Skip to main content

Assessing Research-Doctorate Programs A Methodology Study (2003) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

2. How the Study Was Conducted
Pages 15-18

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 15...
... Other suggested changes were to: · Attack the question of identifying interdisciplinary and emerging fields and revisit the taxonomy for the biological sciences, · Make an effort to measure educational process and outcomes directly, · Recognize that the mission of many programs went beyond training Ph.D.s to take up academic positions, · Provide quantitative measures that recognize differences by field in measures of merit, · Analyze how program size influences reputation, · Emphasize a rating scheme rather than numerical rankings, and · Validate the collected data. In the summer following the Planning Meeting, the presidents of the Conference Board of Associated Research Coun2Two examples of these studies were: Ehrenberg and Hurst (1998)
Read the entire page →
From page 16...
... They were joined by: Jules LaPidus, president, Council of Graduate Schools; Nils Hasselmo, president, Association of American Universities; arid Peter McGrath, president, National Association of State Universities and Larld Grant Colleges. 4Participants were: Jonathan Cole, Columbia University; Steven Fienberg, Carnegie-Mellon University; Jane Junn, Rutgers University; Donald Rubin, Harvard University; Robert Solow, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Rachelle Brooks and John Vaughn, Association of American Universities; Harnet Zuckerman, Mellon Foundation; and NRC staff.
Read the entire page →
From page 17...
... In addition, it explored effective methods for data collection. The following issues were also addressed: · Identification of scholarly productivity measures using publication and citation data, and the fields for which the measures are appropriate.
Read the entire page →
From page 18...
... Coordinators at the pilot sites then worked with their offices of institutional research and their department chairs to review the questionnaires and provide feedback to the NRC staff, who, in turn, revised the questionnaires. The pilot sites then administered theme Two of the pilot sites, Yale University and University of California-San Francisco, provided feedback on the questionnaires but did not participate in their actual administration.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • reputational measures
  • pilot sites
  • scholarly productivity
  • emerging fields
  • pilot trials

  • planning meeting
  • rachelle brooks
  • educational environment
  • american council
  • data presentation

  • graduate schools
  • university administrators
  • jane junn
  • citation data
  • student processes

  • agricultural sciences
  • state universities
  • grant colleges
  • assessment study
  • nrc staff

  • american universities
  • regional location
  • institutions volunteered
  • assessing quality
  • learned societies

  • program evaluation
  • student outcomes
  • panel investigated
  • developed questionnaires
  • outcomes developed


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.