Click for next page ( 16


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 15
Methodology Quality . . . you know what it is, yet you don't know what it is. But that's self-contradictory. But some things are better than others, that is, they have more quality. But when you try to say what the quality is, apart from the things that have it, it all goes poof' m ere's nothing to talk about. But if you can't say what Quality is, how do you know what it is, or how do you know that it even exists? If no one knows what it is, then for all practical purposes it doesn't exist at all. But for all practical purposes it really does exist. What else are the grades based on? Why else would people pay fortunes for some things and throw others in the trash pile? Obviously some things are better than others . . . but what's the "betternessn? . . . So round and round you go, spinning mental wheels and nowhere finding anyplace to get traction. What the hell is Quality? What is it? Robert M. Pirsig Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance Both the planning committee and our own study committee have given careful consideration to the types of measures to be employed in the assessment of research-doctorate programs. me committees recog- nized that any of the measures that might be used is open to criticism and that no single measure could be expected to provide an entirely satisfactory index of the quality of graduate education. With respect to the use of multiple criteria in educational assessment, one critic has commented: PA description of the measures considered may be found in the third chapter of the planning committee's report, along with a discussion of the relative merits of each measure. 15

OCR for page 15
16 At best each is a partial measure encompassing a frac- tion of the large concept. On occasion its link to the real [world] is problematic and tenuous. Moreover, each measure [may contain] a load of irrelevant super- fluities, "extra baggage" unrelated to the outcomes under study. By the use of a number of such measures, each contributing a different facet of information, we can limit the effect of irrelevancies and develop a more rounded and truer picture of program outcomes.2 Although the use of multiple measures alleviates the criticisms directed at a single dimension or measure, it certainly will not satisfy those who believe that the quality of graduate programs cannot be represented by quantitative estimates no matter how many dimensions they may be intended to represent. Furthermore, the usefulness of the assessment is dependent on the validity and reliability of the criteria on which programs are evaluated. The decision concerning which measures to adopt in the study was made primarily on the basis of two factors: (1) (2) the extent to which a measure was judged to be related to the quality of research-doctorate programs and the feasibility of compiling reliable data for making national comparisons of programs in particular disciplines. Only measures that were applicable to a majority of the disciplines to be covered were considered. In reaching a final decision the study committee found the ETS study,3 in which 27 separate variables were examined, especially helpful, even though it was recognized that many of the measures feasible in institutional self-studies would not be available in a national study. The committee was aided by the many suggestions received from university administrators and others within the academic community. Although the initial design called for an assessment based on approximately six measures, the committee concluded that it would be highly desirable to expand this effort. A total of 12 measures (listed in Table 2.1) have been utilized in the assessment of research-doctor- ate programs in art history, classics, English language and literature, French language and literature, German language and literature, lin- guistics, music, philosophy, and Spanish language and literature. For seven of the measures data are available describing most, if not all, 2 C. H. Weiss, Evaluation Research: Methods of Assessing Program Effectiveness, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972, pe 56. 3 See Me Jo Clark et ale (1976) for a description of these variables e

OCR for page 15
17 TABLE 2.1 Measures Compiled on Individual Research-Doctorate Programs Program Sizei 01 Reported number of faculty members in the program, December 1980. 02 Reported number of program graduates in last five years (July 1975 through June 1980~. 03 Reported total number of full-time and part-time graduate students enrolled in the program who intend to earn doctorates, December 1980. Characteristics of Graduates2 04 Fraction of FY1975-79 program graduates who had received some na- tional fellowship or training grant support during their graduate education. 05 Median number of years from first enrollment in graduate school to receipt of the doctorate--FY1975-79 program graduates.3 06 Fraction of FY1975-79 program graduates who at the time they com- pleted requirements for the doctorate reported that they had made definite commitments for postgraduation employment. 07 Fraction of FY1975-79 program graduates who at the time they com- pleted requirements for the doctorate reported that they had made definite commitments for postgraduation employment in Ph.D.-grant- ing universities. Reputational Survey Results4 08 Mean rating of the scholarly quality of program faculty. 09 Mean rating of the effectiveness of the program in educating re- search scholars/scientists. 10 Mean rating of the improvement in program quality in the last five years. 11 Mean rating of the evaluators' familiarity with the work of the program's faculty. University Library Sizes 12 Composite index describing the library size in the university in which the program is located, 1979-80. based on information provided to the committee by the participating universities. 2 Based on data compiled in the NRC's Survey of Earned Doctorates. 3 In reporting standardized scores and correlations with other vari- ables, a shorter time-to-Ph.D. is assigned a higher score. 4 Based on responses to the committee's survey conducted in April 1981. SBased on data compiled by the Association of Research Libraries. 1

OCR for page 15
18 of the humanities programs included in the assessment. For five mea- sures the coverage is less complete but encompasses at least a majority of the programs in all but two disciplines. The actual number of programs evaluated on every measure is reported in the second table in each of the next nine chapters. m e 12 measures describe a variety of aspects important to the operation and function of research-doctorate programs--and thus are relevant to the quality and effectiveness of programs in educating humanists for careers in research. However, not all of the measures may be viewed as "global indices of quality. n Some, such as those re- lating to program size, are best characterized as "program descriptors" that, although not dimensions of quality per se, are thought to have a significant influence on the effectiveness of programs. Other mea- sures, such as those relating to university library size and support for graduate training, describe some of the resources generally recog- nized as being important in maintaining a vibrant program in graduate education. Measures derived from surveys of faculty peers, on the other hand, have traditionally been regarded as indices of the overall quality of graduate programs. Yet these too are not true measures of quality. We often settle for an easy-to-gather statistic, per- fectly legitimate for its own limited purposes, and then forget that we haven't measured what we want to talk about. Consider, for instance, the reputation approach of ranking graduate departments: We ask a sample of physics professors (say) which the best physics departments are and then tabulate and report the results. The ~best" departments are those that our respondents say are the best. Clearly it is useful to know which are the highly regarded departments in a given field, but prestige (which is what we are mea- suring here) isn't exactly the same as ~ualitY.4 To be sure, each of the 12 measures reported in this assessment has its own set of limitations. In the sections that follow an explanation is provided of how each measure has been derived and its particular limitations as a descriptor of research-doctorate programs. PROGRAM SIZE Information was collected from the study coordinators at each university on the names and ranks of program faculty, doctoral student enrollment, and number of Ph.D. graduates in each of the past five years (FY1976-80~. Each coordinator was instructed to include on the 4John Shelton Reed, "How Not To Measure What a University Does, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. 22, No. 12, May 11, 1981, p. 56.

OCR for page 15
19 faculty list those individuals who, as of December 1, 1980, held academic appointments (typically at the rank of assistant, associate, and full professor) and who participated significantly in doctoral education. Emeritus and adjunct members generally were not to be included. Measure 01 represents the number of faculty identified in a program. Measure 02 is the reported number of graduates who earned Ph.D. or equivalent research doctorates in a program during the period from July 1, 1975, through June 30, 1980. Measure 03 represents the total number of full-time and part-time students reported to be enrolled in a program in the fall of 1980, who intended to earn research doctorates. All three of these measures describe different aspects of program size. In previous studies program size has been shown to be highly correlated with the reputational ratings of a program, and this relationship is examined in detail in this report. It should be noted that since the information was provided by the institutions participating in the study, the data may be influenced by the subjective decisions made by the individuals completing the forms. For example, some institutional coordinators may be far less restric- tive than others in deciding who should be included on the list of program faculty. To minimize variation in interpretation, detailed instructions were provided to those filling out the forms.5 Measure 03 is of particular concern in this regard since the coordinators at some institutions may not have known how many of the students currently enrolled in graduate study intended to earn doctoral degrees. CHARACTERISTICS OF GRADUATES One of the most meaningful measures of the success of a research- doctorate program is the performance of its graduates. How many go on to lead productive careers in research and/or teaching? Unfortunately, reliable information on the subsequent employment and career achieve- ments of the graduates of individual programs is not available. In the absence of this directly relevant information, the committee has relied on four indirect measures derived from data compiled in the NRC's Sur- vey of Earned Doctorates.6 Although each measure has serious limita- tions (described below), the committee believes it more desirable to include this information than not to include data about program grad- uates. In identifying program graduates who had received their doctorates in the previous five years (FY1975-79) ,7 the faculty lists furnished by the study coordinators at universities were compared with the names of dissertation advisers (available from the NRC survey). The latter sA copy of the survey form and instructions sent to study coordina- tors is included in Appendix A. 6A copy of the questionnaire used in this survey is found in Appen- dix B. 7 Survey data for the FY1980 Ph.D. recipients had not yet been com- piled at the time this assessment was undertaken.

OCR for page 15
20 source contains records for virtually all individuals who have earned research doctorates from U.S. universities since 1920. m e institu- tion, year, and specialty field of Ph.D. recipients were also used in determining the identity of program graduates. It is estimated that this matching process provided information on the graduate training and employment plans of more than 90 percent of the FY1975-79 graduates from the humanities programs. In the calculation of each of the four measures derived from the NRC survey, program data are reported only if the survey information is available on at least 10 graduates. Consequently, in the disciplines with smaller programs--art history and classics--only about half the programs are included in these measures, whereas more than 97 percent of the English programs are included. Measure 04 constitutes the fraction of FY1975-79 graduates of a program who had received at least some national fellowship support, including federal fellowships and traineeships, Wood row Wilson fellowships, or fellowships/traineeships from other U.S. national organizations. One might expect the more selective programs to have a greater proportion of students with national fellowship support-- especially "portable fellowships. n Although the committee considered alternative measures of student ability (e.g., Graduate Record Examination scores, undergraduate grade point averages), reliable information of this sort was unavailable for a national assessment. It should be noted that the relevance of the fellowship measure varies considerably among disciplines. In the biomedical sciences a substan- tial fraction of the graduate students are supported by training grants and fellowships; in the humanities the majority are supported by teaching assistantships and their own resources. Measure 05 is the median number of years elapsed from the time program graduates first enrolled in graduate school to the time they received their doctoral degrees. For purposes of analysis the committee has adopted the conventional wisdom that the most talented students are likely to earn their doctoral degrees in the shortest periods of time--hence, the shorter the median time-to-Ph.D., the higher the standardized score that is assigned. Although this measure has frequently been employed in social science research as a proxy for student ability, one must regard its use here with some skepticism. It is quite possible that the length of time it takes a student to complete requirements for a doctorate may be significantly affected by the explicit or implicit policies of a university or department. For example, in certain cases a short time-to-Ph.D. may be indicative of less stringent requirements for the degree. Furthermore, previous studies have demonstrated that women and members of minority groups, for reasons having nothing to do with their abilities, are more likely than male Caucasians to interrupt their graduate education or to be For a detailed analysis of this subject, see Dorothy M. Gilford and Joan Snyder, Women and Minority Ph.D.'s in the 1970's: A Data Book, National Academy Sciences, Washington, 1977.

OCR for page 15
21 enrolled on a part-time basis. As a consequence, the median time-to-Ph.D. may be longer for programs with larger fractions of women and minority students. Measure 06 represents the fraction of FY1975-79 program graduates who reported at the time they had completed requirements for the doc- torate that they had signed contracts or made firm commitments for postgraduation employment (including postdoctoral appointments as well as other positions in the academic or nonacademic sectors) and who r~r^'r;~ Who ?~=m~c! ^F Ohm; ~ rot ;.,^ ~mr~1~_+ =-~~-~~ -God &~ A- -~_^ ~~- ~ vie =~.V~=e Although this measure is likely to vary discipline by discipline according to the availability of employment opportunities, a program's standing relative to other programs in the same discipline should not be affected by this variation. In theory, the graduates with the greatest promise should also have the easiest time in finding jobs. However, the measure is influenced by a variety of other factors, such as personal job preter- ences and restrictions in geographic mobility, that are unrelated to the ability of the individual. It also should be noted parenthetically that unemployment rates for doctoral recipients are quite low and that nearly all of the graduates seeking jobs find positions soon after completing their doctoral programs.9 Furthermore, first employment after graduation is by no means a measure of career achievement, which is what one would like to have if reliable data were available. Measure 07, a variant of measure 06, constitutes the fraction of FY1975-79 program graduates who indicated that they had made firm commitments for employment in Ph.D.-granting universities and who provided the names of their prospective employers. This measure may be presumed to be an indication of the fraction of graduates likely to pursue careers in academic research, although there is no evidence concerning how many of them remain in academic research in the long term. In many humanities disciplines the path from Ph.D. to junior faculty has traditionally been regarded as the road of success for the growth and development of research talent. The committee is well aware, of course, that in recent years increasing numbers of graduates are entering the nonacademic sectors but has relied on a measure that reflects only the academic side. In the engineering and physical science disciplines, this limitation is of greater concern than it is in the humanities disciplines--in which only about 1 of every 10 graduates with definite employment plans intends to take a job outside the academic environs (see Table 2.2~. The inclusion of measures 06 and 07 in this assessment has been an issue much debated by members of the committee; the strenuous objec- tions by three committee members regarding the use of these measures are expressed in the Minority Statement, which follows Chapter XII. 9For new Ph.D. recipients in science and engineering, the unemploy- ment rate has been less than 2 percent (see National Research Council, Postdoctoral Appointments and Disappointments, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1981, p. 313~.

OCR for page 15
22 TABLE 2.2 Percentage of FY1975-79 Doctoral Recipients with Definite Commitments for Employment Outside the Academic Sector* Art History 13 Classics 10 English Language & Literature 11 French Language & Literature 13 German Language & Literature 13 Linguistics 18 Music 10 Philosophy 8 Spanish Language & Literature 7 *Percentages are based on respondents to the NRC's Survey of Earned Doctorates who indicated that they had made firm commit- ments for postgraduation employment and who provided the names of their Prospective employers. - rnese percentages may be considered to be lower-bound estimates of the actual percentages of doctoral recipients employed outside the academic sector. REPUTATIONAL SURVEY RESULTS In April 1981, survey forms were mailed to a total of 1,689 faculty members in art history, classics, English language and literature, French language and literature, German language and literature, lin- guistics, music, philosophy, and Spanish language and literature. The evaluators were selected from the faculty lists furnished by the study coordinators at the 228 universities covered in the assessment. These evaluators constituted approximately 20 percent of the total faculty population--8,593 faculty members--in the humanities programs being evaluated (see Table 2.3~. m e survey sample was chosen on the basis of the number of faculty in a particular program and the number of doctorates awarded in the previous five years (FY1976-80~--with the stipulation that at least one evaluator was selected from every program In selecting the sample each faculty rank was represented in proportion to the total number of individuals hold- ing that rank, and preference was given to those faculty members whom the study coordinators had nominated to serve as evaluators. As shown in Table 2.3, 1,385 individuals, 82 percent of the survey sample in the humanities, had been recommended by study coordinators.~ Each evaluator was asked to consider a stratified random sample of covered in the assessment. MA detailed analysis of the survey participants in each discipline is given in subsequent chapters.

OCR for page 15
23 TABLE 2.3 Survey Response by Discipline and Characteristics of Evaluator Total Program Faculty N Discipline of Evaluator Survey Sample Total Respondents N N 96 , Ar t History 520 150 94 63 Classics 373 150 100 67 English Language & Literature 3,280 318 198 62 French Language & Literature 613 174 110 63 German Language & Literature 445 150 95 63 Linguistics 501 150 10 5 70 Music 1,080 159 69 43 Philosophy 1,087 231 157 68 Spanish Language & Literature 694 207 136 66 Faculty Rank Professor 4,330 880 582 66 Associate Professor 2,611 522 337 61 Assistant Professor 1,480 240 139 58 Other 172 17 6 35 Evaluator Selection Nominated by Institution 2,797 1,385 905 65 Other 5,796 304 159 52 Survey Form With Faculty Names N/A* 1, 518 964 64 Without Names N/A* 171 100 58 Total All Fields 8,593 1,689 1,064 63 *Not applicable e

OCR for page 15
24 no more than 50 research-doctorate programs in his or her discipline-- with programs stratified by the number of faculty members associated with each program. Every program was included on 150 survey forms. The set of programs to be evaluated appeared on each survey form in random sequence, preceded by an alphabetized list of all programs in that discipline that were being included in the study. No evaluator was asked to consider a program at his or her own institution. Ninety percent of the survey sample group were provided the names of faculty members in each of the programs to be evaluated, along with data on the total number of doctorates awarded in the last five years. The inclusion of this information represents a significant departure from the procedures used in earlier reputational assessments. For purposes of comparison with previous studies, 10 percent (randomly selected in each discipline) were not furnished any information other than the names of the programs. The survey items were adapted from the form used in the Roose- Andersen study. Prior to mailing, the instrument was pretested using a small sample of faculty members in chemistry and psychology. As a result, two significant improvements were made in the original survey design. A question was added on the extent to which the evaluator was familiar with the work of the faculty in each program. Responses to this question, reported as measure 11, provide some insight into the relationship between faculty recognition and the reputational standing of a program. Also added was a question on the evaluator's field of specialization--thereby making it possible to compare program evalu- ations in different specialty areas within a particular discipline. A total of 1,064 faculty members in the humanities--63 percent of those asked to participate--completed and returned survey forms (see Table 2.3~. Two factors probably have contributed to this response rate being approximately 12 percentage points below the rates reported in the Cartter and Roose-Andersen studies. 3 First, because of the considerable expense of printing individualized survey forms (each 25-30 pages), second copies were not sent to sample members not responding to the first mailing~4--as was done in the Cartter and Roose-Andersen efforts. Second, it is quite apparent that within the academic community there has been a growing dissatisfaction in recent years with educational assessments based on reputational measures. Indeed, this dissatisfaction was an important factor in the Conference This information was furnished to the committee by the study coor- dinators at the universities participating in the study. Evidence of the strength of the relationship is provided by corre- lations presented in Chapters ITI-XI, and an analysis of the relationship is provided in Chapter XII. ~ 3 To compare the response rates obtained in the earlier surveys, see Roose and Andersen, Table 28, p. 29. MA follow-up letter was sent to those not responding to the first mailing and a second copy was distributed to those few evaluators who specifically requested another form.

OCR for page 15
25 Board's decision to undertake a multidimensional assessment, and some faculty members included in the sample made known to the committee their strong objections to the reputational survey. As can be seen in Table 2.3, there is some variation in the re- sponse rates in the nine humanities disciplines. Of particular inter- est is the relatively high rate of response from linguists and the low rate from those in music--the latter is undoubtedly related to the difficulties encountered in identifying research-doctorate programs in music and in compiling comparable lists of faculty members involved in these programs. It is not surprising to find that the evaluators nom- inated by study coordinators responded more often than did those who had been selected at random. Also, those furnished the lists of pro- gram faculty and numbers of recent graduates completed the survey more often than did evaluators who were given the abbreviated form. Only small differences were found among the response rates of assistant, associate, and full professors. Each program was considered by an average of approximately 90 survey respondents from other programs in the same discipline. m e evaluators were asked to judge programs in terms of scholarly quality of program faculty, effectiveness of the program in educating research scholars/scientists, and change in program quality in the last five years.~5 m e mean ratings of a program on these three survey items constitute measures 08, 09, and 10. Evaluators were also asked to indicate the extent to which they were familiar with the work of the program faculty. The average of responses to this item constitutes measure 11. In making judgments about the quality of faculty, evaluators were instructed to consider the scholarly competence and achievements of the individuals. The ratings were furnished on the following scale: 5 Distinguished 4 Strong 3 Good 2 Adequate 1 Marginal 0 Not sufficient for doctoral education X Don't know well enough to evaluate In assessing the effectiveness of a program, evaluators were asked to consider the accessibility of faculty, the curricula, the instructional and research facilities, the quality of the graduate students, the per- formance of graduates, and other factors that contribute to a program's effectiveness. This measure was rated accordingly: 3 Extremely effective 2 Reasonably effective USA copy of the survey instrument and accompanying instructions are included in Appendix C.

OCR for page 15
26 1 Minimally effective 0 Not effective X Don't know well enough to evaluate Evaluators were instructed to assess change in program quality on the basis of whether there has been improvement in the last five years in both the scholarly quality of faculty and the effectiveness in educat- - ing research scholars/scientists. me following alternatives were provided: 2 Better than five years ago 1 Little or no change in last five years 0 Poorer than five years ago X Don't know well enough to evaluate Evaluators were asked to indicate their familiarity with the work of the program faculty according to the following scale: 2 Considerable familiarity 1 Some familiarity ~ Little or no familiarity In the computation of mean ratings on measures 08, 09, and 10, the ''don't know" responses were ignored. An average program rating based on fewer than 15 responses (excluding "don't know") is not reported. Measures 08, 09, and 10 are subject to many of the same criticisms that have been directed at previous reputational surveys. Although care has been taken to improve the sampling design and to provide eval- uators with some essential information about each program, the survey results merely reflect a consensus of faculty opinions. As discussed in Chapter I, these opinions may well be based on out-of-date informa- tion or be influenced by a variety of factors unrelated to the quality of the program. In Chapter XII a number of factors that may possibly affect the survey results are examined. In addition to these limita- tions, it should be pointed out that evaluators, on the average, were unfamiliar with almost one-fifth of the programs they were asked to consider. 6 AS might be expected, the smaller and less prestigious programs were not as well known, and for this reason one might have less confidence in the average ratings of these programs. For all four survey measures standard errors of the mean ratings are reported; they tend to be larger for the lesser known programs. me frequency of response to each of the survey items is discussed in Chapter XII. One additional comment should be made regarding the survey activ- ity. It should be emphasized that the ratings derived from the survey relent a program's standing relative to other programs in the same dis- ~ 6 See Table 12.4 in Chapter XII.

OCR for page 15
27 cipline and provide no basis for making cross-disciplinary comparisons. For example, the fact that a much larger number of English programs received "distinguished" ratings on measure 08 than did classics pro- grams indicates nothing about the relative quality of faculty in these two disciplines. It may depend, in part, on the total numbers of pro- grams evaluated in these disciplines; in the survey instructions it was suggested to evaluators that no more than 10 percent of the programs listed be designated as "distinguished." Nor is it advisable to com- pare the ratings of a program in one discipline with that of a program in another discipline because the ratings are based on the opinions of different groups of evaluators who were asked to judge entirely dif- ferent sets of programs. UNIVERSITY LIBRARY SIZE University library holdings are generally regarded as an important resource for students in graduate (and undergraduate) education. m e Association of Research Libraries (ARL) has compiled data from its academic member institutions and developed a composite measure of a university library's size relative to those of other ARL members. The ARL Library Index, as it is called, is based on 10 characteristics: volumes held, volumes added (gross), microform units held, current se- rials received, expenditures for library materials, expenditures for binding, total salary and wage expenditures, other operating expendi- tures, number of professional staff, and number of nonprofessional staff. 7 The 1979-80 index, which constitutes measure 12, is avail- able for 89 of the 228 universities included in the assessment (m ese 89 tend to be among the largest institutions.) m e limited coverage of this measure is a major shortcoming. It should be noted that the ARL index is a composite description of library size and not a quali- tative evaluation of the collections, services, or operations of the library. Also, it is a measure of aggregate size and does not take into account the library holdings in a particular department or disci- pline. Finally, although universities with more than one campus were instructed to include figures for the main campus only, some in fact may have reported library size for the entire university system. Whether this misreporting occurred is not known. MEASURES OF RESEARCH SUPPORT AND PUBLICATION RECORDS The committee's other four reports dealing with research-doctorate programs in the biological sciences, engineering, mathematical and physical sciences, and social sciences all present two additional measures pertaining to research support in individual programs and two measures pertaining to the publication records of program faculty and other staff. Comparable information for humanities programs are ~7See Appendix D for a description of the calculation of this index.

OCR for page 15
28 either unavailable or, in the committee's judgment, not relevant to an assessment of humanities programs, and consequently such information is not presented in this report. For example, data on the fraction of program faculty holding research grants from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration would not be meaningful in the humanities disciplines since very few faculty members receive support from any of these three sources (it was not feasible to compile information on research grant awards by other federal agencies). Data compiled by the National Science Foundation on total university expenditures for research and development in particular disciplines are not collected for any of the nine humanities disciplines. Finally, although counts could have been obtained on the numbers of recent articles authored by program faculty members in the humanities, the committee believes that such information would be misleading since it would not include the books or chapters of books authored by these faculty members. In the humanities disciplines books represent a major part of the publication effort, but reliable information on the authorship of books is not readily available. ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION OF THE DATA The next nine chapters present all of the information that has been compiled on individual research-doctorate programs in art history, classics, English language and literature, French language and litera- ture, German language and literature, linguistics, music, philosophy, and Spanish language and literature. Each chapter follows a similar format, designed to assist the reader in the interpretation of program data. me first table in a chapter provides a list of the programs evaluated in a discipline--including the names of the universities and departments or academic units in which programs reside--along with the full set of data compiled for individual programs. Programs are listed alphabetically according to name of institution, and both raw and standardized values are given for all measures. For the reader's con- venience an insert of information from Table 2.1 is provided which identifies each of the 12 measures reported in the table and indicates the raw scale used in reporting values for a particular measure. Standardized values, converted from raw values to have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10,~8 are computed for every measure so that comparisons can easily be made of a program's relative standing on different measures. Thus, a standardized value of 30 corresponds with a raw value that is two standard deviations below the mean for that measure, and a standardized value of 70 represents a raw value 1 R ~ VThe conversion was made from the precise raw value rather than from the rounded value reported for each program. Thus, two programs may have the same reported raw value for a particular measure but different standardized values.

OCR for page 15
29 two standard deviations above the mean. While the reporting of values in standardized form is convenient for comparing a particular program's standing on different measures, it may be misleading in interpreting actual differences in the values reported for two or more programs-- especially when the distribution of the measure being examined is highly skewed. For example, the numbers of FY1976-80 program graduates (measure 02) from four English programs are reported in Table 5.1 as follows: Program Raw Value Standardized Value A B C D 38 11 39 20 42 30 45 Although programs C and D have many times the number of graduates as have programs A and B. the differences reported on a standardized scale appear to be small. Thus, the reader is urged to take note of the raw values before attempting to interpret differences in the standardized values given for two or more programs. The initial table in each chapter also presents estimated standard errors of mean ratings derived from the four survey items (measures 08-11~. A standard error is an estimated standard deviation of the sample mean rating and may be used to assess the stability of a mean rating reported for a particular program.~9 For example, one may assert {with .95 confidence) that the population mean rating would lie within two standard errors of the sample mean rating reported in this assessment. No attempt has been made to establish a composite ranking of pro- grams in a discipline. Indeed, the committee is convinced that no single measure adequately reflects the quality of a research-doctorate program and wishes to emphasize the importance of viewing individual programs from the perspective of multiple indices or dimensions. The second table in each chapter presents summary statistics (i.e., number of programs evaluated, mean, standard deviation, and decile values) for each of the program measures.20 m e reader should find these statistics helpful in interpreting the data reported on in- ~9The standard error estimate has been computed by dividing the standard deviation of a program's ratings by the square root of the number of ratings. For a more extensive discussion of this topic the reader may want to refer to Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behav- ioral Research, Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, Inc., New York, 1973, Chapter 12. Readers should note that the estimate is a measure of the variation in response and by no means includes all possible sources of error. 20 Standardized scores have been computed from precise values of the mean and standard deviation of each measure and not the rounded values reported in the second table of a chapter.

OCR for page 15
30 dividual programs. Next is a table of the intercorrelations among the various measures for that discipline. This table should be of parti- cular interest to those desiring information about the interrelations of the various measures. The remainder of each chapter is devoted to an examination of results from the reputational survey. Included are an analysis of the characteristics of survey participants and graphical portrayals of the relationship of mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) with the number of faculty (measure 01) and the relationship of mean rating of program effectiveness {measure 09) with the number of graduates (measure 02~. A frequently mentioned criticism of the Roose-Andersen and Cartter studies is that small but distinguished programs have been penalized in the reputational ratings because they are not as highly visible as larger programs of comparable quality. The comparisons of survey ratings with measures of program size are presented as the first two figures in each chapter, and provide evidence about the number of small programs in each discipline that have received high reputational ratings. Since in each case the reputational rating is more highly correlated with the square root of program size than with the size measure itself, measures 01 and 02 are plotted on a square root scale. To assist the reader in inter- l preting results of the survey evaluations, each chapter concludes with a graphical presentation of the mean rating for every program of the scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) and an associated "confi- dence interval" of 1.5 standard errors. In comparing the mean ratings of two programs, if their reported confidence intervals of 1.S standard errors do not overlap, one may safely conclude that the program ratings are significantly different (at the .05 level of significance)--i.e., the observed difference in mean ratings is too large to be plausibly attributable to sampling error.2 2 The final chapter of this report gives an overview of the evalua- tion process in the nine humanities disciplines and includes a summary of general findings. Particular attention is given to some of the ex- traneous factors that may influence program ratings of individual evaluators and thereby distort the survey results. The chapter con- cludes with a number of specific suggestions for improving future assessments of research-doctorate programs. For a general discussion of transforming variables to achieve linear fits, see John W. Tukey, Exploring Data Analysis, Addison- Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1977. 2 2This rule for comparing nonoverlapping intervals is valid as long as the ratio of the two estimated standard errors does not exceed 2.41. (The exact statistical significance of this criterion then lies between .050 and .034.) Inspection of the standard errors reported in each discipline shows that for programs with mean ratings differing by less than 1.0 (on measure 08), the standard error of one mean very rarely exceeds twice the standard error of another.