Scholarly productivity of U.S. LIS faculty

Adkins, Denice; Budd, John M.

doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2006.03.021

Cited by 60 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The criteria for selecting journals were guided by the qualities of having a high impact factor, to ensure the journals' representation of major interests among contemporary American sociology given its importance in the American social sciences (Adkins and Budd 2006;Jacobs 2011Jacobs , 2016, and general thematic interests, in principle open to the publication of all topics without overt bias. Keeping this in mind, the American Journal of Sociology, the American Sociological Review, and Social Forces were selected to best ensure that any trends identified actually reflect voluntarily decided interests among American sociologists from 1950 -the heyday of American sociology -to 2010.…”

Section: Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Sociology and Science: The Making of a Social Scientific Method

2017

Am Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criticism against quantitative methods has grown in the context of Bbigdata^, charging an empirical, quantitative agenda with expanding to displace qualitative and theoretical approaches indispensable to the future of sociological research. Underscoring the strong convergences between the historical development of empiricism in the scientific method and the apparent turn to quantitative empiricism in sociology, this article uses content and hierarchical clustering analyses on the textual representations of journal articles from 1950 to 2010 to open dialogue on the epistemological issues of contemporary sociological research. In doing so, I push towards the conceptualization of a social scientific method, inspired by the scientific method from the philosophy of science and borne out of growing constructions of a systematically empirical representation among sociology articles. I articulate how this social scientific method is defined by three dimensions -empiricism, and theoretical and discursive compartmentalization -, and how, contrary to popular expectations, knowledge production consequently becomes independent of choice of research method, bound up instead in social constructions that divide its epistemological occurrence into two levels: (i) the way in which social reality is broken down into data, collected and analyzed, and (ii) the way in which this data is framed and made to recursively influence future sociological knowledge production. In this way, empiricism both mediates and is mediated by knowledge production not through the direct manipulation of method or theory use, but by redefining the ways in which methods are being labeled and knowledge framed, remembered, and interpreted.

show abstract

Section: Samplementioning

confidence: 99%

Sociology and Science: The Making of a Social Scientific Method

2017

Am Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Budd and colleagues (Budd & Seavey, 1996;Budd, 2000;Adkins & Budd, 2006) have conducted replication of institutional productive research for library and information science. For their three studies, Budd and colleagues used only Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) to rank programs.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Changing Institutional Research Productivity of United States’ Science Education Programs: 2000s v. 1990s

Barrow¹,

Tang²

2014

IER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to identify the major science education programs in the United States, where the science education researchers published their research during the first decade of the twenty-first century. This research study of the scholarly productivity of science education programs at United States' institutions of higher education is compared with the last decade of 1990s (Barrow, Settlage, & Germann, 2008) . Each issue of the eight research journals (Journal of Research is Science Teaching, Science Education, International Journal of Science Education, Journal of Science Teacher Education, School Science and Mathematics, Journal of Computers in Math and Science Teaching, Journal of Science Education and Technology, and Journal of Elementary Science Education) published in the 2000sprovided the author(s) and their institutional affiliation. The resultant ranking of raw and weighted counts for the top 30 U.S science educations programs shows variation in journals where research was published. There were almost 50% of the 2000s top 30 institutions which were not listed for the 1990s. Potential explanations for variations and uses for ranking are discussed.

show abstract

“…Budd and colleagues (Budd & Seavey, 1996;Budd, 2000;Adkins & Budd, 2006) have conducted a series of reviews of library information and science program rankings using Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). There has been an increase in research productivity at institutions in library information and science for individuals and programs.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been an increase in research productivity at institutions in library information and science for individuals and programs. Adkins and Budd (2006) noted the potential bias that larger number of faculty could result in greater productivity. Although some specialties in the discipline are omitted from SSCI, they concluded that a productive program tends to remain productive, but some changes occur over time.…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

U.S. Institutional Research Productivity in Major Science Education Research Journals: Top 30 for 2000’s

Barrow¹,

Tang²

2013

JEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

VonAalst (2010) used Google Scholar to identify the top four science education research journals: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Science Education, International Journal of Science Education, and Journal of Science Teacher Education. U.S. institutional productivity for 2000-2009 for the above journals was the data for the study. The major domestic science education programs were identified for raw and weighted counts. For the top 10, there was a 100% agreement with different ranks while there was only a 60% agreement among the bottom 10. These results demonstrated that dominant science education faculty published their research in multiple empirical journals.Keywords: institutional/faculty productivity, science education research journals, domestic higher education institutions IntroductionThe first purpose of this study was to identify the major domestic science education programs based upon recognized research journals. VonAalst (2010) used Google Scholar and identified Journal of Research in Science Teaching (JRST), Science Education (SE), and International Journal of Science Education (IJSE) as the top three market shares for science education. The Journal of Science Teacher Education (JSTE) had the next greatest number of articles published. These four journals collectively were used to establish U.S. institutional productivity. In recording data for the above journals, there were a large number of multiple authors (up to eight); therefore, a second purpose was to compare raw and weighted count to determine institutional productivity.Earlier, Barrow, Settlage and Germann (2008) used eight science education journals (JRST, SE, IJSE, JSTE, Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, Journal of Elementary Science Education, School Science & Mathematics, and Journal of Science Education and Technology) that publish empirical research to identify the top 30 domestic science education programs for 1990s. They reported variation in journals where research was published. There was a greater agreement between the raw and weighted counts for the top 10 than bottom 10. Related LiteratureInstitutional research is either perception (rankings based upon perceptions [e.g., U.S. News and World Report's annual ranking of best graduate schools]) or productivity (e.g., faculty members' publications). Recently, the National Research Council (2010) published an extensive U.S. graduate review, but most areas of education, including science education, were excluded. No published study based upon perceptions on science education was located; although, many science educators probably have a personal view of the dominant programs.The vast majority of U.S. institutional research studies have been productivity oriented. Three fields (library and information science, counseling psychology, and reading/literacy education) have varied objective measures over the years.Budd and colleagues (Budd & Seavey, 1996;Budd, 2000;Adkins & Budd, 2006) have conducted a series of reviews of library information and sc...

show abstract

Scholarly productivity of U.S. LIS faculty

Cited by 60 publications

References 10 publications

Sociology and Science: The Making of a Social Scientific Method

Sociology and Science: The Making of a Social Scientific Method

Changing Institutional Research Productivity of United States’ Science Education Programs: 2000s v. 1990s

U.S. Institutional Research Productivity in Major Science Education Research Journals: Top 30 for 2000’s

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About