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
An Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Humanities Committee on an Assessment of Quaiity-Related Characteristics of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States Lyle V. Jones, Gardner Lindsey, and Porter E. Coggeshall, Editors Sponsored by The Conference Board of Assoc American Council of Learned Societies American Council on Education National Research Council Social Science Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1982 iated Research Councils

OCR for page R1
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, whose members are drawn from the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Council on Education, the National Research Council, and the Social Science Research Council. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors and editors according to procedures approved by each of the four member Councils of the Conference Board. The Conference Board of Associated Research Councils was created to foster discussion of issues of mutual interest; to determine the extent to which a common viewpoint on such issues prevails within the academic community of the United States; to foster specific investigations when so desired; and, when the Conference Board finds joint, common, or other action desirable, to make recommendations to the appropriate Councils. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 82-62101 International Standard Book Number 0-309-03333-0 Available from NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20418 Copyright ~ 1982 by the National Academy of Sciences No part of this publication may be reproduced without permission of the National Academy of Sciences except for official use by the United States Government. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgrnen~ In conducting this assessment the committee has benefited from the support and advice of many individuals and organizations. The assessment was conducted under the aegis of the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, and special thanks go to Roger Heyns, Robert M. Lumiansky, Jack W. Peltason, Frank Press, Kenneth Prewitt, Eleanor Sheldon, John William Ward, and the late Philip Handler for their efforts in overseeing the planning and execution of this project. Financial support was provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the National Academy of Sciences. Without the combined support from these organizations the project would not have been undertaken. The committee appreciates the excellent cooperation it received from the staff officers at these organizations--including John Sawyer and James Morris at Mellon; Mariam Chamberlain, Gladys Chang Hardy, and Sheila Biddle at Ford; Albert Rees and James Koerner at Sloan; Helen Gee at NIH; and Bernard Stein at NSF. Some supplemental funds to enhance the study were furnished by the Association of American Geographers, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychological Foundation. The committee is most appreciative of the cooperation it received from individuals in the 228 universities participating in the assessment. In particular we thank the university presidents and chancellors who agreed to participate and offered the assistance of staff members at their institutions; the graduate deans, department chairmen, and many other university personnel who helped to compile information about the research-doctorate programs at their own institutions; and the nearly 5,000 faculty members who took the time to complete and return reputational survey forms. This assessment would not have been feasible without the Participation of these - individuals. Nor would it have been complete without the suggestions from many individuals within and outside the academic community who reviewed the study plans and committee reports. The committee also acknowledges the contributions of Francis Narin and Paul R. McAllister, whose innovative work in the area of publication productivity in science and engineering fields has been a valuable resource. We thank H. Roberts Coward and his colleagues at . ~

OCR for page R1
the Institute for Scientific Information for their help in compiling publications data as well as William Batchelor and John James at NIH and David Staudt at NSF for their help in acquiring data on individual research grant awards. Within the National Research Council many individuals have assisted in the planning and completion of this project. Robert A. Alberty, Harrison Shull, and W. K. Estes, former chairmen of the Commission on Human Resources, and William C. Kelly, Executive Director of the commission (now the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel), offered assistance and helpful counsel during all phases of the study. Lindsey R. Harmon and C. Alan Boneau contributed greatly to the planning of the assessment. To Porter E. Coggeshall, Study Director, the committee expresses thanks for a job extremely well done. His ability to translate the committee's directions into compiled data and analyses must be given a large share of the credit for the completion of this project. He has been ably assisted by Prudence W. Brown, who supervised the data collection activities; Dorothy G. Cooper, who provided excellent secretarial support; George A. Boyce, whose programming expertise was invaluable; and Kathleen Drennan and Linda Dix, who helped in preparing final copy of the manuscript. Committee on an Assessment of Quality-Related Characteristics of Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States TV

OCR for page R1
Preface The genius of American higher education is often said to be in the close association of training and research--that is, in the nation's research-doctorate programs. Consequently, we are not surprised at the amount of worried talk about the quality of the research doctorate, for deterioration at that level will inevitably spread to wherever research skills are needed--and that indeed is a far-flung network of laboratories, institutes, firms, agencies, bureaus, and departments. What might surprise us, however, is the imbalance between the putative national importance of research-doctorate programs and the amount of sustained evaluative attention they themselves receive. The present assessment, sponsored by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils--comprised of the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Council on Education, the National Research Council (NRC), and the Social Science Research Council--seeks to correct the imbalance between worried talk and systematic study. In this effort the Conference Board continues a tradition pioneered by the American council on education, which in 1966 published An Assessment of OualiEv in Graduate Education. the report of a study conducted by Allan M. Cartter, and in 1970 published A Rating of Graduate Proarams. be Kenneth D. Roose and Charles J. Andersen. The Cartter and Roose-Andersen reports have been widely used and frequently cited. Some years after the release of the Roose-Andersen report, it was decided that the effort to assess the quality of research-doctorate programs should be renewed, and the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils agreed to sponsor an assessment. The Board of Directors of the American Council on Education concurred with the notion that the next study should be issued under these broader auspices. The NRC agreed to serve as secretariat for a new study. The responsible staff of the NRC earned the appreciation of the Conference Board for the skill and dedication shown during the course of securing funding and implementing the study. Special mention should also be made of the financial contribution of the National Academy of Sciences which, by supplementing funds available from external sources, made it possible for the study to get under way. To sponsor a study comparing the quality of programs in 32 v

OCR for page R1
disciplines and from more than 200 doctorate-granting universities is to invite critics, friendly and otherwise. Such was the fate of the previous studies; such has been the fate of the present study. Scholarship, for tunate~y, can put criticism to creative use and has done so in this project. The study committee appointed by the Conference Board reviewed the criticisms of earlier efforts to assess research-doctorate programs, and it actively solicited criticisms and suggestions for improvements of its own design. Although constrained by limited funds, the committee applied state-of-the-art methodology in a design that incorporated the lessons learned from previous studies as well as attending to many critics of the present effort. Not all criticism has thus been stilled; nor could it ever be. Additional criticisms will be voiced by as many persons as begin to use the results of this effort in ways not anticipated by its authors. These criticisms will be welcome. The Conference Board believes that the present study, building on earlier criticisms and adopting a multidimensional approach to the assessment of research- doctorate programs, represents a substantial improvement over past reports. Nevertheless, each of the diverse measures used here has its own limitations, and none provides a precise index of the quality of a program for educating students for careers in research. No doubt a future study, taking into account the weaknesses as well as strengths of this effort, will represent still further improvement. One mark of success for the present study would be for it to take its place in a continuing series, thereby contributing to the indicator base necessary for informed policies that will maintain and perhaps enhance the quality of the nation's research-doctorate programs. For the more immediate future the purposes of this assessment are to assist students and student advisers seeking the best match possible between individual career goals and the choice of an advanced degree program; to serve scholars whose study site is higher education and the nation's research enterprise; and to inform the practical judgment of the administrators, funders, and policymakers responsible for protecting the quality of scholarly education in the United States. A remarkably hard-working and competent group, whose names appear on page vii of this report, oversaw the long process by which this study moved from the planning stage to the completion of these reports. The Conference Board expresses its warmest thanks to the members of its committee and especially to their co-chairmen, Lyle V. Jones and Gardner Lindzey. V1 Conference Board of Associated Research Councils

OCR for page R1
Committee on an Assessment of Quality-Related Cha racteris~dcs of Research-Doctorate Programs In me United States LYLE V. JONES {Co-Chairman), Director of the L. L. Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill GARDNER LINDZEY (Co-Chairman), Director, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, California PAUL A. ALBRECHT, Vice-President and Dean, Claremont Graduate School MARCUS ALEXIS, Department of Economics, Northwestern University ROBERT M. BOCK, Dean of the Graduate School, University of Wisconsin at Madison PHILIP E. CONVERSE, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan JAMES H. M. HENDERSON, Department of Plant Physiology, Tuskegee Institute of Alabama ERNEST S. KUH, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, University of California, Berkeley WINFRED P. LEHMANN, Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin SAUNDERS MAC LANE, Department of Mathematics, University of Chicago NANCY S. MILBURN, Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Jackson College for Women, Tufts University LINCOLN E. MOSES, Department of Statistics, Stanford University JAMES C. OLSON, President, University of Missouri C. K. N. PATEL, Director, Physical Research Laboratory, Bell Laboratories MICHAEL J. PELCZAR, JR., President, The Council of Graduate Schools in the United States JEROME B. SCHNEEWIND, Department of Philosophy, Johns Hopkins University DUANE C. SPRIESTERSBACH, Vice-President, Educational Development and Research, University of Iowa HARRIET A. ZUCKERMAN, Sociology Department, Columbia University Study Director PORTER E. COGGESHALL, Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council ~ V11

OCR for page R1
Contend I ORIGINS OF STUDY AND SELECTION OF PROGRAMS Prior Attempts to Assess Quality in Graduate Education, 3 Development of Study Plans, 6 Selection of Disciplines and Programs to be Evaluated, 9 II METHODOLOGY Program Size, 18 Characteristics of Graduates, 19 Reputational Survey Results, 22 University Library Size, 27 Measures of Research Support and Publication Records, 27 Analysis and Presentation of the Data, 28 III ART HISTORY PROGRAMS 1 15 31 IV CLASSICS PROGRAMS 47 V ENGLISH hANGUAGE AND LITERATURE PROGRAMS VI FRENCH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE PROGRAMS 61 83 VII GERMAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE PROGRAMS 99 VTII LINGUISTICS PROGRAMS 115 IX MUSIC PROGRAMS X PHILOSOPHY PROGRAMS XI SPANISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE PROGRAMS XII SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Summary of the Results, 182 Correlations Among Measures, 184 Analysis of the Survey Response, 189 Interpretation of Reputational Survey Ratings, 202 Comparison with Results of the Roose-Andersen Study, 203 Future Studies, 214 ~ V111 129 145 163 181

OCR for page R1
MINORITY STATEMENT APPENDIXES Letter to Institutional Coordinators and Accompanying Survey Form (Measures 01-03), 221 B Survey of Earned Doctorates (Measures 04-07), 228 C Letter to Evaluators and Specimen of the Instrument Used in the Reputational Survey {Measures 08-11), 231 D The ARL Library Index (Measure 12), 237 E Conference on the Assessment of Quality of Graduate Education Programs--Participants and Summary, 239 F Planning Committee for the Study of the Quality of Research- Doctorate Programs, 243 G Region and State Codes for the United States and Possessions, 245 LIST OF FIGURES 4.2 4.3 217 3.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--41 programs in art history, 42 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years {measure 02~--41 programs in art history, 43 3.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 41 programs in art history, 45 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--35 programs in classics, 56 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--35 programs in classics, 57 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 35 programs.in classics, 59 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--106 programs in English language & literature, 78 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists {measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--106 programs in English language & literature, 79 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 106 programs in English language & literature, 81 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--58 programs in French language & literature, 94 6.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--58 programs in French language & literature, 95 1X

OCR for page R1
12.1 12.2 6.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 58 programs in French language & literature, 97 7.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--48 programs in German language & literature, 110 -~.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years {measure 021--48 programs in German language & literature, 111 7.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 48 programs in German language & literature, 113 8.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--35 programs in linguistics, 124 8.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--35 programs in linguistics, 125 8.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 35 programs in linguistics, 127 9.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--53 programs in music, 140 9.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years {measure 02~--53 programs in music, 141 9.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 53 programs in music, 143 10.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--77 programs in philosophy, 158 10.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02) --77 programs in philosophy, 159 10.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 77 programs in philosophy, 161 11.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members {measure 01~--69 programs in Spanish language & literature, 176 11.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years {measure 02~--64 programs in Spanish language & literature, 177 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 69 programs in Spanish language & literature, 179 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--26 programs in art history, 205 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--30 programs in classics, 206 12.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus x

OCR for page R1
mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--82 programs in English language & literature, 207 12.4 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--49 programs in French language & literature, 208 12.5 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--36 programs in German language & literature, 209 12.6 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--26 programs in linguistics, 210 12.7 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--34 programs in music, 211 12.8 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--58 programs in philosophy, 212 12.9 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--52 programs in Spanish language & literature, 213 LIST OF TABLES 2.1 2.2 1.1 Number of Research-Doctorates Awarded in Humanities Disciplines, FY1976-78, 10 Number of Programs Evaluated in Each Discipline and the Total FY1976-80 Doctoral Awards from These Programs, 12 Measures Compiled on Individual Research-Doctorate Programs, 17 Percentage of FY1975-79 Doctoral Recipients with Definite Commitments for Employment Outside the Academic Sector, 22 2.3 Survey Response by Discipline and Characteristics of Evaluator, 23 3.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Art History, 34 3.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Art History, 40 3.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 41 Programs in Art History, 41 3.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Art History, 44 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Classics, 50 4.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Classics, 54 4.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 35 Programs in Classics, 55 4.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Classics, 58 5.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in English Language & Literature, 64 5.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--English Language & Literature, 76 5.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 106 Programs in English Language & Literature, 77 x~

OCR for page R1
10.4 11.1 11.2 5.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in English Language & Literature, 80 6.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in French Language & Literature, 86 6.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--French Language & Literature, 92 6.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 58 Programs in French Language & Literature, 93 6.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in French Language & Literature, 96 7.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in German Language & Literature, 102 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--German Language & Literature, 108 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 48 Programs in German Language & Literature, 109 7.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in German Language & Literature, 112 8.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Linguistics, 118 8.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Linguistics, 122 8.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 35 Programs in Linguistics, 123 8.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Linguistics, 126 9.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Music, 132 9.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Music, 138 9.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 53 Programs in Music, 139 9.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Music, 142 10.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Philosophy, 148 10.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Philosophy, 156 10.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 77 Programs in Philosophy, 157 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Philosophy, 160 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Spanish Language & Literature, 166 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Spanish Language & Literature, 174 11.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 69 Programs in Spanish Language & Literature, 175 11.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Spanish Language & Literature, 178 12.1 Mean Values for Each Program Measure, by Discipline, 183 12.2 Correlations of the Number of Program Graduates (Measure 02) with Other Measures, by Discipline, 186 12.3 Correlations of the Survey Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty (Measure 08) with Other Measures, by Discipline, 187 xii

OCR for page R1
12.5 12.6 12.7 12.4 Distribution of Responses to Each Survey Item, by Discipline, 190 Survey Item Response Rates, by Discipline and Mean Rating on Measure 08, 192 Correlations Between Two Sets of Average Ratings from Two Randomly Selected Sets of Evaluators in the Humanities, 193 Comparison of Mean Ratings for 11 Mathematics Programs Included in Two Separate Survey Administrations, 195 12.8 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Evaluator's Familiarity with Work of Faculty, 196 12.9 Item Response Rate on Measure (08), by Selected Characteristics of Survey Evaluators in the Humanities, 197 12.10 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Type of Survey Form Provided to Evaluator, 198 12.11 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Evaluator's Proximity to Region of Program, 200 12.12 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Evaluator's Institution of Highest Degree, 201 ~ X111

OCR for page R1