Presentation given at the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction Conference, Lancaster, 4th July 2018. Using constructivist grounded theory, this presentation explores how academics acquire the skills to write and publish peer review papers. The value of a mixed methods approach is discussed, using open-ended interviews with academics who have successfully navigated the path to publication combined with social network analysis of participants’ publication portfolios. The intended outcome of this study will be a model of writing experiences and practice from which evidence based structures will be developed to support academics throughout their academic writing careers.

1. Acquiring the Skills for
Professional Academic Writing
Maria J Grant1
Professor Ian Jones1
Dr Robyn Lotto1
Emeritus Professor Martin Johnson2
1 School of Nursing and Allied Health, Liverpool John Moores
University
2 School of Health and Society, University of Salford

2. Constructivist Grounded Theory

3. Mixed Methods
• In-depth qualitative interviews
• Social network analysis

4. Purposive Sampling
• 10 nursing academics who have
an h-index of 12<
• Qualitative research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index

5. Shifting Perspective
• What helps academics become writers?
• What helps academics write for publication?
• What helps academics acquire the skills for professional
academic writing?
• What helps academics acquire the skills for professional
academic writing… and get published!
• Professional academic writing: career patterns and
training opportunities

6. Memo: Shift in Purposive Sample
(11th January 2018)
“Finding it challenging to know who to invite as part of the purposive sample. There are larger numbers than
anticipated even with the RD9R requirement of an h-index of 12< and the additional criteria of writing qualitative
papers and having XXX or XXX as one of their top 3 research publication Subject Areas.
If it’s been reported that the mean h-index in Nursing is 12 (Watson, McDonagh, & Thompson, 2016) then I could go
one of two ways. Purposively sample to see what the mean/average experience is of people with a mean h-index of
12. Alternatively, purposively sample beyond/below this average to get a range. As I’m interested in seeing how
academics have acquired the skills to write for publication starting with the mean seems reasonable. I’ll check to see
how many nursing academics with an h-index of 12 meet the criteria and work from there.
In terms of location, am I interested exclusively in the experience (and therefore subsequent support) of UK nursing
academics? Or include experiences of nursing academics based further afield? As a starting point I think the latter for
a universal perspective and make subsequent decisions based on data analysis.”

7. Memo: Shift in Purposive Sample
(15th January 2018)
“Potential participants have been identified from the top 100 authors listed in the SciVal categories XXX or XXX who have an h-index of
12<. The authors have been based in academia for at least 50% of their publication (2012-2018) and, of the six most recently articles
published, at least half use a qualitative methodology. Currently 72 authors meet these criteria (XXX – 61; XXX – 11). Over the
weekend, I’ve been exploring how to make the research population I purposively sample from more manageable. So far, I’ve identified
two possible options:
One, recruit participants sequentially above the mean h-index of 12. Benefits, simply work up the list of potential participants until I need
to commence theoretical sampling to saturate categories. Question, if I’m interested in those slightly above average the mean h-index of
12 shouldn’t I also be sampling just below this average. Drawbacks, it was never the intention to limit the population study in this way.
Two, the existence of the top 100 authors list is a relatively new discovery within the context of this study. Rather than limit to
participants publishing at or above a mean h-index of 12, sample across each quartile to obtain a range of experiences from successful
academics publishing in the area of nursing. Benefits, a more systematic and justifiable approach within a newly identified data set.
Drawbacks, a further 91 author profiles to check; XXX – 30, XXX – 61.”

9. Example of a SciVal Profile

10. Interviews
• Record
• Transcribe
• Line-by-line coding using Gerunds
• Interview guide evolving

11. Participant Biography
Third Quartile, h-index of 28
A Professor and Associate Dean (Research) at a Higher Education Institution in
Canada. They qualified as a Registered Nurse in the mid-1990’s and has studied to
PhD level. They have received international awards recognising the quality of their
research and held leadership positions within international nursing related
organisations. They hold an editorial position with an international ISI listed journal. At
the time their profile was constructed they had published 167 articles, 1998-2018, with
220 co-authors and had an h-index of 28.

12. 0
10
20
30
40
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Author Position
(First Quartile, h-index of 10)
First Author Middle Author Final Author
0
10
20
30
40
2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Author Position
(Second Quartile: h-index of 12)
First Author Middle Author Final Author
0
100
200
300
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Author Position
(Fourth Quartile, h-index of 36)
First Author Middle Author Final Author
0
50
100
150
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Author Position
(Third Quartile, h-index of 32)
First Author Middle Author Final Author

13. Social Network Analysis
“Networks are a way of thinking about
social systems that focus our attention
on the relationships among the entities
that make up the system.” p1

14. Memo:
How to Integrate Social Network Analysis Within the Study
(23rd October 2017)
“It was initially a challenge to determine whose publication profile the Social Network Analysis
should be conducted upon, and also its timing in the research process. As part of the theory
development, it is logical that the publication profiles of research participants are analysed,
though the question of when the analysis should take place remained. In the spirit of constant
comparative analysis, rather than delay analysis until all interviews have been completed,
Social Network Analysis of participants is undertaken prior to interview as an acknowledge part
of data construction, acting as a stimulus for further data construction during interviews. The
integration of interview and Social Network Analysis data provides an opportunity to reconcile
any potential divergence between data as it is constructed.”

15. Constructing a Social Network

17. Social Network Analysis

19. Constructing an Understanding

20. Career Patterns in
Professional Academic Writing
Maria J Grant
Email: m.j.grant@2016.ljmu.ac.uk
Telephone: 0151 231 4467
Twitter: @MariaJGrant @GroundedTheory
https://thegroundedtheorist.wordpress.com

21. References
• Bellotti K (2016) Qualitative methods and visualizations in the study of
friendship networks, Sociological Research Online, 21 (2), 2-19.
• Birks M, Mills J (2015) Grounded theory: a practical guide, London, Sage.
2nd Ed.
• Charmaz K (2014) Constructing grounded theory, London, Sage. 2nd Ed.
• University of Lancaster (2017) Dynamics of Knowledge Creation:
http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/acadswriting/
• Watson R, McDonagh R & Thompson DR (2016) h-indices: an update on
the performance of professors in nursing in the UK, Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 73 (5), 999-1001.