Research Productivity and Publishing Trends in Publicly Funded Social Work and Psychology Schools in India: A Bibliometric Analysis

There is a growing emphasis on research across disciplines, and higher educational institutions’ research productivity (RP) is a matter of serious consideration. However, a knowledge gap exists in RP in social science disciplines in India. In this context, the present study aimed to (1) understand t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:SAGE open 2024-04, Vol.14 (2)
Hauptverfasser: Jadhav, Bhoomika N., Abdul Azeez, E. P., Mishra, Nishtha, Senthil Kumar, A. P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:There is a growing emphasis on research across disciplines, and higher educational institutions’ research productivity (RP) is a matter of serious consideration. However, a knowledge gap exists in RP in social science disciplines in India. In this context, the present study aimed to (1) understand the RP of social work and psychology schools at publicly funded central universities (CU) in India, (2) evaluate the RP and research impacts of faculty members in these schools, and (3) identify the publishing trends and patterns in social work and psychology disciplines. Using the Scopus database, we collected bibliometric information on publications of 19 social work and 16 psychology schools and their faculty members. The results indicate that schools’ research productivity remained unpromising, constituting many faculty members (Social work 51.08%; Psychology 43.4%) with no publications. Although the average RP of social work (M = 16.0, SD = 17.40) and psychology (M = 45.63, SSD = 61.08) schools differed, the difference was not statistically significant (t = 1.88, p = .078). An increase in the publication was evident after 2016, indicating positive-policy impacts. A difference in RP across professional ranks was evident for social work (p  .05). For research impact, a difference existed based on ranks for academicians from psychology only (p 
ISSN:2158-2440
2158-2440
DOI:10.1177/21582440241241170