Faculty 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.
Berry, Brian J. L.2000. Citations as measures of worth. Urban Geography21:283-284.
2.
Bingham, R. D., G. T. Henry, and J. P. Blair. 1981. Urban affairs graduate programs: A ranking in U.S. colleges and universities. Urban Affairs Quarterly16:355-368.
3.
Birch, Eugenie. 1996. Presidential address: Big things come in small packages: an agenda for ACSP. Journal of Planning Education and Research15:143-146.
4.
Brunn, Stanley D.1996. Quality research performance: Issues of splitting, cloning, citing, significance and judging. Professional Geographer48:103-105.
5.
Cartter, A. M.1966. An assessment of quality in graduate education. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
6.
Cox, R. A. K., and K. H. Chung. 1991. Patterns of research output and author concentration in the economics literature. Review of Economics and Statistics73:740-747.
7.
Cramer, James P.2003. Editors’ choice: The forward 40. Design Intelligence, http://www.di.net/article.php?.article_id=173 (accessed June 24, 2003).
8.
Dunford, Michael, Diane Perrons, Barry Reilly, and Rebecca Bull. 2002. Citations, authors and referees: Regional Studies, 1981-2002. Regional Studies36:1053-1065.
9.
Dusansky, Richard, and Clayton J. Vernon. 1998. Rankings of U.S. economics departments. Journal of Economic Perspectives12:157-170.
10.
Ehrenberg, Ronald G., and Peter J. Hurst. 1998. The 1995 ratings of doctoral programs: A hedonic model. Economics of Education Review17:137-148.
11.
Goldberger, Marvin L., Brendan A. Maher, and Pamela Ebert Flattau, eds. 1995. Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Report of the Committee for the Study of Research-doctorate Programs in the United States, sponsored by the Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, and conducted by the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12.
Groop, Richard E., and Randall J. Schaetzl. 1997. Productivity profiles of Ph.D.-granting geography departments in the United States: 1980-1994. Professional Geographer49:451-464.
13.
Contemporary Sociology25:729-732.
14.
Harman, J. R.1996. Thoughts after Brunn: Quality and quantity in geography research. Professional Geographer48:100-102.
15.
Hodgson, G. M., and H. Rothman. 1999. The editors and authors of economic journals: A case of institutional oligopoly?Economic Journal109:F165-F186.
16.
Hopkins, Lewis D.2001. Planning as science: Engaging disagreement. Journal of Planning Education and Research20:309-406.
17.
Institute for Scientific Information. 2003. Web of Science, http://www.isi4.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi/wos (accessed January through March, 2003).
18.
Punter, John. 2002. Reflections on the 2001 United Kingdom research assessment exercise for town and country planning. Town Planning Review73:333-349.
19.
Punter, John. 2003. The UK research assessment exercise: The evaluation of planning research and its implications. Paper prepared for presentation at the Joint Congress of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning and the Association of European Schools of Planning, Leuven, Belgium, July 8-11.
20.
Rey, Sergio J., and Luc Anselin. 2000. Regional science publication patterns in the 1990s. International Regional Science Review23:323-344.
21.
Rosenbloom, Sandra, ed. 2000. Guide to undergraduate and graduate education in urban and regional planning. Tucson, AZ: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
22.
Rosenbloom, Sandra, ed. 2002. Report of the ACSP Institutional Data Project. Tucson, AZ: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
23.
Stiftel, Bruce. 1999. Faculty labor and intellectual capital: Furthering disciplinary development and institutional positioning in the urban planning academy. 1999 ACSP Presidential Address. Journal of Planning Education and Research19:207-210.
24.
Stiftel, Bruce. 2001. ACSP symposium on the state of the planning academy: Introduction. Journal of Planning Education and Research20:397-398.
25.
Stiftel, Bruce, and Charles E. Connerly. 1995. Submissions and reviews in the Journal of Planning Education and Research: 1991-1992. Journal of Planning Literature9:255-266.
26.
Strathman, James G.1992a. A ranking of U.S. graduate programs in urban studies and urban affairs. Journal of Urban Affairs14:79-92.
27.
Strathman, James G.. 1992b. Analysis of theoretical, methodological and empirical research in the Journal of Regional Science. Journal of Regional Science32:501-509.
28.
Surinach, J., J. C. Duque, R. Ramos, and V. Royuela. 2003. Publication patterns in regional and urban analysis: Have topics, techniques and applications changed during the 1990s?Regional Studies37:351-363.
29.
Susskind, Lawrence. 1974. Guide to graduate education in urban and regional planning. 1st ed.Cambridge, MA: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
30.
Taylor, Jim, and Jill Johnes. 1992. The citation record of Regional Studies and related journals, 1980-89. Regional Studies26:93-97.
31.
Toutkoushian, Robert K., Halil Dundar, and William E. Becker. 1998. The National Research Council graduate program ratings: What are they measuring?The Review of Higher Education21:427-443.
32.
Ulrich. 2003. Ulrich’s international periodicals directory. New Providence, NJ: R. R. Bowker. http://ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb (accessed July 25, 2003).
33.
Webster, David S.1988. Reputational rankings of colleges, universities and individual disciplines and fields of study, from their beginnings to the present. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, vol. 8, edited by J. Smart, 234-303. New York: Agathon.
