhance ratings by reviewers [60], and the status
of an author's affiliation might affect editorial decisions [78]. Pre-
liminary studies also suggest imprecise reviewing practices. Reports
of poor agreement among reviewers appear often [102; cf. 91]. Even
where reviewers used specific rating scales, they were only moderately
reliable on overall quality, weakly reliable on the quality of writing,
and not reliable on the importance of the topic [106]. Peters and Ceci
have produced the most notorious indication of an unreliable editorial
process [78]. Previously published articles, when slightly disguised and
resubmitted, were neither recognized by reviewers nor accepted for
publication. While that study contains methodological and ethical fail-
ings [36], it nonetheless does little to encourage submissions by aca-
demicians who feel disenfranchised.
Inflation. Increases in publication rates might also discourage wri
ing. The number of publications requisite for promotions and oth
rewards has risen dramatically in the past decade or two [15, 100
It may seem increasingly difficult to catch up with those who a
already writing successfully. Inflationary effects include a growing coin
age of the LPU (least publishable unit)-that is, the minimum mate
rial acceptable as an article.

Writing as Pathological
None of the faculty surveyed checked this reason [11], but the susp
cion that writing is inherently unhealthy seemed to lurk in the back-
ground once respondents began to reflect on their feelings about writ
ing. Impetus for this view comes in part from literary analyses of th
personalities of famous writers [67]. Most often, assumptions abou
pathology and writing come from psychoanalysts. Bergler, who coined
the concept of writing blocks, saw all writing as neurotic, as an attemp
to substitute a flow of words for the flow of milk desired from a rejec
ing mother [5]. So, the argument continues, the same neurotic reasons
that drive people to write also make the completion of writing task
difficult; a writer presumably stops writing to gain revenge with his
or her mother [92]. Ellenberger, perhaps unintentionally, portrays suc
cessful writers like Freud as opportunistic, insensitive, and urgent [29
Relatively unskilled writers such as Adler come across as healthy
beloved, and patient. Some observers, finally, claim that sickness
either physical or emotional -provides the best condition for writin
[79].
Empirical studies provide a more favorable, albeit mixed, view of

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Why Academicians Don't Write 573

writing. Developing competence as a writer may bring personality

changes like decreased self-doubt and increased social dominance [24],
but a more extensive investigation suggests than an increase in writ-
ing productivity correlates with a decrease in interpersonal orienta-
tion [45]. This could mean that productive writers must be recluses,
or it could mean that faculty who do not write are too accessible to
students and colleagues. More to the point, creative processes includ-
ing writing evidently depend on the absence of neuroses [81]. Accord-
ing to recent evidence collected by Perkins, the creative processes do
not rely on unconscious determinants [77]. Rather, creative writing
seems to be most clearly dependent on hard work and organized habits
[27].

Writing as Inherently Difficult

What makes writing seem so difficult? First, we may underestimate
its demands. Writing is not a mechanical skill that, like typing, merely
transcribes ideas; rather, it clarifies and explores relationships between
ideas [68]. Second, writing makes very special demands on the writer.
Rose approaches the difficulty of writing via Huxley's earlier conclu-
sions-that writing is exhausting because of demands to continually
focus on the complex task at hand [86]. In Rose's view, the real diffi-
culty in getting into the flow of writing lies in the resulting moments
of loss of self-control. DeBeaugrande, on the other hand, emphasizes
the special needs of readers as distinct from hearers [23]. Skillful writ-
ing requires markedly different standards of what is necessary or ex-
pendable, of what is clear or ambiguous, and of what is repetitious
or concise than talking does.
Third, because writing skills are not generally understood, writers
often attach elaborate rituals to their tasks. One of these-writing in
marathon sessions - seems to be a carry-over of habits learned as stu-
dents; it doubtless contributes to the common association between
writing fatigue and anxiety. When academicians have changed their
working habits to regimens of brief but regular sessions, writing re-
portedly becomes increasingly effortless and easy [10]. Anecdotes of
writers who could not write without the proper conditions such as the
smell of rotting apples help perpetuate the image of writing as a mys-
terious act. Social scientists are infamous for their ritualistic writing
styles which include lengthy titles that are divided by colons, dysrhyth-
mic, and difficult to decipher [25]. Fourth, and largely external to the
act of writing, high rejection rates, lengthy delays in reviewing, and
limited readership and recognition discourage writing [4, 71, 107].

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
574 Journal of Higher Education

Deficiencies in Instruction
This factor, too, was not selected as a reason but was recognized
as an important factor in what might have helped with writing. Most
of us are products of a system where writing skills are largely self-
taught [9]; consequently, academicians often present their work in
remarkably naive ways [94]. We may implicitly assume that good
writers are born and not made [108].

Consequences of Not Writing

Academicians who don't write are, again, unlikely to secure the best
rewards and to develop fully as scholars, teachers, and researchers
[70, 103]. Consider the possibility that much of what now gets com-
municated may not represent the best that can be offered. Most pub-
lications come from authors who are far from reaching their peaks
of eminence [111] and, arguably, from mature views of their subject
areas [50, 80]. When the nonwriters belong to already disadvantaged
groups such as minorities and women, the loss in communication may
be even greater. When these people do not write, the students who
model them may persist in a style that helps ensure continued disen-
franchisement.

Solutions and Alternatives

Democratizing the Publication Process

What, beyond current beginnings to open membership on edito
and review panels [19], will encourage more democratic participa
in publishing? Journals could reserve regular amounts of space
manuscripts solicited from new or renewed writers. Walby descr
workshops where editorial staffs train authors in effective ways of p
paring articles [99]. Orne and his editorial colleagues demystify
process of publishing by explaining the purpose of compiling an art
the way to manage a literature review, and the basis for review
decisions [33, 35, 70].
Another solution could be coaching reviewers to make comme
in a socially skilled fashion with criticisms preceded and followe
supportive statements, with impersonal complaints, and with specif
suggestions for improvement [21]. Editors might do more than enco
age such a format; they could insist on it as a basis for using a
viewer's decision [89, 91]. Changes in what appears a harshly unf
system might also include an objective and broad-based method
selecting reviewers [6], and opportunities for authors to respon
reviews before editorial decisions are made [16].

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Why Academicians Don't Write 575

In the midst of a trend to criticize reviewers, authors' contributions

to problems in editorial processes may be overlooked. Reviewers, most
of them unpaid and unappreciated, do help "hold back the literature
at the floodgates a little longer" [43, p. 216]. Gordon concludes that
the decision to publish should be directed more to authors who could
be given "the option (and responsibility) for publishing a manuscript
provided it was accompanied by the unanswered comments of the
referee where relevant. Such a system would not only leave the respon-
sibility of publishing with the authors, to whom it must ultimately
belong, but would be more consistent with the only real, and in fact
the only realizable, goal of the refereeing process, namely to provide
as effective an evaluation of a submitted manuscript as is practical,
but without any implication of infallibility on the part of the referees,
journals, or authors" [39, p. 214].

Teaching Writing Skills

The literature on rhetoric and composition contains a wealth of ideas
for teaching writing skills [9]. The best-known work in that area re-
sulted from collaboration between a composition researcher and a
cognitive psychologist [31]. Flower and Hayes teach heuristics as prob-
lem solving approaches to the writing situation (e.g., audience), to
the goals of writing (e.g., creating an identity), and to the generation
of ideas for writing (e.g., by using stored problem representations).
Once mastered, these heuristics presumably help writers through the
major process of writing: planning and organizing; translation of
mental images into prose; and the reading and editing of what has
been written. Curiously, more intuitive techniques can also facilitate
writing, by making writers less self-conscious [83]. These new and
specific ways of teaching skills are gradually displacing traditional
notions about writing. Romantic notions about writers working with
the aid of a muse merely divert students from hard truths about the
methodical and disciplined work of good writing [38, 76].
Another change in the teaching of writing comes from social scien-
tists who have mastered writing for publication and who are sharing
their skills with colleagues. Stolz [97] helps prospective authors, par-
ticularly women, deal with the inhibitions that typically deter them
from writing articles. She proposes a number of solutions, among them
approximating a written draft by presenting an oral version to a class.
Scarr portrays the essential qualities a successful author must develop:
(a) readiness to accept rejections; (b) readiness to submit a manuscript
to other, possibly less prominent, outlets; (c) preparedness to reply
to criticism rationally, especially when it is unfair; (d) willingness to

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
576 Journal of Higher Education

revise and cut writing; (e) persistence in the face of failure and readi-
ness to learn from failures; and (f) inclination to act like a colleague
instead of the "lonely victim of arbitrary justice" [90, p. 16].

Technological Advances
Word processors may change writing habits by allowing writers to
compose and revise on a screen before touching a key to produce a
typed manuscript. Problems such as misspelling, overly complex sen-
tences, and poor usage are flagged in computer-aided composition [42].
Programs that assist with more intangible factors of good writing such
as flow and voice are being developed. Consider the ease of writing
with word processors which would transpose spoken words directly
into displayed text.
Technological advances will not, of course, make some of us any
more cheerful about writing. Indeed, reservations about how much
time, if any, is actually saved by text-editing have already appeared;
modifying one's text on a word processor may take more time in for-
matting, text positioning, in reviewing the formatted version, and in
making more changes than might occur with traditional procedures
[41; cf. 56]. And once word processing is fully automatic, traditionalists
will inevitably complain that writing is no longer an art.
In a situation where every academician will potentially be both a
producer and a transmitter of information [48], another problem seems
likely - an explosion of printed material. Scientific journals of all types
have increased from one in 1665 to more than 100,000 currently. The
number of scientific articles has doubled every twelve to fifteen years
in the past two and a half centuries [43]. By the end of this century,
informed specialists will need to read four times more than they do
now [54].
One advantage to this discouraging prospect may be the end of
printed formats as we now know them. "For a variety of reasons it
seems that learned journals will become obsolete in the future. Scien-
tific information will be distributed in abstracts and stored in a form
available for mechanical processing, so that it can be automatically
retrieved" [101, p. 231]. So although more literature will be available,
individuals would not need to accumulate as many journals as they
now do. Instead, subscribers could simply scan abstracts, skim rele-
vant articles, and then have only those worth hard copy actually repro-
duced on paper. Electronic journals will evidently develop slowly, in
part because of the reluctance of academicians to give up their collec-
tions of traditionally produced journals [95]. But electronic journals
can ease two strains of publishing in higher education-specialized

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Why Academicians Don't Write 577

journals using an informal style should make writing easier [47], and
without the present constraints of limiting journals to so few bound
pages, scholarly journals could be less exclusionary and harsh in their
reviewing processes [75]. An optimistic view of electronic journals also
helps expand the emphases of this paper. Writing for publication could
become less the province of an exclusive group of academicians [32,
48, 105] because more of us might routinely develop our ideas for
teaching and research in written format [103] rather than writing only
for publication.

References
1. Ballard, K. D., and T. Glynn. "Behavioral Self-management in Story Writing
with Elementary School Children." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8
(Winter 1975), 387-98.
2. Barlow, D. H. "On the Relation of Clinical Research to Clinical Practice: Current
Issues, New Directions." Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49 (April
1981), 147-55.
3. Bayer, A. E., and H. S. Astin. "Sex Differentials in the Academic Reward Sys-
tem." Science, 88 (May 1975), 796-802.
4. Beaver, D. D. "On the Failure to Detect Previously Published Research."
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 199-200.
5. Bergler, E. The Writer and Psychoanalysis. Garden City: Doubleday, 1950.
6. Bernard, H. R. "Computer-assisted Referee Selection as a Means of Reducing
Potential Editorial Bias." Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 202.
7. Blashfield, R. K. "Reighner et al., Invisible Colleges, and the Matthew Effect."
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 8 (1982), 1-12.
8. Boice, R. "Increasing the Writing Productivity of 'Blocked' Academicians."
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 20 (1982), 197-207.
9. . "Teaching of Writing in Psychology." Teaching of Psychology, 9 (April
1982), 143-47.
10. . "Clinical Versus Experimental Treatments of Writing Blocks." Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51 (April 1983), 183-91.
11. . "Faculty Development Based Around Writing Block Therapies." Paper
presented at Eastern Psychological Association, Philadelphia, April 1983.
12. . "Psychotherapies for Writing Blocks." In Writing Problems, edited by
M. Rose. New York: Guilford, forthcoming.
13. . "The Neglected Third Factor in Writing: Productivity." College Com-
position and Communication, in press.
14. Boice, R., and P. Myers. "Automatic Writing." Unpublished manuscript, State
University of New York at Albany, 1983.
15. Bornstein, M. H. "Publication Rates Among Distinguished American Psycholo-
gists: A Cohort Effect?" Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 33
(November 1980), 424.

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
578 Journal of Higher Education

16. Chubin, D. E. "Reforming Peer Review: From Recycling to Reflexivity." Be-

havioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 204.
17. Cole, J. R. "Women in Science." American Scientist, 69 (July/August 1981),
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 Review and the Support of Science
Scientific American, 237 (October 1977), 34-41.
20. Crisp, A. H., and H. Moldofsky. "A Psychosomatic Study of Writer's Cramp
British Journal of Psychiatry, 111 (December 1965), 841-58.
21. Curran, J. P., and P. M. Monti. Social Skills Training. New York: Guilford, 197
22. Daly, J. A., and M. D. Miller. "The Empirical Development of an Instrumen
to Measure Writing Apprehension." Research in the Teaching of English, 9
(Winter 1975), 242-49.
23. DeBeaugrande, R. "Cognitive Processes and Technical Writing: Development
Foundations." Journal of Technical Writing and Communications, 12 (1982)
121-45.

24. Denman, M. L. "Personality Changes Concomitant With Learning Writing."

Research in the Teaching of English, 15 (May 1981), 170-71.
25. Dillon, J. T. "The Emergence of the Colon: An Empirical Correlate of Scholar
ship." American Psychologist, 36 (August 1981), 879-84.
26. Dorsel, T. N. "Conflicting Goals: A Dilemma for the Teacher-Researcher."
Teaching of Psychology, 8 (February 1981), 52-53.
27. Downey, J. E. "A Program for a Psychology of Literature." Journal of Applied
Psychology, 2 (1918), 366-77.
28. Elbow, P. Writing with Power. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
29. Ellenberger, H. Discovery of the Unconscious. New York: Basic Books, 1970.
30. Emmons, C. A. "A Longitudinal Study of the Careers of a Cohort of Assistant
Professors in Psychology." American Psychologist, 37 (November 1982),
1228-38.

31. Flower, L. S., and J. R. Hayes. "The Dynamics of Composing: Making Plans
and Juggling Constraints." In Cognitive Processes in Writing, edited by L. W
Gregg and E. R. Steinberg. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1980.
32. Fox, M. F., and C. A. Faver. "The Process of Collaboration in Scholarly Re-
search." Scholarly Publishing, 13 (July 1982), 327-39.
33. Frankel, F. H. "Reporting Hypnosis in the Medical Context." International
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 34 (January 1981), 10-14.
34. Friedman, M., and R. H. Rosenman. Type A Behavior and Your Heart. Green
wich: Fawcett, 1974.
35. Fromm, E. "How to Write a Clinical Paper." International Journal of Clinic
and Experimental Hypnosis, 24 (January 1981), 5-9.
36. Geen, R. G. "Review Bias: Positive or Negative, Good or Bad?" Behavioral Bra
Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 211.

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Why Academicians Don't Write 579

37. Glidden, L. M. "Confessions of an Experimental Psychologist: How I Tried to

Do Research in the Teaching of Psychology and Failed, and Did Not Try Again."
Teaching of Psychology, 3 (October 1975), 130-31.
38. Goldiamond, I. "Literary Behavior Analysis." Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 10 (Fall 1977), 527-29.
39. Gordon, R. A. "Optional Published Refereeing." Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
5 (June 1982), 213-14.
40. Gould, J. D. "Experiments on Composing Letters: Some Facts, Some Myths,
and Some Observations." In Cognitive Processes in Writing, edited by L. W.
Gregg and E. R. Steinberg. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1980.
41. . "Composing Letters With Computer-Based Text Editors." Human
Factors, 23 (October 1981), 593-606.
42. Hartley, J. "Introduction." In The Psychology of Written Communication, edite
by J. Hartley. New York: Nichols, 1980.
43. . "Scientific Communication: 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. "Identifying the Organization
cesses." In Cognitive Processes in Writing, edited by L. W. Gregg
berg. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1980.
45. Helmreich, R. L. et al. "Making it in Psychology: Demographic
Correlates of Attainment." Journal of Personality and Social
(May 1980), 896-908.
46. Henning, L. H. "Paradox as a Treatment for Writer's Block."
Guidance Journal, 32 (October 1981), 112-13.
47. Hiltz, S. R. "Impact of a Computerized Conferencing System
Research Specialties." Journal of Research Communication Stu
1978), 117-24.
48. Horowitz, I. L., and M. E. Curtis. "The Impact of Technology
Publishing." Scholarly Publishing, 14 (April 1982), 211-28.
49. Hull, G. A. "Effects of Self-management Strategies on Journal W
Freshmen." Research in the Teaching of English, 15 (May 1981
50. Jahoda, M. "To Publish or Not to Publish?" Journal of Social I
1981), 208-20.
51. Jones, A. C. "Grandiosity Blocks Writing Projects." Transact
(October 1975), 415.
52. Jones, F. "The Black Psychologist as Consultant and Therapist." In Black
Psychology, edited by F. Jones. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.
53. Kronsky, B. J. "Freeing the Creative Process: The Relevance of Gestalt." Art
Psychotherapy, 6 (1979), 233-40.
54. Kulik, J. A., C. C. Kulik, and P. Cohen. "A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Studies
of Keller's Personalized System of Instruction." American Psychologist, 34 (April
1979), 307-18.
55. Ladd, E. C., and S. M. Lipset. Final Report: Survey of the Social, Political

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
580 Journal of Higher Education

and Educational Perspectives of American College and University Faculty. Storrs:

University of Connecticut Press, 1978.
56. Latamore, G. B. "A Fluid Well for Your Words." Personal Computing, 7 (January
1983), 106-10.
57. Lindsey, D. The Scientific Publication System in Social Science. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, 1978.
58. Mack, K., and E. Skjei. Overcoming Writing Blocks. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher,
1979.

59. Mahoney, M. J. "Psychology of the Scientist." Social Studies of Science, 9 (August

1979), 349-75.
60. Mahoney, M. J., A. E. Kazdin, and M. Kenigsberg. "Getting Published." Cog-
nitive Therapy and Research, 2 (March 1978), 69-70.
61. McConnell-Ginet, S. "Linguistics and the Feminist Challenge." In Women and
Language in Literature and Society, edited by S. McConnell-Ginet, R. Barker,
and N. Furman. New York: Praeger, 1980.
62. Meichenbaum, D., and R. Cameron. "The Clinical Potential of Modifying What
Clients Say to Themselves." In Self-Control, edited by J. Mahoney and C. E.
Thoreson. Monterey: Brooks/Cole, 1974.
63. Merton, R. K. "The Matthew Effect in Science." Science, 159 (January 1968),
56-63.

64. Minninger, J. "Reteachering: Unlearning Writing Blocks." Transactional Analysis

7 (January 1977), 71-72.
65. Mullins, C. J. The Complete Manuscript Preparation Guide. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, 1982.
66. Murray, D. M. "Writing Before Writing." College Composition and Communi
cation, 29 (December 1978), 375-81.
67. Nixon, H. K. Psychology for the Writer. New York: Harper, 1928.
68. Nodine, B. "Teaching Writing to Psychology Students." APA Monitor, 12
(February 1982), 54.
69. Olsen, T. "One out of Twelve: Women Who are Writers in Our Century." In
Working It Out, edited by S. Ruddick and P. Daniels. New York: Pantheon, 1979.
70. Orne, M. T. "The Why and How of a Communication to the Literature." Inter
national Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 29 (January 1981), 1-4.
71. Oromaner, M. "When Publications Perish." Scholarly Publishing, 10 (July 1979),
339-44.

72. Over, R. "Research Productivity and Impact of Male and Female Psychologist
American Psychologist, 37 (January 1982), 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 Procedure for Eliminating Writer's Block in a College
dent." Journal of Behavioral Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 7 (Septe
ber 1976), 297-98.
75. Paul, A. "Scholars Propose Methods of Improving the Peer Review of Jou
Articles." Chronicle of Higher Education, 23 June 1982, 19-20.

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Why Academicians Don't Write 581

76. Pear, J. J. "Introduction to and Discussion of Self-Control Techniques of Famous

Novelists, by Irving Wallace." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 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-Review Practices of Psychological Jour-

nals: The Fate of Published Articles, Submitted Again." Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 185-95.
79. Pickering, G. Creative Malady. New York: Delta, 1974.
80. Quaytman, W. "Psychotherapist's Writing Block." Voices, 14 (Winter 1968),
13-17.

81. Rainer, T. The New Diary. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher, 1978.

82. Reavley, W. "The Use of Biofeedback in the Treatment of Writer's Cramp."
Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 6 (1975), 335-38.
83. Rico, G. L. Writing the Natural Way: Using Right-Brain Techniques to Release
your Expressive Powers. Los Angeles: J. P. Tarcher, 1983.
84. Robert, H. (ed.). Doing Feminist Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1981.

85. Rose, M. "Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Stifling of Language: A Cog-
nitive Analysis of Writer's Block." College Composition and Communication,
31 (December 1980), 389-401.
86. . "Teaching University Discourse." In Teaching/Writing/Learning, edited
by I. Pringle and A. Freedman. Ottawa: Canadian Council of Teachers of Eng-
lish, 1981.
87. Sanavio, L. "A Wider Model of Writer's Cramp." Behavior Analysis and
Modification, 4 (1979), 17-27.
88. Scanlon, L. "Writing Blocks in an Interdisciplinary Program or Getting Around
the Professional Block." RIE Report (September 1979), 1-4.
89. Scarr, S. "Anosmic Peer Review: A Rose by Another Name is Evidently Not
a Rose." Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 237-38.
90. . "An Editor Looks for the Perfect Manuscript." In Understanding the
Manuscript Review Process: Increasing the Participation of Women, edited by
D. Loeffler. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1982.
91. Scarr, S., and B. L. R. Weber. "The Reliability of Reviews for the American
Psychologist." American Psychologist, 33 (October 1978), 935.
92. Schuman, E. P. "A Writing Block Treated with Modern Psychoanalytic Inter-
ventions." Psychoanalytic Review, 68 (Spring 1981), 113-34.
93. Sears, P. "A Technique for Treating Writer's Block." RIE Report (September
1979), 18.
94. Silverman, R. J. "Marketing Scholarship." Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion,
Utilization, 3 (June 1982), 503-20.
95. Singleton, A. "The Electronic Journal and its Relatives." Scholarly Publishing,
12 (October 1981), 3-18.
96. Spender, D. "The Gatekeepers: A Feminist Critique of Academic Publishing."

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
582 Journal of Higher Education

In Doing Feminist Research, edited by H. Roberts. London: Routledge & Kegan

Paul, 1981.
97. Stolz, S. B. "Overcoming Common Barriers to Publishing Psychological Work."
In Understanding the Manuscript Review Process: Increasing the Participation
of Women, edited by D. Loeffler. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association, 1982.
98. Valian, V. "Learning to Work." In Working It Out, edited by S. Ruddick and
P. Daniels. New York: Pantheon, 1977.
99. Walby, B. J. "Training the Scientific Author." Journal of Research Communi-
cation Studies, 3 (April 1981), 111-20.
100. Walford, G. "Publishing for Survival-the View from Britain." Journal of
Teacher Education, 31 (September/October 1980), 5.
101. Wason, P. "On Writing Scientific Papers." In The Psychology of Written Com-
munication, edited by J. Hartley. New York: Nichols, 1980.
102. Watkins, M. W. "Chance and Interrater Agreement on Manuscripts." American
Psychologist, 34 (September 1979), 796-97.
103. Weaver, F. S. "Teaching, Writing and Developing." Journal of Higher Educa-
tion, 53 (September/October 1982), 586-92.
104. Webb, W. W. "Concentration of Power." American Psychologist, 35 (November
1980), 1146-47.
105. White, K. D., L. Dalgleish, and G. Arnold. "Authorship Patterns in Psychology:
National and International Trends." Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 20
(October 1978), 190-92.
106. Whitehurst, G. J. "The Quandary of Manuscript Reviewing." Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 5 (June 1982), 241-42.
107. Wilson, E. K. "The Sociologist as Rejected Scrivener or Vital Issues Affecting
Length of Vita." Unpublished manuscript, University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, 1976.
108. Young, R. E. "Arts, Crafts, and Knacks: Some Disharmonies in the New
Rhetoric." Visible Language, 14 (1980), 341-50.
109. Zinsser, W. On Writing Well. New York: Harper and Row, 1980.
110. Zoellner, R. "Talk-Write: A Behavioral Pedagogy for Composition." College
English, 30 (January 1969), 267-320.
111. Zusen, L. "Age and Achievement in Psychology." American Psychologist, 31
(November 1976), 805-7.

This content downloaded from

145.109.94.34 on Wed, 09 Feb 2022 15:16:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms