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

Thomas E. Smith, Kat S. Jacobs (), Philip J. Osteen and T. Edison Carter
Additional contact information
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

Scientometrics, 2018, vol. 116, issue 3, No 6, 1513-1530

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.

Keywords: h-Index; Bibliometric comparisons; Social work program rankings; Quality of doctoral programs; Productivity (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-018-2832-5 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:scient:v:116:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-018-2832-5

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/11192

DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2832-5

Access Statistics for this article

Scientometrics is currently edited by Wolfgang Glänzel

More articles in Scientometrics from Springer, Akadémiai Kiadó
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().