An Analysis of the Most Frequently Cited Gifted Journal Articles Since the Marland Report: Implications for Researchers

Abstract

Over 500 separate journal articles were reviewed to identify the 25 most frequently cited articles between 1972, the year the Marland Report was published, and 1988. To qualify for the data base the article must have used the term "gifted" or some related term (e.g., "giftedness," "genius," "precocious") in the title or have been indexed by ERIC or Psychological Abstracts with that term as a descriptor. The 25 most frequently cited articles were compared to a random sample of 25 articles from the same data set on a number of characteristics (e.g., purpose, theoretical basis, topical area, research design, and statistical methods). In general, comparisons on these and other variables showed few differences between frequently cited and randomly chosen articles. In comparison to other psychological/ educational disciplines gifted articles were cited much less frequently and used less sophisticated research designs and statistical analyses. Furthermore, articles tended to lack either a theoretical or research basis. Implications of these findings for the discipline are discussed.

Publications in Four Gifted Education Journals From 2001 to 2006: An Analysis of Article Types and Authorship Characteristics

“…The proportions of data-based articles from these two groups in Carter and Swanson's (1990) study mirror the small proportions reflected in Rogers' (1989) and Hays' (1993) research. Carter and Swanson examined other fields to see whether gifted education's relatively low rates of research articles were typical.…”

“…In summary, previous studies have demonstrated that the majority of research published in gifted education journals is not evidence-based research (Carter & Swanson, 1990;Friedman-Nimz et al, 2005;Hays, 1993;Rogers, 1989; see Table 1). One potential explanation for the very small percentage of experimental or quasi-experimental designs in the gifted education literature may be due to the methodological problems that interfere with carrying out field research.…”

“…Hays also found a decrease in the percentage of practitioner authors, from 28.7% to 15.9%, over the years from 1958 to 1987. Similarly, Carter and Swanson (1990) found that the 25 most cited articles in the field of gifted education came from 11 universities and one school district, clearly demonstrating that the predominant source of these articles resulted from university-based research. Cohen (2006) quantitatively analyzed 360 presentations at the National Association for Gifted Children Cohen suggested that the field of gifted education is too narrow in its research focus and relies almost entirely on a small number of educators or psychologists trained in gifted education.…”

“…The percentage of male authors dropped to 46.7% for the years 1983 to 1987, leading eventually to an apparent balance between the genders. In contrast, Carter and Swanson (1990) found that males made up 75% of the authors of the 25 most cited articles in the field from 1972 to 1988. Females were more likely to be primary authors (56%) of the 25 comparison articles that Carter and Swanson investigated.…”

“…Taking a slightly different tack, Carter and Swanson (1990) examined the 25 most frequently cited articles in gifted education from 1972 to 1988 for various factors, including article type. Twenty-five comparison articles were randomly selected from the literature about gifted education, excluding the 25 most frequently cited articles.…”