Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © 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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1
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 R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1

OCR for page R1
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 R1