Assessing research-doctorate programs: a methodology study

166 Pages·2003·6.23 MB·English

by  J. P. Ostriker, Charlotte V. Kuh, James A. Voytuk, National Research Council (U.S.). Committee to Examine the Methodology for the Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs

ASSESSING
RESEARCH–DOCTORATE
PROGRAMS
A METHODOLOGY STUDY
Jeremiah P. Ostriker and Charlotte V. Kuh, Editors
Assisted by James A. Voytuk
Committee to Examine the Methodology
for the Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs
Policy and Global Affairs Division
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
WASHINGTON, D.C.
www.nap.edu
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20001
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy
of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of
the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard
for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health Award# N01-OD-4-2139, Task Order
No. 107, received support from the evaluation set-aside Section 513, Public Health Act; the Na-
tional Science Foundation Award# DGE-0125255; the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation Grant No. 2001-
6-10, and the United States Department of Agriculture Award# 43-3AEM-1-80054 (USDA-4454).
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of
the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided
support for the project.
International Standard Book Number 0-309-09058-X (Book)
International Standard Book Number 0-309-52708-2 (PDF)
Library of Congress Control Number 2003113741
Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street,
N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; [phone] or [phone] (in the Washing-
ton metropolitan area); Internet, http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars
engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to
their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the
Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.
Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy
of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in
the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the
federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engi-
neers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services
of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of
the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its
congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues
of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the
broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advis-
ing the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineer-
ing communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine.
Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research
Council.
www.national-academies.org
COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE THE METHODOLOGY FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF
RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS
JEREMIAH P. OSTRIKER, Committee Chair, Princeton University; Cambridge University, UK
ELTON D. ABERLE, University of Wisconsin-Madison
JOHN I. BRAUMAN, Stanford University
GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Polytechnic University
WALTER COHEN, Cornell University
JONATHAN COLE, Columbia University
RONALD GRAHAM, University of California-San Diego
PAUL W. HOLLAND, Educational Testing Service
EARL LEWIS, University of Michigan
JOAN F. LORDEN, University of North Carolina-Charlotte
LOUIS MAHEU, University of Montréal
LAWRENCE B. MARTIN, Stony Brook University
MARESI NERAD, University of Washington
FRANK SOLOMON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
CATHARINE R. STIMPSON, New York University
Board on Higher Education and Workforce Liaison
JOHN D. WILEY, University of Wisconsin-Madison
NRC Staff
CHARLOTTE KUH, Deputy Executive Director, Policy and Global Affairs Division, and Study
Director
PETER HENDERSON, Director, Board on Higher Education and Workforce
JAMES VOYTUK, Senior Project Officer
HERMAN ALVARADO, Research Associate
TERESA BLAIR, Senior Project Assistant
EDVIN HERNANDEZ, Program Associate
ELAINE LAWSON, Program Officer
ELIZABETH SCOTT, Office Assistant
EVELYN SIMEON, Administrative Associate
v
PANEL ON TAXONOMY AND INTERDISCIPLINARITY
WALTER COHEN, Panel Co-Chair, Cornell University
FRANK SOLOMON, Panel Co-Chair, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
ELTON D. ABERLE, University of Wisconsin-Madison
RICHARD ATTIYEH, University of California-San Diego
GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Polytechnic University
LEONARD K. PETERS, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
ROBERT F. JONES, Association of American Medical Colleges
PANEL ON QUANTITATIVE MEASURES
CATHARINE R. STIMPSON, Panel Chair, New York University
RONALD GRAHAM, University of California-San Diego
MARSHA KELMAN, University of Texas, Austin
LAWRENCE B. MARTIN, Stony Brook University
JEREMIAH P. OSTRIKER, Princeton University; Cambridge University, UK
CHARLES E. PHELPS, University of Rochester
PETER D. SYVERSON, Council of Graduate Schools
PANEL ON REPUTATIONAL MEASURES AND DATA PRESENTATION
JONATHAN COLE, Panel Co-Chair, Columbia University
PAUL HOLLAND, Panel Co-Chair, Educational Testing Service
JOHN BRAUMAN, Stanford University
LOUIS MAHEU, University of Montréal
LAWRENCE MARTIN, Stony Brook University
DONALD B. RUBIN, Harvard University
DAVID SCHMIDLY, Texas Tech University
PANEL ON STUDENT PROCESSES AND OUTCOMES
JOAN F. LORDEN, Panel Chair, University of North Carolina-Charlotte
ADAM FAGEN, Harvard University
GEORGE KUH, Indiana University, Bloomington
EARL LEWIS, University of Michigan
MARESI NERAD, University of Washington
BRENDA RUSSELL, University of Illinois-Chicago
SUSANNA RYAN, Indiana University, Bloomington
vi
Acknowledgments
This study has benefited enormously from the advice of standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to
countless students, faculty, administrators, and researchers the study charge. The review comments and draft manu-
in government and industry who have sent us e-mail, espe- script remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
cially concerning the taxonomy and our questionnaires. The deliberative process.
Council of Graduate Schools, the National Association of We wish to thank the following individuals for their
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the National review of this report: Leslie Berlowitz, American Academy
Academy of Sciences, the GREAT Group of the American of Arts and Sciences; Terrance Cooper, University of
Association of Medical Colleges, and the Association of Tennessee; Nancy Diamond, Pennsylvania State University;
American Universities all invited us to their meetings when Edward Hiler, Texas A&M University; Louis Lanzerotti,
the study was in its early stages and helped us to formulate Bell Laboratories, Lucent Technologies; Edward Lazowska,
the major issues the Committee needed to address. Nancy University of Washington; Brendan Maher, Harvard Uni-
Diamond, Ron Ehrenberg, and the late Hugh Graham also versity; Risa Palm, University of North Carolina-Chapel
were helpful to us in the early stages. Hill; C. Kumar Patel, Pranalytica, Inc.; Gerald Sonnenfeld,
We owe an immense debt to our pilot site universities and Morehouse School of Medicine; Stephen Stigler, University
their graduate deans, institutional researchers, and faculty of Chicago; Kathleen Taylor (Retired), General Motors
who helped us differentiate between the desirable and the Corporation; E. Garrison Walters, Ohio Board of Regents;
feasible. These are: Florida State University, Michigan State Pauline Yu, American Council of Learned Societies; and
University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, The University James Zuiches, Washington State University.
of California-San Francisco, The University of Maryland, Although the reviewers listed above have provided many
The University of Southern California, The University of constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked
Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and Yale University. to endorse the conclusions or recommendations, nor did they
We are grateful to the National Research Council Staff: see the final draft of the report before its release. The review
Herman Alvarado, Teresa Blair, Edvin Hernandez, Evelyn of this report was overseen by Ronald Ehrenberg, Cornell
Simeon, and Elizabeth Scott. They made our meetings run University, and Lyle Jones, University of North Carolina-
smoothly, helped produce the report, and amassed the data Chapel Hill. Appointed by the National Research Council,
without which the Committee would not have been able to they were responsible for making certain that an indepen-
do its work. Irene Renda at Princeton University and dent examination of this report was carried out in accordance
Jeanette Gilbert at the University of Cambridge also assisted with institutional procedures and that all review comments
these efforts by ably supporting the Committee’s Chair. were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final
This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals content of this report rests entirely with the authoring com-
chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, mittee and the institution.
in accordance with procedures approved by the NRC’s Finally, we wish to thank our funders: the National Insti-
Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent tutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Alfred
review is to provide candid and critical comments that will P. Sloan Foundation, and the United States Department of
assist the institution in making its published report as sound Agriculture. Without their support, both financial and con-
as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional ceptual, this report would not have been written.
vii
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
1 INTRODUCTION 9
2 HOW THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED 15
3 TAXONOMY 19
4 QUANTITATIVE MEASURES 25
5 STUDENT EDUCATION AND OUTCOMES 31
6 REPUTATION AND DATA PRESENTATION 35
7 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 61
8 REFERENCES 65
9 APPENDIXES
A Biographical Sketches: Committee and Panels 69
B Program-Initiation Consultation with Organizations 79
C Meetings and Participants 83
D Sample Questionnaires 105
Institutions 106
Programs 109
Faculty 114
Students
Admitted-to-Candidacy Students 118
Five-Seven Years Post-Ph.D. Students 123
E Taxonomy of Fields and Their Subfields 129
F Fields for Ph.D.s Granted During 1996-2001 133
G Technical and Statistical Techniques
Alternate Ways to Present Rankings: Random Halves and Bootstrap 137
Correlates of Reputation Analysis 146
ix