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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Baneyx, A. (2008). “Publish or Perish” as citation metrics used to analyze scientific output in the humanities: International case studies in economics, geography, social sciences, philosophy, and history. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 56, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barner, J. R., Holosko, M. J., & Thyer, B. A. (2014). American social work and psychology faculty members’ scholarly productivity: A controlled comparison of citation impact using the h-Index. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 2448–2458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Barner, J. R., Holosko, M. J., Thyer, B. A., & Allen, J. L. (2015). Research productivity in top-ranked schools in psychology and social work: Does having a research culture matter? Journal of Social Work Education, 51(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carter, T. E., Smith, T. E., & Osteen, P. J. (2017). Gender comparisons of social work faculty using h-Index scores. Scientometrics, 111, 1547–1557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Central Intelligence Agency. (2013). The world Factbook 2013–2014. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html. Accessed 11 Feb 2017.

  7. Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129, 1553–1623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Corcoran, K. J., & Kirk, S. A. (1990). We’re all number one: Academic productivity among schools of social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 26, 310–321. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23043075. Accessed 10 May 2016.

  9. Diem, A., & Wolter, S. C. (2013). The use of bibliometrics to measure research in education sciences. Research in Higher Education, 54, 86–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Geraci, L., Balsis, S., & Busch, A. J. B. (2015). Gender and the h-Index in psychology. Scientometrics, 105, 2023–2034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Harzing, A. W. (2007). Publish or Perish. Available from http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm. Accessed 10 May 2016.

  12. Harzing, A. W., & van der Wal, R. (2009). A Google Scholar h-Index for journals: An alternative metric to measure journal impact in economics and business. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60, 41–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569–16572.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Hodge, D. R., & Lacasse, J. R. (2011). Evaluating journal quality: Is the h-Index a better measure than impact factors? Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 222–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Holosko, M. J., Barner, J. R., & Allen, J. R. (2015). Citation impact of women in social work: Exploring gender and research culture. Research on Social Work Practice, 26, 723–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Huggins-Hoyt, K. Y., Holosko, M. J., Briggs, H. E., & Barner, J. R. (2014). Citation impact scores of top African American scholars in social work schools. Research on Social Work Practice, 25, 164–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hunter, L. A., & Leahey, E. (2010). Parenting and research productivity: New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science, 40, 433–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jacso, P. (2008). The pros and cons of computing the h-Index using Google Scholar. Online Information Review, 32, 437–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Johnson, H. W., & Hull, G. H. (1995). Publication productivity of Bsw Faculty. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 358–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jordan, J. M., Meador, M., & Walters, S. J. K. (1989). Academic research productivity, department size, and organization: Further results. Economics of Education Review, 8, 345–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kirk, S. A., & Corcoran, K. (1995). School rankings: Mindless narcissism or do they tell us something? Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 408–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kyvik, S. (1995). Are big university departments better than small ones? Higher Education, 30, 295–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lacasse, J. R., Hodge, D. R., & Bean, K. F. (2011). Evaluating the productivity of social work scholars using the h-Index. Research on Social Work Practice, 21, 599–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ligon, J., Thyer, B. A., & Dixon, D. (1995). Academic affiliations of those published in social work journals: A productivity analysis, 1989–1993. Journal of Social Work Education, 31, 369–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Linton, J. D., Tierney, R., & Walsh, S. T. (2011). Publish or Perish: How are research and reputation related? Serials Review, 37, 244–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lucas, R. E., Cheung, F., & Lawless, N. M. (2014). Geographical psychology: Exploring the interaction of environment and behavior. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rentfrow, P. J., Gosling, S. D., Jokela, M., Stillwell, D. J., Kosinski, M., & Potter, J. (2013). Divided we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, social, and health correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 996–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sellers, S. L., Mathiesen, S. G., Smith, T., & Perry, R. (2006). Perceptions of Professional social work journals: Findings from a national survey. Journal of Social Work Education, 42, 139–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Suryani, I., Yaacob, A., Hashima, N., Rashid, S. A., & Desa, H. (2013). Research publication output by academicians in public and private universities in Malaysia. International Journal of Higher Education, 2, 84–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. United States Census Bureau. (2015). Regions and divisions. Retrieved from http://www2.census.gov/geo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us_regdiv.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2016.

  31. Volkwein, J. F., & Sweitzer, K. V. (2006). Institutional prestige and reputation among research universities and liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education, 47, 129–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kat S. Jacobs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, T.E., Jacobs, K.S., Osteen, P.J. et al. Comparing the research productivity of social work doctoral programs using the h-Index. Scientometrics 116, 1513–1530 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2832-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • h-Index
  • Bibliometric comparisons
  • Social work program rankings
  • Quality of doctoral programs
  • Productivity