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 Uniter! States: Soft Behamoral Sciences Committee on an Assessment of Quality-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 Associated Research Councils American Council of Learned Societies American Council on Education National Research Council Social Science Research Council NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 1982

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 investiga- tions 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 82-62699 International Standard Book Number 0-309-03342-X 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 reporduced 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
Acknowledgment In conducting this assessment the committee has benefited from the support and advice of many individuals and organizations. The assess- ment was conducted under the aegis of the Conference Board of Associ- ated 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 ef- forts in overseeing the planning and execution of this project. Finan- cial 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 organiza- tions the project would not have been undertaken. The committee ap- preciates the excellent cooperation it received from the staff officers at these organizations--including John Sawyer and James Morris at Mel- lon; 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 fur- nished by the Association of American Geographers, the American Psycho- logical 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 assess- ment. 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 feasi- ble 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 com- mittee reports. The committee also acknowledges the contributions of Francis Narin and Paul R. McAllister, whose innovative work in the area of publica- tion productivity in science and engineering fields has been a valuable resource. We thank H. Roberts Coward and his colleagues at the Insti- iii

OCR for page R1
tute for Scientific Information for their help in compiling publica- tions 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 com- mission (now the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel), of- fered assistance and helpful counsel during all phases of the study. Lindsey R. Harmon and C. Alan Boneau contributed greatly to the plan- ning 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 col- lection activities; Dorothy G. Cooper, who provided excellent secre- tarial support; George A. Boyce, whose programming expertise was in- valuable; 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 1V

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 labora- tories, institutes, firms, agencies, bureaus, and departments. What might surprise us, however, is the imbalance between the putative na- tional importance of research-doctorate programs and the amount of sustained evaluative attention they themselves receive. The present assessment, sponsored by the Conference Board of Asso- ciated 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 cor- rect 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 Quality in Graduate Education, the report of a study conducted by Allan M. Cartter, and in 1970 published A Rating of Graduate Programs, by 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 Re- search Councils agreed to sponsor an assessment. The Board of Direc- tors 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 disci- plines and from more than 200 doctorate-granting universities is to v

OCR for page R1
invite critics, friendly and otherwise. Such was the fate of the pre- vious studies; such has been the fate of the present study. Scholar- ship, fortunately, 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 im- provements 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 at- tending 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 wel- come. 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 weak- nesses as well as strengths of this effort, will represent still fur- ther 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 main- tain 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, fenders, and policymakers responsible for protect- ing 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 Gard- ner Lindzey. Conference Board of Associated Research Councils V1

OCR for page R1
Cornm~ee on an Assessment of Quality-Related Characteristics 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 LINDSEY (Co-Chairman), Director, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences 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 vii

OCR for page R1
~VllL~ll~ 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, 8 II METHODOLOGY Program Size, 17 Characteristics of Graduates, 17 Reputational Survey Results, 20 University Library Size, 25 Research Support, 26 Publication Records, 27 Analysis and Presentation of the Data, 30 III ANTHROPOLOGY PROGRAMS IV ECONOMICS PROGRAMS 1 13 33 51 V GEOGRAPHY PROGRAMS 71 VI HISTORY PROGRAMS VII POLITICAL SCIENCE PROGRAMS VIII PSYCHOLOGY PROGRAMS 87 109 129 XI SOCIOLOGY PROGRAMS 155 X SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Summary of the Results, 176 Correlations Among Measures, 179 Analysis of the Survey Response, 187 Interpretation of Reputational Survey Ratings, 200 Comparison with Results of the Roose-Andersen Study, 201 Future Studies, 210 viii 175

OCR for page R1
MI NORITY STATEMENT B C F G 4.3 5.2 213 APPENDIXES A Letter to Institutional Coordinators and Accompanying Survey Form (Measures 01-03) Survey of Earned Doctorates (Measures 04-07) Letter to Evaluators and Specimen of the Instrument Used in the Reputational Survey (Measures 08-11) D The ARL Library Index {Measure 12) E Data on Faculty Research Support and R&D Expenditures {Measures 13 and 14) Data on Publication Records (Measures 17 and 18) Conference on the Assessment of Quality of Graduate Education Programs--Participants and Summary H Planning Committee for the Study of the Quality of Research-Doctorate Programs I Region and State Codes for the United States and Possessions Alternative Measures of Published Articles in Psychology L I ST OF FIGURES 217 224 227 233 235 240 241 245 246 247 3.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--70 programs in anthropol- ogy, 46 3.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research schol- ars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--70 programs in anthropology, 47 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 70 programs in anthropology, 49 4.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--93 programs in economics 66 4.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research schol- ars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--93 programs in economics, 67 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 93 programs in economics, 69 . Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members {measure 01~--49 programs in geography, 82 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research schol- ars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--49 programs in geography, 83 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 49 programs in geography, 87 6.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--102 programs in history, 104 1X -

OCR for page R1
9.2 6.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--102 programs in history, 105 6.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 102 programs in history, 107 7.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members {measure 01~--83 programs in political science, 124 7.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--82 programs in political science, 125 7.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 83 programs in political science, 127 8.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--150 programs in psychol- ogy, 150 8.2 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--141 programs in psychology, 151 8.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 150 programs in psychology, 153 9.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus number of faculty members (measure 01~--92 programs in sociology, 170 Mean rating of program effectiveness in educating research scholars/scientists (measure 09) versus number of graduates in last five years (measure 02~--92 programs in sociology, 171 9.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty in 92 programs in sociology, 173 10.1 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--38 programs in anthropology, 203 10.2 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--71 programs in economics, 204 10.3 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--31 programs in geography, 205 10.4 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--79 programs in history, 206 10.5 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty {measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--61 programs in political science, 207 10.6 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--103 programs in psychology, 208 10.7 Mean rating of scholarly quality of faculty (measure 08) versus mean rating of faculty in the Roose-Andersen study--65 programs in sociology, 209 x

OCR for page R1
LIST OF TABLES 1.1 Number of Research-Doctorates Awarded in Social and Behavioral Science Disciplines, FY1976-78, 10 1.2 Number of Programs Evaluated in Each Discipline and the Total FY1976-80 Doctoral Awards from These Programs, 12 2.1 Measures Compiled on Individual Research-Doctorate Programs in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15 2.2 Percentage of FY1975-79 Doctoral Recipients with Definite Commitments for Employment Outside the Academic Sector, 20 2.3 Survey Response by Discipline and Characteristics of Evaluator, 22 3.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Anthropology, 36 3.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Anthropology, 44 3.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 70 Programs in An- thropology, 45 3.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Anthropology, 48 4.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Economics, 54 4.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Economics, 64 4.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 93 Programs in Eco- nomics, 65 4.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Economics, 68 5.1 Program Measures {Raw and Standardized Values) in Geography, 74 5.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Geography, 80 5.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 49 Programs in Geog- raphy, 81 5.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Geography, 84 6.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in History, 90 6.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--History, 102 6.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 102 Programs in His- tory, 103 6.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in History, 106 7.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Political Sci- ence, 112 7.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Political Science, 122 7.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 83 Programs in Political Science, 123 7.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Political Science, 126 8.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Psychology, 132 8.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Psychology, 148 8.3 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 150 Programs in Psy- chology, 149 8.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Psychology, 152 9.1 Program Measures (Raw and Standardized Values) in Sociology, 158 9.2 Summary Statistics Describing Each Program Measure--Sociology, 168 X1

OCR for page R1
9.3 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 Intercorrelations Among Program Measures on 92 Programs in Sociology, 169 9.4 Characteristics of Survey Participants in Sociology, 172 10.1 Mean Values for Each Program Measure, by Discipline, 181 10.2 Correlations of the Number of Program Graduates {Measure 02) with Other Measures, by Discipline, 181 Correlations of the Survey Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Pro- gram Faculty (Measure 08) with Other Measures, by Discipline, 182 Correlations of the University Research Expenditures in a Discipline {Measure 14) with Other Measures, by Discipline, 185 Correlations of Measure 17 with Other Measures, by Discipline, 186 Distribution of Responses to Each Survey Item, by Discipline, 188 10.7 - 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 Survey Item Response Rates, by Discipline and Mean Rating on Measure 08, 189 10.8 Correlations Between Two Sets of Average Ratings from Two Ran- domly Selected Groups of Evaluators in the Social Sciences, 191 10.9 Comparison of Mean Ratings for Eleven Mathematics Programs In- cluded in Two Separate Survey Administrations, 193 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Evalu- ator's Familiarity with Work of Faculty, 194 Item Response Rate on Measure 08, by Selected Characteristics of Survey Evaluators in the Social Sciences, 195 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Type of Survey Form Provided to Evaluator, 196 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Evalu- ator's Proximity to Region of Program, 197 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Evalu- ator's Institution of Highest Degree, 198 Mean Ratings of Scholarly Quality of Program Faculty, by Evalu- ator's Field of Specialty within Psychology, 199 J.1 Alternative Measures of Published Articles in Psychology (Raw and Standardized Values), 248 xii