The book “Assessing research-doctorate programs” by J. P. Ostriker, Charlotte V. Kuh, and James A. Voytuk provides a comprehensive overview of the methodology used to evaluate research-doctorate programs in the United States. The authors examine the strengths and weaknesses of the 1995 National Research Council (NRC) study, “Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change,” and make recommendations for improving the methodology in future assessments.
Strengths of the Book
The authors provide a thorough analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the 1995 NRC study, highlighting its wide acceptance, comprehensiveness, transparency, and temporal continuity. The book presents a well-organized and detailed discussion of the methodology used in the 1995 study, including its data collection and analysis methods. The authors provide a critical review of the study, highlighting areas where improvements can be made.
Weaknesses of the Book
One weakness of the book is that it assumes a level of familiarity with the 1995 NRC study. Making it less accessible to readers who are not already familiar with that work. The book also assumes a certain level of familiarity with academic research and terminology. Which may make it difficult for some readers to understand.
The authors provide several recommendations for improving the methodology used to evaluate research-doctorate programs. These recommendations include revising the taxonomy and list of subfields, using updated. More advanced data analysis techniques, and ensuring that the data collected are valid and reliable. The authors also recommend that any new assessment of research-doctorate programs should be designed to produce information. That is useful to a variety of stakeholders, including students, faculty members, university administrators, funding agencies, and policymakers.
“Assessing research-doctorate programs” by J. P. Ostriker, Charlotte V. Kuh, and James A. Voytuk provides a valuable resource for anyone interested in the methodology used to evaluate research-doctorate programs in the United States. The book provides a comprehensive analysis of the strengths. Weaknesses of the 1995 NRC study and offers recommendations for improving the methodology used in future assessments. While the book assumes a certain level of familiarity with the subject matter. It provides a detailed and accessible discussion of the topic. Overall, this book is a valuable resource for anyone interested in improving the evaluation of research-doctorate programs.