Recognition and Productivity Among American Political Science Departments

Datos Bibliográficos

ID3386560
AutoresDavid R Morgan (University of Oklahoma), Michael R Fitzgerald (0009-0003-2364-401X, University of Missouri)
Año1977
Volumen30
Número3
Páginas342
Fecha de publicación1977-09-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessNo
TipoARTICLE
RevistaThe Western Political Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0043-4078 • E-ISSN: 2325-8675
EditorialJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/447934
OpenAlexW4229873078
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas16

OCIAL SCIENTISTS have displayed only a limited interest in science as a ~~~ system of knowledge and behavior, and what analysis has been done focuses S primarily on the work of natural scientists.1In recent years, however, soci- ologists have begun to study systematically the process of discovery and dissemina- tion of knowledge within their particular discipline.Political scientists, on the other hand, have not been especially self-conscious about the nature of their professional activities.As a past president of the American Political Science Association re- marked in his 1971 presidential address, &dquoit is surprising how little we know about ourselves.&dquo2In particular, while some attention has been devoted to exploring the parameters of productivity and creativity in other scientific disciplines, almost no serious analyses of these important dimensions of the discipline of political science have been undertaken.The purpose of this brief report is to contribute to the process of understanding the nature of productivity and recognition among depart- ments of political science in this country.Specifically, we offer a measure of pro- ductivity, rank departments on this measure, determine how these rankings compare with measures of quality, and finally, report the results of an effort to account for variation among political science departments on the measure of productivity.Assessments of the output of individual scientists and of the university depart- ments with which they are affiliated have taken several forms, but most research of this type has concentrated on the nature of individual scholarly activity with the purpose of determining such things as the variation in productivity and recognition among scientists at major and minor universities,3 patterns of collaboration in authorship or even questions of name ordering among authors of scientific papers.5Several interesting findings emerge from such efforts.Typologies are offered sug- gesting that scientists can be categorized as &dquoprolific&dquo (frequent publication and many citations), &dquomass producers&dquo (frequent publication with few citations), &dquoper- fectionists&dquo (infrequent publication but many citations), and &dquosilents&dquo (infrequent publication and citation).6Perfectionists among natural scientists were found to be most likely to receive recognition in the form of affiliation with the most dis- ---1

Data science · Economic growth · Economics · Political science · Politics · Productivity · Academic Freedom and Politics · Computer Science · Law · Political Science Research and Education · Psychology