From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation:
Graduate Education for Global Career Pathways

Kloster Seeon, Germany

“Brain drain/Brain gain” has been a topic of ongoing discussion in the global graduate education community, particularly as countries make new investments in graduate education and research.

In recent years, a more optimistic model for the circulation of global talent has been put forward. Many argue that as research networks become more global, so do career pathways. Global R&D networks, along with new technologies for communication and collaborations, now make it possible for academics and research professionals to work in and between different international locations, stimulating research that benefits multiple economies and institutions.

Co-hosted by the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) and the Technische Universität München (TUM), the 2012 Global Summit focused on the role of graduate institutions in supporting new pathways of brain circulation and preparing future research professionals to create and share knowledge across local and global contexts.

Event Materials:

• Press Release: University Leaders Issue Statement on Preparing Graduate Students for Global Careers
• Graduate Education for Global Career Pathways

CGS contributions to the 2012 Summit were supported by a generous gift from ProQuest.

Since 2004, the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) has conducted a multi-year empirical examination of international graduate application, admission, and enrollment trends.

This analysis responds to member institutions’ concerns about continuing changes in the enrollment of students from abroad seeking master’s and doctoral degrees from U.S. colleges and universities. The core of this examination is a three-phase survey of CGS member institutions:

• Initial Applications (February)
• Final Applications and Initial Offers of Admission (June)
• Final Offers of Admission and Enrollment (October)

The following reports summarize the findings of the CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey:

For more information about the CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey, please contact:

Jeff Allum

Contact:
Julia Kent
jkent@cgs.nche.edu
(202) 223-3791

Washington, D.C.  ̶  The Council of Graduate Schools is reporting that offers of admission from U.S. graduate schools to prospective international students increased 9% from 2011 to 2012, following an increase of 9% last year. The new data marks the 3rd consecutive year of growth in international graduate admissions.

The survey report on admissions trends, released today, shows that this growth was driven substantially by a 20% increase in offers of admission to prospective students from China, the seventh year in a row of double-digit increases. Offers of admission to students from the Middle East rose 17%, marking the fifth year of significant growth, and offers of admission to Brazilian students rose 13%. However offers of admission to students from India and South Korea, the second and third largest sending countries of international students to U.S. graduate programs respectively, stayed flat.

CGS President Debra W. Stewart remarked that the overall pattern of growth in applications and admission shows that overseas students continue to recognize the quality of the U.S. graduate education system. “U.S. graduate programs and institutions still enjoy a world-class reputation.” At the same time, Stewart cautioned that growth beyond 2012 remains uncertain. “Given the current global economy and increasing global competition for talent, we must continue our efforts to attract students from countries where numbers of student applicants are slowing, as well as those such as Brazil and China, where there is renewed momentum to pursue graduate study in the U.S.”

Admissions trends by field

The survey results show that offers of admission increased in all broad fields of study except the life sciences, where numbers of admissions remained flat. Business and Education saw the largest increases in admissions offers, increasing 17% in both fields. Strong gains were also seen in social sciences and psychology (14%), ‘other’ fields (9%), and engineering (7%), followed by more modest growth in the arts & humanities (6%) and physical and earth sciences (5%). This is the second year of double-digit growth for international admissions to Business programs, following a 11% gain in 2011.

Admissions trends by Institution Size

Large institutions (in terms of the number of graduate degrees awarded to international students) continue to drive more of the growth in international offers of admission than those awarding smaller numbers of degrees to international students. Respondents from the larger institutions showed somewhat larger increases on average: 16% at the 10 largest and 10% at the 100 largest, as compared with a 6% increase at the institutions outside the largest 100.

Admissions trends by region

As was the case last year, offers of admission by U.S. graduate schools to prospective international students increased in all four major regions of the United States. The Northwest saw the most growth (11%), followed by the Midwest, the South, and the West, all with an 8% gain.

Comparison of applications and admissions trends

In addition to admissions trends, the report also tracks applications. This year the increases in applications matched the increases in offers of admission, both at 9%. The survey found a final 9% increase in international graduate applications for fall 2012, with large increases in applications from China (19%), the Middle East (11%), and Mexico (10%).

About the report

Findings from the 2012 CGS International Graduate Admissions Survey, Phase II: Final Applications and Initial Offers of Admission is based on the second phase of a three-part annual survey of international graduate student applications, admissions, and enrollment among U.S. member institutions. The survey had a response rate of 44%, including 76 of the 100 institutions that award the largest number of graduate degrees to international students. The report is posted at www.cgsnet.org.

The sources below include a small sample from a growing literature on research ethics issues in international collaborations as well as other sources on research ethics in graduate education. Please click on the links below to access resources on:

The sources below include a small sample from a growing literature on assessment and student learning as well as links to websites that provide additionalresources and information on this topic. For a more complete listing of resources, please see Preparing Future Faculty to Assess Student Learning (2011) and the CGS PFF National Office website: www.preparing-faculty.org. Please click on the links below to access resources on:

Learning Assessment

Integrating Learning Assessment into Future Faculty Programs

Undergraduate Persistence and Retention in STEM Fields

STEM Resources

Humanities and Social Science Resources

Other Resources

Regional Accreditors of Higher Education

Teaching Centers

Learning Assessment Strategies

• Adelman, C. (2010). The White Noise of Accountability, Inside Higher Education.Link.
• Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). (2009). Assessing learning outcomes: Lessons from AAC&U's VALUE project. Peer Review, 11(1) pdf
• Association of American Colleges and Universities: VALUE: Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education.Website.Link.
• Banta, T. (2007, Spring). Can Assessment for Accountability Complement Assessment for Improvement? Peer Review, 9(2), 9-12. pdf
• Boud, D. &Falchikov, N. (2007).Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. New York: Routledge. Link.
• Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative.(2012, February).Assessments that support student learning.pdf
• Chun, M. (2002, Winter). Looking where the light is better: A review of the literature on assessing higher education quality.Peer Review, Association of American Colleges and Universities. pdf.
• Council for Aid to Education (CAE).Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA): Returning to Learning.Retrieved from CAE website.Link.
• Council of Graduate Schools. (2011). Preparing future faculty to assess student learning. Washington, DC: Author.  Link.
• Council of Graduate Schools. (2011). Global perspectives on measuring quality: Proceedings of the 2010 strategic leaders global summit on graduate education. Kent, J., Editor. Washington, DC: Author. Link.
• Ewell, P. (2007). Assessment, Accountability, and Improvement: Revisiting the Tension. National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).pdf
• Hutchins, P. (2010). Opening doors to faculty involvement in assessment.Occasional Paper #4. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. pdf
• National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA). (2012). Examples of Good Assessment Practice: List of Institutions. Link.
• New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability. (2012). Committing to quality: Guidelines for assessment and accountability in higher education. New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability.pdf
• New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability. (2008). New leadership for student learning and accountability: A statement of principles, commitments to action. American Association of Colleges and Universities and the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.pdf
• Provezis, S. (2010). Regional accreditation and student learning outcomes: Mapping the territory. Occasional Paper #6. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois andIndiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. pdf
• Rhodes, T.L., Editor. (2010). Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using rubrics. Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U).Link.
• Sternberg, R.J., Penn, J., Hawkins, C., & Reed, S. (2011). Assessing college student learning: Evaluating alternative models, using multiple methods.Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U).Link.

Integrating Assessment into Future Faculty Training Programs

• Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU). (2011). Multi-institutional cognitive coursewares design: Solicitation for participation.Website.Link.
• Austin, A.E., Connolly, M., Colbeck, C.L. (2008).Strategies for preparing integrated faculty: The Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2008(113), 69-81.Link.
• Barger, S.S., Connolly, M.R., Savoy, J.N. (2010).A model of highly effective teaching-focused doctoral student professional development programs.American Educational Research Association annual meeting.Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL).Link.
• Brower, A.M., Carlson-Dakes, C.G., and Barger, S.S. (2007).A learning community model of graduate student professional development for teaching excellence.Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL).pdf
• Coble, C.R., DeStefano, L., Shapiro, N., & Frank, J.  (2010). The analytic framework: A taxonomy of design and innovation for STEM teacher preparation and development.Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU).pdf
• Council of Graduate Schools. (2011). Preparing future faculty to assess student learning. Author.Link.
• Gaff, J.G., Pruitt-Logan, A.S., Sims, L.B., Denecke, D., & Program Participants. (2003). Preparing Future Faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A guide for change. Council of Graduate Schools and Association of American Colleges and Universities.pdf
• Pruitt-Logan, A.S., Gaff, J.G., Jentoft, J.E. & Participants in the Program. (2002). Preparing Future Faculty in the Sciences and Mathematics: A guide for change.Council of Graduate Schools and Association of American Colleges and Universities.pdf

Undergraduate Persistence and Retention in STEM

• Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU). (2011). Multi-institutional cognitive coursewares design: Solicitation for participation.Website.Link.
• Austin, A.E. (2010). Reform efforts in STEM doctoral education: Strengthening preparation for scholarly careers. Higher Education: Handbook of theory and research, 25, 91-128.Link.
• Berrett, D. (2012, June 18). 3 Colleges’ different approaches shape learning in Econ 101. The chronicle of higher education.Link.
• Brown, M.K., Hershock, C., Finelli, C.J., & O’Neal,C. 2009. Teaching for retention in science, engineering and math disciplines. Occasional Paper No. 25, Center for Research on Learning and Teaching, University of Michigan. pdf
• Chickering, A.W. and Gamson, Z.F. (1987).Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education.Retrieved from UNC Charlotte Center for Teaching and Learning.Link.
• Committee on Underrepresented Groups and the Expansion of the Science and Engineering Workforce Pipeline; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2011). Expanding minority participation: America's science and technology talent at the crossroads. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Link.pdf summary
• Friedrich, K.A., Sellers, S.L., Burstyn, J.N. (2007). Thawing out the “chilly climate”: Inclusive teaching in science, technology, engineering and math.To improve the academy: resources for faculty, instructional, and organizational development, 26, 133-141.Link.
• Froyd, J. (2008). White paper on promising practices in undergraduate STEM education.The National Academies Board on Science Education commissioned paper for the Evidence on Promising Practices in Undergraduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education project. pdf
• Gunasekera, N., Friedrich, K.A. (2009). Creating inclusive science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) courses.Getting culture: Incorporating diversity across the curriculum.Link.
• Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N.L., Lin, M.H., Arellano, L. & Espinosa, L. (2009). Diversifying science: Underrepresented student experiences in structured research programs. Research in higher education, 50(2): 189-214. pdf
• Johns Hopkins University Gateway Sciences Initiative Website.Link.
• Rask, K. (2010). Attrition in STEM fields at a liberal arts college: the importance of grades and pre-collegiate preferences. Cornell Higher Education Research Institute (CHERI), working paper #132. pdf
• Sellers, S.L, Friedrich, K.A., Saleem, T., Burstyn, J.N. (2006).Case studies in inclusive teaching in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, 2nd edition.Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL).Link.
• Seymour, E., and Hewitt, N.M. (1997).Talking about leaving: Why undergraduates leave the sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

STEM Resources

• Association of American Universities (AAU). (2011). Five year initiative for improving undergraduate STEM Education: Discussion Draft. pdf
• Austin, A., Baldwin, R., Clifford, M., Weaver, L. (2005).Preparing doctoral students in science, technology, engineering, and math careers as effective teachers: Emerging lessons from NSF’s Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL).Symposium at the annual American Educational Research Association meeting.Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL).Link.
• Austin, A.E., Campa III, H., Pfund, C., Gillian-Daniel, D.L., Mathieu, R., &Stoddart, J. (2009).Preparing STEM doctoral students for future faculty careers.Improving the climate for undergraduate teaching and learning in STEM fields: New directions for teaching and learning. 117. Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL). Link.
• Baldwin, R.G. (2009). Improving the climate for undergraduate teaching and learning in STEM fields: New directions for teaching and learning.117, 83-95. Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL).Link.
• Bouwma-Gearhart, J.L., Millar, S., Barger, S.S., Connolly, M.R. (2007). Doctoral and postdoctoral STEM teaching-related professional development: Effects on the early career. 2007 American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting.pdf
• Committee on Underrepresented Groups and the Expansion of the Science and Engineering Workforce Pipeline; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy; Policy and Global Affairs; National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2011). Expanding minority participation: America's science and technology talent at the crossroads. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Link.pdf summary
• Connolly, M.R., J.L. Bouwma-Gearhart, M.A. Clifford. (2007). The birth of a notion: The windfalls and pitfalls of tailoring an SOTL-like concept to scientists, mathematicians, and engineers.Innovative Higher Education.32(1), 19-34. pdf
• Council of Graduate Schools. (2010). Preparing future faculty to assess student learning outcomes: A new CGS project to explore national needs and opportunities. Washington, D.C.: Author.pdf
• Hurtado, S., Cabrera, N.L., Lin, M.H., Arellano, L. & Espinosa, L. (2009). Diversifying science: Underrepresented student experiences in structured research programs. Research in higher education, 50(2): 189-214. pdf
• Pruitt-Logan, A.S., Gaff, J.G., Jentoft, J.E. & Participants in the Program. (2002). Preparing Future Faculty in the Sciences and Mathematics: A guide for change.Council of Graduate Schools and Association of American Colleges and Universities.pdf

Humanities and Social Science Resources

• Association of American Colleges and Universities: VALUE: Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education.Website.Link.
• Council of Graduate Schools. (2010). Preparing future faculty to assess student learning outcomes: A new CGS project to explore national needs and opportunities. Washington, D.C.: Author.pdf
• Council of Independent Colleges. (2008). Evidence of learning: Applying the collegiate learning assessment to improve teaching and learning in the liberal arts college experience. Washington, DC: Council of Independent Colleges. pdf
• Gaff, J.G., Pruitt-Logan, A.S., Sims, L.B., Denecke, D., & Program Participants. (2003). Preparing Future Faculty in the Humanities and Social Sciences: A guide for change. Council of Graduate Schools and Association of American Colleges and Universities.pdf
• Heiland, D. and Rosenthal, L.J. (Editors). (2011). Literary study, measurement, and the sublime: Disciplinary assessment. New York: The Teagle Foundation. pdf
• Miller, R. (2007). Assessment in cycles of improvement: Faculty designs for essential learning outcomes. Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U).Link.

Other Resources

• Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative, University of British Columbia.Resources.Link.
• Carnegie Corporation of New York.Website.Link.
• Center for the Integration of Research, Teaching, and Learning (CIRTL).Website.Link.
• Council of Graduate Schools. Preparing Future Faculty National Office. Link.
• Higher Learning Commission (HLC). Higher learning commission’s academy for assessment of student learning.Link.
• National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.Website.Link.
• New Leadership Alliance for Student Learning and Accountability.Website.Link.
• Teagle Foundation Grants in Higher Education. Fresh Thinking: Graduate School Teaching in the Arts and Sciences. Link.
• Teagle Foundation “Listenings” on Teaching and Learning. Link.
• University of Massachusetts Amherst Office of Academic Planning & Assessment.Tools and Publications.Link.

Regional Accreditors of Institutions of Higher Education

• The Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSACS).Link.
• New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC).Link.
• The North Central Association of College and Schools (NCACS).Link.
• The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU).Link.
• The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS).Link.
• The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC).Link.

Teaching Centers*

• Arizona State University: University Office of Evaluation and Educational Effectiveness. Link.
• Brown University: The Harriet W. Sheradin Center for Teaching and Learning. Link.
• Columbia University: Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Teaching Center. Link.
• Cornell University: The Center for Teaching Excellence. Link.
• Dartmouth University: Center for the Advancement of Learning. Link.
• Duke University: Center for Learning Teaching and Writing. Link.
• Duke University: Assessment. Center for Instructional Technology.Link.
• Duquesne University: Center for Teaching Excellence. Link.
• Emory University: Center for Faculty Development and Excellence. Link.
• Florida State University: Center for Teaching and Learning.Link.
• Harvard University: The Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning. Link.
• Howard University: Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Link.
• Indiana University, Bloomington: Center for Innovative Teaching and Learning. Link.
• Iowa State University: Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. Link.
• Loyola University of Chicago: Faculty Center for Ignatian Pedagogy. Link.
• Marquette University: Center for Teaching and Learning. Link.
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Teaching and Learning Laboratory. Link.
• Michigan State University: Teaching and Learning.Virtual University Design and Technology.Link.
• Michigan Technological University: Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development. Link.
• North Carolina State University: Fundamentals in Teaching. Link.
• Northeastern University: Center for Innovation and Excellence in Teaching and Learning. Link.
• Northwestern University: Searle Center for Teaching Excellence. Link.
• Ohio State University: University Center for the Advancement of Teaching. Link.
• Penn State University: Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence. Link.
• Portland State University: Assessing Teaching and Learning.Center for Academic Excellence.Link.
• Princeton University: The McGraw Center. Link.
• Stanford University: Center for Teaching and Learning. Link.
• University of Chicago: Center for Teaching and Learning. Link.
• University of Cincinnati: Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning. Link.
• University of Colorado, Boulder: Faculty Teaching Excellence Program. Link.
• University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Campus Programs on Teaching and Learning. Link.
• University of Iowa: Office of Graduate Teaching Excellence. Link.
• University of Iowa: Center for Teaching. Link.
• University of Kentucky: Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching. Link.
• University of Michigan: Center for Research on Learning and Teaching. Link.
• University of Minnesota: Center for Teaching and Learning. Link.
• University of Nebraska, Omaha: Center for Faculty Development. Link.
• University of New Hampshire: Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. Link.
• University of Pennsylvania: Center for Teaching and Learning. Link.
• University of Texas, Austin: Center for Teaching and Learning. Link.
• University of Washington: Center for Instructional Development and Research. Link.
• University of Washington: Office of Educational Assessment. Link.
• University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee: Center for Instructional and Professional Development. Link.
• Vanderbilt University: Center for Teaching. Link.
• Virginia Commonwealth University: Center for Teaching Excellence. Link.
• Yale University: Graduate Teaching Center. Link.

*Note: This list is not exhaustive. It includes centers from PFF Phase 1 and Phase 2 awardee and affiliate institutions, along with other institutions that have made their centers known to CGS.  If you would like to see your institution’s teaching center represented here, please email the link to Daniel Denecke.

2012 Summer Workshop Program

Selected PowerPoint presentations from the 2012 New Deans Institute and Summer Workshop are below. Presentations are offered as Adobe Acrobat PDF files. File size is indicated after the name of each presenter.

New Deans Institute Presentations

Session II: Governance and Organization
Robert Augustine (633 KB)
Lisa Tedesco (52 KB)

Session IVA: Political Engagement
Maureen Grasso (1.75 MB)
John Keller (216 KB)
Patricia McAllister (184 KB)
Steven Matson (566 KB)

Session IVB: Graduate Admissions and Financing
George Justice (385 KB)
Carol Shanklin (91 KB)

Session V: Program Quality Assessment
Duane Larick (913 KB)
Patrick Osmer (337 KB)

Summer Workshop Presentations

Plenary I: Pathways Through Graduate School and Into Careers
Dwight Hutchins (918 KB)
Jean Morrison (216 KB)

ProQuest UMI Dissertations Publishing Breakfast Meeting
Marlene Coles (1.31 MB)

Advancing STEM Graduate Education: New Directions at NSF
Jessie DeAro, Richard Linton, Gisele Muller-Parker, and Melur Ramasubramanian (510 KB)

Plenary III: The Art and Science of Leading through Negotiations
Kathleen McGinn (633 KB)
 

Preparing Future Faculty to Assess Learning: Preparing a Successful Proposal
Daniel Denecke (584 KB)
John Girash and Rachael Lancor (2.73 MB)

GRE/TOEFL Breakfast Meeting
David Payne and Eileen Tyson (2.77 MB)

Ethics Education in International STEM Collaborations: Preparing a Successful Proposal
Daniel Denecke and Julia Kent (581 KB)

CGS’ data on graduate student loan debt was cited in the article, “Federal-Loan Changes May Curb Graduate Study” that was published in the Chronicle of Higher Education. (Subscription required)

Interdisciplinary study has long been a feature of graduate education and research, but measuring the scope and determining the nature of interdisciplinarity has proven a challenge for survey researchers. Three major data collection efforts on graduate education—the CGS/GRE Survey of Graduate Enrollment and Degrees, the U.S. Department of Education’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and the National Science Foundation’s Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering—use taxonomies of fields of study to collect and analyze enrollment and degree data. While this is an efficient method for characterizing enrollment and degrees in programs of study that are based in a single discipline, it is somewhat less effective for measuring interdisciplinarity.

IPEDS’ Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) places all multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary programs under a single CIP code. Similarly, the CGS/GRE Survey of Graduate Enrollment and Degrees also groups most interdisciplinary programs together under a single code. The Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering reports data on interdisciplinary programs in an “other sciences” category. The classification systems used by these three surveys enable researchers to collect and report data on enrollment and degrees, but they mask some of the diversity that exists among and between interdisciplinary programs. These systems provide a count of the total number of students enrolling in or earning degrees from interdisciplinary programs, but in many cases do not permit an in-depth examination of the fields of study included in the interdisciplinary programs. In addition, these methods of classification provide an undercount of the true extent of interdisciplinarity in graduate education, since individual students in programs that are not considered interdisciplinary may in fact be conducting research that is interdisciplinary.

A fourth data source, the Survey of Earned Doctorates, uses a slightly different method than the three previously mentioned surveys to measure interdisciplinarity. The survey is administered to all doctoral students as they are about to complete their degrees. Individuals completing the survey are asked to select the primary field of their dissertation research from a provided list of fields of study, of which “interdisciplinary” is not an option. Then, a follow-on question asks doctorate recipients whether their dissertation research was interdisciplinary, and if so, to indicate a secondary field of study. By collecting data directly from students about their research, as opposed to collecting data from institutions about their programs, the Survey of Earned Doctorates is able to provide a different picture of interdisciplinarity at the doctoral level.

Using data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, a recent report from the National Science Foundation examined trends in interdisciplinary dissertation research among individuals earning research doctorates between 2001 and 2008 (Millar & Dillman, 2012). The researchers found that 28.4% of all doctorate recipients in this time period reported that their dissertations were interdisciplinary in nature. The percentage of doctorate recipients reporting interdisciplinary dissertations remained relatively consistent over this eight-year period, as shown in Figure 1.

Doctorate recipients who reported their primary dissertation field as life sciences accounted for the largest share (27.0%) of all interdisciplinary dissertations between 2001 and 2008, as shown in Figure 2. Dissertations in education and engineering accounted for 13.5% and 13.4%, respectively, of all interdisciplinary dissertations. Dissertations in mathematics, computer sciences, and communications accounted for very small shares of all interdisciplinary dissertations and are included in the “other fields” category in Figure 2.

Splicing the data in a different way, Millar and Dillman examined the percent of all dissertations within a primary field that were interdisciplinary. They found that dissertations in communications were most likely to have been interdisciplinary. Between 2001 and 2008, 36.6% of doctorate recipients in communications reported that their dissertations were interdisciplinary in nature. A large share of doctorate recipients in life sciences also reported interdisciplinary dissertations. Doctorate recipients in computer sciences and mathematics were least likely to report interdisciplinary dissertations.

While Millar and Dillman did not examine trends in interdisciplinarity by student demographics, other research has indicated that women participate in interdisciplinary research at higher rates than their male counterparts (Rhoten & Pfirman, 2007). Additional analyses of the data from the Survey of Earned Doctorates could empirically document the extent to which interdisciplinarity differs by gender, citizenship, and race/ethnicity.    

Millar and Dillman’s examination of interdisciplinarity provides good insight into the scope of interdisciplinary research in doctoral dissertations. They do suggest in their research—and graduate deans would likely agree—that some differences may exist between how students define interdisciplinarity and how institutions and graduate programs define interdisciplinarity. Despite these potentially differing definitions, it is clear that interdisciplinarity is an established component of graduate education.

By Nathan E. Bell, Director, Research and Policy Analysis, Council of Graduate Schoools

References:
Millar, M. M. & Dillman, D. A. (2012). Trends in interdisciplinary dissertation research: An analysis of the Survey of Earned Doctorates. Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/ncses12200/
Rhoten, D. & Pfirman, S. (2007). Women in in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy, 36, 56-75.

CGS signed a letter that was submitted by the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF) to the Senate Appropriations Committee regarding FY 2013 funding for the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill.  The letter urged rejection of attempts to reduce NSF funding and underscored the need to “protect the integrity of the scientific enterprise by ensuring that NSF and its independent scientific panels determine where the best scientific opportunities are and how to absorb any potential reductions in its budget.”

To read the full letter, please click here.