Hostname: page-component-75d7c8f48-ck798 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-24T01:22:59.545Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ranking Departments: A Comparison of AlternativeApproaches

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2007

Natalie Masuoka ,
Bernard Grofman  and
Scott L. Feld
Natalie Masuoka
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Bernard Grofman
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
Scott L. Feld
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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

Information

Type
THE PROFESSION
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , July 2007 , pp. 531 - 537
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ballard, Michael, and Neil Mitchell. 1998. “The Good, the Better and the Best in Political Science.” PS: Political Science and Politics 31 (4): 826–8.Google Scholar
Cartter, Allan. 1966. An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education.Google Scholar
Garand, James, and Kristy Grady. 1999. “Ranking Political Science Departments: Do Publications Matter?” PS: Political Science and Politics 32 (1): 113–6.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): 726–65.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): 155–60.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): 149–54.Google Scholar
Kenniston, Hayward. 1959. Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.Google Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. 1986. “Ranking Graduate Departments in the 1980s: Toward Objective Qualitative Indicators.” PS: Political Science and Politics 19 (3): 651–61.CrossRefGoogle 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): 258–70.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): 161–7.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): 133–45.CrossRefGoogle 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): 361–70.Google Scholar
McCormick, James, and E. Lee Bernick. 1982. “Graduate Training and Productivity: A Look at Who Publishes.” Journal of Politics 44 (1): 212–27.CrossRefGoogle 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): 675–80.Google Scholar
Miller, Arthur, Charles Tien, and Andrew Peebler. 1996. “Department Rankings: An Alternative Approach.” PS: Political Science and Politics 29 (4): 704–17.Google Scholar
Morgan, David, and Michael Fitzgerald. 1977. “Recognition and Productivity among American Political Science Departments.” Western Political Quarterly 30 (3): 342–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, William. 1930. “Appendix VII: Instruction in Political Science in Colleges and Universities.” American Political Science Review 24 (1): 127–45.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1995. Research Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Orwell, George. 1946. Animal Farm. New York: Harcourt, Brace and CompanyGoogle Scholar
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): 751–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robey, John. 1979. “Political Science Departments: Reputations versus Productivity.” PS: Political Science and Politics 12 (2): 202–9.CrossRefGoogle 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): 48–53.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): 523–9.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1963. “Trends in American Political Science: Some Analytical Notes.” American Political Science Review 57: 933–8.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1964. American Political Science: A Profile of the Discipline. New York: Atherton Press.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, and Joseph Tanenhaus. 1967. The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism. New York: Boston, Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Education. 2005. Institutional Postsecondary Education Data System Completions Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 1958. Doctorate Production in United States Universities, 1936–1956. Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. 1978. A Century of Doctorates: Data Analyses of Growth and Change. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
U.S. National Science Foundation. 2005. Survey of Earned Doctorates Records File. Washington, D.C: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar