35   SA JournAl of PhySiotherAPy 2010 Vol 66 no 2 

Mentoring and coaching 
in promoting publications in the 

Department of Physiotherapy 
at a local university in South Africa

domain of physiotherapy, teaching 
and clinical supervision may also take 
precedence over the importance of 
academic publication.    

  Louw et al (2007) highlighted a need 
for mentoring in the area of research in 
physiotherapy departments at universities 
in the Western Cape in South Africa.  
Defined as “an interactive, interpersonal 
process between a group of experts 
and newcomers” (Goran, 2001:120), 
mentoring may help to build and 
maintain a professional network among 
academic and clinical staff, increase 
competence and confidence in publishing 
and reviewing articles, and allow 
for professional development. Allen, 
McManus and Russell (1999) indicated 
that group mentoring can result in 
successful socialization and improvement 
of work performance related to research. 
It can also facilitate creative research 

Introduction 
As more physiotherapy clinicians move 
into academia, there is a local and 
international shift towards research and 
evidence based practice (Frantz, 2007). 
The role of academics in physiotherapy 
is expanding beyond clinical training 
and teaching to include research 
and publication. Publishing research 
and clinical findings assists health 
professionals to contribute to the field 
of allied health, which will ultimately 
improve patient care. There is thus a 
need to support young academics  in 
this paradigm shift from clinical work to 
research and publication. Many obstacles 
have been identified that contribute to 
difficulties with writing and publishing, 
including time constraints and poor 
writing skills (Cumbie et al, 2005; 
Rhoda et al, 2006). Together with the 
other activities required in the academic 

Correspondence to:
Prof JM Frantz 
Department of Physiotherapy 
University of the Western Cape 
Private Bag x17 
Bellville 
7530 
Email: jfrantz@uwc.ac.za

AbSTrAcT: A growing shift towards research and evidence based practice in 
academia is associated with requirements to disseminate research results in the  
form of publication in peer reviewed journals.  Mentoring has been identified as an 
important component of developing young authors, as it increases confidence and 
competence, and facilitates professional development.  This led to the formation of a 
support group to stimulate peer-review publication in the physiotherapy department 
at the University of the Western Cape. The Kirkpatrick Framework of Evaluation  
was used to evaluate the success of the mentoring process which made use of a  
participatory action research methodology.  The writing group consisted of nine  
academic members of staff and took place over ten weeks.  The programme included 
writing, giving feedback, discussion and peer review on a weekly basis.  Focus group 
discussions were taped and transcribed in order to evaluate the mentoring process  
by identifying relationships within the data and categorising key concepts, which 
were shaped into a thematic framework.  The findings indicated that participants 
experienced a variety of emotions throughout the programme, with an overall feeling of personal growth by the end.   
In addition, participants also reported improved writing, reviewing and communication skills.  Six months following 
the programme, six participants had submitted at least one article to a peer reviewed journal.  It is clear from this study 
that some academics still find the task of writing and reviewing articles daunting, and that guidance and support in the 
form of a writing programme can be useful.

KEY WORDS: MENTORING, PUBLICATION, ACADEMICS.

Frantz JM, PhD1

Rhoda A, MSc1 
Rowe M, MSc1 
Phillips J, PhD1 
Karachi F, MSc1 

Mlenzana N, MSc1 
Pharaoh H, MSc1 

Steyl T, MSc1

Struthers P, PhD1

 1 University of the 
  Western Cape

ideas (Emerson and Records,2005). 
However, no matter how creative the 
research is, it is almost useless unless 
the results are disseminated through  
publication. Pololi, Knight and Dunn 
(2004) have indicated that publishing 
is essential to furthering an academic 
career, and that offering a writing for 
publication programme in “a colla­
borative, peer mentoring effort, can 
facilitate knowledge, skills and support” 
needed to be productive in publishing. 

Research

Article



36   SA JournAl of PhySiotherAPy 2010 Vol 66 no 2 

Emden (1998) highlighted that publishing 
in peer reviewed journals is an 
instrumental component in succeeding 
as a researcher. Productivity at this level 
will not only assist the academic with 
career advancement (Jones & Gold, 
1998) but will also improve the standing 
of the department within the university 
and discipline (Baldwin & Chandler, 
2002). This form of scholarly activity 
highlights the need to be open to, and 
accept constructive criticism or feedback 
through the process of peer review. 

With this motivation to develop the 
skills necessary to critique articles and 
the goal for each academic to publish at 
least one peer­reviewed article per year 
at the University of the Western Cape 
(UWC), the Department of Physiotherapy 
formed a support group to encourage 
and stimulate academic publication. The 
Kirkpatrick Framework of Evaluation 
was used to evaluate the success of the 
mentoring process (Kirkpatrick, 1998). 
This framework consists of four levels, 
namely: 

Level 1: Participant reaction (evalu­• 
ation of the participant’s reaction to 
the intervention and its content)
Level 2: Participant learning (evalu­• 
ation of the extent to which partici­
pants acquired the knowledge, skills 
and abilities during the interven­
tion)
Level 3: Transfer of knowledge • 
(extent to which the participant 
transferred information learnt into 
the job performance)
Level 4: Productivity gains (the • 
impact of the training programme 
on the department/organization)

Methodology 
The study utilised a participatory action 
research methodology. According to 
MacIsaac (1995), action research has four 
cycles, namely planning, acting, observing 
and reflecting. This is further structured 
by Susman (1983), who highlights the five 
stages of action research. The application 
to this study is demonstrated in figure 1.

The participants in the study were 
staff in the Physiotherapy Department 
at the  University of the Western Cape 
who participated in a mentoring and 
support group for publication. The 
group consisted of nine academic staff 

gained and the practical application on 
a weekly basis through writing of the 
various sections. Level 3 was achieved 
during focus group discussions that were 
held in week 8 to review the process as 
well as a questionnaire to determine 
the experiences of the participants and 
how they had practically implemented 
the knowledge gained. Level 4 was 
achieved by a questionnaire that was 
administered to the group 6 months after 
the intervention. The questionnaire was 
based on questions from a similar one 
used by McLean and Moss (2003). 

Focus group discussions were 
conducted to evaluate the mentoring 
process. The information gathered for the 
focus group discussions was tape recorded 
and transcribed verbatim. Information 
was then circulated to all participants 
for clarification and participants had to 
colour code similar thoughts and ideas. 
These codes were compared across the 
responses to identify relations within 
the data and to categorise key concepts, 
which were then shaped into a thematic 
framework. The identified themes were 
discussed by the group until consensus 
was reached. All themes are presented 
with quotes to ensure the trustworthiness 
of the information provided. Information 
from the questionnaires was captured 
on Excel and descriptively analysed. 

members of whom two were male and 
seven were female. The mentoring and 
support programme took place over ten 
weeks and was dedicated to writing, 
feedback, discussion and reviewing. 
The programme objectives would allow 
participants to write various sections 
of an article as well as provide and 
receive feedback from critical readers. 
The aim of the mentoring and support 
process was to build and maintain a 
professional network among staff, 
increase competence and confidence 
in academic writing and reviewing 
articles, and facilitate the writing 
process through peer collaboration and 
feedback. Specifically the workshop 
helped participants gain knowledge and 
skills related to writing and reviewing 
the various components of an article. 
To incorporate the various levels of 
the Kirkpatrick Framework (Table 1), 
level 1 was achieved on a weekly basis 
where participants had the opportunity 
to share their opinion about the process 
as well as their feelings and thoughts 
about the programme. Comments from 
all participants were recorded and a 
summary of each session was made on a 
weekly basis, highlighting the main ideas. 
Level 2 was achieved through informal 
questioning by the facilitator after 
the sessions regarding the knowledge 

figure 1: Steps involved in Action Research (Susman, 1983)

Step 5
SPecifY

leARninG
Outcomes of

workshop

Step 1
idenTifY
PRoBlem

Poor 

publication rate

Step 2
AcTion PlAn

Writing for 

publication 

workshop

Step 4
eVAluATinG
Focus group 

discussion and 

feedback
Step 3

TAKe AcTion
Implement the 

workshop over 

10 weeks

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç

Ç



37   SA JournAl of PhySiotherAPy 2010 Vol 66 no 2 

Table 2 below outlines the programme 
for each week. Commitment to active 
participation in the group was obtained 
from each member at a scheduled meeting, 
and meetings were scheduled once a 
week for 2 hours each. The participants 
were purposively divided into two 
reviewer groups with each group having 
novice authors and established authors. 
Each participant was able to review a 
colleague’s work within their group and 
this was done on a rotational basis and 
thus each participant acted as a critical 
reviewer for each group members’ article. 
Participants also received feedback from 
other critical reviewers verbally and in 
writing . Opportunities were provided to 
evaluate the process after every session 
in order to determine the progress of 

Table 1: evaluation framework for the Writing for Publication workshop 

Evaluation Component Level  1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 

Weekly feedback sessions 
inviting reflection on aspects 
of the experience 

√ √     

Focus group discussion at end 
of intervention focusing on 
competence and evaluation 
of the process 

  √ √ √ 

Questionnaire at 3 months 
focused on important 
lessons learnt and practical 
applications 

√ √ √ √ 

Questionnaire at 6 months 
focused on number of 
manuscripts submitted and 
reviewed 

      √ 

Table 2: Weekly programme 

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4-5 Week 6-7 Week 8-10

Participants had 
to have data from 
research that 
they would be 
able to 
work with

Write an 
introduction of 
500 words

Correct the 
introduction 
according to the 
feedback given 
and write the 
methods and 
results sections

Correct the 
introduction, 
method and 
results sections 
according to 
the feedback 
given and write 
the discussion  
section

Do all corrections 
and write the 
conclusion and 
add references

Do corrections 
and finalize 
the article with 
the abstract 
according 
to authors 
guidelines

Participants 
had to identify 
possible journals 
and bring 
the authors 
guidelines for the 
first meeting

Submit the 
introduction to a 
critical reviewer 
identified by the 
facilitator  in the 
group

Submit the 
introduction, 
methods and 
results sections 
to a new critical 
reviewer  in your 
group

Submit the 
introduction to 
discussion to 
a new critical 
reviewer  in your 
group

Submit draft 1 of 
the whole article 
to a new critical 
reviewer

Submit draft 
2 of the article 
to the whole 
group for 
feedback

Supporting 
articles were also 
brought to this 
meeting 

At the next 
meeting, provide 
verbal and 
written feedback 
to the person 
for whom you 
acted as a critical 
reviewer  

At the next 
meeting, provide 
feedback to the 
person for whom 
you acted as a 
critical reviewer

At the next 
meeting, provide 
feedback to the 
person for whom 
you acted as a 
critical  reviewer

At the next 
meeting, provide 
feedback to the 
person for whom 
you acted as a 
critical reviewer  

At the next 
meeting you 
will receive 
feedback from 
more than one 
critical reader 

Participants 
were then 
informed about 
the process, 
expectations and 
weekly outcomes 

You will receive 
guidelines for 
writing and 
reviewing the 
introduction in 
your workshop 
package

You will receive 
guidelines for 
writing and 
reviewing the 
methods and 
results section 

You will receive 
guidelines for 
writing and 
reviewing the 
discussion 
section 

You will receive 
guidelines for 
writing and 
reviewing the 
conclusion and 
the whole article 

You have now 
been through 
the process of 
writing a draft 
article and 
reviewing 
an article 



38   SA JournAl of PhySiotherAPy 2010 Vol 66 no 2 

each individual as well as the challenges 
they experienced. Discussion following 
this feedback was encouraged.

Results
A total of nine  academics  participated 
in the group. One of participants with an 
established publication record acted as 
the facilitator for the workshop. Of the 
nine participants, eight participated in 
the workshop and the ninth participant 
focused on analyzing the information 
obtained at different stages of the work­
shop. The demographic information of 
the group is presented in Table 3 below. 

The main learning curves identified 
from the critical reader during the weekly 
feedback sessions included 7 key state­
ments. Each statement is highlighted and 
presented with quotes (Table 4). 

Information from the focus group 
discussion at the end of interven­
tion was classified into information 
for level 2 and 3 of Kirkpatrick’s 
Framework. The participants focused 
on their emotions, feelings and experi­
ences, the process, group dynamics, 
feedback, skills and learning and 
finally outcomes. Areas are highlighted 
below and supported with quotes. 

It was found that participants expe­
rienced a continuum of emotions at various 
stages of the process. The emotions and 
feelings expressed identified that partici­
pants had grown personally and within the  
group. The initial reports of “worry”, “fear”, 
and “daunting task”  translated into  feel­
ings of “motivation”, encouragement” and 
excitement” by the end of the workshop.

“At the beginning of the process I had 
feelings of worry however I was also 
excited for the outcome” 

The participants also emphasized that 
although the process was demanding, it 
was also useful because it was formal­
ized and guided, which made the process 
very valuable. 

“I found it a good process and the 
way it was structured is something that 
should be encouraged for the future.” 

“Since I don’t have much experience 
in academic publishing (or any pub-
lishing for that matter), going through 
the writing and reviewing process 
was a useful learning experience. The 
guidelines we received were absolutely 
essential to me for this.” 
On a personal level, participants found 

the process motivating and encouraging. 
The process also improved time 
management among the participants 
and it allowed the participants to focus 
on a specific outcome of an article. In 
addition, a dedicated time slot for writing 
was found to be valuable. 

“The way it was structured allowed 
me to have time to focus on the out-
come which is a publication” 

“Having dedicated time set aside to 
write an article is really appreciated” 
The participants highlighted learning 

skills related to writing (e.g. how to write 
an introduction with linking sentences 
between paragraphs) and reviewing of an 
article (e.g. reading for flow of the article 
and golden thread throughout i.e. ensur­
ing that the message is consistent from 
the introduction to the discussion). They 
also learnt group work skills as well as 
written and verbal communication skills. 
In addition the participants learnt how to 
make concepts clearer.

“I learnt a lot about writing and 
reviewing an article”  

“Reading someone else’s article, 
helped me formulate my own and 
structure it better” 

 Table 3: Socio-demographic data

Variables n (%)

Gender

Male o 

Femaleo 

2 (22%)

7 (78%)

Age

30-40 yearso 

40-50 yearso 

>50 yearso 

6 (67%)

2 (22%)

1 (12%)

Race

Blacko 

Whiteo 

Colouredo 

1 (12%)

3 (33%)

5 (55%)

higher degrees

Masterso 

PhDo 

6 (67%)

3 (33%)

Professional Status

Lecturer

Senior Lecturer

Associate Professor

5 (55%)

1 (12%)

3 (33%)

Areas of interest

Disability and rehabilitation

Quality of life and Health promotion

Disease prevention

Education

2 (22%)

2 (22%)

4 (44%)

1 (12%)

Participants publication record

Novice authors: <3 publications

Author with limited experience: 3-15 articles

Established author: >15 publications

5 (56%)

2 (22%)

2 (22%)



39   SA JournAl of PhySiotherAPy 2010 Vol 66 no 2 

They also had to learn to open them­
selves up to criticism and how to provide 
effective feedback. 

“Fear of the critical reader’s feed-
back but feedback was positive and in 
the process of learning I learnt a lot” 
The participants also highlighted the 

value of the workshop as it related to 
outcomes. They were excited that at the 
end of the workshop they would have a 
draft article that had been reviewed by 
more than one critical reader. It was also 
mentioned that the knowledge and skills 
obtained would assist in addressing arti­
cles that had been rejected or returned 
for revision. 

“I can also now tackle other articles 
that have been rejected with the skills 
I have learnt” 

“I have had this article in mind and 
have found it difficult to write the arti-
cle but the structure has guided it” 

“All in all, not only was it a good 
learning experience in terms of  
writing and reviewing an article, but 

the result is a finished, peer-reviewed 
article almost ready for submission” 
At the 3 month follow up, the partici­

pants were able to reflect on what they 
were satisfied with during the workshop 
and what they felt could be improved 
upon. They also reflected on the skills 
they had learned and the application of 
those skills in their academic work. The 
skills developed were also found to have 
practical application in other areas of their 
lives as well and were classified into four 
main areas, including:

Improved ability to write an academic 
article (5)

“I am able to interact on the sub-
ject of article writing and construction 
with more confidence”
Improved ability on reviewing aca­

demic writing (5)
“ ...This has resulted in me reading 

and reviewing of postgraduate student 
work more critically.”
Improved ability to structure, organise 

and set goals (4)

“...ability to structure and organize 
articles in progress in a more struc-
tured manner...”
Improved ability to provide feedback (3)

“Acting as a reviewer and giving 
feedback has improved as I’m more 
sensitive to the author receiving the 
feedback”

“I have also been able to improve 
the kind of feedback that I give my 
masters students”
Six months later each participant 

had increased their academic output by 
either submitting or reviewing an article. 
Of the participants involved in the 
workshop, six of the eight (75%)  had 
submitted at least one article to a peer 
reviewed journal. In addition, 50% of the 
participants had had an article published 
and 50% had reviewed an article for a 
journal. Articles developed or finalized 
during the workshop were at different 
stages with three (37.5%) still working 
on it, two (25%) having submitted to 
a journal and awaiting feedback, two 

Table 4: learning curves identified 

no Statement Section Quote 

1 Start the article with an impact 
sentence. 

Introduction “What is the most important idea you want to highlight why 
this study is important?” 

2 Write each paragraph with 
connecting sentences. 

Introduction “The ideas must flow into one another from one paragraph 
to another” 

3 Make sure the reliability and 
validity of instruments used 
are clearly explained as well as 
sampling procedure and results 
of pilot studies 

Methodology “When adapting a validated and reliable questionnaire it is 
important that reliability is tested on the adapted version” 

4 Present the results in an easy to 
read manner and then discuss 
the most important findings.  

Results “You cannot present the results to address an objective like 
in a thesis – this is an article with limited number of words 
thus highlight the most important findings”

5 Make sure you are able to 
highlight the importance of 
your results in your discussion 
thus answering the reader’s “so 
what?” question. 

Discussion “At the end of the results section I want to say so what – the 
impact of the findings is not highlighted strongly” 

  

6 Making sure that the structure of 
the article is balanced from the 
introduction to the conclusion. 

Conclusion “Your impact sentence at the beginning must have a 
matching closing sentence in the conclusion” 

7 It is important to write in a 
manner that is easy for the 
reader to understand.

General “You understand what you are saying but as a reader new  
to this area, I find it difficult to understand what you are  
trying to say”



40   SA JournAl of PhySiotherAPy 2010 Vol 66 no 2 

factor when writing for publication. 
The participants in that study reported 
that setting aside specific time slots 
assisted in completing an article. The 
first few days during student vacations 
were also mentioned as a suitable time. 
Although academics are under pressure 
to publish they often prioritise teaching 
and administrative duties and finding the 
time to write is often a major challenge 
(Maurtin­Cairncross et al. 2005). Writing 
for publication workshops such as this 
one may encourage academics to write, 
as mandatory time slots are allocated.  

Structured programmes for writing 
are usually aimed at assisting in the 
development of knowledge and skills 
related to writing. The participants in 
the current study indicated that they 
developed specific skills including:  
prioritising the need to publish and 
making time to write a section of the 
article every week; learning how to 
provide effective feedback through 
critically reviewing a colleague's work 
and communicating this through written 
and verbal feedback; learning how to 
open themselves to criticism and 'hearing' 
the positive and negative comments; 
making changes to their articles in 
response to reviewer feedback; and 
finally submitting the articles to a journal 
for publication. There was an increase 
in the understanding of the process of 
publication, as well as the requirements 
and culture of a particular journal that 
could assist them in increasing their 
publication output. This is similar to 
findings by Sommers et al. (1996), who 
indicated that knowledge and skills 
in writing and publication improved 
following the intervention.The specific 
skills developed included developing and 
clarifying concise purpose statements, 
also reported by Miller and Muhlenkamp 
(1989) cited in McGrail et al. (2006). 
Dies (1993) reported that some writers 
have a limited understanding of the 
writing and publication process and 
uncertainty about which ideas are 
worthy of publication. This finding was 
confirmed by the results in this study 
when participants reported that similar 
skills to those mentioned above were 
obtained.  We need to be mindful of 
the fact that a lack of skills or a lack 
of confidence could be contributing 

factors to low publication rates. Previous 
researchers have also found that authors 
report a lack of confidence in their 
writing ability (Grant & Knowles, 2000; 
Hale & Pruiit, 1989), as well as a fear of 
rejection (Dies, 1993). 

  The current study also highlighted the 
value of the programme with feedback 
from critical readers but similarly 
demonstrated that there may be a negative 
reaction by participants to feedback.  
Rickard et al. (2008), highlighted that 
multiple researchers in a group with a 
variety of perspectives proved to be a 
strength. However, Grzybowski, Bates, 
Calam et al. (2003) reported that not all 
writers were comfortable with receiving  
feedback from fellow professionals. 
Even if feedback is given in a way that 
is intended to be constructive, it may be 
taken personally and viewed negatively. 
It is important for writers to be able to 
separate themselves from their articles, 
regardless of how much they have 
invested of themselves into the work. 
Feedback is intended to develop the 
article and not the person although by 
reflecting on the feedback, the author 
will develop, either professionally,  
personally or both.  

This study demonstrates that writing 
for publication programmes can support 
academics in increasing their academic 
outputs and thus assist in improving 
their academic standing. It is in the best 
interest of the university if academics 
are publishing and thus opportunities 
such as this intervention should be 
created on a regular basis. Through 
this support programme, at least 75% 
of the participants were able to submit 
an article to a peer reviewed journal for 
consideration. 

Conclusion   
It is evident that although writing for 
publication is an important component 
of academia, some academics find the 
task daunting for a variety of reasons, 
and struggle to find the time to dedicate 
to writing.  The results of this study 
highlight some of the challenges faced 
by new authors and critical readers, and 
suggest several means of overcoming 
these obstacles.  The support and guidance 
obtained through participation in the 
writing group gave staff members a 

(25%) having submitted to journals, 
received feedback and were working on 
reviewer comments, and one (12.5%) 
completed and ready for submission.

Discussion
Numerous studies have been conducted 
concerning improved publication rates 
for academics (Grant and Knowles, 
2000; Lee and Boud, 2003; Pololi et 
al 2004). However, it is evident from 
this study that writing for publication 
is still seen as a daunting task and that 
the need for structure and guidance is 
needed, especially for novice authors. 
Various intervention strategies have 
been used to promote publication output 
with varied results (McGrail, Rickard 
and Jones, 2006). The most successful 
interventions depend on the participants 
and the objectives of the intervention. 
Structuring workshops, such as the one 
in the current study, enables academics 
to learn and to practice strategies that 
will assist them in writing articles. 
Murray and Newton (2008), suggest that 
writing for publication enhances clinical 
knowledge and practice and thus should 
be considered an important component 
in both academics’ and clinicians’ job 
descriptions. However, this task has 
been hampered by barriers such as a lack 
of time and the appropriate skills. 

 The current study emphasized that 
the structure of the programme and the 
dedicated time to write was valued. 
Kliewer (2005) reported that the first 
stages of writing an article can be 
challenging but if guided by a structured 
process, even junior staff can write a 
well organized article. Although the 
partcipants valued the availability of  
dedicated time they  reported that the 
time between the feedback sessions was 
too short. They also recommended that 
time be set aside within the workshop 
period to make changes as recommended 
by the critical reader. In suggesting 
this the participants expressed that the 
workshops could be extended to take 
place over a full day. The pre­set time 
slot with the structure of the workshop 
had however been experienced as 
positive, as it assisted the participants 
to complete an article. Setting aside 
dedicated time was also identified by 
Rhoda et al. (2006) as an important 



41   SA JournAl of PhySiotherAPy 2010 Vol 66 no 2 

sense of confidence and facilitated the 
acquisition of new skills that will assist 
them in moving forward, both as authors 
and reviewers.

References 

Allen T, McManus S, Russell J (1999). 
Newcomer socialization and stress. Formal peer 
relationships as a source of support. Journal of 
Vocational Behaviour 54: 453­470.

 Baldwon C, Chandler G (2002). Improving 
faculty publication output: the role of a writing 
coach. Journal of Professional Nursing 18(1): 
8­15. 

Cumbie S, Cumbie C, Weinert S, Luparell V, 
Conley J, Smith J (2005). Developing a scholarship 
community. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 37(3): 
289–293

Dies R (1993). Writing for publication: 
Overcoming common obstacles. International 
Journal of Group Psychotherapy 43(2): 243­249

Emden C (1998). Establishing a ‘track record’: 
Research productivity and nursing academia. 
Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing 16(1): 
29­33

Emerson R, Records K (2005). Nursing 
profession in peril. Journal of Professional Nursing. 
21(1): 9­15. 

Frantz  J (2007). Challenges facing physiotherapy 
education in Africa. The Internet Journal of Allied 
Health Sciences and Practice. 5(4): ISSN 1540­580x 

Goran S (2001). Mentorship as a teaching 
strategy. Critical Care Nursing Clinics of North 
America 13 (1 ): 119–129

Grantz B, Knowles S (2000). Flights of 
imagination: academic women be(com)ing writers. 
International Journal for Academic Development 
5(1): 6­19

Hale S, Pruitt R (1989). Enhancing publication 
success. Nursing Connections 2(1): 59­61

Jones R, Gold J (1998). Faculty appointment 
and tenure policies in medical schools: a 1997 
status report. Academic Medicine 73: 212­219.

 Kirkpatrick D (1998). Evaluating training 
programs: The four levels. San Francisco: Berrett­
Koehler. 

Kliewer M (2005). Writing it up: A step­by­step 
guide to publication for beginning investigators. 
American Journal of Radiology. 185: 591­596. 

Lee A, Boud D (2003).  Writing groups, change 
and academic identity: research development as 
local practice. Studies in Higher Education 28(2): 
187–200.

Louw Q, Grimmer­Somers K, Crous L,  
Marais M, Amosun S (2007). Framing a vision for 
physiotherapy research: synthesizing educators 
viewpoints in Cape Town. The Internet Journal of 
Allied Health Sciences and Practice. 5(2): ISSN 
1540­580x 

MacIsaac D (1995). An introduction to action 
research. Http://www.phy.nau.edu/~danmac/
actionresearch.html Accessed 08/09/09

McGrail M, Rickard C, Jones R (2006). Publish 
or perish: a systematic review of interventions 
to increase academic publication rates. Higher 
Education Research and Development 25(1): 19­35 

McLean S, Moss G (2003). They’re happy, 
but did they make a difference? Applying 
Kirkpatrick’s framework to the evaluation of a 
national leadership program. The Canadian Journal 
of Program Evaluation 18(1): 1­23.

Miller B, Muhlenkamp A (1989). Teaching stu­
dents how to publish in nursing journals: A group 
approach. Journal of Nursing Education. 28(8): 
379­381

Murray R, Newton M (2008). Facilitating writ­
ing for publication. Physiotherapy. 94: 29­34.

Pololi L, Knight S, Dunn K (2004). Facilitating 
scholarly writing in Academic Medicine. Journal 
of Gen. Internal Medicine.19: 64­68

 Rhoda A, Maurtin­Cairncross A, Phillips J, 
Witbooi S (2006). Conquering the publishing 
silences of black academic women. Journal of 
Community and Health Sciences. 1(2): 70­77.

 Rickard C, McGrail M, Jones R, O’Meara, 
Robinson A, Burley M, Ray­Barruel G (2008). 
Supporting academic publication: Evaluation of 
a writing course combined with a writers’ support 
group. Nurse Education Today. Doi: 10.1016/j.
nedt.2008.11.005 

Susman G (1983). Action Research: a 
sociotechnical systems perspective. Ed.G. Morgan. 
Sage Publications, London.