Why publish in English versus Spanish?: Towards a framework for the study of researchers’ motivations

 

ESTUDIOS / RESEARCH STUDIES

WHY PUBLISH IN ENGLISH VERSUS SPANISH?: TOWARDS A FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF RESEARCHERS’ MOTIVATIONS

Irene López-Navarro*, Ana I. Moreno**, Sally Burgess***, Itesh Sachdev****, Jesús Rey-Rocha*

* Grupo de Investigación en Evaluación y Transferencia Científica, Departamento de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad,Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC). Spain.

** Departamento de Filología Moderna, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de León. Spain.

*** Departamento de Filología Inglesa y Alemana, Facultad de Filología, Universidad de La Laguna. Spain.

**** School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London. United Kingdom.

Correo-e: irene.lopez@cchs.csic.es

 

ABSTRACT

This paper proposes a framework for the comparative study of researchers’ motivations for publishing either in English as an additional language or their first language. This framework seeks to present a view of motivation as dynamic, multidimensional, and multilevel. Empirical support is provided through the results of an on-line large-scale survey carried out among Spanish scholars. Our aim was to investigate which factors motivate them to publish their results in academic journals in either English or Spanish, as well as the extent to which these motivations are shaped by individual characteristics of researchers, particularly gender, seniority and publication experience. Results show an instrumental use of publication in English and fragmented social and ideological motivations for the use of Spanish.

PUBLICAR EN INGLÉS O EN CASTELLANO: UN MARCO TEÓRICO PARA EL ESTUDIO DE LAS MOTIVACIONES DE LOS INVESTIGADORES

RESUMEN

Este trabajo propone un marco para el estudio comparativo de las motivaciones de los investigadores a la hora de publicar en inglés o en su lengua materna. Dicho marco tiene por objeto ofrecer una visión dinámica, multidimensional y multinivel de la motivación. Los resultados de este trabajo provienen de una encuesta on-line a gran escala realizada entre investigadores españoles. Nuestro principal objetivo es investigar los factores que motivan a los investigadores a la hora de publicar en revistas académicas, ya sea en inglés o en español, así como el grado en que estas motivaciones son moldeadas por determinadas características individuales, especialmente el género y la experiencia investigadora y en publicación. Los resultados muestran un uso instrumental del inglés con fines académicos frente a una visión del empleo del castellano más fragmentada y basada en motivaciones sociales e ideológicas.

Received: 13-01-2014; 2nd version: 22-05-2014; Accepted: 11-06-2014.

Citation/Cómo citar este artículo: López-Navarro, I.; Moreno, A.I.; Burgess, S.; Sachdev, I.; Rey-Rocha, J. (2015). Why publish in English versus Spanish?: Towards a framework for the study of researchers’ motivations. Revista Española de Documentación Científica, 38 (1): e073, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/redc.2015.1.1148

KEYWORDS: Research article; academic writing; publication strategy; researchers’ motivation.

PALABRAS CLAVE: Artículos científicos; escritura académica; estrategias de publicación; motivación.

Copyright: © 2013 CSIC. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial (by-nc) Spain 3.0 License

CONTENIDOS

ABSTRACT
RESUMEN
1. INTRODUCTION

2. A REVIEW OF STUDIES OF MOTIVATION FOR SCIENTIFIC WORK

3. DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF MOTIVATIONS FOR RESEARCHERS’ LANGUAGE CHOICES FOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION PURPOSES

4. APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE STUDY OF SPANISH RESEARCHERS’ MOTIVATION

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
7. BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX

 

1. INTRODUCTION
 Top

A large number of previous studies have reported the importance of English for the communication of scientific knowledge and have shown how researchers who do not have English as their first language are under pressure to publish their research findings in this language (see Curry and Lillis, 2004Curry, M.; Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: negotiating interests, demands and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 38, pp. 663-88, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588284.; Swales, 2004Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827.; Lillis and Curry, 2010Lillis, T.; Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: the politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.). At the same time, many speakers of languages other than English defend the use of their first language in academic contexts, particularly in countries with strong languages used widely on a global scale (Petersen and Shaw, 2002Petersen, M.; Shaw, P. (2002). Language and disciplinary differences in a biliterate context. World Englishes, 21 (3), pp. 357-374, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00255.; Swales, 2004Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827.; Flowerdew and Li, 2009Flowerdew, J.; Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 18, pp. 1-16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.005.).


A researcher’s choice of language for the publication of their research depends not only on linguistic considerations (such as linguistic proficiency or difficulties with using English for academic purposes), nor does it only have linguistic implications (Hwang, 2005Hwang, K. (2005). The inferior science and the dominant use of English in knowledge production: a case study of Korean science and technology. Science Communication, 26 (4), pp. 390-427, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547005275428., 2013Hwang, K. (2013). Effects of the language barrier on processes and performance of international scientific collaboration. Collaborators’ participation, organizational integrity, and interorganizational relationships. Science Communication, 35 (1), pp. 3-31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547012437442.). It is also a response to the desire that research results should reach a wider international audience (Rey-Rocha and Martín-Sempere, 1999Rey-Rocha, J.; Martín-Sempere, M. J. (1999). The role of domestic journals in geographically-oriented disciplines: the case of Spanish journals on Earth Sciences. Scientometrics, 45 (2), pp. 203-216, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02458433.; Haarman and Holman, 2001Haarmann, H.; Holman, H. (2001). The impact of English as a language of science in Finland and its role for the transition to network society. In: Ulrich, A. (ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science: effects on other languages and language communities. New York, USA: Mouton de Gruyter, http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110869484.229.; Gómez et al., 2006Gómez, I.; Sancho, R.; Bordons, M.; Fernández, M. T. (2006). La I+D en España a través de sus publicaciones y patentes. In: Sebastián, J.; Muñoz, E. (eds.), Radiografía de la Investigación Pública en España. Madrid, Spain: Biblioteca Nueva.; Uzuner, 2008Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 7, pp. 250-263, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.007.), to the growing internationalization of teaching and research in universities and research centres (Pérez-Llantada et al., 2011Pérez-Llantada, C.; Plo, R.; Ferguson, G. R. (2011). “You don’t say what you know, only what you can”: The perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in English. English for Specific Purposes, 30 (1), pp. 18-30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001.), and to the practice that many national Science and Technology (S&T) systems have of rewarding publication in English-medium scientific journals (Ferguson, 2006Ferguson, G. (2006). Language planning and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.; Moreno, 2010Moreno, A. I. (2010). Researching into English for research publication purposes from an applied intercultural perspective. In: Ruiz-Garrido, M. F. et al. (eds.), English for Professional and Academic Purposes. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.; Osuna et al., 2011Osuna, C.; Cruz-Castro, L.; Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance. Scientometrics, vol. 86, pp. 575-592, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0312-7.). As a result, areas such as science communication, scientific collaboration, scientific productivity, visibility and impact of research, and research assessment all come into play. They are all widely measured and evaluated through a number of S&T indicators used for science policy purposes and for the assessment of the research activity of scientists. Appropriate contextualization and interpretation of these S&T indicators cannot exclusively rely on crude figures and statistics. A detailed knowledge of researchers’ publication patterns, their attitudes towards the use of English and other languages for academic purposes, and their motivations for using one or other of these languages is required. This information is essential for research assessment, well-informed decision-making and S&T policy implementation.

While there have been several attempts to characterize scientists’ motivations and attitudes, there are a number of problems with these accounts. We provide a critical review of these in the next section. There has also been a lack of systematic data collection and of robust samples, shortcomings which we also seek to address in our methodology section. Finally, motivations and attitudes specifically in relation to language choice by researchers who use English as an additional language are issues that have not yet been directly addressed.


This study proposes a framework based on Self-Determination Theory (SDT) for the study of researchers’ motivations for publishing either in English as an additional language (henceforth EAL) or their first language (henceforth L1). It aims to contribute to our empirical understanding of these motivations. Additionally, the framework has been used for the study of the main factors that motivate Spanish academics to publish the results of their research in either English or Spanish-medium journals. The study highlights the continuum of extrinsic to intrinsic motivations underlying researchers’ publishing attitudes and behaviour in EAL as opposed to Spanish (as L1). We also investigate the extent to which these motivations are related to the individual characteristics of scientists, namely gender, seniority and publication experience.


The paper is structured as follows. First, we review the existing literature on motivation for scientific work. Secondly, we describe our proposal of a framework for the study of motivations for researchers’ language choices for scientific publication purposes. Next, we apply the framework to the study of Spanish researchers’ motivations to publish the results of their research in academic journals either in EAL or in Spanish. Finally, we discuss the main features of the motivational framework together with the main results of our study of Spanish researchers’ motivations.

 

2. A REVIEW OF STUDIES OF MOTIVATION FOR SCIENTIFIC WORK
 Top

In this non-exhaustive review, we focus on three approaches that bring together current perspectives on academic motivation: the psychological perspective, the sociological perspective and the rational-economic perspective. Although each comes from a different intellectual tradition, we provide a cross-sectional analysis tracing the common thread running through the three perspectives. By doing this, we are able to identify the principal unresolved issues. Having determined where there is a need for more information, in the next section we suggest a framework that will allow for an analysis of motivation for academic publication purposes incorporating features from all three perspectives.

Psychological motivation theories have emerged from the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (see Deci and Ryan, 2000Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), pp. 227-268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01. for a review). Extrinsically motivated behaviours are “the ones that the individual performs to receive some extrinsic reward (e.g., good grades) or to avoid punishment”, while “with intrinsically motivated behaviours the rewards are internal (e.g., the joy of doing a particular activity or satisfying one’s curiosity)” (Dörnyei, 1990Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning. Language Learning, vol. 40, pp. 45-78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00954.x.). Many intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors have been identified for researchers. Among the most important of the extrinsic factors is financial reward (Levin and Stephan, 1991Levin, S. G.; Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81 (1), pp. 114-132.; Stephan, 1996Stephan, P. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34 (3), pp. 1199-1235.). Intrinsic motivations include the satisfaction derived from carrying out research (Hagstrom, 1965Hagstrom, W.O. (1965). The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books.), contributing to the advancement of knowledge, engaging in challenging and creative activities (Lam, 2011Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?. Research Policy, vol. 40, pp. 1354-1368, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002.), and in creative puzzle-solving (Eiduson, 1962Eiduson, B. T. (1962). Scientists: their psychological world. New York: Basic Books.; Cotgrove, 1970Cotgrove, S. (1970). The sociology of science and technology. The British Journal of Sociology, 21 (1), pp. 1-15, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/588267.). A characteristic feature of the scientific reward system is its multidimensional nature, comprising the three components that Stephan and Levin (1992Stephan, P. E.; Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: the importance of age, place and time. New York: Oxford University Press.) called the ‘ribbon’ (reputational/career rewards), the ‘gold’ (financial rewards) and the ‘puzzle’ (intrinsic satisfaction).


Despite the appeals of the psychological perspective, it is an approach that can be criticised for providing an excessively mechanistic explanation that lacks theoretical dynamism and for characterizing various types of input as intrinsic or extrinsic without fully taking into account the relationships between them (Ryan and Deci, 2000bRyan, R. M.; Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), pp. 54-67, http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.). Although this approach has been useful for empirical research, it has often become bogged down in irreconcilable debates between those who promote the prevalence of intrinsic motivations (Hull, 1943Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: an introduction to behavior theory. Oxford: Appleton-Century.; Herzberg et al., 1959Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; Snyderman, B. (1959). Motivation at work. New York: Wiley.; Deci, 1971Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 18, pp. 105-115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0030644.; Lepper et al., 1973Lepper, M. R.; Greene, D.; Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28 (1), pp. 129-137, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035519.) versus those who see extrinsic motivations as predominating (Skinner, 1953Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.; Opsahl and Dunnette, 1966Opsahl, R. L.; Dunnette, M. D. (1966). The role of financial incentives in industrial motivation. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 66, pp. 95-116, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0023614.; Lawler, 1971Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill.). Both sides have generally failed to formulate a theory that accounts adequately for these apparent contradictions. In addition, the failure to take into account the social and contextual factors that frame participants’ decisions (Rowley, 1996Rowley, J. (1996). Motivation and academic staff in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4 (3), pp. 11-16, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889610125814.), along with an excessive emphasis on extrinsic motivations as predictors in organizational psychology research, make it clear that the approach needs to be modified if the complexities underlying researchers’ motivations are to be understood.

The sociological approach foregrounds the fact that most of the extrinsic motivations referred to in the literature – reputation, citations, money – are in fact interim steps towards obtaining resources within an institution that functions in accordance with “a set of cultural values and mores governing the activities termed scientific” (Merton, 1973Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.). Within the sociological approach there are three main schools of thought which, while complementing one another, on many occasions, have approached organizational arrangements in science from three distinct explanatory paradigms, characterised as normative, cognitive and utilitarian.


The normative paradigm (Merton, 1973Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.; Long and Fox, 1995Long, J. S.; Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 21, pp. 45-71, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000401.; Scott, 2005Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: contributing to a theoretical research program. In: Smith, K. G.; Hitt, M. A. (eds.), Great minds in management: the process of theory development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.) particularly emphasises the values that underpin the way in which the scientific community functions and how these factors influence researchers’ behaviour. Merton’s (1973Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.) work on the normative structure of science has it that the development of science, like any other social institution, is supported by a set of values. In the case of science, these values are of a technical and moral nature. Moral values such as ‘Communalism’, ‘Universalism’, ‘Disinterestedness’ and ‘Organized scepticism’ constitute the ethos that drives researchers in their work. In the traditional ‘Mertonian’ academic environment, recognition by peers (i.e. by the scientific community), mainly in the form of citations, constitutes the principal and fundamental form of extrinsic reward for researchers.


The assumptions underlying the Mertonian paradigm have come under attack from several quarters with criticisms being leveled at the notion that scientific behaviour is driven by altruistic factors, the claimed existence of a clear and unequivocal normative framework or the longstanding belief that there is a direct relationship between norms and action (Mulkay, 1969Mulkay, M. (1969). Some aspects of cultural growth in the natural sciences. Social Research, vol. 36, pp. 22-52., 1980Mulkay, M. (1980). Interpretation and the use of rules: The case of norms of science. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 39 (1), pp. 111-125, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1980.tb02772.x.; Barnes and Dolby, 1970Barnes, B.; Dolby, R. G. A. (1970). The scientific ethos: a deviant viewpoint. Archive of European Sociology, vol. 11, pp. 3-25, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600001934.; Rothman, 1972Rothman, M. (1972). A dissenting view on the scientific ethos. The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 23, pp. 102-108, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/588160.; Fernández-Esquinas and Torres-Albero, 2009Fernández-Esquinas, M.; Torres-Albero, C. (2009). La ciencia como institución social: clásicos y modernos institucionalismos en la sociología de la ciencia. Arbor, 738, pp. 663-687, http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2009.738n1045.). At this point in our discussion we can draw parallels between the development of the psychological and sociological perspectives since both have led to a major shift in their respective disciplines, namely the calling into question of functionalism, and the loosening of the structuralist paradigm which had produced too narrow an interpretation of action in both social and individual domains.


The sociological approach, with its traditional grounding in macro and institutional perspectives, has thus seen itself obliged to look to the field of subjectivity in order to formulate new questions, the answers to which necessarily entail the inclusion of subjective elements such as beliefs, interests, values and even emotions (Thune, 2007Thune, T. (2007). University-industry collaboration: the network embeddedness approach. Science and Public Policy, 34 (3), pp. 158-168, http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/030234207X206902.). These elements cannot be understood as falling outside institutional dynamics, now that we have seen that the scientific community’s norms and regulations also have their origins at the level of social interaction. This has meant that these norms and regulations are now regarded as having a degree of flexibility and as adapting themselves to the particular circumstances in which they arise while being essential components of uncertainty (Mulkay, 1980Mulkay, M. (1980). Interpretation and the use of rules: The case of norms of science. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 39 (1), pp. 111-125, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1980.tb02772.x.).

From the sociological perspective, we now turn to the approach we have termed ‘rational-economic’, since it draws on work in the economics of scientific knowledge (Polanyi, 1962Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.; Radnitzky, 1987Radnitzky, G. (1987). The economic approach to the philosophy of science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 38, pp. 159-179, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/38.2.159.; Dasgupta and David, 1994Dasgupta, P.; David, P. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy, vol. 23, pp. 487-532, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1.; Hands, 2001Hands, D. W. (2001). Reflection without rules. Economic methodology and contemporary science theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612602.), in which the production of scientific knowledge is viewed as a social process that can be analysed with the aid of conceptual tools drawn from economics (Zamora-Bonilla, 2012Zamora-Bonilla, J. (2012). The economics of scientific knowledge. In: Mäki, U. (ed.), Philosophy of economics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51676-3.50027-0.). In this approach, initially grounded in rational choice and game theory (Shi, 2001Shi, Y. (2001). The economics of scientific knowledge: a rational-choice neo-institutionalist theory of science. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.), scientists “try to attain the maximum possible merit with their stock of intellectual and material resources” to achieve their individual goals (Zamora-Bonilla, 2012Zamora-Bonilla, J. (2012). The economics of scientific knowledge. In: Mäki, U. (ed.), Philosophy of economics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51676-3.50027-0.).

Polanyi (1962Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.), who was a pioneer in the use of this approach with his “Republic of Science”, noted the parallels between the market and science, characterizing both as being based on self-coordination of independent initiatives aimed at achieving maximum benefit. There have, once again, been some criticisms of this approach as it sees scientific decision-making as rational and essentially constrained by scarcity of resources (Wible, 1998Wible, J. R. (1998). The economics of science: methodology and epistemology as if economics really mattered. London: Routledge. cited in Zamora-Bonilla, 2012Zamora-Bonilla, J. (2012). The economics of scientific knowledge. In: Mäki, U. (ed.), Philosophy of economics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51676-3.50027-0.). Furthermore, despite a bid to include social factors in the analysis, the metaphor of the market has attracted the same accusations of internal contradictions levelled at classical economics, on which it draws in its efforts to argue for the existence of an “epistemic invisible hand” behind the process of scientific research. It has been pointed out, for example, that the existence of disciplinary monopolies runs counter to the notion of a free ideas market (Mirowski, 1996Mirowski, Ph. (1996). A visible hand in the marketplace for ideas. In: Power, M. (ed.), Accounting and science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.; Mirowski and Sent, 2002Mirowski, Ph.; Sent, E. M. (2002). Science bought and sold: essays in the economics of science. Chicago and London: The Chicago University Press.). The idea that the functions of science are underpinned by the market-based returns model has also been questioned (Gans and Stern, 2010Gans, J. S.; Stern, S. (2010). Is there a market for ideas?. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19 (3), pp. 805-837, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq023.).


Sociological and rational-economic approaches aimed to fill the gap in the earlier individualist conceptualizations and have made a major contribution to motivational studies of scientific production. However, unlike psychological perspectives, hypotheses derived from sociological and rational-economic approaches are yet to be tested empirically in a systematic manner.


Overall, the main theoretical and methodological shortcomings of previous approaches may be summarised as follows: 


  1. Little empirical testing and validation of measurement instruments: the most highly developed theoretical contributions have not been followed up by empirical testing (for a review, see Fernández-Esquinas and Torres-Albero, 2009Fernández-Esquinas, M.; Torres-Albero, C. (2009). La ciencia como institución social: clásicos y modernos institucionalismos en la sociología de la ciencia. Arbor, 738, pp. 663-687, http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2009.738n1045.; Zamora-Bonilla, 2012Zamora-Bonilla, J. (2012). The economics of scientific knowledge. In: Mäki, U. (ed.), Philosophy of economics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51676-3.50027-0.), while the earlier psychological perspectives have generally only validated their hypotheses at the individual level.

  2. Lack of a multilevel perspective: Following Ostroff and Bowen (2000Ostroff, C.; Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: Human resource practices and organizational effectiveness. In: Klein, K. J.; Kozlowski, S. W. J. (eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.) and Kozlowski and Klein (2000Kozlowski, S. W. J.; Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein, K. J.; Kozlowski, S. W. J. (eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.) on organizational theory, it would be desirable to integrate the macro level (normative systems, compensatory mechanisms, cultural context) and the micro level (attitudes, behaviours, perceptions) with intermediate positions between the two levels to produce a more complete and global perspective on the organizational system under study.

  3. The absence of dynamic and interactive explanations for researchers’ preferences: the main contribution of the psychological perspective has been to distinguish between internal and external motivations. However, despite its explanatory power, the approach thus far has been too static and little attention has been given to the relationship between these types of motivation and the processes that turn one type of motivation into the other.

In the next section, we present a framework that seeks to address the shortcomings discussed above and to provide a more satisfactory account of the motivations implicated in publication strategies.

 

3. DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF MOTIVATIONS FOR RESEARCHERS’ LANGUAGE CHOICES FOR SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION PURPOSES
 Top

As we have sought to explain through our review of the three main approaches, despite their many differences, they share much common ground both in terms of their theoretical contributions and the various contradictions and impasses they confront. In this section, we present a framework based on SDT (Deci and Ryan, 1985Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7., 2000Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), pp. 227-268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01., 2002Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research: Reflections and future directions. In: Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (eds.), Handbook of self-determination research. New York, USA: University of Rochester Press.; Ryan and Deci, 2000aRyan, R. M.; Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, vol. 55, pp. 68-78, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.; Gagne and Deci, 2005Gagné, M.; Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), pp. 331-362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.322.), one of the major theories of motivation in social psychology. We will now show how this approach addresses the three main shortcomings of the classical paradigms we described earlier by offering an understanding of motivation as a dynamic, multidimensional process, integrated at various levels. Furthermore, in the empirical domain, it is one of the approaches that can rely upon a larger body of research evidence to justify its hypotheses and validate its measurement instruments (Vallerand et al., 1992Vallerand, R. J.; Pelletier, L. G.; Blais, M. R.; Brière, N. M.; Senécal, C.; Vallières, E.F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 52, pp. 1003-1017, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025.; Cokley, 2000Cokley, K. O. (2000). Examining the validity of the academic motivation scale by comparing scale construction to self-determination theory. Psychological Reports, vol. 86, pp. 560-564, http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2.560.; Fairchild et al., 2005Fairchild, A. J.; Horst, S. J.; Finney, S. J.; Barron, K. E. (2005). Evaluating existing and new validity evidence for the Academic Motivation Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 30, pp. 331-358, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.001.). For this reason, it provides a particularly interesting and fruitful basis for the formulation of our framework.


SDT avoids the dichotomization of motivation as intrinsic and extrinsic in favour of a view where individuals’ actions can be plotted along a motivational continuum from amotivation through extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation. Amotivation, the lack of intention to act because of lack of interest or because one does not see the activity as valuable, represents another of the important innovations provided by this theory. At the same time, SDT retains the concepts of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation but introduces a more nuanced explanation of how the two types of motivation work in practice. Firstly, the locus of motivation is seen in relation to the distinction between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. Autonomous motivation involves “acting with a sense of volition and having the experience of choice”, while controlled motivation involves “acting with a sense of pressure, a sense of having to engage in the actions”. Thus, intrinsically motivated behaviour is “prototypically autonomous”, while extrinsically motivated behaviour “can vary in the degree to which it is autonomous versus controlled” (Gagné and Deci, 2005Gagné, M.; Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), pp. 331-362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.322.).


Another central argument of SDT is that an extrinsically motivated behaviour can become autonomous, i.e. it can be “transformed into intrinsically motivated one as individuals internalize the values and behavioural regulation that underlies it” (Lam, 2011Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?. Research Policy, vol. 40, pp. 1354-1368, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002.). The SDT controlled-to-autonomous continuum describes the degree to which an external regulation has been internalized. Internalization is “an active, natural process in which individuals attempt to transform socially sanctioned mores or requests into personally endorsed values and self-regulations” (Ryan et al., 1985Ryan, R. M.; Connell, J. P.; Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In: Ames, C.; Ames, R. E. (eds.), Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu. New York, USA: Academic Press., quoted in Deci and Ryan, 2000Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), pp. 227-268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.). It occurs when “people taking in values, attitudes, or regulatory structures, such that the external regulation of a behavior is transformed into an internal regulation and thus no longer requires the presence of an external contingency” (Gagné and Deci, 2005Gagné, M.; Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), pp. 331-362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.322.).

SDT identifies three distinct processes of internalization: introjection, identification and integration. Thus, extrinsic motivation is divided into four points along the continuum: external, introjected, identified and integrated regulation. External regulation refers to the least self-determined form of extrinsic motivation, involving actions for which the locus of initiation is external to the person, as in the case of rewards or threats. Introjected regulation involves externally imposed rules that the individual accepts as norms that pressure him or her to behave, while not accepting them as his or her own norms. Identified regulation occurs when people identify with the value of behaviour for their own self-selected goals and accept the regulatory process because they recognize its usefulness. The behaviour is thus more congruent with people’s personal goals and identities. The most developmentally advanced form of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation, which involves regulations that are fully assimilated with the individual’s other values, needs, and identities. Integrated motivation is still considered extrinsic motivation but shares some qualities with intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1991Deci, E. L.; Vallerand, R. J.; Pelletrier, L. G.; Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: the self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, vol. 26, pp. 325-46, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_6 / http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137.; Gagné and Deci, 2005Gagné, M.; Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), pp. 331-362, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.322.; Lam, 2011Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?. Research Policy, vol. 40, pp. 1354-1368, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002.).

Associated with the different types of motivation, three outcome types can be identified: material, social and affective. Material outcomes are primarily related to extrinsic motivation, affective outcomes are closely related to intrinsic motivation, and social outcomes are related to the ‘in-between’ types of motivation such as introjection and identification (Lam, 2011Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?. Research Policy, vol. 40, pp. 1354-1368, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002.).


Lam (2011Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?. Research Policy, vol. 40, pp. 1354-1368, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002.) has recently reviewed the main characteristics and postulates of SDT with regard to academics’ motivation. She underlines the emphasis of SDT on self-regulation in the motivational process seeing it as “particularly germane to the case of academics who enjoy considerable freedom in their work” and cites Amabile et al. (1994Amabile, T.M.; Hill, K.G.; Hennessey, B.A.; Tighe, E.M. (1994). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5), pp. 950-967, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950.) arguing that “some highly autonomous individuals [as most scientists are] may be strongly intrinsically interested in the activity and, at the same time, strongly motivated to acquire extrinsic rewards (e.g. recognition, careers and money) for that activity”. At the same time, a researcher’s motivation should be seen as a dynamic and multidimensional phenomenon (Viau, 2004Viau, R. (2004). A model to explain the motivational dynamics of eminent scientists. Proceedings 9th International Conference on Motivation. Lisbon, Portugal: EARLI SIG.).

Drawing on Deci and Ryan (2000Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), pp. 227-268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.) and on the existing literature on motivation, in this paper we propose a framework for the study of researchers’ language choices for scientific publication purposes. After discussion with a sample of informants, we identified the main factors motivating researchers to publish in English or Spanish-medium journals (Table I). These factors are placed in the self-determination continuum of motivational factors according to: a) the sphere which is affected, either individual or collective; b) the type of motivation: amotivation, extrinsic or intrinsic; c) the type of regulation along the continuum between self-determined and controlled forms of motivation: external, introjected, identified, integrated and intrinsic regulation; d) the locus of causality, either impersonal, external or internal; and e) the three types of outcomes: affective, social and material (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Motivations of scientists for writing research articles in English or Spanish, placed in the self-determination continuum of motivational factors

Motivations of scientists for writing research articles in English or Spanish, placed in the self-determination continuum of motivational factors

[Descargar tamaño completo]

 

Table I. Motivational factors

Motivational factors

[Descargar tamaño completo]

 

Our framework brings together material, affective and social outcomes. It incorporates the recent broadening of intrinsic motivation to include a social, normative dimension, in addition to the traditional link to affective outcomes (Grant, 2008Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (1), pp. 48-58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48.).


Many of the motivational factors we asked informants about are easily positioned along this continuum. This is the case of the desire to increase the possibility of receiving a bonus payment and, at the other end of the continuum, of the set of motivations related to self-confidence and need for achievement. The desire to meet the requirements for professional promotion represents a source of introjection, as does individuals’ acceptance of the external norms ruling the reward system of science, where publication in mainstream international journals is one of the main, if not the principal, criteria for professional promotion in the public Research and Development system. Similarly, the desire for their work to be recognised and to get cited more frequently reflects researcher’s identification and acceptance of research articles as the primary vehicle for obtaining recognition, and consequently of their acting in order to obtain this recognition. Seeking recognition can be considered as an external (though invisible) reward that depends on others (i.e. the scientific community), while getting citations could be seen as its visible counterpart. Both respond to the individual’s desire to become fully integrated into their continually evolving academic community.

The desire to communicate to international or to local scientific communities can be considered as lying at the boundaries between extrinsic, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation. Initially, we opted for categorizing these motivations as intrinsic while acknowledging the existence of arguments for regarding them as extrinsic. Ultimately, we chose to categorise the local/universal interest of research as an extrinsic-type motivation on the grounds that communicating research in a given language may respond to the individual’s desire to integrate into one community rather than another. In any case, it can thus be considered as an instrumental motive since it consists of a well-internalized extrinsic motive (integrated regulation) centred on the individual’s future professional endeavours. It should, however, be noted that the desire to communicate to either an international or to a local scientific community also involves intrinsic and affective components.


The desire for the continued existence of scientific journals in a given language and the desire to respond to a request or invitation from an institution, association or publisher, etc. can be seen as a motivation echoing the Mertonian value of communalism. In so far as we consider these motivations as related to scientists’ recognition of the usefulness of the existence of these journals and the fact that they consider responding to these invitations as appropriate conduct, they can be placed close to the ‘Identified regulation’ point on the continuum.

Finally, motivations placed at the ‘intrinsic’ extreme of the motivational continuum include six motivators, three of which fit into the ‘self-confidence’ category, encompassing the aspects of perceived competence (the assessment of my ability to write up the results of my research in this language), self-efficacy (my assessment of the quality of my article) and attributions about past experiences or causal attributions (my experience publishing in this language). The other three motivators are included within the ‘need for achievement’ component (the desire for stimulating challenges, the desire to develop intellectually and the desire to improve my writing ability in this language).


 

4. APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE STUDY OF SPANISH RESEARCHERS’ MOTIVATION
 Top

We next describe an experimental application of the framework. We investigated the main factors that motivate Spanish researchers to publish the results of their research in academic journals either in EAL or in Spanish (as L1).

4.1. Methodology


The study was carried out through a survey of researchers from four Spanish universities and the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. This paper draws on data from the study by the ENEIDA (Spanish team for Intercultural Studies on Academic Discourse) research team of the current needs, experiences and strategies of Spanish researchers with regard to the writing and publishing of research articles in English and Spanish-medium journals. The analysis is based on responses to a large-scale on-line survey carried out among Spanish scholars with doctorates who have received most of their secondary and pre-doctoral education in Spain and in Castilian Spanish, and who work at either a research-only institution (the Spanish Council for Scientific Research) or at one of four Spanish universities. The population of participants, the general aspects of the methodology used and the design, validation and implementation procedures of the ENEIDA survey are described in detail in Moreno et al. (2012Moreno, A.I.; Rey-Rocha, J.; Burgess, S.; López-Navarro, I.; Sachdev, I. (2012). Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty writing research articles for English-medium journals: the impact of proficiency in English versus publication experience. Ibérica, vol. 24, pp. 157-184., 2013Moreno, A.I.; Burgess, S.; Sachdev, I.; López-Navarro, I.; Rey-Rocha, J. (2013). The ENEIDA Questionnaire: Publication Experiences in Scientific Journals in English and Spanish. Retrieved [20.05.2014] from Universidad de León, ENEIDA’s Web site: http://eneida.unileon.es/eneidaquestionnaire.php.). However, to facilitate comprehension of the present article, key methodological aspects of the study are summarized below with particular emphasis being given to those relating to researchers’ motivations.

The ENEIDA instrument (Moreno et al., 2013Moreno, A.I.; Burgess, S.; Sachdev, I.; López-Navarro, I.; Rey-Rocha, J. (2013). The ENEIDA Questionnaire: Publication Experiences in Scientific Journals in English and Spanish. Retrieved [20.05.2014] from Universidad de León, ENEIDA’s Web site: http://eneida.unileon.es/eneidaquestionnaire.php.) was designed drawing on previous literature (Cea D’Ancona, 2001Cea D’Ancona, C. (2001). Metodología Cuantitativa: Estrategias y Técnicas de Investigación Social. Madrid: Síntesis.; Cohen et al. 2007Cohen, L.; Manion, L.; Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education, (6th ed.). London: Rouledge.; De Vaus, 2002De Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in Social Research (5th ed.). London: Rouledge.; see also Moreno et al., 2012Moreno, A.I.; Rey-Rocha, J.; Burgess, S.; López-Navarro, I.; Sachdev, I. (2012). Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty writing research articles for English-medium journals: the impact of proficiency in English versus publication experience. Ibérica, vol. 24, pp. 157-184.), our existing knowledge, and information obtained from consultation with experts. In order to achieve adequate construct validity for the questions used in the survey, a two-step procedure based on respondent debriefing (qualitative approach) and a pre-test survey (quantitative approach) was employed. For the respondent debriefing (Hess and Singer, 1995Hess, J.; Singer, E. (1995). The role of respondent debriefing questions in questionnaire development. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (Survey Research Methods Section). Alexandria, VA, USA: American Statistical Association.; Martin, 2004Martin, E. (2004). Vignettes and respondent debriefing for questionnaire design and evaluation. In: Presser, S. et al. (eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. New Jersey, USA.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471654728.ch8.), we conducted semi-structured face-to-face interviews with a sample of 24 informants with the aim of identifying or confirming relevant variables for inclusion in the questionnaire and to find the most appropriate register and language for communication with our informants in the subsequent survey. Afterwards, we tested the on-line questionnaire with a selected subsample of 200 informants, in order to trial the instrument both technically and in terms of interpretation of results. As a result of the double pre-test we redefined and reduced the number of items in the survey.

Both the interviews and the pre-test on-line survey involved a good cross-section which was representative of our population in terms of gender, seniority (junior and senior scientists), institution (CSIC and University) and disciplinary field (Natural and Exact Sciences, Technological Sciences, Social Sciences and Arts & Humanities).


The original Spanish version of the questionnaire was administered in late 2010 to a population of 8,794 academics. We received 1,717 responses (19.6% response rate). Of these, 1,454 (84.7%) met the L1 and educational background criteria we had established. The size of the sample guarantees an error of less than 2% for a confidence level of 95%. Men and women responded at a similar rate (17.1% and 15.6% respectively) so both genders were adequately represented among respondents, reflecting the percentage distribution for the population. The response rate was higher among CSIC researchers (21.3%), who are thus over-represented in the sample with respect to university academics (response rate from 10.6% to 13% across the four universities).

We asked these informants to assess to what extent a series of factors influence their decision to publish in English or in Spanish when they decide to publish a research article in a scientific journal (Moreno et al., 2013Moreno, A.I.; Burgess, S.; Sachdev, I.; López-Navarro, I.; Rey-Rocha, J. (2013). The ENEIDA Questionnaire: Publication Experiences in Scientific Journals in English and Spanish. Retrieved [20.05.2014] from Universidad de León, ENEIDA’s Web site: http://eneida.unileon.es/eneidaquestionnaire.php.). The series of factors on which we sought information through this question are those we plotted along the SDT continuum from extrinsic to intrinsic motivations (Figure 1).

Answers were provided on a five-point Likert scale (see Table II). For each motivational factor we estimated the position index (PI). The PI quantifies the position of the sample on an ordinal scale without having to take into account the number of categories that make it up. PI takes values between 0 and 1. It is null (PI = 0) when the sample is located in the lower end of the interval, and takes its maximum value (PI = 1) when all the elements of the sample are at the top. It allows for the representation of a motivational-profile graph for each independent variable, displaying their ‘shape’ and graphically showing similarities and differences among them. The way PI is formulated is reported in the Appendix.


Seniority was calculated as the time elapsed since individuals obtained their doctoral degree. The three 33.3-percentile groups of scientists considered in the present study were a) junior scientists, i.e., those who obtained their doctorate between 0 and 10 years previously; b) individuals in the middle percentile (doctorate obtained from 11 to 19 years previously), and c) senior scientists (doctorate obtained more than 19 years previously). The number of articles published as corresponding authors over the preceding ten years in English (as L2) or in Spanish has been used as a proxy for publication experience in either of the two languages.


Statistical analysis was performed with the SPSS statistical package for Windows (version 19.0). Means comparisons were performed with the Student’s t-test adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. Significant differences are reported at p< 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column means assuming equal variances (see Tables II. III. IV and V).

4.2. Results


Table II shows mean ratings provided by informants for the factors that influence their decision to publish research articles in Spanish or in EAL, and Figure 2.a displays their motivational-profile graph for publication in English and in Spanish. We performed the Two-sample Hotelling’s T-Square test in order to contrast differences in sample mean vectors. Results show significant differences between the vectors representing averages for all the motivations for publishing in English or in Spanish (Hotelling’s trace=0.497 p-value<0.001). In order to determine whether the means for this paired sample were systematically different, we applied the Student’s t-test, adjusted using the Bonferroni correction. In Table II, values in the same row not sharing the same subscript (a or b) are significantly different at p < 0.05 in the two-sided test of equality for column means. Motivations for publishing in English were mainly related to utilitarian aspects such as communicating the results of research to the international scientific community, having research work recognized, and meeting the requirements for professional promotion. Opinions about the use of Spanish are somewhat fragmented and are linked mainly with ideological (defence of local issues, desire for the continued existence of scientific journals in Spanish) and social reasoning (responding to a request or invitation from an institution, association or publisher).

The general motivational profiles for publishing in English and in Spanish displayed in Figures 2.a are nearly unchanged irrespective of gender, seniority and publication experience, with slight variations that affect the different scores given to some of the particular motivations. Male and female researchers follow a similar motivation pattern both when publishing in English and in Spanish, with the main differences being found in the higher scores by women on most of the items (Table III, Figures 2.b and 2.c). An exception observed in both languages is the desire to increase the chances of receiving a bonus payment, where men and women put equally low expectations either in English or in Spanish.


Seniority does not seem to influence the motivations of scientists to publish research articles in Spanish (Table IV. Figure 2.e), with the exception of the interest in using publication in this language for professional promotion, an interest which decreases as researchers become more senior. The use of EAL shows more differences (Table IV. Figure 2.d). Differences arose in both the extrinsic and the intrinsic extremes of the motivational continuum. With respect to extrinsic motivations, as in the case of Spanish, those who are at the beginning of their academic career are the most concerned about aspects of professional promotion when deciding to publish in EAL, meanwhile those who are distinguished by pursuing extra remuneration through their publications in English are senior researchers. Junior scholars are the most intrinsically motivated by need for achievement when choosing to publish in English.


The greater or less experience in the publication of articles in Spanish corresponds with a different intensity in the motivation to publish in this language in most of the items valued, so that in general the degree of experience and the intensity of motivation are linked, with both increasing in parallel (Table V), although the motivational profile is similarly shaped in both low-, medium and highly experienced authors (Figure 2.g). Less significant are the differences based on the experience of publishing in English (Table V. Figure 2.f). More experienced authors in English are more motivated to write in English in response to invitations, and are also more concerned with obtaining citations and recognition through English publication, though not with professional promotion, a motivation that is equally important for all scientists. More experienced authors are also more concerned with the scientific audience to whom they direct their research articles when choosing English as language of communication. On the other hand, when it comes to motivations related to proficiency, researchers with lower levels of experience are those who are more concerned particularly with the improvement of their writing skills in EAL.


Table II. When you decide to publish a research article in a scientific journal, to what extent do the following factors influence your decision to publish in Spanish or in English?

When you decide to publish a research article in a scientific journal, to what extent do the following factors influence your decision to publish in Spanish or in English?

[Descargar tamaño completo]

 

Table III. Motivations to publish in English and in Spanish. Differences by gender

Motivations to publish in English and in Spanish. Differences by gender

[Descargar tamaño completo]

 

Table IV. Motivations to publish in English and in Spanish. Differences by seniority

Motivations to publish in English and in Spanish. Differences by seniority

[Descargar tamaño completo]

 

Table V. Motivations to publish in English and in Spanish. Differences by publication experience

Motivations to publish in English and in Spanish. Differences by publication experience

[Descargar tamaño completo]

 

Figure 2. Graphical representation, through the Position Index, of motivations for publishing in English and in Spanish

Graphical representation, through the Position Index, of motivations for publishing in English and in Spanish

[Descargar tamaño completo]

 

 

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
 Top

This study presents a motivation framework for the study of researchers’ language choices for scientific publication purposes. This framework seeks to address the three main shortcomings identified in the classical paradigms. To this end, it presents a view of motivation as dynamic, multidimensional, and multilevel. The adoption of the SDT’ controlled-to-autonomous continuum of motivational factors by Deci and Ryan (1985Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7., 2000Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), pp. 227-268, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.) allowed for an analysis that overcomes the problems inherent in the traditional dichotomy between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, a dichotomy which we do not regard as appropriate in the context of our study. Applying this approach meant breaking with the conception of researchers’ motivation as a fragmented phenomenon and allowed us to understand more complex links between motivations for the use of English for academic purposes while also revealing the contradictions and ambivalent preferences in the case of the use of Spanish.


The results presented here provide empirical evidence on how the behaviour of researchers when selecting English or Spanish for communicating their results through research articles is influenced, to varying degrees, by an ensemble of extrinsic and intrinsic motivations involving concerns for personal or professional benefit along with other, more altruistic considerations.

Spanish scientists’ major motivations for publishing in EAL are in the range of the self-determined forms of extrinsic motivation, including the broad range of internalized motivation. Motivations for publishing in English were mainly related to utilitarian aspects such as communicating the results of research to the international scientific community (integrated regulation) as well as to the maximization of non-economic benefits such as having research work recognized (identified regulation) and meeting the requirements for professional promotion (introjected regulation).

It has been argued that the dominance of English in international academic communication has its origins in the practice of many national S&T systems of providing greater rewards for English than those provided for national language publication, as is the case in the current Spanish system (Curry and Lillis, 2004Curry, M.; Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: negotiating interests, demands and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 38, pp. 663-88, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588284.; Ferguson, 2006Ferguson, G. (2006). Language planning and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.; Moreno, 2010Moreno, A. I. (2010). Researching into English for research publication purposes from an applied intercultural perspective. In: Ruiz-Garrido, M. F. et al. (eds.), English for Professional and Academic Purposes. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.; Osuna et al., 2011Osuna, C.; Cruz-Castro, L.; Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance. Scientometrics, vol. 86, pp. 575-592, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0312-7.), and in the growing internationalization of teaching and research in universities and research centres (Pérez-Llantada et al., 2011Pérez-Llantada, C.; Plo, R.; Ferguson, G. R. (2011). “You don’t say what you know, only what you can”: The perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in English. English for Specific Purposes, 30 (1), pp. 18-30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001.). As a consequence, the sine qua non of dissemination of research results to the international scientific community is publication in journals with international readerships, particularly in the so-called ‘mainstream journals’, which are primarily published in English. Researchers who do not have English as their first language are thus pressured to publish in English instead of their L1 (Rey-Rocha and Martín-Sempere, 1999Rey-Rocha, J.; Martín-Sempere, M. J. (1999). The role of domestic journals in geographically-oriented disciplines: the case of Spanish journals on Earth Sciences. Scientometrics, 45 (2), pp. 203-216, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02458433.; Curry and Lillis, 2004Curry, M.; Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: negotiating interests, demands and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 38, pp. 663-88, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588284.; Uzuner, 2008Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 7, pp. 250-263, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.007.). Consistent with these arguments, the researchers in our sample share the desire to obtain more intellectual feedback, broader international diffusion, as well as more citations, recognition and possibilities of professional promotion through their use of English as a language of research publication instead of Spanish. Our results thus point to a high degree of internalization by Spanish scientists of the requirements of the regulatory process that governs research evaluation.


Opinions about the use of Spanish are somewhat fragmented and are linked mainly with ideological (defence of local issues, desire for the continued existence of scientific journals in Spanish) and social reasoning (to respond to a request or invitation from an institution, association or publisher), and thus mainly with integrated regulation of behaviour and consequently with a mixed affective-social outcome. Despite this dispersion, publication in Spanish is chiefly motivated by the most self-determined, integrated regulated, form of extrinsic motivation (communicating to the local scientific audience). From the salience of this item we can infer that there is a degree of concern among Spanish researchers that their results should reach the local community and not just those abroad even though they are in fact encouraged to privilege the international community by research evaluation practices.


As we have seen, motivation is a dynamic process of interactions between motivational factors. Thus the motivations themselves that drive researchers to behave as they do are important, but the relationships between these motivations and the individual characteristics of researchers must also be taken into account. Identifying these relationships is cumbersome when it is a question of understanding the direction of some motivations. Overall, we found that the set of motivations of researchers to publish in EAL or in Spanish follow a similar pattern or profile regardless of gender, seniority, and publication experience. Thus, it can be concluded that the motivational profile remains virtually constant among Spanish researchers, with only some differences in the absolute values that different groups of individuals (on the basis of these individual characteristics) give to the different motivations. Overall, motivation to use EAL tends to be more homogeneous than motivation to publish in Spanish
.

On the other hand, considering that motivation is not only a psychological process, the likely influence not only of individual characteristics, but of contextual factors, must be considered. In this sense, the existing literature has underlined the role of social networks in which individuals are embedded (Granovetter, 1973Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), pp. 1360-80, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/225469.) and the influence of contextual factors on the different aspects of researchers’ activity and knowledge dissemination practices (Swales and Leeder, 2012Swales, J.; Leeder, C. (2012). A reception study of the articles published in English for Specific Purposes from 1990–1999. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (2), pp. 137-146, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.07.003.), provided that different disciplines have different traditions, different uses and modes, even different standards, affecting practices in the dissemination of knowledge (Petersen and Shaw, 2002Petersen, M.; Shaw, P. (2002). Language and disciplinary differences in a biliterate context. World Englishes, 21 (3), pp. 357-374, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00255.). The next step in our research will be to analyse the extent to which researchers working in different disciplines are motivated differently to publish in EAL and in their L1.


In summary, in this paper we propose a framework for studying researchers’ motivations for selecting a particular language for communicating their results through research articles. This is a preliminary, open, dynamic framework that is likely to evolve as it is put to use in more empirical research. Applying the framework to other scientific communities might identify valuable modifications and developments. Be that as it may, the openness of the framework provides the basis for its use in the study of academics’ motivations for participating in other scientific activities such as public engagement, public communication of science and so on.


To conclude, some caveats on our study must be mentioned. Although we surveyed a broad range of researchers from all academic domains, we only surveyed Spanish informants from a public research institution and public universities. We did not, for example, survey researchers from the private research sector or the private higher education sector. Additional empirical work with more researchers and more varied types of researchers could further develop the framework. At the same time, the limitations inherent in the study should also be taken into account. The participants chose whether or not to take part and do not therefore constitute a randomly selected sample. It may be that this has generated the typical bias in the estimators so prevalent in studies of this kind. Additionally, our research has concerned itself exclusively with one particular type of academic communication, namely the research article. This allowed for greater precision in terms of delimiting our field of study but it is also possible that by excluding other instances of academic publication (such as book chapters, reviews) we may have missed information on language choice in these other genres.


 

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSTop

This study is part of a project financed by the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Ref.: FFI2009-08336/FILO), of which Ana I. Moreno is the Principal Investigator. It would not have been possible without the collaboration of the following institutions and researchers: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC); Universidad de León; Universidad de La Laguna, Pedro Martín-Martín; Universitat Jaume I, Mª Lluisa Gea Valor; Universidad de Zaragoza, Rosa Lorés, Pilar Mur and Enrique Lafuente; the following technical staff (José Manuel Rojo, Belén Garzón and Almudena Mata) from the Statistical Analysis Unit at the Center for Human and Social Sciences (CCHS-CSIC); Centro de Supercomputación de Galicia (CESGA); our interview informants and all the survey participants.

 

7. BIBLIOGRAPHYTop

Amabile, T.M.; Hill, K.G.; Hennessey, B.A.; Tighe, E.M. (1994). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5), pp. 950-967. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950
Barnes, B.; Dolby, R. G. A. (1970). The scientific ethos: a deviant viewpoint. Archive of European Sociology, vol. 11, pp. 3-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003975600001934
Cea D’Ancona, C. (2001). Metodología Cuantitativa: Estrategias y Técnicas de Investigación Social. Madrid: Síntesis.
Cohen, L.; Manion, L.; Morrison, K. (2007). Research Methods in Education, (6th ed.). London: Rouledge.
Cokley, K. O. (2000). Examining the validity of the academic motivation scale by comparing scale construction to self-determination theory. Psychological Reports, vol. 86, pp. 560-564. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.2000.86.2.560
Cotgrove, S. (1970). The sociology of science and technology. The British Journal of Sociology, 21 (1), pp. 1-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/588267
Curry, M.; Lillis, T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in English: negotiating interests, demands and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, vol. 38, pp. 663-88. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588284
Dasgupta, P.; David, P. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy, vol. 23, pp. 487-532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)01002-1
De Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in Social Research (5th ed.). London: Rouledge.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 18, pp. 105-115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0030644
Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), pp. 227-268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (2002). Self-determination research: Reflections and future directions. In: Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (eds.), Handbook of self-determination research. New York, USA: University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L.; Vallerand, R. J.; Pelletrier, L. G.; Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: the self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, vol. 26, pp. 325-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_6 / http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653137
Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign language learning. Language Learning, vol. 40, pp. 45-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1990.tb00954.x
Eiduson, B. T. (1962). Scientists: their psychological world. New York: Basic Books.
Fairchild, A. J.; Horst, S. J.; Finney, S. J.; Barron, K. E. (2005). Evaluating existing and new validity evidence for the Academic Motivation Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 30, pp. 331-358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.001
Ferguson, G. (2006). Language planning and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Fernández-Esquinas, M.; Torres-Albero, C. (2009). La ciencia como institución social: clásicos y modernos institucionalismos en la sociología de la ciencia. Arbor, 738, pp. 663-687. http://dx.doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2009.738n1045
Flowerdew, J.; Li, Y. (2009). English or Chinese? The trade-off between local and international publication among Chinese academics in the humanities and social sciences. Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 18, pp. 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.005
Gagné, M.; Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26 (4), pp. 331-362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.322
Gans, J. S.; Stern, S. (2010). Is there a market for ideas?. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19 (3), pp. 805-837. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq023
Gómez, I.; Sancho, R.; Bordons, M.; Fernández, M. T. (2006). La I+D en España a través de sus publicaciones y patentes. In: Sebastián, J.; Muñoz, E. (eds.), Radiografía de la Investigación Pública en España. Madrid, Spain: Biblioteca Nueva.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), pp. 1360-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/225469
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (1), pp. 48-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48
Haarmann, H.; Holman, H. (2001). The impact of English as a language of science in Finland and its role for the transition to network society. In: Ulrich, A. (ed.), The dominance of English as a language of science: effects on other languages and language communities. New York, USA: Mouton de Gruyter. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/9783110869484.229
Hagstrom, W.O. (1965). The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books.
Hands, D. W. (2001). Reflection without rules. Economic methodology and contemporary science theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612602
Herzberg, F.; Mausner, B.; Snyderman, B. (1959). Motivation at work. New York: Wiley.
Hess, J.; Singer, E. (1995). The role of respondent debriefing questions in questionnaire development. In: Proceedings of the American Statistical Association (Survey Research Methods Section). Alexandria, VA, USA: American Statistical Association.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: an introduction to behavior theory. Oxford: Appleton-Century.
Hwang, K. (2005). The inferior science and the dominant use of English in knowledge production: a case study of Korean science and technology. Science Communication, 26 (4), pp. 390-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547005275428
Hwang, K. (2013). Effects of the language barrier on processes and performance of international scientific collaboration. Collaborators’ participation, organizational integrity, and interorganizational relationships. Science Communication, 35 (1), pp. 3-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1075547012437442
Kozlowski, S. W. J.; Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In: Klein, K. J.; Kozlowski, S. W. J. (eds.), Multilevel theory, research and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Lam, A. (2011). What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: ‘Gold’, ‘ribbon’ or ‘puzzle’?. Research Policy, vol. 40, pp. 1354-1368. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.09.002
Lawler, E. E. (1971). Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological view. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lepper, M. R.; Greene, D.; Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28 (1), pp. 129-137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0035519
Levin, S. G.; Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: evidence for academic scientists. American Economic Review, 81 (1), pp. 114-132.
Lillis, T.; Curry, M. J. (2010). Academic writing in a global context: the politics and practices of publishing in English. London: Routledge.
Long, J. S.; Fox, M. F. (1995). Scientific careers: universalism and particularism. Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 21, pp. 45-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.000401
Martin, E. (2004). Vignettes and respondent debriefing for questionnaire design and evaluation. In: Presser, S. et al. (eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. New Jersey, USA.: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471654728.ch8
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mirowski, Ph. (1996). A visible hand in the marketplace for ideas. In: Power, M. (ed.), Accounting and science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mirowski, Ph.; Sent, E. M. (2002). Science bought and sold: essays in the economics of science. Chicago and London: The Chicago University Press.
Moreno, A. I. (2010). Researching into English for research publication purposes from an applied intercultural perspective. In: Ruiz-Garrido, M. F. et al. (eds.), English for Professional and Academic Purposes. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
Moreno, A.I.; Rey-Rocha, J.; Burgess, S.; López-Navarro, I.; Sachdev, I. (2012). Spanish researchers’ perceived difficulty writing research articles for English-medium journals: the impact of proficiency in English versus publication experience. Ibérica, vol. 24, pp. 157-184.
Moreno, A.I.; Burgess, S.; Sachdev, I.; López-Navarro, I.; Rey-Rocha, J. (2013). The ENEIDA Questionnaire: Publication Experiences in Scientific Journals in English and Spanish. Retrieved [20.05.2014] from Universidad de León, ENEIDA’s Web site: http://eneida.unileon.es/eneidaquestionnaire.php
Mulkay, M. (1969). Some aspects of cultural growth in the natural sciences. Social Research, vol. 36, pp. 22-52.
Mulkay, M. (1980). Interpretation and the use of rules: The case of norms of science. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 39 (1), pp. 111-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2164-0947.1980.tb02772.x
Opsahl, R. L.; Dunnette, M. D. (1966). The role of financial incentives in industrial motivation. Psychological Bulletin, vol. 66, pp. 95-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0023614
Ostroff, C.; Bowen, D. E. (2000). Moving HR to a higher level: Human resource practices and organizational effectiveness. In: Klein, K. J.; Kozlowski, S. W. J. (eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations. San Francisco, USA: Jossey-Bass.
Osuna, C.; Cruz-Castro, L.; Sanz-Menéndez, L. (2011). Overturning some assumptions about the effects of evaluation systems on publication performance. Scientometrics, vol. 86, pp. 575-592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0312-7
Pérez-Llantada, C.; Plo, R.; Ferguson, G. R. (2011). “You don’t say what you know, only what you can”: The perceptions and practices of senior Spanish academics regarding research dissemination in English. English for Specific Purposes, 30 (1), pp. 18-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2010.05.001
Petersen, M.; Shaw, P. (2002). Language and disciplinary differences in a biliterate context. World Englishes, 21 (3), pp. 357-374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00255
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Radnitzky, G. (1987). The economic approach to the philosophy of science. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, vol. 38, pp. 159-179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/38.2.159
Rey-Rocha, J.; Martín-Sempere, M. J. (1999). The role of domestic journals in geographically-oriented disciplines: the case of Spanish journals on Earth Sciences. Scientometrics, 45 (2), pp. 203-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02458433
Rothman, M. (1972). A dissenting view on the scientific ethos. The British Journal of Sociology, vol. 23, pp. 102-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/588160
Rowley, J. (1996). Motivation and academic staff in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4 (3), pp. 11-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889610125814
Ryan, R. M.; Connell, J. P.; Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-regulation in education. In: Ames, C.; Ames, R. E. (eds.), Research on motivation in education: The classroom milieu. New York, USA: Academic Press.
Ryan, R. M.; Deci, E. L. (2000a). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, vol. 55, pp. 68-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
Ryan, R. M.; Deci, E. L. (2000b). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), pp. 54-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: contributing to a theoretical research program. In: Smith, K. G.; Hitt, M. A. (eds.), Great minds in management: the process of theory development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Shi, Y. (2001). The economics of scientific knowledge: a rational-choice neo-institutionalist theory of science. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Silva, L.C. (1997). Cultura estadística e investigación científica en el campo de la salud: una mirada crítica. Madrid: Díaz de Santos.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
Stephan, P. E.; Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: the importance of age, place and time. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stephan, P. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34 (3), pp. 1199-1235.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Swales, J.; Leeder, C. (2012). A reception study of the articles published in English for Specific Purposes from 1990–1999. English for Specific Purposes, 31 (2), pp. 137-146. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.07.003
Thune, T. (2007). University-industry collaboration: the network embeddedness approach. Science and Public Policy, 34 (3), pp. 158-168. http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/030234207X206902
Uzuner, S. (2008). Multilingual scholars’ participation in core/global academic communities: A literature review. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol. 7, pp. 250-263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2008.10.007
Vallerand, R. J.; Pelletier, L. G.; Blais, M. R.; Brière, N. M.; Senécal, C.; Vallières, E.F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, vol. 52, pp. 1003-1017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004025
Viau, R. (2004). A model to explain the motivational dynamics of eminent scientists. Proceedings 9th International Conference on Motivation. Lisbon, Portugal: EARLI SIG.
Wible, J. R. (1998). The economics of science: methodology and epistemology as if economics really mattered. London: Routledge.
Zamora-Bonilla, J. (2012). The economics of scientific knowledge. In: Mäki, U. (ed.), Philosophy of economics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-51676-3.50027-0

 

Appendix. Formulation of the Position Index (PI)Top

The PI is formulated as follows (Silva, 1997Silva, L.C. (1997). Cultura estadística e investigación científica en el campo de la salud: una mirada crítica. Madrid: Díaz de Santos.; author’s own translation into English):


Being Pi the proportion of individuals who choose the category i of the scale (in our case i can take integer values between 1 and 5), one can calculate the weighted score M in the following way:


Formulation of the Position Index (PI)  

And from that PI is defined as follows:


PI= (M-1)/(k-1)



Copyright (c) 2015 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)

Licencia de Creative Commons
Esta obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.


Contacte con la revista redc.cchs@cchs.csic.es

Soporte técnico soporte.tecnico.revistas@csic.es