LEADER 04347nam 2200733Ia 450 001 9910961601403321 005 20251017110101.0 010 $a9786610179466 010 $a9781280179464 010 $a1280179465 010 $a9780309527088 010 $a0309527082 035 $a(CKB)111087027008980 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000106691 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11127452 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000106691 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10111079 035 $a(PQKB)11246577 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL3375870 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10049176 035 $a(OCoLC)923259562 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3375870 035 $a(Perlego)4735581 035 $a(DNLM)1538892 035 $a(BIP)11791956 035 $a(EXLCZ)99111087027008980 100 $a20031120d2003 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aAssessing research-doctorate programs $ea methodology study /$fJeremiah 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, National Research Council of the National Academies 205 $a1st ed. 210 $aWashington, D.C. $cThe National Academies Press$dc2003 215 $axii, 165 p 300 $aBibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph 311 08$a9780309090582 311 08$a030909058X 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references. 327 $aFrontMatter -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- List of Tables and Charts -- Executive Summary -- 1 Introduction -- 2 How the Study Was Conducted -- 3 Taxonomy -- 4 Quantitative Measures -- 5 Student Education and Outcomes -- 6 Reputation and Data Presentation -- 7 General Conclusions and Recommendations -- References -- Appendixes -- Appendix A Committee and Panel Member Biographical Sketches -- Appendix B Program-Initiation Consultation with Organizations -- Appendix C Meetings and Participants -- Appendix D Sample Questionnaires -- Appendix E Taxonomy of Fields and Their Subfields -- Appendix F Fields for Ph.D.s Granted During 1996-2001 -- Appendix G Technical and Statistical Techniques -- Alternate Ways to Present Rankings: Random Halves and Bootstrap Methods -- Correlates of Reputation Analysis. 330 $aHow should we assess and present information about the quality of research-doctorate programs? In recommending that the 1995 NRC rankings in Assessing the Quality of Research-Doctorate Programs: Continuity and Change be updated as soon as possible, this study presents an improved approach to doctoral program assessment which will be useful to administrators, faculty, and others with an interest in improving the education of Ph.D.s in the United States. It reviews the methodology of the 1995 NRC rankings and recommends changes, including the collection of new data about Ph.D. students, additional data about faculty, and new techniques to present data on the qualitative assessment of doctoral program reputation. It also recommends revision of the taxonomy of fields from that used in the 1995 rankings. 606 $aResearch$zUnited States$xEvaluation 606 $aDoctor of philosophy degree$zUnited States$xEvaluation 606 $aScience$xStudy and teaching (Higher)$zUnited States$xEvaluation 606 $aEngineering$xStudy and teaching (Higher)$zUnited States$xEvaluation 606 $aHumanities$xStudy and teaching (Higher)$zUnited States$xEvaluation 615 0$aResearch$xEvaluation. 615 0$aDoctor of philosophy degree$xEvaluation. 615 0$aScience$xStudy and teaching (Higher)$xEvaluation. 615 0$aEngineering$xStudy and teaching (Higher)$xEvaluation. 615 0$aHumanities$xStudy and teaching (Higher)$xEvaluation. 676 $a507/.2/073 701 $aOstriker$b J. P$01126177 701 $aKuh$b Charlotte V$01126178 701 $aVoytuk$b James A$01126179 712 02$aNational Research Council (U.S.).$bCommittee to Examine the Methodology for the Assessment of Research-Doctorate Programs. 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910961601403321 996 $aAssessing research-doctorate programs$94361608 997 $aUNINA