Quality of Department of Doctoral Training and Research Productivity

Quality of Department of Doctoral Training and Research ProductivityAuthor(s): Frank Clemente and Richard B. SturgisSource: Sociology of Education, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Spring, 1974), pp. 287-299Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112109 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 10:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSociology of Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.105.245.14 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:34:57 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2112109?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Quality of Department of Doctoral Training and Research Productivity*

Frank Clemente Pennsylvania State University

Richard B. Sturgis Western Illinois University

The impact of quality of department of doctoral training upon research productivity is analyzed. Using a measure developed by Glenn and Villemez (1970), the authors examined the publication records of 2,205 holders of the Ph.D. in sociology for the period 1940-1970. Quality of department is operationalized on the basis of Kenniston's 1959 study of graduate schools and the 1966 and 1970 studies sponsored by the American Council on Education. In addition, the authors developed a fourth rating system, a composite of the three studies, for the present research. Regression analysis is used to assess the predictive efficiency of the four rating schemes. Controls on possible confounding variables, e.g., sex and year of Ph.D., are instituted at appropriate points in the analysis. The standardized partial regression coefficients indicate that quality of department of doctoral training has less impact upon productivity than has generally been assumed. When the effects of extraneous variables are removed quality of department exerts little independent influence upon any of six operational indices of productivity. Possible reasons for the failure of the independent variable to emerge as a stronger predictor of publication output are suggested and briefly discussed.

At least six lines of reasoning in the literature of the sociology of education and the sociology of science suggest that the quality of the department where one receives one's professional training has an impact upon research productivity. Although it should be emphasized that these perspectives are not actually discrete, we

*Several unidentified readers for Sociology of Education made numerous helpful comments. Part of this paper was read at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, New Orleans, August, 1972. The research was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health. Professor Daryl Chubin pointed out an important error in an earlier version. 287

Sociology of Education 1974, Vol. 47 (Spring):287-299



288 Clemente and Sturgis

believe a more logical argument can be made by presenting each rationale separately:

1. Differential Socialization: Research by Pelz (See Hyman, 1969:32) indicates that high productivity is a function of a value system in which the scientist is oriented toward his discipline rather than to his immediate institutional affiliation. Since graduate school operates as the locale in which orientations to the discipline are internalized (Becker and Carper, 1956; Gottlieb, 1961), it seems reasonable to assume that scientists trained in highly productive departments produce more than scientists trained in less productive departments. Gaston (1970:719) has argued that graduate students in the more productive departments are exposed to a socialization process which enables them to get a head start in becoming successful scientists. Pease (1967) demonstrated that when a great deal of faculty encouragement to engage in professional activities was perceived, graduates published more than four times as many articles as they did when no such encouragement was perceived.

2. Access to Role Models: Related to the position that differential socialization exists between graduate departments is the argument that students trained in departments where productive scholars are available to serve as role models will be more productive than students educated at institutions where less successful scientists comprise the graduate faculty. Crane (1965:704) has presented data to support the following conclusion:

A productive scientist is ... more likely to transmit the appropriate skills and values to his students ... Those who had* [productive] sponsors were indeed more likely to be productive ... [and productive] sponsors were more likely to be located at [productive] graduate schools ... Scientists trained at [less productive] universities were less likely to have studied with highly productive scientists who could provide them with an adequate model. 3. Unequal Facilities and Funds: One of the stark realities of

science is that the amount of financial support available for research activity is an important determinant of productivity (Hagstrom, 1971). Scientists with money and facilities for research are in a better position to be productive than their less fortunate colleagues. This line of reasoning can also be applied to graduate departments in the sense that, as Axelson (1960:171) has pointed out, departments with more money and superior facilities are better equipped to train students in the empirical research methods and techniques that are necessary for successful scholarship. That major departments receive a disproportionately high amount of govemmental and private financial support has been



289 Quality of Training and Research Productivity

frequently pointed out (cf. U.S. House of Representatives, 1965:60-62; Orlans, 1962:138-145).

4. Unequal Students: If a difference in productivity among graduates of departments of differing quality does exist, one possible explanation may be that major departments attract students of superior ability while the less brilliant students are channeled into minor departments (Clark, 1957:230). Lewis (1968:131) has argued that the most prestigious departments attract the most promising and potentially productive graduate students. Major departments can afford to be more selective in admitting students because they have more applicants and more of their applicants received Bachelor's degrees from the better undergraduate schools (Berelson, 1960:11). Further support for this argument can be drawn from Bayer and Folger's (1966) finding that in biochemistry the top quality departments consis- tently graduate students with higher I.Q. scores than departments of lower quality.

5. Gatekeeping: The argument that the editors of journals are the "gatekeepers" of science, tending to support the currently orthodox views in their disciplines and being generally unreceptive to new ideas has been advanced by de Grazia (1963). In research concemed with factors affecting the selection of articles for publication in scientific journals, Crane (1967) has demonstrated that graduates of major departments are more likely to have their manuscripts accepted than graduates of minor departments. One reason for this phenomenon, Crane (1967:201) has suggested, is that the majority of editors have degrees from major departments and respond favorably to certain aspects of methodology, theoretical orientation, and modes of expression displayed by scholars who received similar training.

6. Restricted Mobility: There is general consensus in the literature that graduates of minor departments seldom move to departments of higher quality (cf. Wilson, 1942; Hargens and Hagstrom, 1967; Caplow and McGee, 1965) but rather are concentrated at the lower levels of the academic hierarchzy. This limited upward mobility inhibits the productivity of graduates of minor departments in at least two ways. First, as Lewis and Pressey (1958:77) have pointed out, scientists who eventually become high producers generally have their first job at an institution where they can engage in research. Since more funds, facilities, and released time are available at major departments, scientists who take jobs at this level have a greater chance to be productive. Second, individuals located at minor departments and undergraduate institutions do not have equal access to channels of scientific communication as those in the major departments. Price (1963) has argued that access in both the formal and informal




networks of scientific communication is essential for effective research (see also Crane, 1969).

Each of the above arguments supports the general proposition that the quality of the department where one receives one's professional training has an impact upon productivity. Perhaps Crane (1965:713) best sums up this position:

The best students are selected by the best graduate schools. . . for training by top scientists, and from this . . . group come the next generation's most productive scientists. On the basis of these statements the following conceptual

hypothesis is presented: There is a direct relationship between the quality of department of professional training and research productivity.

METHODOLOGY Sample: The population was the 2,467 members of the

American Sociological Association (1970) who received the Ph.D. in sociology during the period 1950-1966. The sample was the 2,205 members of the population for which the relevant data could be attained. The sources for the data on academic and personal characteristics were the 1967 and 1970 directories of the Association.

Dependent Variable. Research productivity was operationalized on the basis of an index developed by Glenn and Villemez (1970) in a study of the publication output of American graduate departments of sociology. This measure, referred to as the Glenn-Villemez Comprehensive Index (GVCI), was originally formulated to include all articles in 22 journals of sociology and allied fields (see Table 1) as well as all books reviewed in American Sociological Review (ASR). We expanded the latter aspect of the measure by including all books received for review by ASR as well as those actually reviewed. This step was taken because a number of important books were never reviewed in ASR (Olsen and Turk, 1970; Pullum and Andersen, 1970). The GVCI also includes a weighting system of the various types of publications. Thus, it generates six distinct indices of publication productivity: (1) articles, (2) books, (3) total publications, (4) article points, (5) book points, (6) total points.

Using the GVCI as the frame of reference, the authors ascertained the publication record of every member of the sample for the period 1940-1970. In all, almost 7,000 publications were counted. Following Glenn and Villemez (1970), the authors made no distinction between single and co-authored publications. As Zuckerman (1968) has noted, there is no objective criterion for judging which scientist in a multiple authored publication is




TABLE 1

Weights of Types of Publications

Weight used in Glenn-Villemez Comprehensive

Type of Publication Index

Books Received by American Sociological Review:

Research and Theoretical Monographs 30 Textbooks (including revisions) 15 Edited Books 10

Articles in: American Sociological Review 10 American Journal of Sociology 10 Social Forces 8 Sociometry 8 British Journal of Sociology 7 Social Problems 7 Public Opinion Quarterly 7 Demography 6 Rural Sociology 6 Administrative Science Quarterly 6 Journal of Marriage and the Family 6 Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 6 American Sociologist 6 Sociology of Education 5 Sociological Quarterly 5 Journal of Health and Social Behavior 5 Social Science Quarterly 5 Sociology and Social Research 5 Sociology Inquiry 5 Pacific Sociological Review 5 Sociological Analysis 4 Phylon 4

responsible for which proportion of the research (see also Lightfield, 1971).

Independent Variable: The problems of measuring the quality of graduate training have been frequently noted (cf. Hagstrom, 1971). In the last fifteen years, there have been three major attempts to evaluate the quality of graduate programs in the United States-Kenniston in 1957, Cartter in 1964, and Roose and Andersen in 1969. The evaluations from all three studies are "subjective" in the sense that the reputational method of ascertaining quality was employed. The only study which has been assessed in terms of correlating objective criteria with the rankings is the Cartter (1966) report. Hagstrom (1971) and Lewis (1968) argue for the validity of the Cartter ratings. Unfortunately, the




findings of these studies are not conclusive, and the debate over the validity of the subjective rankings will continue. For the present research, we operate under the assumption that the rankings are valid. Of course, in one sense, our study is actually a test of that very assumption.

The fact that we had ratings for three points in time allowed us to employ each rating system for individuals who graduated in the years immediately prior to the completion of each study. Thus, the 1957 rating was used for the 1950-1957 graduates (n = 773); the 1964 rating was used for the 1958-1964 graduates (n = 987); and the 1969 rating was used for the 1965-1966 graduates (n = 435). The breakdown and code used for the various ratings are as follows:

Kenniston (1959): 3 categories-highest quality (5 departments) coded as 3; high quality (10 departments) coded as 2; all other departments coded as 1.

Cartter (1966): 4 categories-extremely attractive (5 departments) coded as 4; attractive (9 departments) coded as 3; acceptable plus (15 departments) coded as 2; all other departments coded as 1.

Roose and Andersen (1970): 4 categories-extremely attractive (6 departments) coded as 4; attractive (14 departments) coded as 3; acceptable plus (22 departments) coded as 2; all other departments coded as 1. In addition, we developed a composite index based upon an

integration of the three ranking schemes (see Table 2). This scale includes only departments which have had the Ph.D. program since 1950 and was coded as follows:

5. Highest Quality - 5 departments rated in all 3 studies and in the top 5 in at least 2 of them.

4. Very High Quality - 9 other departments rated in all 3 studies.

3. High Quality - 14 departments rated in only 2 of the 3 studies.

2. Above Average Quality - 14 departments rated in only 1 of the 3 studies.

1. Average Quality - all departments that were not rated in any of the 3 studies. Given the operational definitions of the variables, the con-

ceptual hypothesis presented earlier can be stated in operationalized form: There is a direct relationship between the quality ranking of the department of sociologists' doctoral training and the score of sociologists on all six indices of publication productivity.

Statistical Procedures: Scores on the GVCI were transformed




TABLE 2

Composite Quality Ratings of Graduate Departments of Sociology, 1950-1969

Quality

Highest: Harvard Columbia Chicago California, Berkeley Michigan

Very High: Wisconsin Minnesota Yale Cornell U.C.L.A. Washington (Seattle) North Carolina Pennsylvania Northwestern

High: Ohio State Pittsburgh Michigan State Duke Indiana Iowa State (Iowa City) Princeton Washington (St. Louis) Stanford Oregon Illinois Texas

Above Average: Southern California Case Western Reserve New School Washington State Penn State Vanderbilt Florida State N.Y.U. Colorado

Average: Kentucky St. Johns L.S.U. Catholic Missouri American Kansas St. Louis Utah State Maryland Syracuse Nebraska Utah North Carolina State Boston Bryn Mawr Iowa (Ames) Fordham

to logarithms. Zero-order correlations were employed as an index of the gross relationship between the variables. Standardized partial regression coefficients were calculated to test the hypothesis. Professional age in the form of year of Ph.D. was controlled for in the regression equation. Other variables which were entered into the regression equation as controls were three factors which previous researchers discovered to have an impact upon productivity: (1) sex (Babchuck and Bates, 1962; Astin, 1969), (2) age at Ph.D. (Andrews, 1966) and (3) years between B.A. and Ph.D. (Hagstrom, 1971).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The zero-order correlations for all meaningful relationships

among the variables are presented in Table 3. The correlations




^ CO O CQ e t e D r.- o:r c q

I o r C c I e 0 r

- O 00O c -OO

M cq M oo c

0

o i I IOH c e o O c

00

cog. g< I I I I I I I I

O) I

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I "~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0.

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 - C~~4 C~) - 0

2 F E 8 a a Q X | X 2 553

u6Z 4-') g

7 g X g g R g g g g g ** *S



295 Quality of Training and Research Productivity-

between the four ratings of quality and the six indices of productivity indicate only weak relationships between quality of department of doctoral training and publication output. In no instance does the independent variable account for even one-tenth of the variation in productivity.

When the standardized partial regression coefficients are taken into account (see Table 4), the situation is not greatly altered. Although 22 of the 24 coefficients are in the expected direction (2 are .00), the greatest magnitude is only .21 and the bulk are less than .15.

The failure of the ratings of quality to emerge as stronger predictors of publication productivity generates the question of reasons for the outcome. The relationships reported here are not as strong as those discovered in previous studies (cf. Lightfield, 1971; Hagstrom, 1971). One reviewer of this paper suggested that a Ph.D. from a top quality department may be a necessary but not a sufficient condition of high productivity. Thus, linear regression may fail to catch the effect. In an attempt to explore this notion, we ran a cross tabulation (see Table 5) between total points and the composite rankings of departmental quality.

The data presented in Table 5 do not indicate a dispropor- tionate amount of low producers from high quality departments. If anything, the distribution supports the hypothesized relationship between quality of department and productivity. When more sophisticated statistical techniques are employed, however, the hypothesis does not receive such support.

One reason for the failure of the data to support our hypothesis may revolve around the operationalization of the independent variable. As was stated earlier, the rating systems of

TABLE 4

Standardized Partial Regression Coefficients of Publication Productivity on Quality of Department of Ph.D. for Three

Cohorts and Sample of 2,070 Sociologists

Cumulative Publications (logs) Cumulative Points (logs) Group N Article Book Total Article Book Total

1950-1957 Graduates 773 .06 .01 .07 .12 .08 .12 (1957 ratings)



1950-1966 Graduates 2,070 .07 .08 .09 .12 .12 .16 (Composite ratings)




quality were derived via the reputational method. Anyone familiar with the literature on community power is familiar with the weaknesses of the reputational approach. Of course, from one perspective the results can be seen as casting doubts upon the validity of the ratings since for the Cartter (1966) and Roose and Andersen (1970) reports we used the "effectiveness of graduate program" listings of the departments.

A second reason for the weak relationships found here may be the use of the GVCT as the measure of publication productivity. Although the GVCI includes 22 journals, it does ignore a number of important journals, e.g., Journal of Social Issues. Perhaps if more joumals were included, the independent variable would show up as a more efficient predictor of publication output. On the other hand, the beta weights for articles were virtually the same as that for books. We believe there can be little faulting of the breadth of the book index-all books received for review by the major journal in the field.

In addition, even with the measurement problems which might be inherent in our methodology, there seems little reason to doubt the general implication of the results. The publication records of over 2,200 Ph.D.'s were examined for a 30-year period. Almost 7,000 publications were enumerated. Four different measures of the independent variable and six indicators of the dependent variables were used. We believe these factors justify the conclusion that, for sociologists at least, quality of department of doctoral training exerts little independent impact upon publication productivity.

IMPLICATIONS The findings have implications for at least two aspects of

future research. First, it should be remembered that the GVCI is

TABLE 5

Total Points on GVCI by Quality of Department for 2,070 Sociologists (Percentages)

Quality of Dept. Total Points on GVCI of Training (Composite Ratings) 0-19 20-39 40-59 60-79 80-99 100+

Average 10.1 .9 .6 .3 .3 .1 Above Average 5.3 .9 .7 .4 .2 .5 High 14.6 3.3 2.2 .7 .9 1.1 Very High 14.6 4.1 3.0 1.8 1.3 3.0 Highest 11.7 5.0 3.6 2.5 2.3 4.0




primarily a measure of quantity rather than quality of publication output. Hopefully, more studies of the determinants of the quality of research productivity will be forthcoming. Bayer and Folger (1966; see also Cole and Cole, 1971) have suggested the use of the Science Citation Index as a measure of quality of output, and citations have been used as an index of quality of productivity by Crane (1970) and Folger, Astin, and Bayer (1968).

Finally, future research should be directed at other disciplines as well as sociology. To date there have been only scattered attempts to validate the ACE rankings, and there has been little systematic research into the determinants of scholarly productivity in general.

References

Andrews, Frank. 1966 "Output of scientific products." Pp. 271-274 in Donald Pelz

and Frank Andrews (eds.), Scientists in Organizations. New York: Wiley.

Astin, Helen. 1969 The Woman Doctorate in America. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation. Axelson, Leland.

1960 "Graduate schools and the productivity of their graduates." The American Journal of Sociology 66 (September):171-175.

Babchuk, N. and Alan Bates. 1962 "Professor or producer: the two faces of academic man." Social

Forces 40:341-344. Bayer, Alan, and John Folger.

1966 "Some correlates of a citation measure of productivity in science." Sociology of Education 39 (Fall): 381-390.

Becker, Howard S., and James W. Carper. 1956 "The development of identification with an occupation." The

American Journal of Sociology 61 (January):289-298. Berelson, Bernard.

1960 Graduate Education in the United States. New York: McGraw- Hill.

Caplow, Theodore, and Reece McGee. 1965 The Academic Marketplace. New York: Doubleday.

Cartter, Allen. 1966 An Assessment of Quality in Graduate Education. Washington,

D.C.: American Council on Education. Clark, Kenneth.

1957 America's Psychologists. Washington, D.C.: American Psy- chological Association.

Cole, Jonathan, and Stephen Cole. 1971 "Measuring the quality of sociological research: problems in the

use of the Science Citation Index. " The American Sociologist 6 (February): 23-29.




Crane, Diana. 1965 "Scientists at major and minor universities: a study of produc-

tivity and recognition." American Sociological Review 30 (October): 699-714.

1967 "The gatekeepers of science: some factors affecting the selection of articles for scientific journals." The American Soci- ologist 2 (November):195-201.

1969 "Social structure in a group of scientists: a test of the 'invisible college' hypothesis." American Sociological Review 34(June): 335-352.

1970 "The academic marketplace revisited: a study of faculty mobility using the Cartter ratings." American Journal of Sociology 75 (May):953-964

de Grazia, Alfred. 1963 "The scientific reception system and Dr. Velikovsky." Ameri-

can Behavioral Scientist 7 (Winter):38-56. Folger, J., Helen Astin and Alan Bayer.

1968 Human Resources and Higher Education. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Gaston, Jerry. 1970 "The reward system in British science." American Sociological

Review 35 (August):718-732. Glenn, Norval D., and Wayne Villemez.

1970 "The productivity of sociologists at 45 American universities." The American Sociologist 5 (August):244-252.

Gottlieb, David. 1961 "Processes of socialization in American graduate schools."

Social Forces 40 (December):124-131. Hagstrom, Warren.

1971 "Inputs, outputs and the prestige of university science departments. " Sociology of Education 44 (Fall):375-397.

Hargens, Lowell, and Warren Hagstrom. 1967 "Sponsored and contest mobility of American academic sci-

entists." Sociology of Education 50 (Winter):24-38. Hyman, Ray.

1969 "Creativity." Pp. 28-39 in David Allison (ed.), The R & D Game. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.

Kenniston, Hayward. 1959 Graduate Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences.

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lewis, Edwin, and S. L. Pressey.

1958 "Comment." American Psychologist 13 (January):77-79. Lewis, Lionel S.

1968 "On subjective and objective rankings of sociology departments." The American Sociologist 3 (May): 129-131.

Lightfield, E. Timothy. 1971 "Output and recognition of sociologists." The American Soci-

ologist 6 (May):128-133. Olsen, Marvin E., and Austin Turk.

1970 "Delinquent reviews." American Sociological Review 35 (Au- gust): 820.

Orlans, Harold. 1962 The Effects of Federal Programs on Higher Education. Washing-

ton, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. Pease, John.

1967 "Faculty influence and professional participation of doctoral students." Sociological Inquiry 37 (Winter):63-70.




Price, Derek. 1963. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University

Press. Pullum, Thomas, and C.A. Andersen.

1970 "A comparison of book reviewing by the AJS and the ASR." The American Journal of Sociology 75 (January):550-555.

Roose, Kenneth, and Charles Andersen. 1970 A Rating of Graduate Programs. Washington, D.C.: American

Council on Education. Sewell, William, A. Haller, and G. Olendorf.

1970 "The educational and early occupational status attainment process: replication and revision." American Sociological Re- view 35 (December):1014-1027.

United States House of Representatives, Committee on Government Opera- tions.

1965 Conflicts between Federal Research Programs and the Nation's Goals for Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office.

Wilson, Logan. 1942 The Academic Man. New York: Oxford University Press.

Zuckerman, Harriet. 1968 "Patterns of name ordering among authors of scientific papers:

a study of social symbolism and its ambiguity." The American Journal of Sociology 74 (November):276-291.



Documents

Quality of Department of Doctoral Training and Research Productivity