EXPLANATORY
DETAILS ON RANKINGS
TOPIC
OF ASSESSMENT
Public
outreach was defined in the Public
Anthropology Assessment as addressing social
concerns in the broader world beyond the university. Assessors
were provided with three categories of information on each
department assessed: (1) the number
and types of programs associated with
a particular department that focused on public issues and
public outreach;
(2)
the number and types of public outreach activities -- past
and present -- that individual faculty members within a department
chose to describe; and (3) following the example
of ISI's Social Sciences Citation
Index, the degree to which individual faculty members within
a department were cited in prominent printed media.
The
National Research Council (NRC) Assessment,
in assessing the scholarly quality of
a department, considered “the scholarly competence and
achievements of the faculty” in a department (from Research-Doctorate
Programs in the United States, 1995:124). Assessors used a list
of the full-time faculty in a department to arrive at their assessments.
SAMPLE
SIZE
Public
Outreach Assessment: The
pool of potential assessors (or sample) included
all full-time faculty within American anthropology departments
listed in the American Anthropological Association’s (AAA)
Guide. Because the assessment took more than two years to prepare,
both the 2005 and the 2006 AAA Guides were used. The assessment
included 394 schools. The
anthropology departments and programs at these schools collectively
had 3613 full-time faculty members.
Despite
repeated efforts to correct "bounced emails" – emails
that were returned from the receiver's server without passing through
to the actual individual the email was sent to – "bounced
emails" varied during the assessment from between
62 and 89. Taking a cautious approach, I used the lower "bounced" rate,
62, and subtracted it from 3613, leaving 3551. It made no sense
to include in the sample people who never received the Assessment's
emails and, hence, could not participate.
Unsubscribes,
individuals who were deleted from the email list, numbered 363.
Of these, roughly ½ deleted themselves and ½ were
deleted by me. I deleted
individuals, for example,
who indicated they were not anthropologists (though listed in the
AAA Guide) as well as individuals who indicated (in an email) they
were no longer full-time faculty and/or affiliated with the
department
they were
listed under. I included all 363 unsubscribes
as part of the 3551 sample. One might have made a case for deleting
them. But I decided to take a cautious approach in this regard.
I
also left in the sample all emails that were returned because the
recipient was described as "out of the office" (or some
similar such phrasing). A close look at those who participated
in the assessment
indicated that some of those listed in the out of office category
were indeed participating.
In
brief, then sample size (or pool of potential assessors) was
3551. 1428
faculty participated in the Public Outreach Assessment. The
participate rate for the assessment was thus 1428/3551 or
40.21%.
National
Research Council (NRC) Assessment: University
administrators at each of the 69 schools involved in the 1993/95
NRC project selected the sample of participants. In all, 268
were selected from the total number of anthropology faculty
-- 1368 -- at
these schools. In other words, 19.7% of the
faculty (268/1363)
were selected to participate of which half (134/268) actually
completed the NRC Assessment. Thus,
9.83% of the total 1363 anthropology faculty at the 69 departments
being
assessed in the NRC project
participated.
INFORMATION
PROVIDED TO ASSESSORS FOR MAKING THEIR ASSESSMENTS REGARDING A DEPARTMENT'S
RANKING
Public
Outreach Assessment: Assessors examined
the outreach programs associated with a particular department
as well as the outreach activities of individual faculty within
that department. Information on programs associated with a
department was collected by
the
Center
for a Public Anthropology and sent to each department chair
for
review.
Information on
individual faculty outreach activities was drawn from two sources.
To have a quantitative measure
across
schools,
the Center used the LexisNexis
databases to assess to what degree individual faculty members
within a department were cited in the public
media. Data were gathered from both the General News/Newspapers
and the
General
News/Magazines and Journals databases. In addition,
in an effort to gather more qualititative data, faculty members
within each department were offered
space
to record their present and past outreach activities.
National
Research Council Assessment: Participants
were presented with the names of the full-time faculty in a department.
No other information was provided.
EVALUATION
PROCEDURES
In
the Public Outreach Assessment,
participants were presented with four randomly selected
departments (excluding their own) that they then ranked
by positioning a department (through a click and drag operation
on a web
page) into
a hierarchy
with
the
top
ranking department in public outreach highest and the
lowest ranked department at the bottom. Participants could not
place two schools at the same hierarchical level. Given the breadth
of
data
assessors
had to examine on each school, it
was thought best to present each assessor only four departments
for evaluation. (In a trial run, increasing the departments an
assessor had to evaluate to five or six seemed overly
burdensome to several assessors.)
In
the NRC Assessment,
participants were asked to grade each department on a five point
scale. There were no technical restrictions on how many fives
or fours a participant could record though the NRC instructions
requested assessors
to use five (the highest) for only 10% of the programs assessed.
Each assessor ranked up to 50 anthropology departments.
SCHOOLS
ASSESSED
To
be included in the NRC Assessment a
department had to have granted at least five doctoral degrees within
the past five years. In 1993, when the NRC assessment began, there
were 69 anthropology departments that fit this qualification. For
the Public Outreach Assessment,
I took the NRC list and added schools I perceived as probably fulfilling
this “five in five” requirement. The selection was
not based on hard data. I wanted to insure that several departments
which had developed strong doctoral programs since 1993
were included in the assessment.
Only the University of Rochester, part of the NRC assessment, was
dropped from the Public Outreach Assessment. It had terminated
its doctoral program and, hence, no longer fit the NRC criteria.
Of
the 394 schools from which potential assessors were drawn, 323
(or 82%) of the schools had faculty members participate in the Public
Outreach Assessment. The NRC
Assessment drew potential assessors from all
69 schools being assessed. It did not indicate, however, which
schools the 134 faculty who chose to participate in the NRC Assessment
came from.
TIES
BETWEEN SCHOOLS
One
of the interesting differences between the two assessments
is that the Public
Outreach Assessment has more ties and, in
its numbering, softens the separation between rankings compared
to the NRC
Assessment. The NRC assessment, for example, skips
a ranking when two schools are tied; the Public Outreach assessment
does
not.
We
suspect that at least part of the reason for the greater number
of ties in the Public Outreach ranking derives from assessors
using
a four
rather
than a five
point scale. Also, as one can see from the chart on the next page
(Overlap Between Schools with Different Rankings in the 1995 Assessment),
the NRC method of numerical ranking may overstate the rank order
of various departments.
There is considerable
overlap
among departments in respect to their confidence intervals.
Center
for a Public Anthropology
814 Kaipii Street
Kailua, HI 96734
email: webmaster@publicanthropology.org