To grow and prosper in an era when university departments are increasingly assessed comparatively and critically by national systems of accountability and ranking, planning schools need data that reflect the wide range of activities undertaken by planning educators. Recent developments surrounding planning school assessment in U.S. planning schools are considered in light of the history of university unit performance measurement internationally, and suggestions are made for development of a robust system of planning school assessment that includes the breadth of academic planners' work.
Albrechts, Louis.2004. A challenge for the global planning community? Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (1): 26-27.
2.
Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Working Group on Planning School Performance Measurement.2005. Final report. September 17. Tallahassee, FL: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
3.
Balducci, Alessandro.2005. Collegiality within a mass university system: Reflections from Italy. Planning Theory and Practice5 (2): 249-51.
4.
Batterham, Robin.2005. Measuring excellence: A chief scientist perspective. In Measuring excellence in research and research training: Proceedings of a conference held at the Shine Dome, Canberra , on 22 June 2004. ed. National Academies Forum and Australia, Department of Education, Science and Training, 3-9. Canberra : Australian Academy of Science.
5.
Berry, Brian J. L.2000. Citations as measures of worth. Urban Geography21:283-84.
6.
Braithwaite, Valerie.2005. Excellence in social sciences in the context of impact on public policy. In Measuring excellence in research and research training: Proceedings of a conference held at the Shine Dome, Canberra, on 22 June 2004, ed. National Academies Forum and Australia, Department of Education, Science and Training, 44-50. Canberra : Australian Academy of Science.
7.
Brunn, Stanley D.1996. Quality research performance: Issues of splitting, cloning, citing, significance and judging. Professional Geographer48:103-5.
8.
Butler, Linda, Grit Laudel, Claire Donovan, Frank Jackson, David Siddle, and Ian Lucas. n.d. Strategic assessment of research performance indicators: An ARC linkage project. http://repp.anu.edu/au/Linkage (accessed May 4, 2005).
9.
Checkoway, Barry.1998. Professionally-related public service as applied scholarship: Guidelines for the evaluation of planning faculty. Journal of Planning Education and Research17 (4): 358-360.
10.
Clay, Philip.2003. Scholarship reconsidered. Plenary address to the ACSP Administrators Conference, Amelia Island, FL.
11.
Cooper, C., and D. Otley.1998. The 1996 Research Assessment Exercise for business and management. British Journal of Management9:73-89.
12.
Corbyn, Zöe.2007. New RAE based on citations. No. 1819:1ff. Times Higher Education Supplement. November 9.
13.
Cramer, James P.2006. The realignment of education and professional practice . Design Intelligence12 (11): 4-8.
14.
Crewe, Katherine, and Ann Forsyth .2003. LandSCAPES: A typology of approaches to landscape architecture. Landscape Journal22 (1): 37-53.
15.
Ehrenberg, Ronald G., and Peter J. Hurst .1998. The 1995 ratings of doctoral programs: A hedonic model. Economics of Education Review17:137-48.
16.
Fainstein, Susan.2004. Letter to the editor. Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (2): 127.
17.
Forsyth, Ann.2004. The view from design. Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (1): 24-25.
18.
Forsyth, Ann, and Katherine Crewe .2006. Research in environmental design: Definitions and limits. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research23 (2): 160-75.
19.
Geuna, A., and B.R. Martin.2003. University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva41:277-304.
20.
Glaser, Nathan.1974. The schools of the minor professions. Minerva12 (3): 346-64.
21.
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.
22.
Hambleton, Robin.2006. Purpose and collegiality in planning education: An international perspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research26 (1): 107-17.
23.
Hargens, Lowell L.1996. Review of Research doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change, ed. M.L. Goldberger , B Maher and P.E. Flattau. Contemporary Sociology25:729-32.
24.
Hoch, Charles, Ann Forsyth, Dowell Myers, Linda Dalton, Randy Crane, and Sharon Gabor.2006. Planning Program Assessment Task Force report prepared for the ACSP president and ACSP governing board. Presentation to the Governing Board Meeting, ACSP Annual Conference , Fort Worth, TX.
25.
Hodgson, G.M., and H. Rothman.1999. The editors and authors of economic journals: A case of institutional oligopoly?Economic Journal109:F165-86.
26.
Institute for Scientific Information.2003 . Web of science. http://www.isi4.isiknowledge.com/portal.cgi/wos (accessed January-March 2003).
27.
Jacobs, Alan B.2006. The state of city planning today and its relation to city planning education. Places18 (2): 60-65.
28.
Jamrozik, Konrad, David P. Weller, and Richard F. Heller .2004. Research assessment: There must be an easier way. Medical Journal of Australia180 (11): 553-54.
29.
Johnston, Ron.2005a. On preparing for more substantive judgements: RAE2008 . Perspectives9 (4): 115-19.
30.
Johnston, Ron.2005b. Thomas Kuhn and the RAE2008. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32:320-22.
31.
Koh, Charlotte.2007. The NRC assessment of research doctoral programs: An interim update. Council of Graduate Schools Communicator40 (3): 1-3. http://www.cgsnet.org/portals/0/pdf/comm_2007_04.pdf (accessed May 10, 2007).
32.
McCalmann, Iain.2005. Excellence in the humanities, creative arts and media . In Measuring excellence in research and research training: Proceedings of a conference held at the Shine Dome, Canberra, on 22 June 2004, ed. National Academies Forum and Australia, Department of Education, Science and Training , 20-25. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.
33.
McNay, Ian.2003. Assessing the assessment: An analysis of the UK Research Assessment Exercise, 2001, and its outcomes, with special reference to research in education. Science and Public Policy30 (1): 1-8.
34.
Morgan, K.J.2004. The Research Assessment Exercise in English universities: 2001. Higher Education48:461-82.
35.
Myers, Dowell.2004. How can planning schools be usefully compared? Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (1): 25-26.
36.
Myers, Dowell, and Tridib Banerjee .2005. Toward greater heights for planning: Reconciling differences between profession, practice and academic field. Journal of the American Planning Association71 (2): 121-29.
37.
National Research Council. (2006) Procedures and timelines for the NRC assessment of research doctorate programs . www.7.nationalacademies.org/resdoc/Procedures_and_Timelines.html (accessed November 6, 2006).
38.
National Survey of Student Engagement.2007 . NSSE: National Survey of Student Engagement. http://www.nsse.iub.edu/index.cfm (accessed December 10, 2007).
39.
New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission.2004.A performance-based research fund: Evaluating research excellence: The 2003 assessment. Wellington: New Zealand Tertiary Education Commission.
40.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.1997. The evaluation of scientific research: Selected experiences. OECD/ GD(97)194. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
41.
Ostriker, Jeremiah P., and Charlotte V. Kuh, eds. 2003. Assessing research-doctorate programs: A methodology study. Report of the Committee to Examine the Methodology for the Assessment of Research-doctorate Programs, Policy and Global Affairs Division, National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
42.
Pike, G.2004. Measuring quality: A comparison of U.S. News rankings and NSSE benchmarks. Research in Higher Education45 (2): 193-208.
43.
Punter, John.2002. Reflections on the 2001 United Kingdom Research Assessment Exercise for town and country planning. Town Planning Review73:333-49.
44.
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.
45.
Rosenbloom, Sandra, ed. 2002. Report of the ACSP Institutional Data Project. Tallahassee, FL: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
46.
Sharp, S.2004. The Research Assessment Exercises 1992-2001: Patterns across time and subjects. Studies in Higher Education29:201-18.
47.
Steiner, Frederick.2005. Assessing design productivity. Presentation to the ACSP Administrators Conference, Cincinnati, OH.
48.
Steins, Chris, Abhijeet Chavan, Christian Peralta, and Nate Berg.2009. Planetizen guide to graduate urban planning programs: 2009 edition. Los Angeles: Planetizen Press.
49.
Stiftel, Bruce, Deden Rukmana, and Bhuiyan Alam.2004a. Faculty quality at U.S. graduate planning schools: A National Research Council-style study. Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (1): 6-22.
50.
Stiftel, Bruce, Deden Rukmana, and Bhuiyan Alam.2004b. A reply to graduate planning school study responses. Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (2): 128-30.
51.
Susskind, Lawrence.1974. Guide to graduate education in urban and regional planning . Cambridge, MA: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning.
52.
Teitz, Michael B.2004. Assessing the quality of U.S. planning schools: A comment . Journal of Planning Education and Research24 (1): 23-24.
53.
Tewdwr-Jones, Mark.2005. Return of the indicators: The Research Assessment Exercise: 2008. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design32:317-19.
54.
Thomas, Huw.2005. Pressures, purpose and collegiality in UK planning education . Planning Theory and Practice5 (2): 238-47.
55.
Times Higher Education Supplement.2006. RAE consensus too good to last. September 29.
56.
Toutkoushian, Robert K., Halil Dundar, and William E. Becker .1998. The National Research Council graduate program ratings: What are they measuring?Review of Higher Education21:427-43.
57.
U.K. Higher Education Funding Councils.2003 . Review of research assessment. Report by Sir Gareth Roberts to the U.K. Funding Bodies. http://www.hefce.ac.uk .
58.
U.K. Higher Education Funding Councils.2005 . RAE2008: Research Assessment Exercise: Guidance to panels . Bristol: U.K. Higher Education Funding Councils.
59.
Urban Insight.2006. Planetizen 2007 guide to graduate urban planning programs in the United States and Canada . Los Angeles: Urban Insight.
60.
von Tunzelmann, N., and E. Kraemer Mbula .2003. Changes in research assessment practices in other countries since 1999. Working paper, Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Sussex.
61.
Voogd, Henk.2001. Comment. Town Planning Review73 (3): 350-52.
62.
Voorhees, Richard A., and John Muffo.2007. A report of two collegiate schools of planning surveys: Program administrators and faculty. Report prepared for the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning by Voorhees Group.
63.
Wasley, Paula.2007. Faculty-productivity index offers surprises. Chronicle of Higher Education. http://chronicle.com/weekly/v54/i12/12a01001.htm.
64.
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, ed. J. Smart, 234-303. New York: Agathon.
