Excerpt

The Committee to Examine the Methodology to Assess Research-Doctorate Programs was presented with the task of looking at the methodology used in the 1995 National Research Council (NRC) Study, Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change (referred to hereafter as the “1995 Study”). The Committee was asked to identify and comment on both its strengths and its weaknesses. Where weaknesses were found, it was asked to suggest methods to remedy them.

The Committee recommends that the NRC conduct a new assessment of research-doctorate programs.

Contents

• The National Academies
• Committee to Examine the Methodology for the Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs
• Panel on Taxonomy and Interdisciplinarity
• Panel on Quantitative Measures
• Panel on Reputational Measures and Data Representation
• Panel on Student Processes and Outcomes
• Acknowledgments
• Executive Summary
  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
  • DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS
• 1. Introduction
  • A SHORT HISTORY OF THE ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS
  • ASSESSMENT OF DOCTORAL PROGRAMS AND ITS RELATION TO CALLS FOR REFORM
  • PLAN OF THE REPORT
• 2. How the Study Was Conducted
  • LAYING THE GROUNDWORK
  • THE STUDY ITSELF
• 3. Taxonomy
  • CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION
  • NAMING ISSUES
  • FINDINGS FROM THE PILOT TRIALS
  • EMERGING FIELDS
• 4. Quantitative Measures
  • MEASURABLE CHARACTERISTICS OF DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
  • PILOT TRIAL FINDINGS
  • RECOMMENDATIONS
• 5. Student Education and Outcomes
  • INTRODUCTION
  • GUIDING PRINCIPLES
  • INFORMATION FROM STUDENTS
  • PILOT TRIAL FINDINGS
  • CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
• 6. Reputation and Data Presentation
  • INTRODUCTION
  • THE MEASUREMENT OF SCHOLARLY QUALITY OF PROGRAM FACULTY: PRACTICES AND CRITICISMS
  • IS SCHOLARLY REPUTATION WORTH MEASURING?
  • ADDRESSING ISSUES RELATED TO REPUTATIONAL MEASURES
  • MODELS OF REPUTATION
  • FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • THE EFFECTS OF THE FAMILIARITY OF PEER RATERS WITH PROGRAMS ON THEIR RATINGS
• 7. General Conclusions and Recommendations
  • SHOULD ANOTHER ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH-DOCTORATE PROGRAMS BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL?
  • THE FORM OF THE PROPOSED STUDY
• References
• Appendixes
  • A Committee and Panel Member Biographical Sketches
  • B Program-Initiation Consultation with Organizations
  • C Meetings and Participants
  • D Sample Questionnaires
  • E Taxonomy of Fields and Their Subfields
  • F Fields for Ph.D.s Granted During 1996–2001
  • G Technical and Statistical Techniques

Assisted by James A. Voytuk

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 National 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.

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.