IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v116y2018i3d10.1007_s11192-018-2832-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing the research productivity of social work doctoral programs using the h-Index

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas E. Smith

    (Florida State University)

  • Kat S. Jacobs

    () (Florida State University)

  • Philip J. Osteen

    (The University of Utah)

  • T. Edison Carter

    (Florida State University)

Abstract

Abstract The purpose of the study was to examine the productivity of faculty in social work doctoral programs. This study builds on previous investigations on the scholarship of social work faculty using the h-Index (i.e., citation analysis). This study examined the scholarly productivity of the full population (N = 1699) of tenure-track faculty in all 76 United States social work doctoral programs by analyzing the h-Index scores of each program. Information on funding sources, regional location, year of establishment, and faculty demographics was collected to better understand why faculty and programs differ in their h-Index. A hierarchical regression analysis was used in creating a predictive model. The final model explained 51% of the variance in h-Index scores (R2 = .51). Academic rank was the strongest predictor of school h-Index. Each school’s faculty size, gender proportion, region, college age, and auspice also contributed to the predictive power of the model. The proportion of senior faculty (Associate Professors and Full Professors) and college age were the strongest predictors based on standardized regression coefficients. The finding that academic rank contributed the most variance to the regression model provides empirical support to the long-argued importance of publication in career advancement. The overall results of the model confirm that institutional factors such as faculty size, region, and auspice do have unique effects on research productivity even after accounting for individual level differences in faculty across diverse social work programs.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas E. Smith & Kat S. Jacobs & Philip J. Osteen & T. Edison Carter, 2018. "Comparing the research productivity of social work doctoral programs using the h-Index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1513-1530, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:116:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2832-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2832-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2832-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. Edison Carter & Thomas E. Smith & Philip J. Osteen, 2017. "Gender comparisons of social work faculty using H-Index scores," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1547-1557, June.
    2. Jordan, John M. & Meador, Mark & Walters, Stephen J. K., 1989. "Academic research productivity, department size and organization: Further results," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 345-352, August.
    3. Lisa Geraci & Steve Balsis & Alexander J. Busch Busch, 2015. "Gender and the h index in psychology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(3), pages 2023-2034, December.
    4. Raj Chetty & Nathaniel Hendren & Patrick Kline & Emmanuel Saez, 2014. "Where is the land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 129(4), pages 1553-1623.
    5. repec:hrv:faseco:30750027 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:116:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2832-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.