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
A Guide to the Methodology of the
National Research Council Assessment of
Doctorate Programs
Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Paul W. Holland, Charlotte V. Kuh, and James A. Voytuk, editors
Committee to Assess Research-Doctorate Programs
Board on Higher Education and Workforce
Policy and Global Affairs
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu
PREPUBLICATION COPY—UNEDITED PROOFS
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 project was supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy (Grant DE-FG02-07ER35880), the National
Institutes of Health (Grant N01-OD-4-2139, TO#170), the National Science Foundation (Grant
OIA-0540823), the National Research Council, and contributions from 222 U.S. universities.
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
Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu.
Suggested citation: National Research Council. 2009. Assessment of Research Doctoral
Programs in the United States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Copyright 2009 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
PREPUBLICATION COPY—UNEDITED PROOFS
OCR for page R3
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. Ralph J. Cicerone 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 engineers. Dr.
Charles M. Vest 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 advising 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 engineering
communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of
Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively,
of the National Research Council.
www.national-academies.org
PREPUBLICATION COPY—UNEDITED PROOFS
OCR for page R4
OCR for page R5
Committee to Assess Research-Doctorate Programs
Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Ph.D. (Chair), Professor of Astronomy, Department of Astrophysical
Sciences, and Provost Emeritus, Princeton University
Virginia S. Hinshaw, Ph.D. (Vice Chair), Chancellor, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa
Elton D. Aberle, Ph.D., Dean and Director Emeritus, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences,
University of Wisconsin
Norman M. Bradburn, Ph.D., Tiffany and Margaret Blake Distinguished Service Professor and
Provost Emeritus, University of Chicago, Senior Fellow, National Opinion Research Center
John Brauman, Ph.D., J.G. Jackson-C.J. Jackson Professor of Chemistry, Emeritus, Department
of Chemistry, Stanford University
Jonathan R. Cole, Ph.D., John Mitchell Mason Professor of the University, and Provost
Emeritus, Columbia University
Paul W. Holland, Ph.D., Frederic M. Lord Chair in Measurement and Statistics (retired),
Educational Testing Service
Eric Kaler, Ph.D., Provost and Senior Vice President, Stony Brook University
Earl Lewis, Ph.D., Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, Emory
University
Joan Lorden, Ph.D., Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University of North
Carolina at Charlotte
Carol Lynch, Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate School Emerita, University of Colorado Boulder and
Director of Professional Master’s Programs, Council of Graduate Schools
Robert M. Nerem, Ph.D., Parker H. Petit Professor and Director, Institute for Bioengineering
and Bioscience, Georgia Institute of Technology
Suzanne Ortega, Ph.D., Provost, University of New Mexico
Robert Spinrad, Retired Vice President, Technology Strategy, Xerox Corporation (resigned
November 2007)
Catharine R. Stimpson, Dean and University Professor, Graduate School of Arts and Science,
New York University
Richard Wheeler, Vice Provost, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Staff
Charlotte Kuh, Ph.D., Study Director, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, and Deputy
Executive Director, Division on Policy and Global Affairs
Peter Henderson, Ph.D., Director, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
James Voytuk, Ph.D., Senior Program Officer, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
John Sislin, Ph.D., Program Officer, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
Kara Murphy, Research Associate, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
Sabrina Hall, Program Associate, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
Rae Allen, Administrative Assistant, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
v
PREPUBLICATION COPY—UNEDITED PROOFS
OCR for page R6
Data Panel for the Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs
Norman M. Bradburn, Ph.D., (Chair), Tiffany and Margaret Black Distinguished Service
Professor and Provost Emeritus, University of Chicago
Richard Attiyeh, Ph.D., Vice Chancellor for Research, Dean of Graduate Studies, and Professor
of Economics Emeritus, University of California, San Diego
Scott Bass, Ph.D., Provost, The American University
Julie Carpenter-Hubin, M.A., Director of Institutional Research and Planning, The Ohio State
University
Janet L. Greger, Ph.D., Vice Provost for Strategic Planning, University of Connecticut (retired)
Dianne Horgan, Ph.D., Associate Dean of the Graduate School, University of Arizona
Marsha Kelman, M.B.A., Associate Vice President, Policy and Analysis, Office of the
President, University of California
Karen Klomparens, Ph.D., Dean of the Graduate School, Michigan State University
Bernard F. Lentz, Ph.D., Vice Provost for Institutional Research, Drexel University
Harvey Waterman, Ph.D., Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Graduate School-New
Brunswick, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Ami Zusman, Ph.D., Coordinator, Graduate Education Planning & Analysis,
Office of the President, University of California (retired)
vi
PREPUBLICATION COPY—UNEDITED PROOFS
OCR for page R7
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This methodology guide is being released in advance of the Assessment of Research Doctorate
Programs to educate those who will be using the assessment in the details of its construction.
Although it builds on earlier NRC assessments, the methodology of assessment has been
significantly altered and the range of data used in constructing rankings has been considerably
expanded. At the urging of members of the graduate community, the Committee to Assess
Research Doctorate Programs has produced this guide because the methodology is statistically
complex and it is important to know what to look for when the range of rankings for each
program is released.
A data-based study as large as the one described in this methodology guide would be impossible
without the time, care, and assistance of hundreds of people in universities who gathered and
checked data for each of their programs to assist with the Assessment of Research Doctorate
Programs. We will not name all these people, but the committee is extraordinarily grateful to
them. The questionnaires were developed with the assistance of the committee’s Data Panel,
chaired by Norman Bradburn, whose membership appears following the list of the committee.
We are also grateful to the staff of Mathematica Policy Research, our data contractor, which not
only collected the data, but helped us with questionnaire wording, sampling plans, and model
implementation. Geraldine Mooney and David Edson were the able leaders of a large MPR
team.
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 National Academies’
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 standards for objectivity, evidence, and
responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain
confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John Bailar,
University of Chicago; John Burris, Burroughs Wellcome Fund; Michael Brick, Westat, Inc.;
Joseph Cerny, University of California, Berkeley; Karen DePauw, Virginia Polytechnic Institute;
Robeson Taj Frazier, University of California, Berkeley; Andrew Gelman, Columbia University;
Claudia Goldin, Harvard University; Valen Johnson, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center; Sheryl
Lightfoot, University of Minnesota; Daniel Mote, University of Maryland; Risa Palm, State
University of New York; William Press, University of Texas; Raul Ramos, University of
vii
PREPUBLICATION COPY—UNEDITED PROOFS
OCR for page R8
Houston; Stephen Stigler, University of Chicago; Dawn Terkla, Tufts University; Andrew
Wachtel, Northwestern University; George Walker, Florida International University; John Wiley,
University of Wisconsin; and Lilian Wu, International Business Machines Corporation.
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
Stephen Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University and Lyle Jones, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. Appointed by the National Academies, they were responsible for making certain
that an independent 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 committee and the institution.
Finally, we wish to thank our funders, the National Science Foundation (OIA-0540823), the
National Institutes of Health (N01-OD-4-2139, TO#170), the U.S. Department of Energy (DE-
FG02-07ER35880), the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (2004-3-20), the Andrew W. Mellon
Foundation, and the President’s Committee of the National Research Council; and the 220
universities that participated and contributed financial support to the assessment.
viii
PREPUBLICATION COPY—UNEDITED PROOFS
OCR for page R9
Contents
1 Introduction 1
2 The Data and How They Were Obtained 5
3 Ratings in Specific Dimensions: The
Dimensional Measures 11
4 The Overall Rating of Program Quality 14
5 An Example 19
Appendixes
A. A Technical Discussion of the Process of Rating and Ranking
Programs in a Field 32
B. Questionnaires 53
C. Number of Programs by Field 165
D. Programs and Institutions in a Field 169
E. List of Variables 171
F. Weights and Variables for the Dimensional Measures 175
G. Dimensional Measures for Programs in Economics 181
H. Number of Ratings for Programs in Each Field 185
I. Committee Biographies 189
ix
PREPUBLICATION COPY—UNEDITED PROOFS
OCR for page R10
