Scholarly Productivity in Rehabilitation Counseling

Abstract

In the past decade or so, the landscape of rehabilitation education in the United States has undergone a seismic shift. While shocking and disappointing, the recent elimination of several once well-respected doctoral rehabilitation counseling programs laden with rich histories, such as those at

Minority Entity Disability, Health, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research Productivity Facilitators

“…Chief among such concerns was the challenge that minority institutions are underrepresented in NIDRR's RCB investments and participation by individuals from diverse backgrounds is limited (NIDRR, 2011). Chen et al (2014) provided quantitative corroboration for this observation. They examined 1,855 articles from seven major rehabilitation-related journals over a 10-year period (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009) and found disparate refereed publication productivity outcomes between MEs and traditionally White institutions (TWIs).…”

“…Research performance measures typically include (a) number of refereed publications (Chen et al, 2014;Ginther et al, 2011;Martin, 2009;Yang et al, 2013) and (b) the number of citations (Feldman & Rupert, 2010;Okiki, 2013;Yang et al, 2013). The h-factor index system, which primarily factors first authorship contributions (i.e., peer review publications, and citations) into productivity formula calculations (Yang et al, 2013), is perhaps the most commonly used approach to assess investigators' productivity and impact.…”

“…The h-factor index system, which primarily factors first authorship contributions (i.e., peer review publications, and citations) into productivity formula calculations (Yang et al, 2013), is perhaps the most commonly used approach to assess investigators' productivity and impact. Nonetheless, some health researchers (i.e., Chen et al, 2014;Yang et al, 2013) have expanded productivity assessment models to take into account coauthorship contributions. Yang and colleagues argue that the h-factor index is obsolete due to the fact that coauthors do not receive output credit share.…”

“…A common characteristic of successful RCB and related productivity is effective recruitment (Chan et al, 2009;NIDRR, 2011). Never has the capability of institutions to attract the most talented investigators been more critical considering the research resources and prestige at stake (Chen et al, 2014). Faculty scholars with professional research experience, higher self-efficacy levels, and publication and grantsmanship records are generally more productive (Moore, Johnson, Manyibe, Washington, Uchegbu, & Eugene-Cross, 2012).…”

“…Similar teaching or service-oriented missions characterize AITCUs and many HSIs. Research-oriented institutions place a greater value on research when compared with MEs (Graham, Frederick, Byars-Winston, Hunter, & Handelsman, 2013) and their investigators naturally more often publish their research in peer-reviewed journals (Chen et al, 2014;Sabharwal, 2013a). Although the value assigned to research productivity may be weighted differently based on institutional mission, assessment of faculty scholar research productivity is a typical component of faculty evaluation, particularly in the case of tenure and/or promotion (Hardré, Beesley, Miller, & Pace, 2011).…”