Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-558cb97cc8-fjc52 Total loading time: 0.448 Render date: 2022-10-07T05:08:49.626Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": true, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Ranking Departments: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2007

Natalie Masuoka
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Bernard Grofman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Scott L. Feld
Affiliation:
Purdue University

Extract

There are many different ways to develop rankings of Ph.D.-granting academic departments. Perhaps the most common method is reputational: we simply ask knowledgeable scholars in the discipline to provide their rankings and aggregate these in some fashion. Other ways involve more “objective indicators.” But, of course, departments have multiple attributes, e.g., we might be interested in how good a department is as a place to get a Ph.D., or we might be interested simply in the research record of its faculty, etc. Thus, we might want to use different indicators to measure different aspects of the department.

Type
THE PROFESSION
Copyright
© 2007 The American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ballard, Michael, and Neil Mitchell. 1998. “The Good, the Better and the Best in Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 31 (4): 8268.Google Scholar
Cartter, Allan. 1966. An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.
Garand, James, and Kristy Grady. 1999. “Ranking Political Science Departments: Do Publications Matter?PS: Political Science and Politics 32 (1): 1136.Google Scholar
Gaus, John M. 1934. “The Teaching Personnel in American Political Science Departments: A Report of the Sub-Committee on Personnel of the Committee on Policy to the American Political Science Association, 1934.” American Political Science Review 28 (4): 72665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Robert, and Randolph Silver. 1996. “Rating the Ranking: An Analysis of the National Research Council's Appraisal of Political Science Ph.D. Programs.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29 (2): 15560.Google Scholar
Katz, Richard, and Munroe Eagles. 1996. “Ranking Political Science Programs: A View from the Lower Half.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29 (2): 14954.Google Scholar
Kenniston, Hayward. 1959. Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. 1986. “Ranking Graduate Departments in the 1980s: Toward Objective Qualitative Indicators.” PS: Political Science and Politics 19 (3): 65161.Google Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Bernard Grofman, and Janet Campagna. 1989. “The Political Science 400: Citations by Ph.D. Cohort and by Ph.D.-Granting Institution.” PS: Political Science and Politics 22 (2): 25870.Google Scholar
Lowry, Robert, and Brian Silver. 1996. “A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats: Political Science Department Reputation and the Reputation of the University.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29 (2): 1617.Google Scholar
Masuoka, Natalie, Bernard Grofman, and Scott L. Feld. 2007a. “The Political Science 400: A 20-Year Update.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (January): 13345.Google Scholar
Masuoka, Natalie, Bernard Grofman, and Scott L. Feld. 2007b. “The Production and Placement of Political Science Ph.D.s, 1902–2000.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (April): 36170.Google Scholar
McCormick, James, and E. Lee Bernick. 1982. “Graduate Training and Productivity: A Look at Who Publishes.” Journal of Politics 44 (1): 21227.Google Scholar
McCormick, James, and Tom Rice. 2001. “Graduate Training and Research Productivity in the 1990s: A Look at Who Publishes.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (3): 67580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Arthur, Charles Tien, and Andrew Peebler. 1996. “Department Rankings: An Alternative Approach.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29 (4): 70417.Google Scholar
Morgan, David, and Michael Fitzgerald. 1977. “Recognition and Productivity among American Political Science Departments.” Western Political Quarterly 30 (3): 34250.Google Scholar
Munro, William. 1930. “Appendix VII: Instruction in Political Science in Colleges and Universities.” American Political Science Review 24 (1): 12745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Research Council. 1995. Research Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Orwell, George. 1946. Animal Farm. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company
Rice, Tom, James McCormick, and Benjamin Bergmann. 2002. “Graduate Training, Current Affiliation and Publishing Books in Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 35 (4): 7515.Google Scholar
Robey, John. 1979. “Political Science Departments: Reputations versus Productivity.” PS: Political Science and Politics 12 (2): 2029.Google Scholar
Rudder, Catherine. 1983. “The Quality of Graduate Education in Political Science: A Report on the New Rankings.” PS: Political Science and Politics 16 (1): 4853.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Benjamin M., and Matthew M. Chingos. 2007. “Ranking Doctoral Programs by Placement: A New Method.” PS: Political Science and Politics 40 (July): 5239.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1963. “Trends in American Political Science: Some Analytical Notes.” American Political Science Review 57: 9338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1964. American Political Science: A Profile of the Discipline. New York: Atherton Press.
Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1967. The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. New York: Boston, Allyn and Bacon.
U.S. Department of Education. 2005. Institutional Postsecondary Education Data System Completions Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 1958. Doctorate Production in United States Universities, 1936–1956. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 1978. A Century of Doctorates: Data Analyses of Growth and Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
U.S. National Science Foundation. 2005. Survey of Earned Doctorates Records File. Washington, D.C: National Science Foundation.
U.S. News, and World Report. 2005. America's Best Graduate Schools, 2005 Online Edition. Available at: www.usnews.com/usnews/edu/grad/rankings/phdhum/brief/polrank_brief.php.
6
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Ranking Departments: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Ranking Departments: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Ranking Departments: A Comparison of Alternative Approaches
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *