Educational Research Productivity of Institutions of Higher Education

Eash, Maurice J.

doi:10.2307/1162671

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To assess the effect of college reputation on program reputation, we compared the rankings of colleges of education reported by Eash (1983) with the rankings we obtained by summing the total frequencies of nomination across criteria and respondent status. The results of this analysis are portrayed in the Venn diagram in Figure 1.…”

Section: Influence Of Reputation Of College On Reputation Of Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reputations are slow to die, and responses may fail to reflect current status. To overcome these shortcomings, researchers have conducted more objective analyses, including publication counts (Eash, 1983) and citation analyses (Kroc, 1984).The purpose of conducting reputational studies is to provide information about the quality of programs to consumers-prospective students and employees alike. Eash (1983) argued that the results of reputational studies permit colleges to &dquo;attract graduate students, expand employment opportunities for graduates, shape recruitment of faculty, and influence the flow of resources from governmental and private funding agencies&dquo; (pp.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eash (1983) argued that the results of reputational studies permit colleges to &dquo;attract graduate students, expand employment opportunities for graduates, shape recruitment of faculty, and influence the flow of resources from governmental and private funding agencies&dquo; (pp. 5-6).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

The Reputations of Doctoral Training Programs in Special Education

Sindelar

Schloss

1986

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess the reputations of doctoral training programs in special education, questionnaires were distributed to the heads and junior and senior faculty members from the 81 programs nationally that grant the doctoral degree in special education. Respondents were asked to list the five programs with the most distinguished faculties and, separately, the five programs that graduate the best-prepared students. Altogether, 140 responses were received (59% return), nominating 50 different programs on at least one criterion. Responses to the two questions were highly related, and both were related to the number of graduates by program who returned questionnaires. Ranks given by program heads and senior faculties were more closely related to one another than either was to the ranks given by junior faculty.The reputations of colleges of education have been studied recently with both subjective and objective techniques. Subjective techniques include surveys of the opinions of administrators (Blau & Margulies, 1975) and faculty (Ladd & Lipset cited in Scully, 1979; The Cartter Report, 1977). Opinionnaires like these suffer many shortcomings, most notably that results represent no more than the subjective opinions of the respondents. Reputations are slow to die, and responses may fail to reflect current status. To overcome these shortcomings, researchers have conducted more objective analyses, including publication counts (Eash, 1983) and citation analyses (Kroc, 1984).The purpose of conducting reputational studies is to provide information about the quality of programs to consumers-prospective students and employees alike. Eash (1983) argued that the results of reputational studies permit colleges to &dquo;attract graduate students, expand employment opportunities for graduates, shape recruitment of faculty, and influence the flow of resources from governmental and private funding agencies&dquo; (pp. 5-6). To this list, Kroc (1984) added the importance of providing information to university administrators about the relative strengths of their units. In an era of budget tightening, this final purpose assumes greater importance, and nowhere is the struggle for survival more serious than in leadership training in special education. As we know all too well, the present administration has attempted to cut leadership preparation funding in each of the last two fiscal years.However, the rankings of colleges of education reported in this literature are of

show abstract

Section: Influence Of Reputation Of College On Reputation Of Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Reputations of Doctoral Training Programs in Special Education

Sindelar

Schloss

1986

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Voeks (1962) and Dent and Lewis (1976) looked at teacher evaluations by students and faculty productivity as measured by both faculty membership in research groups and the number of citations in the Social Science Citations Index. Cox and Catt (1977), Eash (1983), Hoyt (1974), and others have used some type of weighted index of the number of books and articles produced to measure faculty productivity; all of these indices have yielded at least modest relationships with their respective dependent variables. Each of these studies suggested components, correlates, and dimensions of quality, but failed to produce a full conceptual model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Institutional and Faculty Influences on the Reputation of Doctorate-Granting Programs in Special Education

Cardinal

Drew

1993

J Spec Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study is based on a survey of all faculty members in 66 qualifying doctorate-granting special education programs in the United States. Seventy-two percent of the faculty responded to the survey. Faculty members were asked to rate the quality of each program except their own. The top 10 programs are reported in the study. Additionally, data on several productivity and output variables were gathered, including publication records from a computer data base for each of the 700 faculty members. Using multiple regression analysis, it was, determined that 73% ( R = .85, p <.001) of the variance in program reputation could be explained by four variables, where research productivity contributed most to the prediction. The implications of these results are discussed.

show abstract

An Analysis of Statistical Techniques Used in the Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979-1983

Goodwin¹,

Goodwin²

1985

Educational Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Educational Research Productivity of Institutions of Higher Education

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

The Reputations of Doctoral Training Programs in Special Education

The Reputations of Doctoral Training Programs in Special Education

Institutional and Faculty Influences on the Reputation of Doctorate-Granting Programs in Special Education

An Analysis of Statistical Techniques Used in the Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979-1983

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About