臺灣學者於學術全球化時代，對國內期刊看法與經驗之質性研究

期末報告

臺灣學者於學術全球化時代，對國內期刊看法與經驗之質性研

究

中　華　民　國　105　年　12　月　05　日

的多語教職人員，以面對面訪談的方式，就其自身的發表經驗及各 自履歷進行討論，並同時研究相關的機構性政策文件。本研究歸納 出研究人員選擇發表於 TBEMJ 的九個原因：遭「國際」期刊拒絕、 期刊領域、引文索引、會議論文集或特殊議題、與學生共同發表、 時間壓力、支持期刊、發表語言，以及博士候選人必要條件。篇幅 和規模的觀念是參與者經驗討論的主要方向，顯示出人們對引用順 序的觀感，引用順序不完全取決於發表地點，還涉及引文索引和其 他文獻指標。研究結果顯示，「國內」期刊所發揮的作用其實要大 得多，並非如 Lee 和 Lee (2013) 所稱，只是個專門接收遭到「國 際」指標性期刊拒絕的論文的「手稿墳墓」而已，表示「國內」期 刊十分值得投資。然而，儘管發表地方性研究知識，但無法確定其 流傳或利用範圍。雖然影響因素 (IF) 等評估指標仍具爭議，但倘 若 TBEM ISI 期刊的 IF 提高，則可能有助於獲得更多機構支持。 中 文 關 鍵 詞 ： 學術出版，國內期刊，全球化，多語言學者，高等教育

英 文 摘 要 ： This study reports on 14 authors’ participation in the production of five Taiwan-based English medium journals (TBEMJs) from humanities and social sciences disciplines. Multilingual faculty at Taiwanese universities discussed their publishing experiences and referred to their

curriculum vitae during face-to-face interviews. Relevant institutional policy documents were also studied. Nine reasons researchers published in TBEMJs were found:

rejection from “international” journals, journal scope, citation index, conference proceedings or special issue, publishing with students, time pressure, to support the journal, language of publication, and doctorate candidacy requirement. Notions of space and scale frame discussion of participants’ experiences demonstrating perceptions of indexical order, not necessarily based on location of publication, but citation index and other bibliographic metrics. Results show that “national” journals function as more than what Lee and Lee (2013) refer to as

“manuscript graveyards” for “international” indexed journal rejections, indicating that investment in

“national” journals is worthwhile. However, while local knowledge is being published, it is not clear how far it is distributed or utilized. Although metrics such as impact factor (IF) are controversial, if the TBEM ISI journals’ IFs rise, this may encourage more institutional support. 英 文 關 鍵 詞 ： scholarly publishing, national journals, globalization,

Taiwan-based Scholars’ Perceptions and Experiences with English Medium National Journal Publishing in the Era of Academic Globalization

臺灣學者於學術全球化時代，對國內期刊看法與經驗之質性研究 Introduction

This project evolves from the academic literacies research tradition. In the lead article of an issue of Applied Linguistics dedicated to academic literacies research, Lillis and Scott (2007) describe the perspective as having “a specific epistemology, that of literacy as social practice, and ideology, that of transformation” (italics original) (p. 7). In the context of the study, literacy amounts to scholarly publishing and globalization is the transformative influence on Taiwan-based scholars and national journals. Effects of contemporary globalization (Eriksen, 2007b) have impacted scholars around the world in various ways (Altbach, 2003/2013; Englander & Uzuner-Smith, 2013). One effect, among many, has been the increased dominance of English as a lingua franca. In academic globalization, one way this has transpired is through the Anglicization and homogenization of scholarly publishing. Most Taiwan-based researchers, like their colleagues from other non-Anglophone countries, use English as an additional language to report their research and are under pressure to publish it in prestigious “international” journals. Hanauer and Englander (2011) claimed that writing academic articles in English as a second language imparts a quantifiably greater burden on scientists they studied in Mexico. This pressure has derived from “centering institutions” (Lillis, 2012, p. 702), which can be immediate, such as universities, or distant, such as Thompson Reuters Web of Knowledge and its citation indexes. One of these indexes, the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) has become higher education institutions’ (HEIs) benchmark for quality humanities and social science (HSS) research in various countries (Curry & Lillis, 2004; Lee & Lee, 2013; Li & Flowerdew, 2009) and particularly in Taiwan (Huang, 2009). This situation and its impact on scholars’ research and publishing choices, among other issues, have been discussed and critiqued by local researchers (Chou, 2014b, 2014c; Song & Tai, 2007). According to C. L. Sheridan (2015), the overriding centripetal force on these phenomena in Taiwan is globalization, which has influenced the government’s overall competitiveness and internationalization drive (Mok, 2000), spawning institutions’ “publish or perish” policies that have affected all phases and aspects of academic life from performance review to research grant approval to promotion prospects. This situation has spread from the natural sciences to the humanities and social sciences (Chou, 2014b; M.-h. Huang & Chang, 2008) generating what Sun (2013) referred to as the “SSCI phenomenon” and Chou (2014c) coined the “SSCI syndrome.”

Besides studies investigating English L2 writers in their quest for international vita lines (eg. Belcher, 2007; Curry & Lillis, 2004; Flowerdew & Li, 2009; Hanauer & Englander, 2013; Lee and Lee, 2013; and Liu, 2014), a few studies on the relationship between

globalization and scholarly publication beyond Anglophone center contexts have focused on local publishing. Lillis (2012) and Lundin, Jönsson, Kreiner, and Tienari (2010) both

discussed the aims and development of “national” journals in European countries from editors’ perspectives. Wang (2006, 2008) addressed problems of journal publishing in China from her experience as a journal editor and Ling, Wang, and Xu (2005) found similar issues in their interviews with six editors of foreign language education journals in China. In

Taiwan, Sheridan’s (2015) historiography of a national English language teaching journal included interviews with editors, reviewers, and contributors. The editors in these studies were more or less cognizant of their publication’s “place” in the global publishing arena and ways it developed in relation to “international” norms and practices such as language of publication (increasingly English) and peer review (increasingly standardized).

As far as research on contributors’ perspectives and experiences with national journals, Curry and Lillis (2010) studied researchers in four European countries and found that their participants contributed to national language and English medium publications for various reasons such as wanting to connect to a national or regional audience, even though the overriding pressure was to publish “internationally.” Local journals are also regarded as researchers’ last resort in case a manuscript is rejected by an “international” journal (Lee & Lee, 2013). Other studies have called attention to publications’ challenges related to the plight of scholars in underdeveloped countries such as in Salager-Meyer (2008) and Flowerdew and Li (2009). Lee and Lee (2013) mentioned the low prestige of national journals in Korea and Sun (2013) found that researchers in Taiwan tended not to cite local journals. While national journals seem to be considered lower class publication outlets, other studies reported their positive attributes as venues that generate local knowledge (Feng, Beckett, & Huang, 2013; Lillis, 2012) or function as scholarly training grounds for novice researchers (Flowerdew & Li, 2009; Labassi, 2009; Lundin, Jönsson, Kreiner, & Tienari, 2010).

Contrary to Labassi (2009) and Salager-Meyer’s (2008) depiction of local journals as one of intense struggle against odds for survival, in Taiwan, a non-Anglophone context in Asia and distinct from China, many national journals are supported by various measures, even while so much rides on participation in the global knowledge economy (Chou, 2014b; Mok & Chan, 2008). These include the establishment of Taiwan’s own citation indexes and associated activities, which I will describe in greater detail after the following discussion of globalization in Taiwan’s higher education. As mentioned at the beginning of this

introduction, Lillis (2012) maintained that homogenizing entities in the shadow of

globalization can be near such as academic departments or distant such as Thomson Reuters. Either way, “they tend to be highly centripetal in nature” (p. 702). Blommaert (2003)

considered entities that influence social orientation of institutions as homogenizing forces in relation to “all levels of social life, ranging from the family over small peer groups, more or less stable communities…the state and transnational communities, all the way through to the world system” (Blommaert, 2003, Para. Authority). Therefore, the next part of this

introduction will briefly introduce the theorization of globalization that will be considered as a way to frame the proposed project, especially in terms of higher education in Taiwan. This will be followed by an overview of scholarly publishing in the Taiwan context.

Academic Globalization and the Taiwan Context

In the previous section, I mentioned that contemporary globalization has impacted academia in Taiwan, as in other contexts around the world. In this study, globalization is recognized as having a historical backdrop of several hundred years (Eriksen, 2007b; Held, McGrew, Goldblatt, & Perraton, 1999; Robertson, 1992; Wallerstein, 1991), but also that there has been a fundamental shift in geopolitical conditions, technology, and culture

(Eriksen, 2007b; Held et al., 1999) driven in recent decades especially by forces Wallerstein (1991) identified as the capitalist world economy. There are a few “key concepts” of

contemporary globalization described by (Eriksen, 2007a) that are especially relevant to the current study such as standardization, interconnectedness, and re-embedding. Eriksen

maintained “different threads, or domains, in transnational processes do not necessarily move in the same directions, at the same levels of intensity or at the same speed. This means that all societies are unequally affected by different tendencies” (p. 9). In other words, particular national contexts determine how transnational conditions play out in different national contexts. Likewise, Taiwan has its own unique situation brought about by historical developments (Mok, 2000).

Following the end of 38 years of martial law in 1987, Taiwan moved quickly toward a democratic sociopolitical system. In the mid-1990s, effects of this liberalization began to impact higher education and national economic policies by promoting institutional autonomy and globalization respectively. According to Mok (2000), these two major trends generated national policies that have encouraged the corporatization, privatization, and marketization of higher education in Taiwan. Taiwan also joined the race to produce a “World-class

University” (Chou, 2008; Mok & Chan, 2008). Higher education institutes (HEIs) responded to these conditions with policies requiring faculty to publish more articles in English and in internationally indexed journals to increase national participation in the global knowledge economy, similar to other peripheral contexts (Chou, 2014c; Englander & Uzuner-Smith, 2013; Lillis & Curry, 2013). Promotion and evaluation requirements continue to rise in Taiwan, but after more than a decade, these conditions have become the new normal, especially for scholars at national universities and research institutions (Chao, personal communication, August 30, 2013) and increasingly at private universities.

As the effects of political reform after martial law and subsequent globalization of the Taiwan economy have developed, greater emphasis has been placed on scientific knowledge as part of this process. The government has stressed the role of higher education institutes (HEIs) in national development and adopted policies that encourage internationalization and competition in order to participate in the knowledge economy (Mok, 2000) as Lillis and Curry (2013) describe on a global level. According to Chou (2008), with this socio-political change, liberalization of the educational system in general and higher education in particular has been an ongoing project officially initiated by the University Act in 1994 (Ministry of Education, 1994). Mok (2000) stressed "social and political liberalization started from the 1980s" (p. 652) was the primary influence in the Taiwan context and the Taiwan government skillfully incorporated the globalization trend into the locally significant socio-political agenda in order to compete in the international arena. These conditions seem to be somewhat unique to Taiwan in comparison to influences of supranational organizations such as the World Bank on national governments cited by Hanauer and Englander (2013) and Lillis and Curry (2013). This could be related to pressure by China to marginalize the island

internationally by trying, with mixed results, to limit its participation in diplomatic meetings and organizations such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the World Health Organization (WHO) (Hsu, 2008). Conditions and policies in those years may have made it possible for Taiwan to participate more in the knowledge economy considering that from 1993 to 2003, Taiwan’s scientific article output more than

doubled (Hill, 2007), one of the top five non-OECD countries including India, China, and Brazil.

Furthermore, following the natural sciences, engineering, and technology fields, Taiwan-based humanities and social sciences (HSS) scholars’ funding opportunities and advancement at their institutions have become dependent on how much they publish and the relative prestige of the publications, based mostly on the citation index where it is listed and its impact factor (Ching, 2014). Most teaching and research entities require each promotion package to include “I-type” publications of which Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) garner the most points. However, articles published in national journals included in the national citation indexes are useful for 5-year review and add points to promotion packages, though usually fewer than the international publications. As a result of institutional policies encouraged by national government internationalization benchmarks, professors in Taiwan, most of whom use English as an additional language and whose first and/or second language is Taiwanese or Mandarin, are under tremendous pressure to produce enough published research to reach these promotion and evaluation requirements (Liu, 2014). According to Ching (2014) getting published internationally, or at least publishing in English in respected domestic journals, has become the expectation, though the degree to which this is the case depends on particular

departmental and institutional regulations and practices. However, faculty organizations have spoken out against the “SSCI syndrome” (Chou, 2014b) for several years and last year Prudence Chou (周祝瑛)(Chou, 2014a) from National Chengchi University delivered an open letter to the newly instated Minister of Education, Se-hwa Wu (吳思華) in August 2014 to encourage him to take action on the issue. Then on October 23, the Ministry of Education released a recommendation that universities re-evaluate their review and promotion

requirements to consider whether or research requirements were too demanding to the detriment of research and teaching quality (Ministry of Education, 2014). Whether there will be any change at universities remains to be seen. In the meantime, the current abundance of scholarly publishing activity in Taiwan will likely continue.

Scholarly Journal Publishing in Taiwan

There are over 1000 journals published on the island and listed in the Taiwan Citation Index (TCI), which is under development by the National Central Library; of course, this does not indicate any consistent level of quality. Raising the quality of local research is the mandate of the two Taiwan citation indexes, which will be addressed in greater detail in the next paragraph. However, aside from the sheer number of local journals published in Taiwan, by scanning curriculum vitae posted on English department and language center websites of prestigious national universities with heavy research mandates, one can also see that national publications have been part of faculty research output. Furthermore, even as pressure to publish internationally has intensified, government and institutional initiatives in Taiwan have also supported local and national journal publishing.

For example, in 1999, the National Science Council (NSC; renamed Ministry of Science and Technology in 2014) established the Social Science Research Center (SSRC) and the Humanities Research Center (HRC) (C. L. Sheridan, 2014a). The centers launched the

Taiwan Social Science Citation Index (TSSCI) in 2004 and the Taiwan Humanities Citation Index (THCI) in 2006 respectively, and in 2008 the HRC inaugurated the more exclusive THCI-Core, providing a way to raise prestige of national humanities publishing. The TSSCI and the THCI Core are annually updated lists of publications that must publish consistently meeting certain standards for at least three years for initial inclusion (Guo Ke Hui, 2009). The biggest impact of the national citation indexes has been the establishment of a blind peer review at Taiwan-based journals (C. Sheridan, in press) Journals are subject to regular review thereafter as well. In 2013, the two research centers were united into the Research Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences (RIHSS) and the criteria and review process for

admittance were merged. In addition, the National Central Library was commissioned by the NSC to cooperate with several other research organizations to catalog all Taiwan-based journals into the Taiwan Citation Index—Humanities & Social Sciences (TCI-HSS) and began running a beta version accessible from the library’s website (2013). This searchable index will first include all titles in the THCI database and TSSCI from Taiwan plus journals from Hong Kong and Macao. It will also include doctoral dissertations and books. The goal is to create a resource where all of this scientific knowledge can be made freely available

through the public library system.

Besides the index development, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) through the SSRC and HRC has been providing funding to local journals for editing fees and, for TSSCI or THCI Core journals, expenses associated with applications for inclusion in international indexes since 2009 and 2010 respectively (Sheridan, 2014). Sheridan reported that on their websites, journals acknowledged funding from the NSC for these purposes. This indicates that through these government-sponsored initiatives, established journals have been professionalizing and attempting to internationalize. The development of the national citation indexes, TSSCI and THCI-Core by the Center for Social Science Research and the Center for Humanities Research, respectively, is considered to be a major influence on local journal publishing, according to interviewees in Sheridan (2013) and (2014).

An increase in numbers of TSSCI and THCI Core journals can be an indication of the steady development of national journal publishing in Taiwan. The indexes were only open to submissions from Taiwan-based journals until 2012, when it expanded to accept applications from journals based in Hong Kong, Macao, and Singapore. In 2000, the TSSCI included 50 journals with an additional 30 that were under observation. In 2014 there were 101 member journals in the TSSCI. When launched in 2008, the THCI Core listed 41 journals, while there were 59 in 2014 (RIHSS, 2013). Of the total journals included in 2014, 14 publish full articles written in English. Four are in the TSSCI and eight are in the THCI Core, with two listed in both. Please refer to Tables 1 and 2 below.

J

Journals that have been admitted to the TSSCI or THCI Core have become respected outlets for scholars submitting promotion packets to review committees (Ching, 2014). Editors and reviewers at English Teaching and Learning (ETL), a national English Language Teaching journal in Taiwan, reported that an enhanced peer review and revision process and other adaptations were undertaken to increase its quality and gain entry to THCI Core (C. L. Sheridan, 2015). While this development is seen as critical to raising journal prestige, the penchant for standards has considerably increased the time and effort that potential

Table 2. Number of journals by index categories in Taiwan in 2014 Citation Index

TSSCI THCI Core TSSCI & THCI Core Discipline N Discipline N Discipline N Law 1 Linguistics 4 Multidisciplinary 1 Management 2 Literature 4 Education 1

Nursing 1

contributors must invest in articles compared to publishing in non-indexed journals.

According to Ching’s (2014) respondents, some scholars consider Taiwan-indexed journals “as sometimes more stringent (strict/harder) than submitting to ISI journals” (italics original, p. 92). At ETL, interviewees believed that potential contributors carefully consider whether to expend their effort with the locally indexed journal or to try for an international one.

Therefore, editors and reviewers perceived that ETL competes with international journals for quality submissions from local scholars (Sheridan, 2015). C. L. Sheridan (2014a) concluded that the THCI Core has been a homogenizing force on national journals in Taiwan. This was perceived as a positive development by the participants and corroborated findings of C. L. Sheridan (2015) in that in Taiwan, scholarly output seems to have developed in two tiers: pushing “I-type” international Anglophone publications and quality national journals. Both are toward internationalization.

Based on the above introduction to the proposed study context, Taiwan higher education has been affected by globalization forces. One specific impact has been

institutional policies that push faculty to publish in SSCI journals. Taiwan is an example of a context beyond the Anglophone “center” of scientific publishing where national journals have been supported in various ways by the government and institutions. This indicates that national journals can have a role in knowledge creation in such contexts.

Purpose of the Study

Many studies that explored experiences of multilingual researchers in various countries publishing in English, especially in Anglophone center journals (eg. Casanave, 2002; Flowerdew & Li, 2009; Hanauer & Englander, 2011; Lillis & Curry, 2010) and there are some articles and dissertations about national journals in globalized scholarly publishing (eg. Delgado, 2011; Donovan, 2010; Lillis, 2012; Lundin et al., 2010; Sheridan, 2015), but these tended to focus on editors’ perspectives. Furthermore, aside from Liu’s (2014) study of five scholars’ struggles to publish in SSCI journals and Ching’s (2014) survey study of 44 faculty and 54 graduate students regarding perception of ISI use, there seems to be a lack of research on Taiwan-based researchers’ publishing practices. In addition, these two studies were primarily concerned with local scholars’ pressure to publish in internationally indexed journals, with little consideration of the role of local publications. While scholars’

“international” journal publishing challenges is a salient issue in Taiwan, their working relationship with local journals is worth investigating because it has been shown in other contexts that they can be beneficial to scholars (Flowerdew & Li, 2009; Lillis & Curry, 2010).

By funding and supporting local journals in Taiwan, where political democratization in the 1980s led to higher education reform in the 1990s and to neo-liberal globalization policies affecting academia in the 2000s (Chou, 2008; Mok, 2000), it would seem that the government and institutions believe local journals fulfill some need in knowledge creation that contributes to national development. Also, with so many Taiwan-based scholars working on and contributing to the journals, it would seem that they also fulfill a role or roles in the professional life of Taiwan-based academics.

Therefore, an important question is, if national journals are considered to be subpar (Sun, 2013) and scholars are intensely pressured into publishing in SSCI journals, why are so many national journals supported and developed in Taiwan? This is a phenomenon that

should be better understood. Therefore, the current study investigates Taiwan-based English medium national journals (EMNJs) in the era of contemporary academic globalization through the experiences and perspectives of individual authors.

Significance of the Study

The dramatic policy changes brought about by globalization (Englander & Uzuner-Smith, 2013) have caused researchers around the world to apparently leap toward

international journals, especially those included in the Thompson Reuters Web of Knowledge (Lillis, 2012). However, researchers beyond the Anglophone center publish in a variety of venues (Curry & Lillis, 2013; Lillis & Curry, 2010). The current study on Taiwan-based journals is important because the understandings gained through the project have implications for the academic community in Taiwan and beyond, from graduate students to policy makers.

The literature on national journals has focused mostly on the struggles of journals in non-Anglophone “peripheral” contexts and the narratives of their development under the influence of globalization from editors’ perspectives. However, their role in knowledge production and distribution is important (Lillis, 2012). Furthermore, it is individual scholars that are working to build the new knowledge with national and/or with “international” outlets. As Lillis and Curry (2013) note, the journal article represents much more than a scholarly endeavor. When the research output of individuals is distributed from the institutional to the national level and beyond, it represents “participation in knowledge-generating capacity more generally” (para. 1). It is that “space” in which scholars reside and strive, which may be quite fluid, that this study is most interested.

In discussing the future of academic literacies, Lillis and Scott (2007) described it as “at the juncture of research/theory and strategic application” and in this way as “inescapably involved in the ongoing tensions around official policy that focuses on students as

contributors to the national economy” (p. 20). However, based on the growing research on scholarly publishing in a global context, an academic literacies perspective can also be strategically applied to policies in higher education directed at increasing research output of scholars. According to Lillis and Curry (2013) “[e]xploring how institutions direct scholars' activities and likewise how scholars orient to such institutions is an important way of understanding the nature of academic production” (p. 702). This study aims to better

understand these phenomena in Taiwan through an in-depth qualitative study of contributors to Taiwan-based English-medium national journals (TBEMJs).

Research Questions

What are humanities and social sciences scholars’ publication practices (in the globalized HE environment) of Taiwan?

A: What factors influence their participation in the production of Taiwan-based English medium journals?

B: What are their perceptions of their experiences publishing with Taiwan-based English medium journals?

Methodology and Research Design

This qualitative study explores Taiwan-based humanities and social sciences (HSS) scholars’ publication practices, especially regarding their experiences with Taiwan-based

English medium journals (TBEMJs) that are included in Taiwan’s citation indexes. National journals are defined as those whose publisher and a majority of its contributors are affiliated with Taiwan-based institutions. English-medium journals are of interest because publishing full articles in English is likely an indication of the discipline’s connection to international Anglophone scholarship (Lillis, 2012) and citation indexes, as well as institutional

expectations that the discipline’s scholars publish in English. TBEMJs in the THCI Core and TSSCI are of interest because citation index inclusion indicates publication stability over time.

Originally, the intention was to conduct case studies of four particular journals through journal analysis and interviews with editors and contributors. However, because of privacy and anonymity issues, this approach was not used. Instead, once appropriate journals were identified, editors and contributors to the journals were invited to participate regardless of which journal or journals they have worked with. The current report describes both groups, but will focus on the contributors due to the greater number of those participants.

Journal Selection

Assessing potential journals. Duff (2008) suggested surveying the context before sampling to gain a broad perspective of the potential sample “to establish either the

representativeness or uniqueness of the cases ultimately selected against the backdrop of the population from which they are drawn” (p. 122). Preliminary research of citation indexes and journal websites found that most journals in Taiwan are published by university academic departments. Some journals are published by other university entities, professional

organizations, or Academia Sinica, a national research center. Then, to determine potential case study journals, two major databases that cover nearly all journals published in Taiwan were utilized to create a list of those that publish full articles in English. The databases are the Taiwan Citation Index—Humanities and Social Sciences (Beta) (TCI-HSS) [臺灣人文及社 會科學引文索引資料庫] from the National Central Library, and China Electronic Periodical Service (CEPS) [中文電子期刊服務]. In addition, Airiti Library [華藝線上圖書館], a commercial scholarly publisher that has established a database including CEPS and other indexes, was also consulted. At the time of this search, there were 1015 journals listed in TCI-HSS. CEPS includes journals from Taiwan, China, and Singapore and listed 1278 Humanities and 2854 Social Sciences journals. A total of 57 humanities and social science journals based in Taiwan that publish full articles in English were found, of which ten are in the THCI Core and six are in TSSCI, with two that are in both (RIHSS, 2013). Besides language of publication and publishing entity, data collected about each journal included: frequency and years of publication, membership in any databases or indexes, and website address. As described in the introduction, this library database research identified 14 Taiwan-based journals that indicated on their websites that they publish full original research articles in English. After further investigation, it was discovered that although the website of

“International Journal of Information and Management Sciences” indicated it publishes English articles, it was found that in the last five years there were less than three English articles published; therefore, it was not included in the study. Please see tables 1 and 2 for this list.

Participant recruitment. An invitation written in English and Chinese to participate was sent to editors and authors. A list of all current editors-in-chief and associate editors listed in the 14 journals was compiled from the 14 journals for a total of 31. Five editors agreed to be interviewed. As mentioned above, one of the journals has only published a few articles in English; therefore, this editor’s interview is not included in the results. Two of the editors also responded to the interview questions for authors.

For authors, of the 14 journals, four from a variety of disciplines were chosen: Law, Linguistics, Management, and Nursing. A database including authors who are full-time faculty at Taiwanese institutions and have published English research articles in the journals was compiled from the journal websites. The editors and authors may also have taken other roles in the journal, such as reviewer or advisor and some editors were also authors. Inclusion criteria was not limited to Taiwan nationals. Every third author who had published in the journals from 2015 to 2000 until 50 potential participants from each journal were identified, unless special circumstances arose, were included. For example, the law journal has only been published since 2006 and less than half of the authors were from Taiwanese institutions. Therefore, all Taiwan-based contributors were contacted (43). For the linguistics journal, 50 corresponding authors were identified between 2010 and 2015. For the management journal, 58 authors were found between 2014 and 2015 because all authors’ emails were provided, not only those of the corresponding authors. For the nursing journal, 70 corresponding authors between 2012 and 2015 were contacted. The list was organized by surnames in chronological order of publication in the journal. Authors who agreed to participate included 1 from law, 5 from linguistics (different sub-disciplines), 3 from management, 3 from nursing, and 1 each from TESOL and literature who were also editors for a total of 14 author interviews.

Data Collection

Editors and Journals. Information published on websites of the journals whose editors agreed to participate was gathered for background information and to gain a sense of its purpose and history. Second, one-to-one guided interviews were held with editors to understand, from their perspectives, the development of the journals. They were also asked to reflect on the goals of the journal and their experiences as editors. Please see the Appendix A for interview questions.

Journal contributors. Scholars who responded to the email invitation participated in one face-to-face interview that lasted from one to two hours. Existing data related to each participant, when available, was collected from: (a) academic department websites, (b) individual websites, (c) curriculum vitae, and (d) institutions’ promotion and review regulations to gain perspective on their research and teaching experience. They were also asked to provide their curriculum vitae to use as a point of discussion during the interview. Ethical Considerations

Before each interview, each participant was presented with an informed consent form in English and Chinese. Participants had the option to choose their own pseudonym. In addition, participants’ anonymity is also protected in this report by not mentioning more than two attributes related to one journal or individual in any part of the research report.

preference. Interviews were audio recorded on a digital recorder and transcribed using verbatim.

Transcription and Translation

Audio recordings were transcribed word for word in languages used by interviewees (Mandarin Chinese and/or English). Mandarin sections were translated into English by native speakers of Mandarin, who were either research assistants or professional translators, and myself. I also checked the transcripts and translations for accuracy. Interviewees’ portions were then proofread and following Lillis and Curry (2010) “navigate a position between one which offers accuracy and a flavor of scholars’ expression in Englsh, while avoiding

representations which might stigmatize them in any way, for example as ‘non-native’ users of English” (p. 178).

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Journal policies and content based on article titles and abstracts was analyzed for broad trends since 2000 and how it relates to interview data. Description, analysis, and interpretation are three parts of what is sometimes referred to collectively as analysis

(Wolcott, 1994). Creswell (2007) described a data analysis spiral as entering with data, going through a series of “analytic circles” and coming out with an account or narrative (pp. 150-151). In this study, there will be three sets of data including (a) transcripts from guided interviews with editors, (b) transcripts from interviews with contributors, and (c) existing documentary data such as websites, policy documents, and curriculum vitae. This inquiry was guided by the research questions as the description of the raw data from different perspectives evolved.

Overall experiences and factors. This data analysis applies to the research question and sub-question A, addressing participants’ overall publishing experiences and factors that contribute to their publishing decisions overall. Each transcript was copied into an Excel sheet with interviewer and interviewee in separate columns. Participants’ responses were summarized with reflection on the database through immersion, the process of reading the transcripts several times and writing memos (Creswell, 2007). As in Sheridan (2015) sections were color coded by broad topic. Next, additional columns were added as themes were revealed and to which codes were assigned—a back and forth reiterative process. A code is defined as “a label attached to a section of text to index it as relating to a theme or issue in the data which the researcher has identified as important to his or her interpretation” (King, 1998, p. 119). Through this reiterative process, codes and “multiple forms of evidence to support each” were identified (Creswell, 2007, p. 151). The number of descriptive and interpretive codes fluctuated as categories were made apparent. I identified “code segments that … used to describe information and develop themes” (Creswell, 2007, p. 153) based on what in the data might be expected, what is surprising, and what is especially interesting.

TBEMJ experiences and factors. Interview questions were open in order to gather participant oral history data regarding their experiences and perspectives of working with TBEMJs in particular, and their scholarly publishing experiences in general. Extended excerpts, of their narratives are incorporated into the manuscript. Therefore, sections related to their experiences with an EMTBJ were compiled with the goal of presenting the teller’s

“intended meaning” (p. 56). In this process, my voice with questions and comments will not be included and neither will the teller’s utterances of ‘uh,’ ‘um,’ or laughing, etc. Standard spelling, sentence, and paragraph structure were used. Considering these guidelines from Atkinson, English translated from Chinese, also followed these conventions.

Validation Strategies. A number of steps were taken throughout the implementation of this project toward validation and evaluation. These included triangulation of methods to provide “additional observations [to] give us grounds for revising our interpretation” (Stake, 1995, p. 110). This included guided interviews with journal editors, in-depth interviews with journal contributors, and document analysis. At certain points during the research process, member checking will be done with select guided interview participants in each group. The understandings developed from this process can also be incorporated into the data (Swanborn, 2010). Participants were provided the transcripts from their interviews and invited to make changes Finally, thick description of case study journals’ history and current situations, and participants’ scholarly publishing experiences and professional trajectories are incorporated.

Findings

While editors were interviewed for this project, the findings will focus on the 14 authors because the participant recruiting results did not provide enough journal overlap between editors and authors. Editor perspectives will be explored in a following manuscript. The findings from author interviews for this report will be presented in two main sections, first about the participants’ academic and publishing practices, and second on factors and experiences publishing with Taiwan-based English medium journals (TBEMJs). A table showing which participant mentioned which categories [related to factors] will be provided at the end. Finally, a discussion of these findings will conclude this report

Academic and Publishing Practices

This section is about the general academic and publishing experiences of the 14 participants in this study and will be divided into three sub-sections based on rank at the time of the interview. Besides the transcripts of the one-on-one interviews in which they

participated, their curriculum vitae and school and individual websites, if available, were consulted to triangulate the data. The categories of each subsection (rank) I will present are (a) education and discipline, (b) institutions, and (c) publishing experience. Themes shared

among the participants at each rank and across ranks will be examined.

Assistant Professors. There are five assistant professors: Pan, Chao, Deng, Chan, and Yan. Educational Background. The terminating degree of all of the five assistant professors interviewed for this study was Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), which they completed between 2009 and 2011. Please see Table 1 for details of the following information about Pan, Chao, Deng, Chan, and Yan. In 2009, Pan earned her PhD in information studies from a university in the United Kingdom (UK) and Chao graduated from a university in Taiwan with a PhD in management. Chan earned a PhD in psychology in the United States of America (USA). The other two assistant professors have PhD degrees in different areas of linguistics. Deng earned his in 2010 in Australia and Yan graduated from a university in Taiwan in 2011. It is notable that of the five, two earned their doctorates in Taiwan and the others from three different

countries. This shows that an international outlook among faculty is not unusual in Taiwanese higher

education.

The assistant professors all finished their degrees between 2009 and 2011, though from four different countries. Following their PhD studies, the five took different routes to their faculty positions. All but Yan had a post-doctoral fellowship. An important finding in this set of data in regards to the assistants’ educational background is that all but one

participant sought postdoctoral fellowships and that this is a relatively recent development in Taiwan. As the ones in the study most recently entering HE in Taiwan, they are more likely than the others to experience the effects of globalization-induced policies. However, in Taiwan, the commodification and privatization of HE has been exasperated by not only ranking pressures that have raised publishing expectations of new PhDs, but also by a shrinking population. Chao mentioned a decrease in the number of full-time tenure-track positions. One possible cause of this is that universities are reacting to shrinking enrollments. On the other hand, Yan’s situation was quite different, mostly because she had already been teaching for many years in Taiwan, and had started her PhD with support from her institution. She observed that her education coincided with the development of the school. Eventually, Pan, Chao, Deng, and Chan all found full-time tenure track jobs at universities in Taiwan.

Assistant Professors’ Institutions. All the assistant professors eventually secured fulltime tenure track positions at a range of institutions (Table 2). Their job prospects and where they ended up seemed to be somewhat related to the amount of scholarly activity they had gained and its geographic spread before going on the job market, as well as the use of English for publication and teaching.

The five assistant professors were hired at different types of institutions. Except for Pan, their scholarly publication activity began before they finished doctoral studies. It appears that in four of the five cases (not including Yan), the scholars with more years of academic activity and publications in countries beyond Taiwan were hired at universities placed at a higher scale level and closer to Taiwan’s “center” described in the theoretical framework for this dissertation— national universities in northern Taiwan. In addition, English language ability in research and teaching was an asset. In regards to Yan, she was already established at an institution and more closely experienced aspects of the older HE system in Taiwan, such as tertiary institutes supporting faculty doctoral study and promotion within the institution. More information regarding each of their publishing experiences will be covered next.

Table 1: Assistant professors’ terminal degrees

Highest degree Year completed Country earned Discipline

Pan PhD 2009 UK Information

Studies (Health)

Chao PhD 2009 Taiwan Management

Deng PhD 2010 British Commonwealth country Linguistics Chan PhD 2010 US Psychology

Assistant professors’ publishing activity. The experiences of the assistant professors (Pan, Chao, Deng, Chan, and Yan) represent the change in the HE environment of Taiwan stressing the perceived value of Anglophone research at an international scale. Language resources, international experience, and years of experience impacted assistant professors job opportunities and they continue to provide professional capital. Chao switched to English as her language of publication early in her scholarly career and has since co-authored a dozen articles. Deng and Chan both earned their doctorates in Anglophone countries in 2010, but began publishing in English in 2001; they each have their names on 29 and 62 academic publications, respectively—the most of the assistant professors. This early foray into

scholarly work and foreign degrees may have given them an advantage seeing as they are the ones who secured tenure-track positions at highest scale-level universities. However, it is difficult to give a clear comparison based on the number of articles they produced since they started their tenure clock because they are in very different areas of linguistics: in Deng’s academic home, single author articles are most valued while in Chan’s, multi-authorship is the norm. However, they and Yan have published only one article in Taiwan-based journals. On the other hand, Pan and Chao, who were hired at private institutions, have two and three respectively. These results seem to support Hanauer and Englander (2013) who found

Mexican scientists who had studied abroad and started publishing earlier were more likely to be successful authors at research institutions. This indicates that not only where on the educational institution vertical scale an individual enters a discipline may influence their mobility, but that years of experience also affects the scale level of the institution where they are hired. These may be more important than specific support from advisors and mentors.

Table 2: Assistant professors’ earliest academic publication activity and types of institution where hired after graduating with PhD.

Participant & year of PhD Earliest academic publication of any kind (languages other than English) Earliest academic publication of any kind (English) Private Science & Technology Junior College or University Public Science & Technology Junior College or University Private university Public University Pan 2009 _{2010 (L1) 2007 2010} Chao 2009 _{2000 (L1) 2004 2010} Deng 2010 2001 (L1); 2011 (L3) 2001 2012 Chan 2010 NA 2001 2012 Yan 2011 NA 2007 2011

Associate Professors. There are five associate professors: Sun, Tu, Ma, Jon, and Hao. Associate Professors’ Educational Background. The five associate professors interviewed for this study completed their terminal degrees between 2000 and 2011. Please see Table 4 for details of the following information about Sun, Tu, Ma, Jon, and Hao. In 2000, much earlier than the others, Sun earned his Juris Doctor (JD) from a university in the USA. In 2007, Tu received a Doctor of Education (EdD) in the USA. In 2008, Ma received his PhD in finance from a private university in Taiwan, Jon received hers in English from her home country, and Hao finished her PhD in education from a university in the USA. Sun worked as an intern for one summer, but unlike the assistant professors, none of the associate professors mentioned having a post-doctoral fellowship, nor did they include it on their vitae, even though aside from Sun, they earned their degrees within the same few years. In fact, Hao and Yan both graduated in 2011, but under very different circumstances. Jon pursued her PhD in Taiwan with the support of the institution where she had been teaching for many years (similar to Yan), while Hao went independently to graduate school in the USA following her MA from a national university in Taiwan. Like the assistant professors, the majority earned their terminal degrees outside of Taiwan, mostly in the USA, also showing the international influence in Taiwan HE.

Table 3: Overview of assistant professors’ publishing activity based on CV provided by participant

P & year of PhD Earliest academic publicatio n of any kind (language s other than English) Earliest academic publicatio n of any kind (English) Total academic publicatio ns* Conferen ce proceedin gs Multi-authored English journal articles Single authored English journal articles English journal articles since joining faculty (multiple/ single) Articles in indexed TBEMJs* ** Pan 2009 2010 (L1) 2007 10 0 0 3 2010=2 2 Chao 2009 2000 (L1) 2004 27 13 12 0 2010=9 3 Deng 2010 2001 (L1); 2011 (L3) 2001 29** 12 1 4 2012=2 1 Chan 2010 NA 2001 62 45 13 0 2012=5 1 Yan 2011 NA 2007 3 1 0 2 2011=2 1

*Journal articles, books, book chapters, conference proceedings, reports. Not counting "in press" or "accepted"

**He included everything, even internal reports, unpublished research, and portions of publications ***Taiwan-based English medium journals

Associate Professors’ Institutions. The associate professors’ institutional experiences also differed from the assistant professors. Please refer to Table 5 for the following findings. First, none of them have had positions at technology colleges or universities. Ma, who studied only in Taiwan, joined a private institution in in 2008 and was promoted to associate professor in 2014. The experiences of the others, who all studied abroad, reflect more change and mobility between institutions. In addition, they have had full-time faculty positions at both private and public universities, whereas the assistant professors have so far only worked at one institution each, aside from those with post-doc experience. Sun, the more senior associate professor, took his first position at a national university in 2001, just when the new system was being implemented. He reported that later he retired from public service after promotion to associate professor and joined a private university in 2006 before moving to another a year later. Although Tu taught at a private university before beginning his EdD, he joined a national university when he returned to Taiwan. However, that was not his original plan because he had already found a job abroad, but gave it up because of family obligations. He was promoted at this national university in northern Taiwan in 2015. Hao began her career after her PhD at a private university and then soon switched to the more prestigious national institution, where she was promoted to associate professor in 2015. Jon, on the other hand, had worked at a national university in her home country, she had earned tenure, before moving to Taiwan. However, she started as an assistant professor at the national university in northern Taiwan and was promoted in 2015. Changing academic institutions was not the only shift participants reported or showed on their CVs. Sun and Ma had come to academia after careers in the military and private sector, respectively. Ma claimed he decided to switch to academics because he enjoyed the research he was doing related to his job.

Table 4: Associate professors’ terminal degrees

Highest degree Year completed Country earned Discipline

Sun JD 2000 USA Law

Tu EdD 2007 USA TESOL

Ma Phd 2008 Taiwan Finance

Jon Phd 2008 Eastern

Europe

English

Associate Professors’ Publishing Experiences. Table 6 shows an overview of the associate professors’ publications primarily based on the curriculum vita that each participant provided. Interview data and websites, when necessary or available, were also consulted. The table also shows participants’ earliest publishing activity in English and other languages. Even though they are now associate professors, except for Sun, they have not been in the HE system in Taiwan much longer than the assistant professors interviewed in this study.

Therefore, all academic publications they have listed in their CVs have also been counted. Besides journal articles, they include books, book chapters, conference proceedings, and reports. However, here the focus will be on journal articles, which likely had the greatest impact on their promotion success due to institutional policies.

The five associate professors’ experiences differed from the assistant professors, even though, aside from Sun, they finished their terminal degrees within the same few years as the assistant professors. They also went more quickly and directly to full-time faculty positions, without post-doctoral fellowships. It is not possible to fully explain this difference based on the data collected. There are many variables related to their own experiences and the greater higher education environment to surmise why this was the case. However, it may indicate that the effects of HE expansion and shrinking student population had not been so critical when they went on the job market because the associate professors did not discuss facing a challenging job search as the assistant professors had just a couple years later. Furthermore, except for Ma, they have all already held more than one university faculty position showing a certain amount of mobility.

On the other hand, perhaps with the exception of Sun, they all have faced challenges related to scholarly publishing heightened by demands related to generating the necessary quantity of publications at the desired quality within the promotion deadline and subsequent evaluations (Hao, Ma, and Jon). These were shaped by challenges of finding suitable

publications, decisions regarding co-authorship, and especially coping with reviewer feedback. More specifically, they mentioned language of publication (Ma and Sun) considerations, English language writing ability (Tu, Hao, and Jon), and research training issues (Tu and Ma). Ultimately, most of them have found solutions to those challenges either harnessing different types of networks or depending upon themselves. At the time of the

Table 5: Associate professors’types of institution where hired after highest degree, and year of promotion to associate professor.

Participant & year of degree Private University Public University Other Promoted to Associate Professor Sun 2000 2006-2007; 2007- 2001-2006 2006 Tu 2007 2001-2001 2007- 2015 Ma 2008 2008- 2014 Jon 2008 2009- 2003-2009 home country 2015 Hao 2008 2008-2009 2009- 2015

*Journal articles, books, book chapters, conference proceedings, reports. Not counting "in press" or "accepted"

interview, Ma seemed to still be suffering, however, under institutional evaluation pressure. Jon had created a network through publications, while Tu and Ma turned to collaborators for support. Jon looked inward and took time to carefully study the language and structure of articles in her target journals. Sun also mostly worked by himself. When considering future publication pressures, Tu tries to incorporate his teaching topics into his research and vice versa and spread ideas among more than one paper as he keeps several in the review process at any one time and Jon realized the importance of targeting indexed journals. Hao admitted she has new challenges on the horizon with the goal of bringing her research to a deeper level that can be appreciated by “international” journals.

Conclusion of Associate Professors. The experiences and future challenges of the associate professors have been shaped by the HE environment in Taiwan. Many of their choices regarding what they publish where and with whom are related to institutional policies for promotion and performance review. However, their mobility can be seen as linked to the levels on scales for education, institutions, and possibly amount of research experience. Table 6: Overview of associate professors’ publishing activity based on CV provided by participation

P & year of last degree Earliest academic publicati on (non- English) Earliest academic publica-tion (English) Total all publi-cations* Multi-authored English journal articles Single authored English journal articles English journal articles since joining faculty (multiple /single) Articles in indexed TBEMJs ** Articles in TBEMJs *** Sun 2000 NA 2003 22 0 22 22 4 13 Tu 2007 NA 2009 7 3 4 7 3 0 Ma 2008 2012 _(L1) 2009 12 9 1 10 1 0 Jon 2008 NA 2003 29 0 12 12 1 0 Hao 2008 NA 2006 10 3 6 9 1 6

*Journal articles, books, book chapters, conference proceedings, reports. Not counting “in press” or “accepted”

**Taiwan-based English medium journals included in TSSCI, THCI-C, SCI, SSCI, A&HCI ***Taiwan-based English medium journals

Full Professors. There are four full professors: Lin, Ren, Yao, and Luo.

Full Professors’ Educational Background. The four full professors interviewed for this study completed their terminal degrees between 1979 and 2005. Please see Table 7 for details of the following information about Lin, Ren, Luo, and Yao. As full professors, these four participants have been associated with Taiwan’s HE system longer than most of the others. Lin, Ren, and Yao are senior scholars in their fields and entered HE as instructors during the old system when faculty could be an assistant professor with a master’s degree and

before the rank of associate professor had been adopted. Under the old system there was neither time-limited promotion nor regular faculty evaluation focused on research output. Lin’s terminal degree is a Master of Science in Nursing (MSN), which she earned in the USA in 1979. On the other hand, Yao did not get her PhD until 2005, but began teaching at the tertiary level in the early 1980s. Therefore, after earning an MA in Taiwan in 1990s, Yao was promoted to associate professor in 1996. Then, as HE was expanded and institutional ranking became a concern, Yao claimed that “the school sent me to study” and “cut my teaching hours” while she worked on her doctorate at a national university in Taiwan, similar to assistant professor Yan’s experience. Aside from her coursework in Taiwan, Yao reported going to the USA for two years, where she conducted research with a group of nurse

practitioners. Ren earned her PhD in 1992 in the USA directly after completing two master’s degrees there. Luo received his PhD in 1999 from the national university in Taiwan where he earned his BA and MA. However, he did not join a faculty until 2001 because he worked in the private sector for a year after he graduated. Thus, when he was hired at a private

university, he came in under the new system requiring him to pass promotion to associate professor within six years.

In sum, full professors’ educational experiences have been impacted by national HE policies. It seems that the era in which they started teaching in universities has had more impact on their situations than the year that they completed doctoral studies, which was the case for the assistant and associate professors in this study. Furthermore, because Luo started teaching under the new system, he may have more in common with some of them. He is also the only one of the four full professors who needed to search for a job at a university upon completing their terminal degree and faced different institutional expectations from the other full professors interviewed. The full professors’ experiences with HE institutions will be reported next and be followed by their individual publishing experiences.

Table 7: Full professors’ terminal degrees

Highest degree Year completed Country earned Discipline

Lin MSN 1979 USA Nursing

Ren PhD 1992 USA Linguistics

Luo PhD 1999 Taiwan Management

Yao PhD 2005 Taiwan Nursing

Full Professors’ Institutions. The full professors’ institutional experiences differed from the assistant and most of the associate professors. Please refer to Table 8 for the following findings. As mentioned in the above category reporting on full professors’

educational backgrounds, the private vocational school, where Yao had been teaching, helped to support her doctoral study. Therefore, when she finished, she continued in her post and was then promoted to full professor the next year. Her experience was likely a result of MOE institutional review policies, which were pushing institutions to raise the number of PhD holders to increase their rankings. Simultaneously, the MOE was expanding higher education by increasing the numbers of colleges and universities. Therefore, though she did not

describe it like Yan did as her professional development corresponding to that of her institution’s, Yao in effect had a similar experience. She earned her MA and then the

vocational school was upgraded to a technical college; she finished her PhD in 2005 and the institution was upgraded to technology university. Lin, who earned her MSN in the USA in 1979 started teaching at a small private university in southern Taiwan in 1988, where she was promoted to associate professor in 1993 and full professor in 2005. After 20 years of service there, she moved to a public technology college in northern Taiwan in 2008, where she still teaches. Ren, who has a slightly similar timeline as Lin, started at a private university in central Taiwan as associate professor in 1992 immediately following her doctoral studies in the USA. She was promoted to full professor in 2000 and in 2003 she was a visiting professor in the USA. In 2008, she took a post in the USA, but came back to Taiwan in 2010 and joined a public university in southern Taiwan, where she still teaches. As mentioned in the previous category, Luo joined a private university as his first faculty job in 2001 and moved to another private university in the same year, where he stayed until 2012. During the 2007 academic year, he went to a university in the USA as a visiting scholar. After he returned he was

promoted to associate professor in 2009 and moved to a public technology university in 2011, where he was promoted to full professor in 2015. Except for the year in the USA, Luo was educated and has always worked in southern Taiwan

Because of entering Taiwan’s HE system before the “new system” kicked in, Lin, Ren and Yao were able to go directly from instructors to associate professors. Yao moved up the ladder by earning a PhD as the institution also increased its rank. Like four of five associate professors, the full professors have also exhibited a certain amount of mobility within Taiwan and/or overseas. Luo and Yao studied in Taiwan, but both garnered visiting scholar

opportunities in the USA. Lin and Ren went to graduate school in the USA, while Ren also went to the USA as a visiting scholar and spent another two years teaching there. Within Taiwan, Lin, Ren and Luo started at private universities and moved to public institutions, which are considered a move up in status.

Table 8: Full professors’ earliest publications in Chinese/English, and promotions and types of institution P & year of degree Assistant Professor Associate Professor Full Professor Public Science & Tech College or University Private University Public University Other Lin 1979 NA 1993 2005 2008- 1988-2008 Ren 1992 NA 1992 2000 1992-2008 2010- In US: Visiting scholar 2003-2004; faculty 2008-2010 Luo 1999 2000 2009 2015 2011- 1st 2001-2001; 2nd 2001-2011 In US: Visiting scholar 2007-2008 Yao 2005 NA 1996 2006 1996* (Private) In US: Visiting scholar 2002-2003 *Started out as vocational school and promoted to technical college and then technology university with MOE HE expansion.

Full Professors’ Publishing Experiences. When discussing their publishing experiences, the assistant professors talked about dissertation writing and their first

publishing experiences and associate professors talked mostly about the work they did toward promotion from assistant to associate professors. The four full professors, especially Lin, Ren, and Yao have been in the HE system for much longer and have a greater variety of publishing experiences. They are also at a more advanced stage in their careers and during the interviews tended to reflect back upon their early turning points in their research and publishing

experiences and then describe their current roles as researchers and mentors. However, all four have witnessed a shift in the early 2000s as institutional expectations began to be raised as Taiwan’s HE system first expanded and then institutions became impacted by ranking pressures.

Table 9 shows an overview of the full professors’ publications. It is also primarily based on the curriculum vita that each participant provided. Interview data and websites, when necessary or possible, were also consulted. The table also shows participants’ earliest publishing activity in English and other languages. Even though they are now full professors, for the sake of consistency with the other participants, all academic publications they have listed in their CVs, which does not necessarily reflect all of their publications, have been counted. Besides journal articles, they include books, book chapters, conference proceedings, and reports. However, here the focus will be on journal articles, which likely had the greatest impact on their promotion and evaluation experiences due to institutional policies.

Factors influencing participation in the production of Taiwan-based English medium journals

Nine factors for participating in the production of Taiwan-based English medium journals were identified through analysis of participant interviews. Most participants mentioned several factors, but I have chosen one participant case to represent each one in greater detail. For the following discussion, please refer to Appendix B, which lists the nine major reasons from most to least participants who mentioned them. The factors are: (a) Rejection from “international” journals (N=8), (b) Journal Scope (N=6), (c) Citation index (N=5), (d) Conference proceedings or special issue (N=5), (e) Publishing with students (N=4), (f) Time pressure (N=3), (g) To support the journal (N=2), (h) language of publication (N=1), and (i) doctorate candidacy requirement (N=1). The findings present a more complex picture than Lee and Lee (2013) found at a top university in Korea where domestic journals are referred to as a “graveyard” for manuscripts rejected from internationally indexed journals or venues suitable only for graduate students’ work. While a few participants mentioned

contributing to local knowledge as a reason for publishing in national local language

publications (Feng, Beckett, & Huang, 2013; Lillis, 2012), this was not a reason mentioned in regards to Taiwan-based English medium publications.

Rejection by “international” journal. Supporting Lee and Lee (2013), rejection by internationally indexed journals (IIJs) was the most frequently stated reason for submitting papers to Taiwan-based journals. Of the 14 participants, eight reported that they submitted their manuscripts to an EMNJ after it had been rejected by one or more “international” journals, usually SSCI journals published in the Anglophone center, or what Lee and Lee (2013) referred to as international indexed journals (IIJs). This situation was experienced by participants of all ranks, types of institutions, and disciplines. These participants were: Pan, Yan, Tu, Hao, Ma, Ren, Yao, and Luo.

Case of Luo. Luo began his university employment under the new system and had recently been promoted to full professor at the time of the interview. After working at a Table 9: Overview of full professors’ publishing activity based on CV provided by participant

P & year of degree Total academic publicatio ns* Earliest publication Chinese/En glish Multi-author English journals articles 1st authored English journal articles Single authored English journal articles Articles in indexed TBEMJs *** Articles in TBEMJs *** Luo1999 27 2005/2004 12 9 3 1 2 Lin 1979 33 ?**/1991 24 15 3 5 6 Yao 2005 59 NA/1989 53 18 1 13 0 Ren 1992 65 1995/1988 22 12 7 4 4

*Journal articles, books, book chapters, conference proceedings, reports. Not counting “in press” or “accepted”

**Interview reported publishing in Chinese over 15 years ago, but not shown on CV ***Taiwan-based English medium journals