|
Items in cart [0] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
ASSESSING
RESEARCH DOCTORATE
PROGRAMS
A METHODOLOGY STUDY
Jeremiah P. Ostriker and Charlotte V. Huh, Editors
Assisted blames A. Vo,tak
Committee to Examine the Methoclology
for the Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs
Policy and Global Affairs Division
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
www.nap.edu
OCR for page R2
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard
for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health Award# N01-OD-4-2139, Task Order
No. 107, received support from the evaluation set-aside Section 513, Public Health Act; the Na-
tional Science Foundation Award# DGE-0125255; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Grant No.2001-
6-10, and the United States Department of Agriculture Award# 43-3AEM-1-80054 USDA-4454.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of
the authoress and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided
support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09058-X (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-52708-2 (PDF)
Library of Congress Control Number 2003113741
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street,
N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washing-
ton metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
Advisers to the Nation on Stienre, Engineering, and Medicine
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars
engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to
their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the
Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.
Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy
of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in
the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the
federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engi-
neers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services
of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of
the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its
congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues
of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the
broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advis-
ing the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineer-
ing communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research
Council.
www. nationa l-academies.org
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE THE METHODOLOGY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF
RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS
JEREMIAH P. OSTRIKER, Committee Chair, Princeton University; Cambridge University, UK
ELTON D. ABERLE, University of Wisconsin-Madison
JOHN I. BRAUMAN, Stanford University
GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Polytechnic University
WALTER COHEN, Cornell University
JONATHAN COLE, Columbia University
RONALD GRAHAM, University of California-San Diego
PAUL W. HOLLAND, Educational Testing Service
EARL LEWIS, University of Michigan
JOAN F. LORDEN, University of North Carolina-Charlotte
LOUIS MAHEU, University of Montreal
LAWRENCE B. MARTIN, Stony Brook University
MARESI NERAD, University of Washington
FRANK SOLOMON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
CATHARINE R. STIMPSON, New York University
Boarcl on Higher Eclucation and Workforce Liaison
JOHN D. WILEY, University of Wisconsin-Madison
NRC Staff
CHARLOTTE KUH, Deputy Executive Director, Policy and Global Affairs Division, and Study
Director
PETER HENDERSON, Director, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
JAMES VOYTUK, Senior Project Officer
HERMAN ALVARADO, Research Associate
TERESA BLAIR, Senior Project Assistant
EDVIN HERNANDEZ, Program Associate
ELAINE LAWSON, Program Officer
ELIZABETH SCOTT, Office Assistant
EVELYN SIMEON, Administrative Associate
v
OCR for page R6
PANEL ON TAXONOMY AND INTERDISCIPLINARITY
WALTER COHEN, Panel Co-Chair, Cornell University
FRANK SOLOMON, Panel Co-Chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ELTON D. ABERLE, University of Wisconsin-Madison
RICHARD ATTIYEH, University of California-San Diego
GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Polytechnic University
LEONARD K. PETERS, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
ROBERT F. JONES, Association of American Medical Colleges
PANEL ON QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
CATHARINE R. STIMPSON, Panel Chair, New York University
RONALD GRAHAM, University of California-San Diego
MARSHA KELMAN, University of Texas, Austin
LAWRENCE B. MARTIN, Stony Brook University
JEREMIAH P. OSTRIKER, Princeton University; Cambridge University, UK
CHARLES E. PHELPS, University of Rochester
PETER D. SYVERS ON, Council of Graduate Schools
PANEL ON REPUTATIONAL MEASURES AND DATA PRESENTATION
JONATHAN COLE, Panel Co-Chair, Columbia University
PAUL HOLLAND, Panel Co-Chair, Educational Testing Service
JOHN BRAUMAN, Stanford University
LOUIS MAHEU, University of Montreal
LAWRENCE MARTIN, Stony Brook University
DONALD B. RUBIN, Harvard University
DAVID SCHMIDLY, Texas Tech University
PANEL ON STUDENT PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES
JOAN F. LORDEN, Panel Chair, University of North Carolina-Charlotte
ADAM FAGEN, Harvard University
GEORGE KUH, Indiana University, Bloomington
EARL LEWIS, University of Michigan
MARESI NERAD, University of Washington
BRENDA RUSSELL, University of Illinois-Chicago
SUSANNA RYAN, Indiana University, Bloomington
vim
OCR for page R7
Acknowledgments
This study has benefited enormously from the advice of
countless students, faculty, administrators, and researchers
in government and industry who have sent us e-mail, espe-
cially concerning the taxonomy and our questionnaires. The
Council of Graduate Schools, the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the National
Academy of Sciences, the GREAT Group of the American
Association of Medical Colleges, and the Association of
American Universities all invited us to their meetings when
the study was in its early stages and helped us to formulate
the major issues the Committee needed to address. Nancy
Diamond, Ron Ehrenberg, and the late Hugh Graham also
were helpful to us in the early stages.
We owe an immense debt to our pilot site universities and
their graduate deans, institutional researchers, and faculty
who helped us differentiate between the desirable and the
feasible. These are: Florida State University, Michigan State
University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, The University
of California-San Francisco, The University of Maryland,
The University of Southern California, The University of
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Yale University.
We are grateful to the National Research Council Staff:
Herman Alvarado, Teresa Blair, Edvin Hernandez, Evelyn
Simeon, and Elizabeth Scott. They made our meetings run
smoothly, helped produce the report, and amassed the data
without which the Committee would not have been able to
do its work. Irene Renda at Princeton University and
Jeanette Gilbert at the University of Cambridge also assisted
these efforts by ably supporting the Committee's Chair.
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals
chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise,
in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC's
Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent
review is to provide candid and critical comments that will
assist the institution in making its published report as sound
as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional
. .
via
standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to
the study charge. The review comments and draft manu-
script remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their
review of this report: Leslie Berlowitz, American Academy
of Arts and Sciences; Terrance Cooper, University of
Tennessee; Nancy Diamond, Pennsylvania State University;
Edward Hiler, Texas A&M University; Louis Lanzerotti,
Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies; Edward Lazowska,
University of Washington; Brendan Maher, Harvard Uni-
versity; Risa Palm, University of North Carolina-Chapel
Hill; C. Kumar Patel, Pranalytica, Inc.; Gerald Sonnenfeld,
Morehouse School of Medicine; Stephen Stigler, University
of Chicago; Kathleen Taylor (Retired), General Motors
Corporation; E. Garrison Walters, Ohio Board of Regents;
Pauline Yu, American Council of Learned Societies; and
James Zuiches, Washington State University.
Although the reviewers listed above have provided many
constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked
to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they
see the final draft of the report before its release. The review
of this report was overseen by Ronald Ehrenberg, Cornell
University, and Lyle Jones, University of North Carolina-
Chapel Hill. Appointed by the National Research Council,
they were responsible for making certain that an indepen-
dent examination of this report was carried out in accordance
with institutional procedures and that all review comments
were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final
content of this report rests entirely with the authoring com-
mittee and the institution.
Finally, we wish to thank our funders: the National Insti-
tutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Alfred
P. Sloan Foundation, and the United States Department of
Agriculture. Without their support, both financial and con-
ceptual, this report would not have been written.
OCR for page R8
OCR for page R9
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 INTRODUCTION
2 HOW THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED
3 TAXONOMY
4 QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
STUDENT EDUCATION AND OUTCOMES
REPUTATION AND DATA PRESENTATION
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIXES
A Biographical Sketches: Committee and Panels
B Program-Initiation Consultation with Organizations
C Meetings and Participants
D Sample Questionnaires
Institutions
Programs
Faculty
Students
Admitted-to-Candidacy Students
Five-Seven Years Post-Ph.D. Students
Taxonomy of Fields and Their Subfields
Fields for Ph.D.s Granted During 1996-2001
Technical and Statistical Techniques
Alternate Ways to Present Rankings: Random Halves and Bootstrap
Correlates of Reputation Analysis
fix
9
15
19
25
31
35
61
65
69
79
83
105
106
109
114
118
123
129
133
137
146
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
List of Tables and Charts
TABLES
ES-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
6-1A
6-1B
6-2A
6-2B
CHARTS
6-1A
6-1B
6-2A
6-2B
Recommended Fields for Inclusion, 7
Characteristics for Selected Universities, 18
Taxonomy Comparison Committee and 1995 Study, 21
Data Recommended for Inclusion in the Next Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs, 27
Interquartile Range of Program Rankings in English Language and Literature Random Halves, 54
Interquartile Range of Program Rankings in English Language and Literature Bootstrap, 55
Interquartile Range of Program Rankings in Mathematics Random Halves, 56
Interquartile Range of Program Rankings in Mathematics Bootstrap, 58
Interquartile Range of Program Rankings in English Language and Literature Random Halves, 42
Interquartile Range of Program Rankings in English Language and Literature Bootstrap, 45
Interquartile Range of Program Rankings in Mathematics Random Halves, 48
Interquartile Range of Program Rankings in Mathematics Bootstrap, 51
x~
OCR for page R12
