Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market
Impact in
- Education 424
- Journal
- ResearchSPAce (Bath Spa University)
In The Last Decade
doi.org/w90883868 →Countries where authors are citing Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market
This map shows the geographic impact of Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market more than expected).
Fields of papers citing Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market
This network shows the impact of Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market.
About Devolution and Choice in Education: The School, the State and the Market
This paper, published in 1998, received 533 indexed citations . Written by Geoff Whitty, Sally Power and David Halpin. It is primarily cited by scholars working on Education (424 citations), Political Science and International Relations (218 citations), Sociology and Political Science (175 citations), Information Systems and Management (44 citations) and Demography (40 citations). Published in ResearchSPAce (Bath Spa University).
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.
This paper is also available at doi.org/w90883868.