Leading Contributors to the Research Consortium's Annual Program, 1992–2011: High-Visibility Institutions, Researchers, and Topics

Abstract

Between 1992–2011, peer-reviewed research on the Research Consortium's annual program has been published in abstract form in the Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. On the basis of frequency, high-visibility institutions, researchers, and sub-disciplinary categories were identified. Data were extracted from each abstract (N = 5,587). On average, 279 (SD = 39) abstracts were published annually. The highest visibility institution was Texas A&M University, College Station; individual researcher, Weimo Zhu; and sub-disciplinary area, Pedagogy. Twelve of the top 20 institutions identified in this study took part in the most recent ranking of doctoral programs conducted by the National Academy of Kinesiology, with the Spearman's rho correlation being .66. These results may inform the Research Consortium's and the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance's strategic planning efforts. Those interested in pursuing graduate degrees in the field and those who advise others about potential institutions and faculty mentors to study with may also benefit from this work. However, in doing so, a judicious interpretation of the results must be applied, as many factors should be considered when selecting a graduate program or mentor to study with, especially for those seeking research careers. Additional discussion points also emerged.

Keywords:

• graduate studies
• history
• kinesiology
• physical education
• rankings

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Leslie D. Schultz and Emily Breen for their contributions to this study.

Notes

¹Those listed in the “Acknowledgments” section were solely involved in the data entry; they were unaware of precisely how the database might be used in the future.

²Because the primary author may be perceived as having a vested interest in the outcomes of this study, great care was taken to independently verify the results. Both the first person listed in the “Acknowledgments” section and the second author on this manuscript did independent analysis of the results. Their results were shared with the primary author only after their analyses were complete.

³The National Academy of Kinesiology's multifactorial ranking system includes nine faculty and seven student indices of varying weights. Journal publications (20%) contribute the most to the ranking, followed by federally funded grants (15%), nonfederal external grants (8%), editorial board memberships (6%), books (5%), presentations (5%), student Graduate Record Examination scores (quantitative = 5%, verbal = 5%), post-doctoral employment (4%), employment in the field (3%), internal research grants (3%), National Academy Fellows (2%), national Fellows (2%), selectivity (2%), and yield (2%).

⁴The National Research Council (2010) also recently produced an evaluation of 41 doctoral programs in Kinesiology. The evaluation was based on 21 different criteria with ranges given for each criterion. Unfortunately, and though not dismissing the recognition bestowed upon the field by its inclusion in the National Research Council's report or the potential usefulness of the report for specific academic programs (Thomas et al., 2007), it has limited comparative utility in the present study.