A Ranking of Us Graduate Programs in Urban Studies and Urban Affairs

Strathman, James G.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.1992.tb00276.x

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fields overlapping with urban and regional planning, the only recent detailed analysis of school performance is Strathman (1992a), a ranking of thirty-three U.S. urban studies and urban affairs graduate programs based on a reputational survey and citation data. Findings included a relatively low level of familiarity with other programs among administrators surveyed, high program turnover rate, differences between M.A.…”

Section: ᭤ Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

A National Research Council-Style Study

Stiftel

Rukmana

Alam

2004

Journal of Planning Education and Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I n 1995, the National Research Council (NRC) published results of a wide-ranging study of research-doctorate programs in the United States (Goldberger, Maher, and Flattau 1995). The most recent of a series of such studies, it has widely been used as the basis of rankings claims by departments and universities. The NRC study included only disciplines in which there were more than fifty doctoral programs nationally, and as a result, urban planning was not included. The current study is an attempt to apply methods from the NRC study to U.S. urban and regional planning graduate programs. It is undertaken in the hopes of (1) advancing the debate among planning educators concerning appropriate performance measures and (2) providing data to faculties concerning the relative performance of their schools among planning schools generally.University performance measurement in general, and urban planning school performance measurement in particular, prompt wide disagreement. American universities are quick to claim status positions from the results of performance studies. Perusal of university promotional materials quickly shows prominence given to the results of any ranking scheme that might be plausibly interpreted as showing the institution in question in a favorable light. When the ranking schemes in question are based on controversial performance measures, or where the performance measures used are not revealed fully, criticisms can be widespread and heated.Among planning educators, there has been a longstanding reluctance to publication of comparative performance measurements. Results of a national reputational survey included in the first printing of the first edition of the Guide to Graduate Education in Urban and Regional Planning (Susskind 1974) were deleted from the second printing, and such a study has never been replicated. In the years since, when the Planning Accreditation Board and the Executive Committee (now Governing Board) of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP) have considered school rankings, the weight of opinion has always been against undertaking such an endeavor. 1 AbstractFaculty quality assessment methods of the National Research Council study of research doctorate programs are applied to U.S. urban and regional planning graduate programs. Findings suggest that about one-half of planning faculty actively publish and that there is considerable concentration of both publication and citation activity among a relatively small group of scholars and schools. Accredited and nonaccredited schools show substantial differences, as do doctoral degree-granting schools compared with master's-only schools. The strengths and weaknesses of faculty quality measures used are discussed, leading to a call for other studies using different measures.

show abstract

Section: ᭤ Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%