following information: frequency of SED data use; whether SED data were used to fulfill specific federal, state, or institutional reporting requirements; whether users aggregate or average data across fields of study, racial/ethnic categories, or year (and their preferences for these types of aggregation); and uses of other SED reports. NSF received responses from 373 (43 percent) of the 871 sample units.1
The major findings of the web-based survey were that most respondents (81 percent) use the Interagency Summary Report, half are REG tables users, and 25 percent are users of other SED data products. Although REG tables users and Interagency Summary Report users examine race/ethnicity/gender data across the range of degree fields, over 70 percent said they focus more on the degree counts of women and underrepresented minorities.
There is a core of long-term users of these data; nearly 30 percent of respondents stated that they have been using SED data products for more than 10 years. They use SED data for a variety of purposes; fulfilling state, federal, or institutional requirements is an important, but not the dominant, reason for using SED data. Approximately 30 percent of respondents aggregate SED data (across fields of degree or across years) for some reporting purposes, often for completing reports to be provided to various offices in NSF itself. Not surprisingly, about two-thirds of respondents prefer the option of a 2-year aggregation of SED data to a 3- or 4-year aggregation for disclosure protection (Simko and Dominguez, 2008).
Shirley McBay, president of the Quality Education for Minorities (QEM) Network, reported on her organization’s project to organize, schedule, and conduct eight outreach meetings with representatives of minority-serving doctoral degree-granting institutions, leading institutional producers of doctoral degrees to minority recipients, and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) professional organizations. The meetings took place between mid-October and early December 2008 in geographically dispersed locations in order to reach a range of institutions and associations. A sample of job titles of the institutional participants includes assistant vice chancellor, associate vice provost for academic affairs, associate vice president for research, dean, and director of institutional research. Job titles of participants from associations include president, ex-